A national charity has issued a series of myth-busters, aimed at assisting government environment ministers as they grapple with balancing the books for their department for the next four years.
Ruth Chambers, Head of Campaigning at the Campaign for National Parks, explains the reasoning behind the myth-busters, that have been published today in her online blog:
'Government funding is a financial lifeline to National Parks and funding cuts risk setting back progress on delivering key conservation and social development work, as well as rural job losses. We encourage the ministers who are going to be signing off National Park budgets to take a look at these myth-busters. They explain that National Parks are already efficiently run and that large funding cuts would have a major impact on the work that the Authorities do in looking after these special places'.
Helen Jackson, Chief Executive at the Campaign for National Parks, added her voice:
'National Parks have been doing 'big society' for the past sixty years. As ministers decide just how much these small and effective bodies should tighten their belts, we urge them to consider the vital work done by Authority staff and volunteers in managing and protecting these national assets, for current and for future generations'.
Myth-buster 1 - National Park Authorities are unnecessary rural bureaucracies
Nothing could be further from the truth. They are small bodies with small budgets, operated in a lean and efficient manner. With many award-winning projects under their belts, they focus their work and budget on their Park, its communities and its visitors. While filming for the BBC1 series 'Britain from Above', journalist Andrew Marr observed that "National Parks are, I would suggest, one example of where politics has worked." (August 2008).
Myth-buster 2 - National Park funding doesn't matter and the campaign has been driven by hysteria and speculation
CNP's campaign on National Park funding has drawn attention to the likely impacts of 25-30% funding cuts to National Park Authorities. Of course until such cuts are finalised and each Authority has decided how to assimilate these within its own budget there can be no certainty on their precise impact. CNP recently issued a joint statement with National Park Societies that was based on the most realistic assessment of where the cuts would fall, using our shared knowledge of how Park Authorities operate.
A leading academic institution has recently published a report that concludes that National Park Authorities are likely to be hit with multiple budget cuts because few in government understand how they operate. On 23 November the Joseph Rowntree Foundation called for a minimum income standard for rural areas in a study that shows that the minimum cost of living in rural areas is greater than that in urban areas, mainly due to higher costs for transport and domestic fuels.
Myth-buster 3 - 25% funding cuts to National Park Authorities can be easily absorbed and will not make a huge difference
National Park Authorities undertake much of their work through their staff and through projects. In anticipation of heavy cuts, the Broads Authority has already announced 30 job losses and the closure of three visitor centres. Another unknown factor is the extent to which the Authorities will be affected by funding cuts to other bodies, such as the Environment Agency and Natural England. This is estimated to be another 10%.
