The Case for Grazing

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW - RESTORING AND MAINTAINING THE ACID GRASSLAND

As a part of the Management Plan review process all objectives of management need to be fully argued and a rationale given. The arguments for management of the grassland and grazing in a thorough and objective manner has never really been put together in one place for people to refer to and understand.

With the Conservators now four years into the re-introduction of grazing on the Hills the matter can be covered with some insight into future management requirements. This report looks at how management may be taken forward as an ideal position, but would require more detailed investigations and consultation before any firm decisions were made.

Why restore and maintain the grassland at all?
This is a fair question, as it could be argued that a scrub and woodland landscape would be equally valuable as the grassland, scrub and woodland one and certainly one with less complex management requirements. However, there are a number of reasons, including legal, why the grassland requires management.

Policy

There is a duty on the Conservators to preserve the natural aspect (by the Malvern Hills Acts) which empowers the Conservators to conserve and enhance the character and quality of the existing landscape. This clearly relates to landscape matters, although it is recognised that landscape and vegetation are often inseparable features. The 1989 Management Plan noted that, "This objective is also crucial for the protection of wildlife, which includes all types of natural flora and fauna. These are part of the natural beauty but have an inherent quality of their own which depends upon the condition of the landscape. In this sense the protection of natural beauty has important implications for ecology."

In addition, there is national policy such as SSSI designation and a duty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to positively manage for the reason the site is designated. The Malvern Hills Conservators are considered a Section 28G authority by the CroW Act which requires "to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority's functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest."

In the Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan it outlines the Herefordshire and Worcestershire Landscape Character Assessment with the Hills characterised as the High Hills and Slopes. The special features include extensive area of acid grassland and heath and generally unwooded and; exposed, panoramic views. Strategic Objective 5.6.2. states; implement measures to conserve, restore and enhance distinctive characteristics and attributes of each Landscape Character type, particularly those that have been degraded significantly, or are least resilient to change.

There are 3 Scheduled Ancient Monuments on Conservators land, the Shire Ditch, British Camp and the Bronze Age barrow on Pinnacle Hill. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 provides that any scheduled ancient monument shall not be damaged and it is well known that scrub and tree growth is likely to damage the archaeological value of the SAMs on the Conservators land.

Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) are a plan, programme or strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. BAPs are a key means by which the UK Government commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Rio de Janeiro is to be met. There is a National as well as Regional and County-wide BAPs which include a plan for the conservation of lowland acid grassland. The national BAP states that the factors currently affecting acid grassland reduce its quality and quantity. The fragmentation of the habitat brings increased risk of species extinction in the small remnant areas. The factors include, agricultural and other management neglect leading to rank over-growth, and bracken Pteridium aquilinum and scrub encroachment. The BAP aims to:

• Arrest the depletion of lowland acid grassland throughout the UK.
• Within SSSIs initiate rehabilitation management for all significant stands of lowland acid grassland in unfavourable condition by 2005.
• Wherever biologically feasible, achieve favourable status of all significant stands of lowland acid grassland within SSSIs by 2010.

People

The majority of visitors to the Malvern Hills come to enjoy the panoramic views that can be enjoyed. If the grasslands are not conserved the views will undoubtedly disappear, as can be seen from a number of seats which were put in when there was once a view. It is not just the views but the feelings of space and wilderness which induce the sense of place. If the open, acid grassland is lost then the views and sense of place will altered, perhaps irretrievably.

In a cultural sense the local population have always relied on the hills and commons for their livelihood, reflected in the common land status and number of registered commoners. The right to pasture and graze livestock is the main right of most commoners. The Conservators have an obligation to protect the rights of the commoners. Grazing by such commoners was the principal method of establishment and management of the grassland on the Malvern Hills over hundreds of years, until late in the twentieth century.

It is already recognised by the Malvern Hills Management Plan 2000-2005 (and all the organisations signed up to the Plan), the AONB Management Plan, the Worcestershire Biodiversity Action Plan, the Herefordshire Biodiversity Action Plan and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan that management of such landscapes and habitats is essential to conserve their intrinsic value for nature and people.

What are the Options for Management?

1. Abandonment/No Management
   
   

   Despite the seemingly eternal nature of the grass-topped Malvern Hills it is a totally man-made and maintained landscape. Without management the Hills will become tree covered, probably quite rapidly, with saplings evident within 50 metres of Worcestershire Beacon. On the lower slopes scrub encroachment is all too evident and on the Central Hills particularly tree and scrub encroachment has occurred right up to the ridge – which is only kept clear of growth by the number of walkers using it. The open landscape would disappear along with the wildlife and with it the ability to wander at will on foot and horseback – a principle of the Conservators set out in their first Act of Parliament.

2. Mowing
   
   

   In the past mowing has been utilised by the Malvern Hills Conservators in order to control the spread of trees and scrub on the Hills as the only option deemed available at the time. However, only relatively small areas of the Hills are accessible with a tractor, which restricted the areas that could be kept open. Mowing has limited success in reducing fire risk and creating fire breaks as managed areas are always based on accessibility rather than need.

   Mowing without removing the arisings alters the ecology of the grassland from dry acid grassland to a rank nutrient enriched one resulting in the loss of the habitats and species the hills are important for. This is due to the fine-leaved species being covered by cuttings and the resultant build-up of nutrients.

   Mowing does not remove the trees and scrub permanently as species such as birch and rowan "microcoppices". Coppicing is the practice of cutting young broadleaved trees which are not killed as a result but instead resprout. "Microcoppice" is a term coined to describe the unwanted regrowth from even small seedlings of birch and other especially vigorous species that can make a scrub problem much worse.

   Mowing is indiscriminate and does not act selectively; for instance it is impossible to mow only the grass in a mixed sward. Mowing produces very obvious artificial patchiness into the landscape, each cut area having hard edges and standing distinct even from a distance.

   It can be concluded on the basis of the practical experience of other acid grassland managers that mowing can have detrimental ecological effects – even if it were practicable and the arisings could be removed and is not the most effective management method.

3. Burning
   
   

   Burning has been utilised pre-1990 for scrub and bracken management, mainly to reduce the fire risk from litter accumulation. The quantity of litter that has accumulated in the absence of grazing, as a result of characteristically slow acid grassland decomposition rates, has the potential to result in intense fires that would severely damage bryophytes, lichens and invertebrates. Such intense fires are also likely to result in weed infestation and damage to soil structure, especially on steep slopes.Burning to reclaim under-grazed grassland

   This involves burning to remove accumulated litter (undecayed plant material) due to the lack of grazing on the hills. Litter has high fibre and low nutrient content and is broken down very slowly on acid soils. Much of the remaining grassland on the hills has a thick litter layer due to under-grazing, which smothers important grassland species and allows scrub to invade. A layer of litter does, however, provide valuable cover for over-wintering invertebrates and burning policies need to account for this. Elsewhere in the country burning has proved most beneficial when combined with grazing.

   Burning to prevent invasion of grassland by trees and shrubs Regular burning can prevent succession of grassland to scrub and woodland, by killing seedlings and saplings. However, the frequent treatment required would be detrimental to the flora and fauna and other management techniques would be more appropriate, i.e. grazing, scrub cutting and the selective use of herbicides. Burning could be utilised as an initial management treatment, or where other methods were failing to be effective.

   The burning of gorse is in itself not an effective means of control for gorse or bracken. Fire assists gorse seeds in germinating and does not harm the underground rhizomes of bracken. Burning would only be of use for gorse in its rotational management to achieve an uneven aged stand, and with bracken to reduce the fire risk posed by the litter layer.

   Controlled burning in winter is a useful adjunct to grazing and is used as such in current conservation practice on sites where there is a history of burning and where it provides positive conservation benefits. It is excellent at generating bare ground and promoting fresh growth. It is especially important in gorse management. Unlike hot summer wildfires the lichen and reptile interest is unharmed and the impact on invertebrates is minimal and short term. Burning as a management tool, on its own, simply encourages birch and bracken.

   The Conservators have a policy to utilise small-scale burning as a management tool in conjunction with grazing. The practical difficulties are considerable, as advance notice to neighbours is a legal requirement and burning is very weather dependent. The manpower needed is significant and must also be arranged in advance on the off chance that conditions will be suitable. Fire-breaks must be cut around planned burns in advance.

4. Volunteers
   
   

   Although established in 1884 and based on the principle of voluntary involvement and charitable purposes the Malvern Hills Conservators have only developed the active involvement of conservation volunteers in the last 6 years or so. There have been voluntary wardens for a number of years who have traditionally been involved in patrolling duties, there are currently six voluntary wardens. There are now 25 conservation volunteers, contributing approximately 75 workdays a year to the management of the Malvern Hills and Commons (in total over 3000 acres).

   The main work projects where volunteers have contributed have been pond work, access improvements, birch and rowan pulling and manual bracken control. They are best suited to relatively small-scale tasks with a defined and visible end point.

   One of the key management problems is the proliferation of rowan, birch and sycamore seedlings that threatens to overwhelm the grassland and turn it to scrub woodland. It may be suggested that this is a problem that volunteers could tackle. From the experience of other organisations who have used volunteers for many years, and from our own experience, volunteers do not offer a sustainable alternative for the control of young tree and shrub growth.

   Very large numbers of volunteers would be required to achieve control of the encroaching vegetation over the Hills, and there is no prospect of increasing the volunteer input by the orders of magnitude required. The repetitive and on going nature of the task would prove unattractive to volunteers, especially if they were faced with the same job year after year.

   In theory the Conservators field staff could undertake the work and in the short-term they will be. Under the Scrub and Bracken Management Plan produced for a Countryside Stewardship Scheme application, field staff and contractors will undertake the initial scrub and bracken management where necessary.

5. Grazing
   
   

   Grazing is acknowledged by managers of grassland sites such as the Malvern Hills as the best management tool, other techniques are judged by their ability to mimic its effects. Time and again scientific investigations and practical experience have shown this to be the case – most recently a paper by F.W. Kirkham, A.M. Mole and S.M. Gardner (2005), Stocking levels in lowland grasslands managed for wildlife conservation, stated "Appropriate grazing management is essential to help maintain the wildlife conservation and biodiversity value of most semi-natural grasslands." To this end there is a dedicated group known as the Grazing Animals Project, which is a partnership between most of the major conservation organisations, working alongside key groups from the livestock sector to promote and facilitate effective and sustainable livestock grazing systems that will directly benefit wildlife and landscape conservation. Grazing is also an essential requirement for grassland management under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme.

The Malvern Hills as a major visitor attraction would not exist in its accepted form without grazing. Grazing has the following benefits:

• It controls young tree growth and the spread of scrub if appropriate stock and stocking levels are used.
• By eating off the year's grass growth the fuel load and hence fire risk is substantially reduced.
• Trampling helps break up the bracken stands.
• It gives the very small-scale mosaic of sward heights and vegetation structure that is required by many reptile and invertebrate species.
• Light grazing on the Shire Ditch Scheduled Ancient Monument will conserve its intrinsic value by keeping it clear of trees and shrubs, whose roots can damage the SAM.
• Public access is maintained and enhanced by keeping the hills open.
• Viewpoints are maintained and enhanced by reducing tree cover and preventing re-growth.

Conclusion

Overall it is clear that grazing is not only by far the best option for managing this nationally important site, but also the only practical one. The only other large-scale alternative, mowing, cannot be used on most of the hills due to steep and uneven terrain. Where it can be used it will give significantly poorer results than grazing.

Options for achieving grazing

If the site is to be grazed the livestock must be contained in some way to prevent them wandering or damaging neighbours' land. The various options for keeping the animals on the common are.

1. Full-time tending by a stockman/shepherd/hayward
   
   

   The Conservators shepherd/stockman for the grazing project has been fully funded by English Nature the Countryside Agency and now the Heritage Lottery Fund to tend stock full-time. Although the Conservators shepherd/stockman manages all their stock it would be impractical and unreasonable to expect one stockman to cover the area required to ensure all the stock on different parts of the hills grazed the target areas without some form of containment. Therefore, with no method of containment the Conservators would need to employ another stockman, arguably two people to cover for holidays, sickness, and weekends. A further £21,000 p.a. year, approximately, on year revenue cost, assuming one stockman only, is a reasonable estimate. Without containment there is always the problem of them wandering during the night and would therefore require them to be taken onto enclosed in-bye land every evening or cover from a stockman would be needed 24 hours a day. It is also very doubtful whether full-time tending of livestock would be a practical solution as due to terrain and the numbers of visitors and dogs it would be virtually impossible to keep stock on particular areas without some form of containment.

2. Tethering
   
   

   Tethered animals are vulnerable to dogs. There are complications in providing water as it would have to be individually carted to a trough for each animal. On unproductive habitats like acid grassland livestock must be able to range over a reasonably large area in order to select a balanced diet. On welfare terms there is a need for stock to be checked much more frequently than once per day.

3. Temporary Fencing
   
   

   Electric fencing is a practical if time consuming option. Moving the fences without losing the stock requires the temporary use of in-bye land. Fencelines need to be checked frequently by the grazier. Water will need to be supplied by bowsers.

   Electric fencing is used, where reasonably large grazing areas can be set out without blocking public rights of way, and where the area to be grazed is already in a condition (i.e. not too much bracken and birch) so that the animals can have access to adequate grazing in a concentrated area.

   A disadvantage to a temporary enclosure is that stock might be vulnerable to being frightened by dogs or a fire. However, experience has shown that sheep casualties from dogs have mainly resulted from damage caused by the chase, such as getting caught up in vegetation or being chased over a precipice/disused quarry. If an enclosure was at risk from fire the stock would soon breach a 3 or 4 strand electric fence and then have an open area of hill land to use to avoid the fire.

   There is obvious potential for landscape impact of an interior temporary fence. These effects can be minimised by avoiding placing the fence on ridges, peaks and prominent locations. Internal fencing, however temporary, is more intrusive than boundary fencing and compartments such as used currently are not a long-term solution.

   There are ecological disadvantages to compartments. Stock can not roam in a natural and dispersed pattern and so the desired irregular and small-scale patch effect would not occur. However, currently due to the low stocking rates and the neglected state of the habitat, by allowing the stock to roam all year round would not control scrub re-growth in the areas to be targeted and the status quo would remain. With low stocking rates the grazing will need to be concentrated, at least during the main growing season, and until the habitat is in a state whereby low density grazing can maintain, rather than restore.

4. Permanent Fencing
   
   

   If grazing levels on the Malvern Hills were high enough, or the habitat and landscape condition good enough, then permanent perimeter fencing would provide the ideal solution to the problems encountered. The initial use of temporary electric fencing is only permitted under the Section 194 consent until 2012, as a temporary measure until the grassland was restored and in a condition whereby it could be maintained by more extensive grazing. The grassland on the Northern and Central Hills is likely to be in need of maintenance grazing rather than restoration grazing in the next 2-3 years and consideration needs to be given to how these areas will be managed long-term.

   However, there are likely to be two main reasons why people may object to permanent fencing:

   • aesthetic reasons; degradation of the landscape;
   • reduction of access and loss of amenity;

   Aesthetic

   In Ashdown Forest the Conservators have used fencing since 1989 with an area of 40 hectares, which was extended to 457 hectares by 1998. A review in 2005 by the Conservators Conservation Officer states:
   Nobody wanted to fence the Forest; the fence was expensive to install, is expensive to maintain and is visually intrusive. However, the Conservators considered that there was no alternative. Most people would now agree that the fence is less visible as vegetation grows around it and is almost invisible in any wider view of the Forest. With the fences positioned alongside the roads, it can be argued that they become part of the road furniture rather than additional features. In other words, as the Forest is already blighted by roads (and other enclosure boundaries) the new fence causes little extra impact. If the fence is to be extended or replaced, perhaps the Conservators should look to actively hide the fence, for example in a ha-ha or by appropriate screening, and make maximum use of existing boundary fences. There is a balance here; the degradation of the landscape due to the fencing is countered by the fact that enabling grazing allows the maintenance and improvement of the historically, culturally and ecologically important open landscape of the Forest. English Nature Research Reports Number 535 Ashdown Forest – A review of grazing, C.J. Marrable

   Access and Amenity

   Since the temporary fencing commenced there have been few complaints on restricted access, with the majority of comments being favourable. Any plan to utilise permanent fencing where it may affect access (i.e. not on a boundary) would need to consider the use of a large number of access points using gates and stiles so as not to hinder any regularly used access point.Loss of amenity may be an objection from people who feel that they could not walk freely amongst the grazing animals. It is certain that some people will feel this way and are unlikely to be swayed in their opinion as such incidences occur at Castlemorton Common which has an unbroken history of grazing by commoners and no fencing. However, there are an increasing number of comments from people who like to see sheep and cattle grazing and those that actively seek out the livestock as part of their experience on the Malverns.

5. Cattle grids
   
   

   The effectiveness of the cattle grids on the Southern Hills is currently unknown as only some are currently in place, although early indications are positive. By utilising a number of cattle grids around the north and central hills it may be possible to make the area acceptable for grazing without the need for extensive fencing. This may require cattle grids on the highway and some internal, non-highway cattle grids on Conservators land. Any cattle grids will require adjacent gates to allow free access on foot and horseback.

   Experience has shown though that there will be resistance from certain sectors of the public to cattle grids. The objections are likely to be:

   • Horse-riders concerned about safety
   • Cyclists concerned about safety
   • Those concerned with the associated fencing.

   It should be noted that with both the horse-riders and the cycling representative who objected to the Castlemorton cattle grids were local individuals and did not represent the views of the national bodies. Both the British Horse Society and the Cyclists Touring Club did not object to the cattle grids once their requirements were taken into consideration.

   Cattle grids will be expensive, particularly highways cattle grids. Internal cattle grids do not require a high specification and are relatively cheap (approximately £2000-3000 with installation). It may be that such a scheme could interest the Heritage Lottery Fund in a follow-up application, or the new Higher Level Scheme (which has taken over from Countryside Stewardship) will cover at least 50% of the costs of such capital works. With a few selectively located cattle grids it may be possible to contain stock on the north and central hills without the disadvantages of fencing.

Management Option

Since the Conservators re-introduced grazing to the Hills in 2001, the restoration of the grassland and landscape has been rapid. With grazing now on the Northern and Central Hills the Conservators need to consider the long-term management of the Hills and an effective and acceptable method which satisfies all their duties, obligations and requirements. Under the Heritage Lottery project cattle grids will dramatically improve the situation on the Southern Hills, but further consideration is now necessary for the Northern and Central Hills and Castlemorton Common. It is doubtful if grazing will ever be re-introduced on other commons, although this is likely to require further consideration.

David Whitehorne
Conservation Officer
2 JUNE 2005