Independent review agreed for Dartmoor farmers

Torridge and West Devon’s MP, The Rt Hon. Sir Geoffrey Cox KC MP, has won an independent review into the management of Dartmoor, following widespread concerns over Natural England’s intentions for Moorland grazing. The guarantees were given by the Minister for Farming, The Rt Hon. Mark Spencer MP, during a House of Commons debate last week. Over recent weeks, the MP has been meeting Natural England and the Dartmoor National Park Authority and pressing ministers to sanction such a review, after consulting local farmers and Dartmoor commoners.

Last summer, the MP held a Dartmoor Farming Forum at Two Bridges to which, among others, he invited the Chief Executive of Natural England, and some 200 people attended. He had hoped that it would mark a fresh start in the approach of the agency to Dartmoor’s complex environment rebuilding trust and cooperation. However, last month, Natural England suddenly announced, without consultation, and just as the lambing and calving season commenced, that it would require dramatic reductions in grazing, for both livestock and the famous Dartmoor ponies, as part of the new Higher Level Stewardship agreements for Dartmoor due to be renewed in the next few weeks. The announcement has caused widespread consternation about the impact on Dartmoor’s 900 farms.

During the debate in the House of Commons, which took place on Tuesday, 18th April, Sir Geoffrey said: “The immediate occasion of the debate is a problem that has arisen in connection with the farmers on Dartmoor, the viability of their business, and the levels of stocking and grazing that are to be expected by Natural England in connection with the renewal of their higher level stewardship arrangements.

‘Farmers on Dartmoor sustain the communities of Dartmoor. They breed a particularly independent and hardy-minded type of family who are able to make a living from the harsh and adverse environment that the moorland presents. There are approximately 900 farms and 23 commons on Dartmoor. Dartmoor is owned by a patchwork of private landowners, including the Duchy of Cornwall—there are many other landowners—but it is divided into 23 commons. Some of the land is tenanted, but invariably the commoners have rights to graze on those commons, and there are hundreds of commoners. It is therefore a particularly complex environment.

‘The higher level stewardship schemes were introduced on Dartmoor in the early 2000s. They were 10-year agreements… and they are now due for renewal. It is open to farmers to extend their agreements by five years, and the first agreements started to expire in February of this year. The problem that has arisen is this: in or about February of this year, a letter arrived at all of the commoners’ associations, each of which is responsible for the management of one of the 23 commons, indicating to them that, if they were to enter into new agreements, they would have to remove their stock entirely from the moors in the wintertime. What in fact was said was that, other than ponies… stocking and grazing in the winter would be permitted only if they could be justified on ecological and environmental grounds. In essence, that has been interpreted to mean, and Natural England does not appear to contest that it means, the effective removal of stocking and grazing in the winter.

‘The letter was followed a few weeks later by another letter to a particular common indicating that it would have to reduce its summer grazing by some 80%. Were those indications to be implemented, they would effectively mean the complete eradication of grazing on that common throughout the year and only 20% levels in the summer.

‘That exploded a metaphorical bomb in the small and fragile communities that the moorland hosts. Throughout the entire moor, Natural England’s policy was interpreted to be to apply those stocking levels across the moor. I am glad to say that that is now apparently not Natural England’s intention, but the fact is that those letters were written without consultation or warning. Not a single organisation on the moor was consulted; not the Dartmoor National Park Authority, not the Dartmoor Commoners’ Council, not the landowners, not the farmers’ groups. Not a single warning was given before that sudden and unexpected announcement by the statutory regulator for the moor, which controls the sites of special scientific interest where statutory consent must be given and, more widely, advises the Rural Payments Agency on whether it should agree to these higher level agreements. Not a single word of consultation was given or received.

‘I think my right hon. and hon. friends would agree that that was an extremely unfortunate step for the regulator to have taken, and I think it regrets it. I have had a chance to speak to representatives of the agency, and there is no doubt that it accepts that its communications were poor. The problem on Dartmoor is that there has been a steady and gradual breakdown in the relationship of trust and confidence that should exist between the statutory regulator and the farming communities that, by common consent, must implement the agency’s statutory objectives.

‘Natural England cannot fulfil its statutory objectives without the people, the human capital of Dartmoor. Therefore, if that relationship of trust is damaged, the problem of how we manage this precious landscape for the future, both for Dartmoor’s inhabitants, its families and wider communities, and in the wider public interest, will get far worse.

‘One of the problems with stocking reductions, including the elimination of winter grazing, is that there are many tenants on Dartmoor. They are not landed people; they are tenants. They have no other farms than those they farm on Dartmoor. Where are they to put their flocks if they are told that they must be removed in the winter? What will happen is simple: those flocks will be lost. Either they will be sold if a commercial consideration can be obtained for them or they will be culled, because they may not be wanted anywhere else since they are used to the high moorland and the conditions they live in there.

‘These flocks are not just any flocks: in many cases they have been there for generations, for decades, for hundreds of years. They are hefted flocks; flocks, in Dartmoor terminology, that hold their leers. Leered flocks, put quite simply, are flocks that instinctively know the boundaries of their own grazing. It is a minor natural marvel of its own. It is part of the social and cultural heritage of Dartmoor, which, if winter grazing is removed completely, will be lost for all time.

‘Of course, the health of the natural environment is a primary consideration, but so I would argue is the cultural and social capital of Dartmoor, its communities and families who have farmed there for centuries—Dartmoor’s own unique heritage. In introducing the grazing calendar for the renewed agreement, we must have regard to that cultural, social and economic capital, which has been built up over the centuries and which is at risk if these destocking or stocking levels are insisted on.

‘The proposal is that an independent reviewer be appointed… we appoint an independent facilitator and all parties are brought into the process. He then reports over a period of 12 months, taking the views of all sides and proposing ways forward by negotiation and mediation… ;The proposal is that for the first 12 months there would be no or minimal grazing level changes and the stocking calendar would essentially not change. However, the proposal is called ‘one plus four’, so that after the 12-month review in which the independent facilitator works to achieve consensus, the remaining four years would implement the recommendations of that review.

‘Around this country, there are tens of thousands of people who regard with deep sentiment the welfare of Dartmoor and its communities and also its ponies; we must not forget them. They are genetically unique and precious to many thousands of people. They, too, are under threat from a policy that would eliminate winter grazing and dramatically reduce summer grazing. Why? Quite simply, it is because they are included in the stocking calendars. Given the choice between a productive unit or an unproductive unit, which will people choose? There is bound to be reduction in the number of Dartmoor ponies, to the extreme dismay of tens of thousands of people throughout this country.”

Luke Pollard, MP for Sutton and Devonport, was also present at the debate. He said: “The South West is home to a quarter of England’s agricultural holdings and a fifth of England’s total farmed land. That means that what happens for farming in the South West is a signpost to what could happen to farming across the country.

‘My two little sisters work in farming. Indeed, they used to have their sheep on a farm on Dartmoor, exercising their right to graze them on common land, so they know this subject well, and I know the passion and determination of people who farm on Dartmoor. It is not just a job; it is a relationship, which in many cases goes back generations. People have farmed that land over many years and see no advantage in destroying it, denying access to it or disrupting the balance. That is really important, because sometimes there can be a view that farmers are deliberately destroying land to make a quick buck.

‘Given the complexity of Dartmoor, we should look for a carefully managed transition from one state of agriculture regulation to another. The proposed change is too fast and too hard, without sufficient information for farmers to make a decent decision… Having fewer farmers and fewer people managing the land has an adverse effect. Land that is not managed in a sustainable way by agriculture does not magically appear as dense forest. In many cases, it produces scrubland, which has a lower biodiversity and ecological value than farmland, so we need to see the transition properly managed.

‘There is an ecological prize to be won for managing the transition to get us into the right place. We need to move towards making sure that farmers are not only supported, and sustainably, but that the outcomes are clearly specified. Changes hitting hard, without much notice, do not deliver that.”

Anthony Mangnall, MP for Totnes, agreed with what had already been said. In his speech, he told the House: “Farmers on Dartmoor are not a recent phenomenon. They have been playing their part for hundreds of years, through multiple generations. They have been the cultivators and protectors of the landscape and biodiversity. They have been so, and are so, because their livelihoods depend upon rich, fertile lands and healthy livestock.

‘Farmers are not anti-environmentalist. They have followed Government rules and regulations, because that is what is required of them. However, Natural England’s recent pronouncement about livestock and grazing reductions will push most common land farmers to the brink. Their future hangs in the balance. This is not rhetoric or parliamentary drama; it is a fact.

‘I will give the Minister an example. One of my farmers, on the Holne valley, has been asked by Natural England to reduce his sheep by 75% and his cattle by 66%, with no winter grazing at all. That is meant to happen over the next five years, but Natural England would like to see the majority of that cut in 2024 and 2025. I reiterate that right now, farmers are calving and lambing and preparing for next year and the year after. The request from Natural England is not only out of time; it is completely out of kilter with how people farm and look after their land. It is an insult for a regulatory body to take that approach with farmers. It should be working with them, rather than against them.

‘Using the sites of special scientific interest as a reason, Natural England is attempting to force farmers out of business by making their business models untenable.

‘I question why Natural England is taking such an approach. Perhaps it is unhappy with the state of the SSSI. Of course, it is important to protect SSSIs, no one on the Government side of the House doubts that, but to date there is little information or evidence to show that farmers are to blame. Livestock numbers have successively been reduced, but the environmental issues have not improved, so why try the same thing again and expect a different result? It appears, rather, that farmers are the easy target; a small group of people who are often overlooked or are not considered, and who are sometimes at the mercy of the Twitter mob, rather than being able to stand up for themselves. We are here today to stand up for them and to ensure that we can get done the things they need to see delivered.”

The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, Mark Spencer, spoke after the other MPs. “I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon for the work that he has done on his plan for us to undertake, as soon as possible, an independent evidence review covering the ecological condition of designated sites on Dartmoor. I subscribe to his view. The plan is worthy of support, and I, alongside the Department, will work with him, Natural England and those representatives to undertake;that independent review. It should be done rapidly by someone who is recognised as being independent. His ‘one plus four’ model is credible and could move us forward.

‘I will never be convinced that those farmers do not have the environment at the heart of their interests… We look forward to working together to resolve the challenges moving forward.”

After the debate, Sir Geoffrey Cox commented: “I am very glad the Government has acceded to this urgent and necessary request for an independent process. It is essential that there should be a partnership between all those involved in managing Dartmoor’s precious heritage and it is clear the relationship between our farming communities and Natural England requires urgent repair. I am determined to support our local farming families to sustain viable businesses on the Moor, which are vital to the wellbeing of our communities on Dartmoor, while enabling the condition of our natural landscape to be improved.”