397

REFLECTIONS ON MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR CONSERVATION OF EXMOOR MOORLAND

Leonard Curtis Exmoor National Park Department*

The impact of grant aid schemes and modern farm technology is considered in relation to the Study of Exmoor carried out by Lord Porchester. The development in the last three years of an administrative system based on voluntary notification using a moorland map, policies for protection of areas of special landscape value and financial guidelines for compensation is described. The conservation objectives behind management agreements are discussed and present practices with examples are illustrated. Future hazards facing successful use of management agreements are discussed with special reference to problems of funding, misuse of the system and the philosophy of progressive farming.

1. The Moorland Problem i n the last few decades man has acquired formidable powers to change the form and cover of land. Such changes in landscape often mirror drastic changes in the natural ecosystems in which energy and matter are circulated, transformed, and accumulated through the medium of living things and their activities. For example, an assessment of the probable causes of extinction and decline of the rarer British plants since 1800 attributed about 50 per cent of the losses to changes in agriculture and drainage, 26 per cent to natural causes, 9 per cent to collecting, 8 per cent to changes in scrub and woodland management and 7 per cent to building and other constructional change (Perring, 1970).

The development of machine and chemical technology in farming has led to larger farms and fields, smaller labour forces and a heavy reliance upon inputs of energy and chemicals to sustain an artificial biogeochemical cycle. In large part, the scale of change has been due to decisions in favour of an economic policy of agricultural support. The rates of grant for drainage and land improvements (Table 1) are now such that marginal Grade 5 land (MAFF, 1966) is attractive to the reclaimer. The incentives towards land improvement are reinforced by a combination of Livestock Compensatory Allowance (LCA), Sheep Annual Premium (SAP) and Less Favoured Area Supplement. When these are totalled, the headage payments for hill ewes reached €9.73 in 1981.

Table I Grants for Drainage and Land Improvements

Table I EEC Development Plans UK Grant Schemes (FHDS and AHDS) (AHGS)

Non-LFA LFA Non-LFA LFA Drainage 50% Land Improvements 32%%

70% 50%

31%% 22 % 070

70% 50%

Source: MAFF

* Exmoor National Park Department, Dulverton, Somerset TA22 9HL The views expressed are those of the author only and not necessarily those of the Department or Committee.

398 LEONARD CURTIS

Critics of the policy of agricultural support claim that it is ‘profitable for farmers to plough up almost any kind of uncultivated land . . . to increase their output, even if much of it is destined for the Common Market’s stockpile of surplus produce’ (Shoard, 1981). Such a diagnosis causes concern to those, like myself, charged by Government to ‘protect and enhance the natural beauty’ of a National Park. It would be extraordinary if, by reason of economic decisions, the landscape, flora and fauna of a British National Park were lost in favour of subsidised sales of agricultural produce to the Soviet Union or East European countries. Nevertheless, one must recognise that the individual farmer is faced with considerable economic pressure in an inflationary economy. As a result, the only pathways seeming to be open to him are those of increasing reclamation and production in order to gain the benefits of both land improvement grants and price support systems.

Moorland conversion schemes are not subject to statutory control. A farmer has the right to convert the moorland into seeded pasture if he so chooses. However, in A Study of Exmoor (1977) Lord Porchester recognised the need for more positive land management on Exmoor, with the National Park Authority taking a firm lead over issues of moorland conversion. This paper seeks to trace the steps taken so far in respect of this aim.

2. The Porchester Maps and Financial Guidelines for Management

In order to clarify the issues and provide for necessary administrative action, Lord Porchester recommended that a moorland survey be carried out resulting in two maps. The construction of the Porchester maps and their policies are described elsewhere (Curtis and Walker, 1982). Together they create a comprehensive administrative framework within which the future management of Exmoor moorland can be discussed. Map One is a statement of the existing moorland and it acts as a basis of a notification procedure which enables farmers and the National Park Authority to discuss problems of improving farm productivity whilst conserving landscape and ecological features of value. Within areas of moor and heath displayed on Map One, the Park Committee have defined areas of special landscape value which they considered should be conserved, so far as possible, for all time (Table 2).

Agreements

Table 2 Map One and Map Two Statistics

Total Exmoor National Park Area 169,600 acres (68,635 hectares) Total Map One (Moorland) Area 48,300 acres (19,555 hectares) Total Map Two (Special Landscape Amenity Area) 39,610 acres (16,036 hectares) Map Two as % of Map One 82 ‘70 Map Two in National Trust Ownership* 8,815 acres (3,569 hectares) Map Two as Common Land* 12,060 acres (4,883 hectares) Map Two as S.S.S.I., 510 acres (207 hectares)

(Nature Conservancy Council Interest)

* Some overlap occurs in these categories.

In view of the policies for Maps One and Two adopted by the Exmoor National Park Committee in 1980, it is of interest that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 43, now requires every National Park to prepare within two years

‘A map showing any areas of moor and heath the natural beauty of which it is, in the opinion of the authority, particularly important to conserve.’

REFLECTIONS ON MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR CONSERVATION 399

Thus, by 1980, the stage was set on Exmoor for the possible use of management agreements as discussed by the Countryside Commission (Feist, 1978; Leonard, 1982). Our experience showed, however, the need for an improvement in the means of assessing the amount of compensation payable. As a result, the Exmoor National Park Authority entered into negotiations with the National Farmers’ Union and Country Landowners’ Association with a view to establishing standard sums to be applied to different levels of constraint on farming operations. In view of my earlier contacts with the Departments of Agricultural Economics at Bristol and Exeter, it seemed to be advisable that the Park Committee should seek advice on assessments of farm profitability from an independent university source. As a result, the University of Exeter Department of Agricultural Economics were invited to .provide confidential data which would allow the parties to calculate standard compensation sums in respect of foregone profits.

The ‘Exmoor system’ was reported in outline by Leonard (1982). Data have been collected and analysed by the University of Exeter and related to sheep enterprises per adjusted forage hectare. Deductions from figures for annual output are made in respect of variable costs, existing use potential, estimated annual equivalent of the cost of reclamation and fencing, and interest on additional tenants’ capital.

‘Standard’ offers are only made on Exmoor where the proposed reclamation does not exceed 30 hectares in any one year and the land is physically capable of improvement at reasonable cost. Furthermore, costs of labour and drainage works are assumed to be of a minor nature and fencing costs limited in amount.

The standard sums take into account constraints on ploughing, liming, slagging, fertilising, fencing and direct seeding operations. Details are set out in Guidelines for Management Agreements, published by the Exmoor National Park Committee (1981) and salient trends are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Base Standard Sums Payable in Exmoor National Park*

Ploughing Feasible Ploughing No1 Feasible

No ploughing, No ploughing, but Year liming, slagging liming, slagging, No liming, slagging

or fencing fencing allowed or fencing

f /Ha/Annum f/Ha/Annum f/Ha/Annum 1977 73.87 32.37 41 S O I978 51.54 21.76 29.78 1979 20.65 8.06 12.59 1980 44.79 19.95 24.84 1981 90.52 40.53 49.99

* Base standard sums are repriced on the basis of average bank base rate, weighted on a daily basis over each year, subject to the level of the repricing factor applied to the National Park Supplementary Grant for the financial year.

It will be evident that fluctuations in the profitability of upland sheep farming are reflected in these figures.

3. Conservation Objectives and the Use of Management Agreements The term conservation is sometimes associated with pressure groups seeking goals which are deemed to be unsympathetic to economic advance, Indeed, there may be an underlying fear that ‘environmentalists’ are misguided

400 LEONARD CURTIS

‘do-gooders’ who may lead us to economic disaster. Yet economists, having early associations with Malthusian doctrines, are similarly aware of the need to take into account the pressures which growing populations and their appetites place upon natural resources of all kinds.

Since we have a duty to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the National Parks, an ideal conservation policy should be directed towards management of both the structure and function of their ecosystems. Some ecosystems may be in a steady state condition but most exhibit aspects of change, and active management is usually necessary for the perpetuation of a desired condition. Those ecosystems substantially affected by Man may rapidly lose important ecosystem values without active management. The goal of conservation ecology is, therefore, to develop ecologically sound and practical techniques for the maintenance of particular ecosystems.

The agreements so far negotiated on Exmoor can be regarded as the first administrative and practical steps towards ecologically sound management of moorland already affected by human use. If one sets out the goals for maintenance of the.sub-climax vegetation in relation to constraints applied in agreements the pattern is as follows:-

(a) Maintenance of existing soil conditions, i.e., constraints on ploughing, cultivations, drainage and use of fertilisers.

(b) Maintenance of existing vegetation species, i.e., constraints on use of herbicides, introduction of cultivated species by re-seeding operations or by uncontrolled winter feeding.

(c) Maintenance of biomass and nutrient cycle relationships, i.e., constraints on types of animals, levels of stocking (grazing intensity), burning, cutting, fencing.

Constraints on stocking and fencing allow for maintenance of moorland grazing at 0.2 Grazing Livestock Units per hectare, i.e., approximately 2 sheep per hectare. In other words they accord with available data from the Hill Farming Research Organisation for maintenance of heathland vegetation. These grazing levels also lie at the basis of the level of compensation offered to farmers. Should the level of stocking be increased, two considerations apply. First, the ecological balance will change towards grass and herb associations (Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, 1982). Second, the level of payment determined by the Guidelines will be too high since ‘existing potential’ will be increased.

Constraints on ploughing, cultivations, drainage, fertilising and burning will permit existing soil resources to be maintained. Furthermore, the hydrological conditions in these upland areas will be subject to less change than hitherto following reclamation. Some benefits will, therefore, accrue to lower lying areas where river regimes will be more predictable under conditions of more stable run-off.

Constraints on the use of herbicides, fertilisers, burning, cutting and drainage are likely to result in increased populations of birds and small mammals. The effects of such constraints will require regular monitoring and the setting up of base lines against which change can be measured.

One of the principal advantages of management agreements is that they should provide scope for manipulation of management practices to achieve conservation goals consistent with acceptable levels of moorland grazing.

REFLECTIONS ON MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR CONSERVATION 40 1

4. Present Practice and Future Hazards Some measure of the success achieved in negotiating management agreements using Porchester Maps One and Two as notification and policy bases, and the guidelines for financial aspects of management agreements as compensation bases, can be seen in the situation as it existed in November, 1982 (Table 4).

Table 4 Approximate Moorland Areas of Management Agreements subject to Compensation as at November, 1982

1. Agreements concluded Locafion Acreage Glen thome* 1 SO* Haddon Hill7 225 Kipscombe Hill 28 Larkbarrow t 800

Location Acreage Halscombe Allotment 600 Humbers Ball 50 Aclands Allotment 311 Hangley Cleave 60 Venford Moor 60 Butter Hill 180 Woodland Common 105 Cussacombe, West Molland I96

Location Acreage Warren Farmt 2,032

* The Clenthorne agreement runs over additional farmland and woodland of approximately 1,350 acres. t Purchase in part or in whole.

2. Agreements under negotiafion or nearing conclusion

3 . Agreements to be determined

It will be seen that the Exmoor National Park Committee have not restricted use of management agreements to annual payments over a twenty year period. The Exmoor National Park Authority adopted a policy (National Park Plan, 1977) of making opportunity purchases of land on the open market where long term conservation opportunities manifested themselves. This policy has been maintained (Table 5 ) .

Table 5 Moor and pasture areas in the Exmoor National Park Estate (31.12.82)

Location Description Acreage Year of rntetesr Completion

North Hill, Minehead Mill Hill, Oareford Pinkery Estate, Sirnonsbath

Cosgate Hill, Brendon Haddon Hill Larkbarrow

East Anstey Common

Warren Farm

Moor 400.1 Moor 295.0 Moor 1,548.0

Pasture 443.0 Moor 61 .O Moor 159.0 Moor 801 .O

Pasture 80.0 Moor 124.0

Pasture 15.0 Moor 2,032.9

Pasture 223.3

Ownership 1963 Ownership 1965

Ownership 1969

Ownership 1977 Ownership 1980

Ownership 1981

Ownership 1981

Ownership 1982

Total Moorland 5,421 .O Total Pasture 761.3

402 LEONARD CURTIS

An example of a management agreement concluded on the basis of sale and leaseback arrangements is that of Larkbarrow. It will be seen that apart from constraints the agreements make provision for monitoring of the moorland conditions.

Summary of the terms of the Larkbarrow Management Agreement Parties to the Agreement: The Fortescue Estate, Somerset County Council, Secretary of State for the Environment. Date of Agreement: 6th June, 1980. Term: Unlimited duration. Acreage: 881 (including 80 in-bye). Provisions within the Agreement: 1. The Management Agreement for the area includes provision for an

annual management plan. 2. Provisions include maintenance of the existing vegetation, whilst taking

the opportunity to foster heather growth and control invasive species. These provisions include the following:- (a) no cultivation by ploughing or other means; (b) no spraying of herbicides; (c) no fertilising or application of lime and slag other than for agreed

experimental purposes;' (d) no re-seeding; (e) no drainage works; (f) cutting will be permitted in agreed areas and at selected times by

agreement with the National Park Officer; (g) swaling will be permitted in agreed areas and at selected times by

agreement with the National Park Officer. In-bye land is excluded from these provisions.

With a view to maintaining the moorland character of the vegetation, stocking rates in respect of sheep and cattle will be controlled. Ponies will be grazed only by the agreement of the National Park Officer. Public access has been agreed for Larkbarrow area with the following provisions:- (a) free access for walkers or riders on horseback; (b) exclusion of vehicles except for those of the occupier in use for

farming operations and the Exmoor National Park Department for purposes of amenity management, and other bodies authorised by the National Park Officer.

Management of woodland and beech hedges will be agreed between the occupier and the National Park Officer. It is anticipated that the Exmoor National Park Department would wish to assist in maintenance of beech hedges through its Beech Hedge Scheme.

3.

4.

5 .

REFLECTIONS ON MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR CONSERVATION 403

6. No additional fencing will be allowed, unless the National Park Officer is prepared to agree.

7 . The occupier will allow environmental recording apparatus (e.g., rain gauges, temperature recorders) to be placed on the land. The occupier will agree that the Exmoor National Park Department and other bodies authorised by the National Park Officer may take soil and vegetation samples and monitor the moorland conditions.

8. Safeguards for the protection of the public are included in the agreement, e.g. shooting restrictions, agreement on the location of bee-hives.

9. No buildings or temporary structures (e.g., pig arcs) to be erected on the land.

10. No dumping of materials or farm waste on the land.

11. The occupier agrees that metal detectors will not be used on the land and that he will not enter into a ‘search contract’ for similar use.

The hazards facing future use of management agreements have been outlined in the summary by Osborn (1982) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The first question is whether the use of management agreements will collapse under the weight of funding required to pay the compensation bill. At present, Exmoor National Park receives 90 per cent grant in respect of moorland conservation and it is estimated that the compensation bill for the first four agreements listed in Table 4 will reach f 12,217 by 1983184. Overall, the cost of management agreements for 1982183 is estimated at f30,000 and for 1983184 f43,OOO. It must be pointed out, however, that the level of compensation borne by the taxpayer is largely offset by the subsidies and headage payments which would have been made if reclamation had proceeded.

It should be borne in mind that the Exmoor National Park Plan (1977) also envisaged that in certain cases the Committee might proceed ‘to acquire areas of high amenity land by agreement with the owners concerned’. If this opportunity of purchase does occur the Committee is then faced with a choice from the following options for conservation of the land concerned:-

A Purchase, followed by lease with restrictive clauses to retain moorland unimproved or by use of restricted grazing licences.

B Purchase and subsequent sale with a restrictive covenant on the land. C Acceptance of the likely future need to pay continuing compensation

under management agreements:- (i) by way of annual payments, or (ii) at claimant’s option by way of lump sum representing the

capitalised value of annual payments over each 20-year period.

The Committee’s objective must be to achieve long-term protection at the most economic cost. With this in mind advantages and disadvantages of the various options are listed below:-

Advantages Disadvan rages Option A-Purchase and lease or issue of grazing licences (1) Achieves the certainty that goes with (1) A large initial financial outlay is

(2) Finance, once achieved, is not dependent (2) Some capital allocation (‘licence to ownership. involved.

on each year’s grant settlement. spend’) would be required.

404 LEONARD CURTIS

Advantages

(3) A small income would arise from leasing or from grazing licences.

(4) Costs of purchase would probably be covered under existing annual compen- sation arrangements within a 30-year period.

Disadvantages

(3) Some ‘political’ issues may be raised in any increase in the Committee’s land holdings on Exmoor.

(4) Some risk that in a tenancy a Council’s restrictions could be discharged by Agricultural Lands Tribunal.

( 5 ) Some risk that grazing licences be construed as a tenancy.

Option B-Purchase and covenanted sale (1) Gives certainty in perpetuity through the

legal covenant. (2) Finance, once achieved, is not dependent

on each year’s grant settlement. (3) Initial outlay is offset to a degree by

sale proceeds.

(4) The negative covenant will be enforceable at law.

(5 ) Costs may broadly compare with the first 15 years cumulative costs for annual compensation under existing arrangements but achieve perpetual protection.

(6) Ownership is not retained, thus avoiding any ‘political’ issues arising from land aquisition.

( I ) Large initial cost although offset by subsequent sale proceeds.

(2) A relatively small capital allocation is needed to match part of spending.

(3) The range of conservation measures available under a legal covenant may not be as certain as that from ownership.

(4) Once sold the Council can only revise a Management Agreement with owner’s consent.

( 5 ) Management agreement would have to be written for ‘all time’ validity.

(6) Disputes would require legal proceedings.

Option C-Compensation under Management Agreements

C(i)-Annual Compensation (1) Costs do not flow until improvement (1) Protection is certain only foi the

proposals are made duration of the current agreement.

(2) The low initial cost can be reasonably (2) accommodated in annual budgets, i.e., a short-term advantage.

(3) No capital allocations required. (3)

(4)

C(ii)-Lump Sum for each 20-year period (1) Costs do not flow until improvement (1)

proposals are made.

Needs to be re-negotiated at 20-year intervals.

Costs continue to build up over the years and may be likely to exceed costs of Option B after IS years under existing compensation arrangements.

Initially and on re-negotiation claimants can demand lump sum payments in lieu of annual payments over 20 years.

Finance is dependent on annual rate support grant negotiations which are subject to the financial climate of the time and to the continuance of present Government policy of 90% grant support.

Protection is certain only for duration of current agreement.

REFLECTIONS ON MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR CONSERVATION 405

Advantages Disadvantages (2) No capital allocations required. (2) Needs to be re-negotiated at 20-year

intervals. (3) Costs continue to build up over the years

and are likely to exceed Option B after 21 years under existing arrangements.

(4) After the first 20-year period claimants can revert to annual payments on re- negotiation of agreement.

( 5 ) Finance is dependent at each re- negotiation on the financial climate of the time and the continuance of Government policy of 90% grant support.

It is emphasised that the above relationships hold good only for existing management agreement terms and for a particular mix of buildings and improved and improvable land. Values will change as these factors change yet the comparative relationships should hold reasonably well for any purchase of large acreage with a predominance of unimproved land that is of improvable quality.

The second question is whether there will be an abuse of the goodwill on which the whole philosophy of these measures is built, so that trivial and spurious claims are made. This is a real danger because the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, together with revised methods of handling grant applications by MAFF and recently introduced Government Guidelines, combine to make it well-nigh impossible to question the wisdom or, indeed, the financial soundness of a farmer’s schemes for improvement. The Exmoor National Park Committee receives limited advice from agricultural appraisals in respect of moorland improvement proposals provided by MAFF officers. It may be noted that in some recent cases the appraisals have indicated that attention should be given to the improvement of existing in-bye land before placing emphasis on further moorland reclamation. Clearly this is a point of major importance. There is little point in further expenditure of public money on reclamation if production from existing farmland is not maximised at the present time.

Perhaps the greatest danger facing National Parks lies in our abiding faith in technology. It is both interesting and alarming that many people view ‘progressive’ farming and ‘technology’ as both desirable and uncontrollable. The comment is frequently made that one ‘cannot turn the clock back’. I f that be so the price of increasing affluence with attendant high levels of waste and inefficient consumption will largely be paid in the hard-won currency of landscape quality and the evolution of living creatures. In view of this we may see the chief role of management agreements as a means of buying time for alternative strategies to develop which are both ecologically sound and economically acceptable.

References Curtis, L. F. and Walker, A. J. (1982). Moorland Conservation on Exmoor: The Porchester

Maps, their Construction and Policies. Dulverton : Exmoor National Park Department. Exmoor National Park Committee (1977). Exmoor National Park Plan. Dulverton : Exmoor

National Park Department. Exmoor National Park Committee (1981). Management Agreements in Exmoor National

Park : Guidelines governing the financial aspects of Management Agreements relating to land in the National Park included in Porchesfer Map I . Dulverton : Exmoor National Park Department.

Feist, M. J. (1978). A Study of Management Agreemenis. Cheltenham : CCP 114 Countryside Commission.

406 LEONARD CURTIS

Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (1982). Vegetation Change in Upland Landscapes. Cambridge :

Leonard, P. (1982). Management Agreements : A Tool for Conservation, J. agric. €con., 33,

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1966). Agricultural Land Classification,

Osborn, G. (1982). A Plain Man’s Guide to ‘That Act’, Humberts Commentary, 29, 22 - 25. Perring, F. H. (ed.) (1970). The Flora of a Changing Britain, Reporl of the Botanical

Porchester, The Lord, K.B.E. (1977). A Sfudy of Exmoor. HMSO. Shoard, M. (1981). The Theff ofrhe Countryside. London : Maurice Temple Smith.

Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.

351 - 360.

Agricultural Land Service Report No. 1 I .

Society of the British Isles. No. 11.