Practical Implications of Management Changes
Consider what implications the proposed management agreement may have on land use activities, both on the common land unit and on adjacent land and businesses. Often stakeholders oppose changes and negotiations break down as they anticipate specific negative impacts.
Being aware of these details allows the underlying cause of objections to be addressed and negotiations to be resumed. Delivering changes in vegetation is complicated and simple solutions such as decreasing or increasing stock numbers may not in themselves be sufficient. A deeper understanding of the underlying factors such as palatability, geology and soils is vital.
Contiguous common land units
Many upland commons are unfenced and run contiguously with other commons and private fells. Changes in stocking levels on one common will affect neighbours as sheep will take advantage of a vacuum and will move to take advantage of any “gaps”. Negotiating management simultaneously across all contiguous land is preferable. Dual grazing rights, where a flock might graze an adjacent common, might pose a difficulty. Where an individual common is not considered a separate grazing unit, bringing together two or more contiguous commons might result in a stronger arrangement (but could increase the scope for disruption by dissident graziers!). However, if not possible, acknowledge the difficulties and address through shepherding, temporary fencing or a phased approach.
Hefting (see also Hefting or Learing)
Upland commons have traditionally been grazed by multiple flocks of sheep; each sheep has its own area or heft which ensures the sheep from different farms are not mixed up and that they can be managed and gathered easily. If the balance of sheep between these flocks alters, e.g. as a result of stock reductions, then the hefting pattern is disrupted and farmers have to spend more time managing their sheep. Another impact is that sheep from neighbouring commons may move into the gaps and the conservation objectives that the reductions were meant to deliver may not be met.If significant numbers of ewes are off-wintered then the incidence of twins will increase and ewes with twins will not be turned out until after clipping in late July instead of in May. As a result the lambs are less effectively hefted and acclimatised to the conditions of the common. Also, they will grow larger and be more likely to have twins themselves, thus exacerbating the problem.
Drainage and heather burning
Post World War II, extensive drainage or gripping of upland common land was undertaken through government subsidies to increase agricultural production. While this resulted in drier ground, there were negative impacts as the rate of water run off increased, exacerbating floods, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity and carbon release. To reverse this, grip blocking is often a compulsory component of upland agri-environment schemes but this is not always popular as it wets up the common, increasing bogs where sheep may be trapped and making travelling on commons more difficult.
For red grouse, both wet and dry heath are needed. The former provides a habitat for breeding insects on which grouse chicks feed, while dry heath is preferred to maintain a burning cycle which provides young heather tips for feeding and clear areas for access . Ecologists prefer longer burning rotations and no burn areas to improve diversity of habitat. Close consultation between stakeholder interests is needed to negotiate a suitable moorland management plan acceptable to all concerned.
Woodland planting and fencing
Most common land can support woodland up to 600m and historically commons were extensively wooded until cleared for firewood and grazing. With less than 10% of England wooded, the pressure to increase woodland on common land is increasing and new woods require fencing to allow tree establishment.
Apart from the obvious loss of land for grazing, woods can affect how sheep are gathered and cause difficulties if sheep get caught either in the wire or inside the enclosure, so responsibility for maintenance of the fencing needs to be agreed. Woods do bring positive benefits of shelter, increased biodiversity and, if sensitively planted, enhance the landscape but these do not always accrue to those who bear the costs.
Reintroduction or changes in grazing
While some common land has been heavily grazed, other common land has been abandoned and, to improve management, the reintroduction of stock is sometimes sought. A change in the type of stock may be proposed, e.g. sheep are replaced with cattle to control the growth of coarse grassland.
Finding someone willing to graze stock on the common may be a challenge due to the low economic return from the grazing; in many cases it will cost money to graze the common. Local initiatives, e.g.through Wildlife Trusts, may offer payments for grazing management and/or introduction of different kinds of stock. The Environmental Stewardship scheme offers payments for mixed grazing, cattle grazing and native breeds at risk.
Additional issues to be addressed:
Availability of water
Where to feed the stock in the winter
Handling facilities such as pens
Risks for road users
Necessity for fencing.
Some of these commons are popular recreational areas and users may be nervous of grazing changes; a risk assessment should be undertaken and publicity and guidance provided. See Public Goods for more information.
Tip: It is advisable to consult all key stakeholders early in the process to identify and address not only all actual, but also all perceived concerns.