This desire of farmers to be part of the solution in the uplands, rather than
a ‘service provider’ for the national environmental agency, was explored further
in the workshop that followed the interviews. About half of the interviewed
farmers attended this workshop which was also attended by the local
environmental scheme officer and the national park officer. In this setting the
farmers were prepared to discuss what a new scheme might include, such as the
creation of new habitats, management of landscape features, mechanisms for
developing mutual skills in farming and environmental management. The framework
for such a new scheme was to be based around discussions, a collective approach
and a business focus that included an audit of each farm to show their
biodiversity and landscape assets and potential. The emphasis here was that if
the scheme could be locally developed, then they would be more willing to go
further in the environmental management. As these three farmers put
it:
All of the farmers had entered the farm into agri-environment schemes
during the preceding 20 years. All farms had also been affected by the
introduction of the Single Farm Payment, the decoupled support introduced in
2005, which, as explained earlier, removed the link between farm support and
stock numbers. In response to these two factors, many farmers had adjusted the
farming system. For others, a move to fewer hardy hill stock has been a response
to the payment opportunities presented by agri-environment schemes as reductions
in stocking levels per hectare, notably on the moorland areas of the farm, are
required under the schemes. The reductions have been significant with three
farmers no longer grazing the moor and a further four reducing their livestock
by at least half. As one farmer put it ‘having a few stock on the moor, now, it
just isn’t worth it – labour or stock-quality wise’. Decoupling, and the
introduction of an area-based payment that is not linked to production, has also
increased the relative attractiveness of this option. In almost half of all
interview cases, the consequence of this has been a significant change in the
emphasis of the overall land management.
With
regards to the environmental schemes, the balance of opinion is sympathetic,
although most farmers admit that a key reason for joining these schemes is
financial and to maintain incomes. Nevertheless, there is some resentment that
the top-down prescribed management is in some ways too restricted and lacks
flexibility. Many claimed that whilst initial destocking had brought some
benefits for heather and other upland habitat, continued management with only
very low levels of sheep or cattle grazing was now leading to farmers’
impoverishment. Some suggested that there was a lack of understanding that
reversing business decisions about stock numbers would not be easy, for farmers.
As one farmer said ‘you can’t keep your stock waiting on a washing line and drop
them down as and when required.’
