Livestock Grazing on Dartmoor National Park

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consultation took place between Natural England and commons graziers before announcing plans to reduce livestock grazing on Dartmoor National Park by 75 per cent.

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my interests as a commons owner and non-grazing grazier on Dartmoor.

My Lords, Natural England has not announced plans to reduce livestock grazing on Dartmoor by 75%. However, we recognise that changes to grazing regimes need to be carefully and sensitively handled and agreed to collectively, in order to address declines in wildlife and biodiversity. We expect Natural England and commons graziers to work collaboratively to develop more adaptive grazing arrangements, working with the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group.

My Lords, the latest ELMS agreements require a 50% reduction in grazing effort on the moor to be compliant, and that follows a historic 50% reduction. So I believe that the 75% figure is correct if farmers want to access the funds available. Natural England may not have been targeting the ponies on Dartmoor, but it should have known that a cumulative 75% reduction in grazing would impact pony stocking rates disproportionately, given their limited commercial value. That is a massive blunder. The Government’s arm’s-length body is trying to impose its centrally determined will over the legal rights of the graziers on Dartmoor and creating disastrous consequences for public acceptance of nature recovery efforts. What is the Minister doing to bring more control and accountability to Natural England’s performance? Will he step in and save the ponies?

The obvious answer to the noble Lord’s last question is, of course, yes. I want to be absolutely crystal clear: Natural England has not recommended a cull of Dartmoor ponies. It does not have the power to do so, and it has not advised one. As a Government, we are clear that Dartmoor ponies have an important part to play in Dartmoor’s heritage and in continuing to support the habitats of Dartmoor. As the noble Lord referred to—indeed, the Fursdon review also referred to this, and we agree—Dartmoor is in dire ecological health, in part because of decades of inappropriate grazing. Our agrischemes are designed to fix the situation through changed grazing patterns. The Natural England chair, Tony Juniper, said that ponies are central to that approach, and he is right. The Dartmoor hill ponies are part of that solution, not the problem. They are safe under this Government.

My Lords, I declare my interest: I live on Dartmoor. The publication within the local and national newspapers has caused real concern. We cannot measure natural habitat against the other advantages to Dartmoor of the ponies, particularly tourism. Dartmoor prison is currently shut and, in my opinion, unlikely to reopen. There is huge rural poverty in many parts of Dartmoor, and it is absolutely essential that decisions about livestock are related to the total needs of the community. Can the Minister explain whether he agrees with my premise?

The noble Baroness makes a number of important points. As I have said, no cull of the ponies is under consideration. The fact is that the ecological health of Dartmoor is in a dire state, because one factor that does not get talked about is the preponderance of sheep on Dartmoor, as well as cattle and ponies. We have to get the right mix of grazing. She is absolutely right: Natural England has been working with all stakeholders in the area, through the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group. I am sure it is listening to all the stakeholders’ concerns, including those who are interested in promoting Dartmoor in its totality, as a community in which people live as well as a tourist destination. I am sure it will continue to take that into account.

My Lords, a brief search of the internet reveals considerable anger among graziers and farmers on Dartmoor at the proposed culling of ponies by Natural England. Farmers are at a loss to understand how Natural England could believe that farmers would choose to reduce cattle and sheep numbers, on which their businesses rely, rather than reducing pony numbers. We have seen the result of a lack of meaningful consultation in the Malvern Hills. Will the noble Lord agree that this issue on Dartmoor could have been handled much better?

I absolutely re-emphasise that there is no planned cull of ponies or other any other livestock. It is about getting the right mix in the right parts of Dartmoor. Those who know the area well—probably much better than I do—know that there is not one landscape or one habitat. It is a wonderful ecological mix, and we want to protect and promote the biodiversity there. Natural England is in regular contact with all agreement holders where they have agreements with Defra to support their grazing and other activity on Dartmoor. It works with farmers and commoners to agree proposed management plans on specific sites and their compatibility with the management of nature on those sites. I am sure that Natural England has listened to the real concern voiced about this issue on Dartmoor, but we and it are clear: it is a member of the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group and should work with everybody in the area to get the best outcome.

My Lords, could not some of these ponies be sent to the South Downs National Park, where I declare I live, so that they could eat the tussocky grass, thus allowing the natural grassland to regenerate? This has been done in the past and it has been very successful.

I thank my noble friend for that. I will not direct the movement of ponies or any other livestock from this Dispatch Box, but it is an interesting idea. I am sure that Natural England and lots of people on Dartmoor—commoners, graziers and others—would like to keep all their ponies there. But it is an interesting idea.

My Lords, I ask the Minister to reflect on the importance of balance in the countryside between the interests of farming and conservation. One of the lessons I think we should take from this is that there has not been proper co-ordination of the impact on rural communities of this proposal. I hope that, within the Defra family, there will be a much greater concentration on co-ordination of the impact. The noble Baroness spoke about the importance of the pony in dealing with Molinia, an invasive grass. This is a key part of why this endangered species, the Dartmoor pony, should be cherished by everyone, rather than a potential reduction in numbers even being thought of.

The noble Lord is absolutely right, as I would expect from his long experience and interest in these matters, about the importance of tackling that invasive species, Molinia, and the role that both ponies and cattle have in tackling it. That is why Natural England is looking at the best way to get appropriate grazing in the appropriate parts of Dartmoor. To go to his wider point, though, we recognise the important role of countryside stewardship that commons graziers, farmers and indeed people who live in the countryside take. That is why Defra is bringing together partners from across Whitehall and beyond, through its Defra-led Rural Taskforce, to make sure that all its policies are rural-proofed from the get-go, rather than there being a patch-and-mend approach to policies after the event.

My Lords, I live in Devon, partly, and I have owned Dartmoor ponies, although I do not, unfortunately, live on Dartmoor. Is not one of problems that Natural England wants to reduce the grazing on Dartmoor, and the farmers understandably want to protect their cattle and sheep, rather than protecting the ponies that do not give them any money or very little?

As I said in response to previous questions, the point is getting the appropriate mix of grazing by the appropriate animals in the right spot.

I did not properly address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, around ELMS. The ELM offer for moorlands is made up of a number of different actions for different livestock stocking rates with supplements for grazing with ponies, cattle and native breeds. We recognise that in some areas, an increase in the proportion of cattle and ponies may well be required to secure the outcomes needed, rather than a decrease.

My Lords, I set up the Fursdon review for Dartmoor and, in terms of the recommendations, it would be helpful for the Government to update the House on what commitments they continue to have. It was set up because of a clash and a lack of trust, so it is important that trust is re-established as quickly as possible. That would be helped if the Rural Payments Agency had not said to commons landholders across the country, “Computer says no”, when they were trying to apply for SFI and ELMS grants this year. Will the Government get a grip of the Rural Payments Agency, but more importantly, Natural England?

The noble Baroness is right to identify the issue at stake in terms of access for common graziers groups to SFI and other payments. The Rural Payments Agency has been tasked to work on a solution to this issue and to assess how commons land applications can be made in the schemes. Once this is complete, the agency will communicate its planned approach. We are on the case, with the RPA, and hope to develop a solution as soon as possible.