Under Grazed Commons
Context
In many lowland areas, commons have become isolated from, and redundant to, the farming systems and farms around them.
This may reflect an intensification of use on the enclosed land, such as a conversion to arable from mixed farming, but is just as likely to be the consequence of non-agricultural factors.
For example, many commons are traversed by roads and the risk of injury to animals or motorists is perceived as too high to justify turning stock out on the common. The density of recreational use may be so high that farmers are no longer willing to turn stock out, particularly where uncontrolled dogs are an issue.
The impact of undergrazing
When grazing on a common is reduced or ceases, the vegetation traditionally associated with the common will change. Over a relatively short period of time, scrub will begin to encroach on formerly open areas and this will have a deleterious impact on the quality and biodiversity of ground vegetation. Typically the range of flowering plants, invertebrates and birds associated with heath and grassland will diminish.
Scrub will also affect the visual character of the common and, if allowed to increase, will reduce the level and extent of recreational use. Eventually the common will revert to woodland as has occurred on a large number of lowland commons, such as Newtown Common in Berkshire and Selbourne Common in Hampshire.
Reintroducing grazing on commons – the challenges
Finding a grazier - the owners of grazing rights on lowland commons may not wish to exercise these rights because their farming system no longer requires an area of rough, open grazing. This is particularly the case with beef farming where the move to less hardy, continental breeds means that much common land can no longer provide appropriate grazing. There has also been an increasing trend towards the land and property to which grazing rights are attached, being owned by individuals with no knowledge or interest in farming.
Traffic - many commons are traversed by roads and the increase in vehicle ownership and changes in driving patterns within local communities have resulted in these roads experiencing higher numbers of vehicles. The vehicles also tend to travel at much greater speeds than was the case in even threcent past. Consequently, even where there are right holders and/or farmers with a farming system that can accommodate common land, there will often be a reluctance to do so due to the dangers to stock and to motorists on unfenced roads.
Poor vegetation - Depending on how long the common has been ungrazed, the changes in vegetation may be such that stock cannot be introduced without preliminary works being carried out by the landowner or some other interested party. Such works may include tree felling, scrub clearance and burning, or fencing small temporary enclosures on the common.
Boundaries - boundary fencing on a common may be in a very poor state of repair or no longer present. Whilst it is an accepted customary duty for adjacent owners to fence against a common (see the ‘Capital Works’ section of the toolkit), in practice the lack of fencing may prove too great a barrier to the reintroduction of stock. The boundary may well run against a large number of adjoining landowners and any efforts to persuade them to fence this boundary are likely to be lengthy and arduous.
Fencing - for practical reasons such as managing a flock or herd, or establishing a heft (leer), it may be preferable to subdivide the common. To do this it is likely that consent from the Planning Inspectorate will be required on behalf of the Secretary of State. This can be a time consuming and complex process and is likely to require professional input. For more information refer to ‘Capital Works’.
Recreation - many lowland commons are heavily used for recreation. Reintroducing stock into this environment will be problematic, particularly if dog walking is prevalent. Sheep worrying may well be an issue whilst mixing dogs and cattle, particularly cows with calves at foot (calves that have not been weaned), can be create public safety issues.
Disease - where ticks and tick borne diseases are a problem it may prove difficult to obtain acclimatised stock with some in built resistance to the diseases.
Water - there may not be a natural water supply on the common and the costs of piping water to a trough may prove prohibitive.
Labour - the labour input needed is often relatively high for the number of stock to be supervised on the common.
Reintroducing grazing – some solutions
Finding a grazier - while the ideal scenario is to have a common grazed by one or more individuals who hold rights of pasturage on the common, ownership of grazing rights is not essential. The landowner has the right to any surplus grazing left after commoners have exercised their rights. Consequently, where an ungrazed common is owned by a local authority or body such as a Wildlife Trust or the National Trust then they are likely to take action to let or use the surplus grazing. For example, this has occurred at Corfe Common where the National Trust has let surplus grazing to a farmer without rights but with a farming system that lends itself to using the common.
An alternative for bodies such as the National Trust is to use the surplus grazing itself, using its own stock. Such stock invariably comprises hardy native breeds that are well adapted to dealing with the scrubby vegetation and difficult terrain typical of many ungrazed commons.
Many landowners, unable to find a grazier, will be unwilling to purchase and manage stock themselves. The Grazing Advice Partnership (GAP) was established in 1997 to tackle this issue. It provides support and advice on extensive grazing systems and carries an up-to-date database of animals available for grazing (Stock Keep).
Traffic - ways to reduce traffic problems on commons traversed by unfenced roads are dealt with in detail in the ‘Managing Livestock’ section of ‘Best Practice Commons Management’.
Choosing the right breed - ungrazed common land is typically steep and exposed with coarse grasses and scrub. Consequently, it is important to use breeds appropriate to the particular site.
Tip: Breed associations will have examples of specific re-introductions and lessons learnt – establish contact early and try to speak to the people who have been directly involved as they may also be able to advise you on how they reached their decisions and other options that they considered.
Financial assistance for reintroducing grazing
If a common is of biological significance then there is a strong possibility that Natural England will be keen to see grazing reintroduced and that a Higher Level Stewardship Scheme may be available. This will pay an annual sum for appropriate management of the common and also grant aid capital works. These works may be as diverse as tree felling and scrub clearance and the purchase of stock and tracking collars.
Labour - sharing tasks between graziers is the best option if mutual trust can be achieved.
Further information and signposting
Trends in Pastoral Commoning in England – A Study for Natural England by the Pastoral Commoning Partnership with H&H Bowe Ltd. March 2008
There are a number of case studies on reintroducing grazing. The two references above Commons contain many of these but there are some case-based web sites which are likely to be of additional interest: