Approaches Failing Nature Require Scrutiny

This article, written by DNA's Tony Whitehead, first appeared in the Western Morning News on 26 September 2026.

This week, Farmers Weekly reported that more than 40 Dartmoor farmers and commoners have urged MPs to reject the argument that livestock grazing contributes to Dartmoor’s ecological decline. Their submission to Government says the “rewilding” movement is making local farmers scapegoats. That deserves a response, because it asks the public to choose between sympathy for farmers and concern for nature. Dartmoor Nature Alliance (DNA) believes that we should insist on both.

Dartmoor farmers have every right to speak forcefully about their livelihoods. Hill farming is difficult, the economics are fragile, and changes to grazing agreements affect families, some of whom have worked this land for generations. Their knowledge matters. But so does the knowledge of ecologists who live and work here, and who are equally passionate about a healthy future for Dartmoor. But first and foremost, the condition of the land itself matters: the state of our natural world.

Dartmoor is more than a backdrop for livestock farming. Its peat, soils, rivers, heaths and temperate rainforests are connected. Rain falling on the high moor provides drinking water to communities far beyond it. A healthy Dartmoor holds water, supports wildlife and gives people the chance to encounter a national park rich in life. Its future depends on skilled land management, including grazing where grazing helps.

But we cannot tackle a problem that we refuse to acknowledge. DNA’s Call to Action reports that only 16% of the park’s protected wildlife sites are in favourable condition. Some places are grazed too heavily; others face different pressures, including too little grazing, degraded peatlands and the historical effects of excessive burning. The answer is to examine each common, establish what its land and nature needs, and measure whether current management is helping it recover.

Public money is vital to this conversation. Farming on much of Dartmoor's marginal uplands is not financially viable without public subsidy. We, the taxpayers, fund voluntary agreements intended to protect and restore the landscape, paying for the things people care about. These are substantial investments. The first round of 10-year Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) agreements, starting in the early 2010s, paid commoners £32 million to restore nature. These agreements have been repeatedly extended, but despite the money, nature continues to decline, in part because of overgrazing. Taxpayers are entitled to know: what were these payments meant to achieve? What has happened to the habitats? What must now change to make the schemes work? 

These questions are now urgent as HLS agreements are once again coming to an end, and the future is uncertain. Farmers need a dependable route into new schemes as any gap in payments could threaten already fragile businesses. However, simply rolling over existing HLS schemes, with no change to their prescriptions, would fail nature and fail the public. Instead, we need a fair transition that maintains financial support but requires clear change - not least to grazing levels - to begin now. Simply approving more of the same, where protected habitats continue to decline, is not acceptable, wastes public money and indeed risks legal challenge.

Asking these questions is not an attack on commoners. It is how we build support for paying farmers fairly to do work that nature needs and the public needs. If an agreement has failed to restore nature, farmers should not carry all the blame for a system designed by government and negotiated with several parties. Equally, in acknowledging continued failure, we cannot allow the same approaches to continue without scrutiny. Or worse, allow that failure to be denied, or passed wholly onto external factors beyond local control. 

What does a better approach look like? At this week’s Dartmoor forum, NFU uplands chair Mat Cole called for the right animals in the right places at the right time. DNA agrees. Farmers and ecologists can walk the same ground here, share observations, and use grazing trials and habitat assessments to work out what that means on each common.  Adaptive grazing plans, shaped by the condition of each common, that allow blanket bog, heath and woodland to recover. Dependable payments for the labour, skills and changes that it requires. Better farm-to-plate routes could help farmers retain more of the value they create, while caring for soils and water strengthens the natural environment their businesses depend on. 

This debate also requires a standard of decent conduct from everyone. Disagree with an assessment; question a proposed stocking level. By all means demand evidence from Natural England but remember that its staff need the resources and political backing to do their job, and the freedom to explain their evidence and decisions openly, without personal attacks. Natural England is the government's nature regulator, with a duty to further the conservation of Dartmoor’s protected sites on our behalf. Claims that nature conservation staff are driven by a hostile ideology, or that concern about overgrazing is always an assault on commoning, do not help us decide what the land needs. They make neighbours less willing to listen. 

Dartmoor can support viable farming and the return of heather, woodland, clean rivers and abundant wildlife. That future asks more of government, conservationists and farmers alike. The public should be able to see the results, and Dartmoor should be able to feel them.