The signs for England's national parks are not hopeful as funding is cut
England’s national parks have been told their cash is to be cut by five per cent this year.
The move is one of the first indicators of the David Cameron-led administration’s move to cut the fiscal deficit and is part of the planned £6.2bn worth of savings lined up by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government.
The move led to fears that frontline services will suffer, despite the Government’s stated wish they be protected.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which funds England’s national parks, said it expected the cuts to be found from efficiencies.
A spokesman for the department said: “All Defra’s main arm’s length bodies have had their funding reduced by five per cent as part of our contribution to the £6.2 billion efficiency savings this financial year.
“It will be up to each individual organisation to revise their plans to reflect this reduced funding, but we expect them to protect frontline services as much as they can by first looking for efficiency savings or reducing back office costs.”
A national park chief today announced a recruitment freeze, saying that ranger services in his area were safe at present, but any further cuts would put frontline services at risk. Kevin Bishop chief executive of Dartmoor National Park Authority said: “We are obviously disappointed that our grant from Defra has been cut this financial year but appreciate the difficulties faced by all public sector bodies.
“We have identified immediate savings to protect frontline services and do not envisage any reduction in ranger services this year. We have frozen all new vacancies, training budgets, most non-statutory publications and have suspended the Dartmoor Grant.
“The last will have an impact on the ground but the Dartmoor Sustainable Development Fund has not been cut.
“The five per cent cut this year will make it difficult to absorb any future cuts without an impact on frontline services.”
The position for national parks in Wales and Scotland, which are funded by their devolved administrations, is unclear.
Kate Ashbrook
17 June 2010This is totally short-sighted, we should invest in national parks not cut their funding. They get so little money anyway that a 5 per cent cut will produce little extra money for the government, but it will have a devastating impact on what the parks can achieve. We must fight these cuts.
rhodesy
17 June 2010As much as I love National Parks, I have to say I prefer the health service. I'm sure the National Parks can find ways to cut 5% off their spending - I'd suggest those daft schemes to introduce ethnic minorities that keep cropping up with Ben Fogle are discontinued.
David Dear
17 June 2010It's not an either/or decision, cutting spending on National Parks will not affect spending on the health service one iota. It's peanuts compared to the costs of the health service, anyway. This is simply a political statement, a metaphorical flexing of muscles. It achieves nothing apart from diminishing the quality of life of everyone who lives in this country or visits this country.
Have the long term health benefits of the existence of National Parks, physical, mental and emotional, been taken in to account? I think not!
This is mere political, macho posturing of the nastiest and most tawdry kind, to the detriment of us all!