Ponies, Dartmoor and fake news

There’s been a deluge of misinformation recently about ponies on Dartmoor.  Dartmoor Nature Alliance’s Tony Whitehead looks at the origins and potential impacts of the current “pony campaigning". He starts by looking at the origins of agri-environment schemes, which are central to this “debate”, and then how the campaigning in itself poses a threat to the future of Dartmoor ponies. 

It’s been frustrating to read the constant stream of misinformation about the future of Dartmoor’s ponies over the past few months, including outrageous, entirely false claims of mass culls. This is no way to behave; it creates an environment on Dartmoor where it is difficult to hold a reasonable discussion or make any real progress. It's also been saddening to read of Natural England (NE) staff receiving “unpleasant correspondence”. In NE’s response to the Fursdon review, they wrote (p29) that staff have previously faced “challenging behaviours” and that “the reputation of the area within the sector has led to difficulties in recruiting and maintaining experienced staff.”  This is very sad. 

Much of the misinformation, and in particular the attacks on NE, stems from basic misunderstandings about how agri-environment schemes work, how they provide financial support for farmers, and how they aim to restore nature. And if the campaign succeeds, it may, perversely, affect the very future of the ponies it claims to support. 

Quick Summary

This is necessarily a long read because the issues are complex. We start with a background to the agri-environment schemes, which are at the heart of all this, the issues they have been designed to tackle such as overgrazing, and how they have largely failed. We also show that, despite claims, these schemes have always taken ponies into account. We then look at the new schemes that will be available soon, and what these offer in terms of support for ponies, and why the current campaign threatens this vital support. We then conclude with some suggestions for the future, including an idea for a new integrated plan that is agreed by all stakeholders and properly consulted on. 

Background

Since the late 1990s the Government, through the taxpayer, has funded schemes on Dartmoor’s commons that support commoners to restore nature.  First were the Environmentally Sensitive Area schemes, followed by the Higher Level Stewardship Schemes (HLS) that started in the late 2000s. 

The first thing to say is that entry into these schemes is entirely voluntary.  No one is forcing commoners and their local associations to go into these schemes.  However the economics of farming this incredibly marginal land are such that it would be difficult to secure an income without taxpayer support.  For this reason most of the commons associations have decided to enter into agreements with the Government.  These agreements are with the Rural Payments Agency, and they are advised by Natural England, the government’s independent scientific adviser on nature. 

Dartmoor qualifies for “higher level” schemes because of its potential for nature.  Most of the commons have been legally protected for decades as both Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This legal protection means that it is against the law to cause damage to them, and Natural England, landowners and commoners with commons rights by occupation have an obligation to ensure they are restored to “favourable” condition. 

On places such as Dartmoor’s precious heaths, after recovery, low-level grazing will be an important part of the maintenance of condition. This is important to bear in mind throughout here; none of this is suggesting grazing plays no part in Dartmoor’s future, quite the opposite.  But we have to get the numbers right in the right places, and that is what the schemes have attempted to do. 

Current agri-environment schemes and ponies

How do these schemes actually work? I’ll use the Forest of Dartmoor Higher Level Stewardship Agreement as the example, but the other commons have similar agreements. 

The Forest of Dartmoor Common covers 11,178 hectares. It is part of the three major Dartmoor SSSIs first declared just after the war.  It is the central part of the high moor, owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, and actively grazed by commoners who own commons rights.  The first agreement was back in the late 1990 early 2000s under the ESA scheme. 

The current HLS agreement was launched in 2012 with much celebration.  It was one of the biggest of its kind in Europe, worth a staggering £13M over ten years to the Forest of Dartmoor Commoners Association, the collective of commoners that agreed and administered the scheme. Since the end of the 10 year agreement in 2022, it has been continued (“rolled-over”) year on year and is currently set to expire in 2027. 

The agreement is based around a number of agreed “options”.  These are actions that have a value per hectare of land.  They can be found in the HLS Handbook here. I obtained a copy of the agreement back in 2021 through an EIR request. This provided a handy table of the various options the commoners had agreed to and the payments received.

As you can see, options HL10 and HR1 are two “big ticket” options.  HL10, restoration of moorland is a payment “to maintain or restore moorland habitats to benefit upland wildlife, retain historic features and strengthen the landscape character.” HR1 is a supplemental payment to “promote grazing by cattle where this is likely to be beneficial in meeting environmental objectives”.  

For the purposes of this article, to see where ponies fit into the equation, we need to focus on that HL10 option, worth £399k annually to the commoners.  To qualify for this:

“Management will include grazing the moorland following an agreed stocking calendar. This calendar will reflect the different habitats within the moorland unit and their present condition. It will indicate how many and what type of livestock will be allowed to graze the moorland in each month of the year.”

This is crucial. Despite what many have been claiming in recent “debates”, the agreements all detailed the types of livestock, including ponies, the numbers, and the months. Here’s an extract from the calendars of the current Forest Agreement, showing just three of the management areas into which the common is divided:

So, ponies are both accounted for and paid for in the current agreements. That’s the first important point here. This counters the false claims being made that ponies are being added to new schemes for the first time. 

Progress on SSSI restoration through schemes

As you can see, the amounts being paid on this one common are huge.  And the fundamental aim is to restore the sites to favourable condition.  Has this been achieved?  Put simply, no.  Despite the initial investment of £13M over ten years, then annual payments of £1.3M annually after that the Forest of Dartmoor Common has not progressed one iota towards favourable condition.  In fact, it has declined. As have all the other commons. This is detailed in the 2024 Natural England SSSI assessments, a summary of which you can find here.

If you look at the reasons for decline, the “site pressures”, taking the South Dartmoor SSSI as an example, you will see two things:

Firstly, you will see undergrazing listed, with a medium risk.  This is linked to the dominance of purple moor grass, Molinia, over large parts of the high moor.  I’ve written extensively about this here, and my view is that the only way to deal effectively with this species is to raise the water table by restoring the peat. Grazing could play a part, and both cattle and ponies could play a role, but I doubt it will be significant. There are some current trials being run by the Dartmoor Land Management Group that might answer this question. Also, please note, despite many claims, Molinia is NOT an invasive alien - it’s been on the moor for millennia - the bronze age cremated remains of the famous White Horse Hill woman were laid on a bed of moor grass. 

More importantly, the table above lists overgrazing as a high risk to the protected site.  While there are many who would like to wish this away and distract us with tales of rampant invasive Molinia, the fact remains that many parts of the commons are overgrazed, especially around the peripheries.  And this ongoing livestock damage is holding back the recovery of heaths and temperate rainforests, for which the commons are internationally important.  

Therefore, while in some places if the case is made and the science is sound, we may need more animals, such as cattle and ponies, to help manage the Molinia, in others, we need to reduce numbers. And I’m afraid ponies are grazing animals, and so their role needs to be accounted for alongside cattle and sheep.  Just as it has always been done under agri-environment schemes. You can’t make them somehow not grazing animals! 

This is where the new schemes come in. 

New agri-environment schemes and ponies

Higher Level Stewardship will end in 2027. In places like Dartmoor, the new options if commoners wish to continue to receive taxpayer support (it's still voluntary) will be either Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier Schemes or Landscape Recovery Schemes. 

This change is the context to the current furore over ponies. The central claims are a) that ponies are to be included alongside cattle and sheep and b) if commoners have to choose, they will choose cattle and sheep as these make more cash.  It’s a crude argument, fundamentally wrong, and indeed undermines future financial support for ponies on Dartmoor. In my opinion, the animals could end up being worse off if the campaigners get their way. 

The first claim is discounted above.  Ponies are not being added to anything; they have always been accounted for. The second claim is a little more involved. 

Let’s be clear - all livestock on Dartmoor requires subsidy.  As can be seen from this Duchy College study, between 2021 and 2023, every cow on Dartmoor made a loss of between £290 and £337 and every sheep made a loss between £15 and £19 (there are considerably more sheep on Dartmoor than cows). Ponies actually came out well in this study, either breaking even or making £24.  

It’s worth bearing in mind throughout this that Dartmoor’s ponies are all owned.  They are livestock; they are bought and sold.  Last autumn at Chagford market, ponies made an average of £263.99, with a top price for a five-month-old filly at £1911.

So ponies have some value, and this isn’t to be discounted when choices are being made by farmers over which animals they keep.  There have been long debates on Dartmoor about how best to realise the value of the ponies, which have led to some interesting initiatives, such as the attempted sale of pony meat, promoted by the Dartmoor Hill Pony Association back in the 2010s. 

It should also be remembered that many landowners will keep the animals simply because they like them, and why not? These are wonderful creatures, and I certainly wouldn’t want to see Dartmoor without them!   But “liking them” doesn’t pay the bills, and that has to be acknowledged.  

Given the marginal economics in this place, and the lack of alternatives to increase the cash value of the ponies, the choices then are more about the levels of public subsidy through these schemes and how commoners who keep ponies can be supported. 

This is where the current “campaign” really shoots itself in the foot. If the campaign is successful, then the ponies will come out of the schemes, and therefore cannot be financially supported, we’ll be back to scratching our heads about how their financial value can be realised (with or without pony burgers). 

And we still won’t tackle the problems of overgrazing. 

The Perils of Misinformation

If ponies remain in the schemes, however, then there are significant cash options to address all this.  Money will be available, through both Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier and Landscape Recovery Schemes, to fund and to help commoners reduce grazing pressure where it’s needed while maintaining them in other places.

Remember, this isn’t everywhere; it’s just those places on the peripheries of moor where grazing is causing damage. There has been near hysteria about this - with claims of blanket cuts everywhere.  This is simply not true and  NE has been clear:Natural England does not set blanket cuts across Dartmoor; grazing levels are agreed locally with farmers and commoners based on the condition of individual habitats and the need to restore nature.

This is a really key point. Grazing remains an important part of managing this potentially wonderful upland.  And ponies are an important part of the mix, and need to be maintained.  Their value has already been proven in places, including through the good work of the Dartmoor Pony Heritage Trust and Plymouth University. The new schemes will allow for this, but only if the ponies are included. 

Ponies do have a future on Dartmoor.  This future is tied to commoners receiving the right support to maintain the right mix of animals, including ponies, in the right places. This is achievable, but is currently threatened by the current “campaign”.  

Final thought: Transparency on Management of Ponies

As DNA have said elsewhere, beyond the current issue, there also needs to be greater transparency and consistency around the management of all ponies grazing on the open moor. We need visible identification, publicly available stock records, and proper management of unclaimed or unmarked animals. These are all important parts of ensuring both animal welfare and public confidence in the future of commoning.

Finally, an idea.  To ensure we don’t keep having these debates on the future of ponies, perhaps the pony keepers might draw up and consult on an integrated pony management plan? This can then be agreed by all three pony organisations, the Dartmoor Pony Heritage Trust, the Dartmoor Pony Society and the Dartmoor Hill Pony Association, plus Dartmoor Commoners Council and NE.  It should also go out for public consultation, so that all those passionate about Dartmoor and its ponies can share their views. 

Once agreed, we would have a single, agreed view of the future, and we could avoid repeating the current dismal situation.