Consultation outcome

Summary of responses for consultation on the allocation of land on the New Forest common for the Basic Payment Scheme

Published 19 April 2021

Executive Summary

1. From 30th November 2020 to 3rd February 2021 the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) consulted on the operation of the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) in the New Forest. In particular, a new way of allocating the area of the common has been investigated.

2. We received 72 replies from farmers, residents, farmers’ representatives and other interested parties involved with the New Forest.

3. After a 9-week consultation, over 87% of respondents were in favour of Option 1 – using marking fees declared during a reference year as a proxy for rights of pasture and pannage held by commoners. Of those who expressed a preference 58.5% were in favour of an average of several years being used to work out a reference. However, there was a range of opinion with regards to which years we should adopt: the earlier years of the scheme or more recent years.

4. Those in favour of an earlier time period thought this would better represent the level of grazing at the start of the scheme and the animal numbers on the common at that time. Many respondents felt there were currently too many animals on the common, that this had led to over-grazing and that the subsidy system was to blame for this increase. The Verderers have also raised concerns about the sustainability of cattle grazing.

5. Those in favour of later years did not want to be penalised for having expanded their business over recent years. Some of them also disputed whether there was clear evidence of over-grazing. We received evidence from Forestry England, who do not consider that there is evidence of widespread over-grazing. They also consider what some consultees consider to be over grazing may be the result of an intentional strategy of heavy grazing in some areas to restrict the growth of undesirable species.

6. 63% of respondents wanted some provision made for new and young farmers and 24% of respondents wanted to cap animal numbers to reduce the numbers on the common.

7. As a result of the consultation and consequent consideration we propose pursuing Option 1, ‘using marking fees declared during a reference period as a proxy for rights of pasture and pannage held by commoners’. We propose to create a reference amount for every commoner who has claimed BPS in the New Forest, based on the highest number of marking fees that each has declared within the reference years 2015 – 2020 (the “best year”). This will provide a representation of commoners’ grazing rights that we will use to perform the annual area allocation calculation for BPS, removing any link to current grazing activity

8. As commoners declare marking fees paid during the previous calendar year on their BPS applications, the methodology described above will not work for new farmers who commenced their commoning activity in the New Forest during 2020. We intend that this group declare marking fees paid during 2020 on their BPS 2021 applications and we will use this information to create a reference amount for them. Otherwise, commoners will not need to declare marking fees on the BPS 2021 applications.

Introduction

9. The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has consulted on the operation of the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) in the New Forest. In particular, it sought views on amending the method currently used to allocate the eligible area of the New Forest to activate BPS entitlements for payment, where currently marking fees paid in one year determine the allocation of the eligible area of the New Forest in the following year.

10. The consultation document was sent to just over 300 New Forest commoners who usually apply for the BPS scheme, and a link was e-mailed to the New Forest Verderers to forward to other farmers on the Forest who do not claim BPS. National and local press were sent a press notice about the consultation and an advert was placed in the Lymington Times announcing the consultation and the virtual ‘village hall’ meetings. In all three virtual meetings were held (a third was added at the request of the Verderers). Approximately 20 farmers attended each virtual meeting for a briefing on the consultation and were given the opportunity to ask questions. Stakeholder organisations who attend the RPA’s Industry Partnership Group and Direct Payments Working Group were briefed, as were some other stakeholder organisations in the New Forest common. The 4 local MPs were informed of the exercise, as was the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice MP, and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Victoria Prentis MP.

The period of consultation

11. 30 November 2020 to 3 February 2021

The publication date of the consultation

12. 30 November 2020

Why people were asked for their views?

13. The purpose of this consultation was to seek views on establishing an alternative method to allocate the eligible area of the New Forest and allow commoners carrying out agricultural activities in the New Forest to claim BPS.

How many people responded

14. We received 72 replies to the consultation^{[footnote 1]} , though one reply was simply for additional information. Replies came from individual commoners, commoners’ representative bodies, local people with an interest in the Forest and bodies with a legal responsibility for the management and regulation of the Forest.

15. Additionally, at the three virtual ‘village hall’ meetings around 20 farmers per meeting were presented with a summary of the consultation at each event and were encouraged to ask questions and volunteer their views. Some views were offered using the chat function and others were explained verbally.

16. Regarding the 3 options presented, the 71 substantive replies can be broken down as offering support in the following proportions:

Option	1	2	3	Other	Total
Number of replies	62.4	2.6	0	6	71

Whilst we would expect whole numbers of replies, in 2 cases a respondent evenly chose 2 options and, in another case, the respondent marginally preferred one option over another. We have tried to capture these ‘split’ responses above. The clear conclusion of the consultation, therefore, is that over 87% supported option 1.

17. Of the 71 respondents, 45 (63.4%) expressed some concern that any amended scheme must make provision for the interests of new & young farmers, and 17 (24%) expressed an interest in the capping of animal numbers, though this was not specifically suggested in the consultation document.

18. Of the 71 respondents, 50 were existing BPS farmers, 12 were from interested parties that represent groups of farmers or organisations based in the New Forest, and 9 respondents are either non-BPS farmers or interested individuals.

19. A breakdown of the various consultation responses can be seen in Annex 1. This is not a comprehensive account of all the responses but a high-level overview in which we have endeavoured to provide a representative summary of responses.

Background

20. The BPS is the main agricultural support scheme in England. It was introduced in 2015 and is due to finish at the end of 2027. The scheme pays farmers who carry out an ‘agricultural activity’ and maintain their land in ‘good agricultural and environmental condition’. The scheme was originally administered under EU rules but since 2020 has been under UK control. Scheme payments are based on hectares of eligible agricultural land supported by ‘entitlements’ (a form of quota that can be bought and sold).

21. The area of the New Forest common can be claimed by eligible farmers. It is currently allocated according to the number of ‘marking fees’ paid by each eligible farmer to the New Forest Verderers in the previous year. The marking fees entitle a farmer to ‘turn out’ a certain number of animals to graze in the Forest; more marking fees are paid to allow more animals to be turned out. The RPA takes all the marking fee information submitted by those seeking a payment and then allocates the area of the common on a proportional basis.

22. The consultation was prompted in part by a legal challenge to the current allocation method. The Claimant argues that the current reliance on marking fees to determine the allocation of eligible area in the New Forest unlawfully couples the payment of BPS payments to a requirement for agricultural production. This, the Claimant claims, has led to an increase in grazing on the common in the recent past.

23. Three options were put forward for consideration to either replace, or amend, the present method, but views were sought on other possible options as well. It is intended that any changes agreed as a result of the consultation will be implemented for BPS 2021 and remain in effect for the remainder of the duration of BPS until the scheme comes to an end in 2027. There is a proposal to ‘delink’ direct payments from 2024 but details are still in development at present.

24. Further information is contained within the consultation document itself, link in the footnote below. ^{[footnote 2]}

25. The consultation document was sent to the more than 300 New Forest commoners who have ever claimed BPS and was also e-mailed to the New Forest Verderers who then e-mailed it to more commoners. The consultation was published on the RPA website and a press notice sent to both national and regional press. An advertisement was placed in the Lymington Times, noting the consultation itself and inviting farmers to two virtual ‘village hall’ events (7pm, 17 December and 3pm, 12 January). Information about the meetings was also disseminated by the Verderers and stakeholder organisations. The Verderers advised that a few farmers missed the second event and we therefore organised a third virtual meeting for 2pm, 22 January.

26. The three options are summarised below. For full details refer to the consultation document:

27. Option 1 – using marking fees declared during a reference year as a proxy for rights of pasture and pannage held by common. This option would take the marking fees declared on BPS applications by commoners during a specified reference period as a reasonable representation of the rights of pasture and pannage, which would be taken into account when allocating the New Forest’s eligible area. This method would be a one-off exercise and applicants would not be required to produce fresh marking receipts each year, which would break the link to current production. It would also break the link between one year’s marking fees and the allocation of the eligible area of the New Forest in the following year and leave commoners free to vary their grazing activity without affecting their subsidy payment. However, in order to be eligible to claim, a commoner would still have to be carrying out an agricultural activity consistent with the rights they hold (‘agricultural activity’ is explained in paragraph 6 of the consultation document) in the New Forest in the year of claim.

28. Option 2 – Levancy and Couchancy. Levancy and Couchancy is an old common law rule that seeks to determine the number of animals that a grazier can turn out on a common through reference to the carrying capacity of the home holding over-winter. It was recently defined as “a measure of the capacity of the land to maintain stock”. This option would seek to quantify the rights of pasture held by New Forest commoners by a loose reference back to old principles of common law. Once quantified, those rights could then be used to determine the allocation of the New Forest’s eligible area in the same way as is done for other English commons. While the identification of commoners’ holdings with rights attached (appurtenant) to them would be relatively straightforward, linking this to the extent of land recorded in the Verderers’ Atlases, and taking account of the carrying capacity and other characteristics of that land, would be extremely difficult.

29. Option 3 – broadening the allocation calculation to include de-coupled agricultural activity. This option would make it possible to give applicants direct ‘credit’ in the allocation calculation for the amount of non-productive agricultural activity (use) that they undertook in any given year. The only activities that could be considered for this purpose would be those falling within the statutory definition of agricultural activity: maintaining the common in a state which makes it suitable for grazing or cultivation. Candidate activities which could be considered for inclusion might include cutting gorse, spraying bracken or clearing scrub. This would allow applicants carrying out non-grazing, environmental, agricultural activities in the New Forest to be allocated a share of its eligible area to support a claim for BPS. Introducing this option would involve defining the scale and nature of the non-productive agricultural activity undertaken in the New Forest by applicants. It would also involve assessment as to whether account should be taken of the New Forest HLS Scheme.

Responses to Option 1 – Using marking fees declared during a reference year as a proxy for rights of pasture and pannage held by common.

30. Option 1 was very clearly the favoured option. As shown in paragraph 15, over 87% of those who responded favoured this option in some way. And of those who favoured option 1 and expressed a further preference, 58.5% wanted an average of several years to be used. Nonetheless, 41.5% wanted a single year to be used. Whether or not respondents favoured a single year or a multi-year approach, there was a diversity of views concerning what the relevant reference year[s] should be. Some consultees favoured a year[s] from early on within the BPS scheme; others wanted a later year[s].

31. Of the respondents who preferred Option 1 there was a difference in whether they wanted an average of several years or a single year used for the reference amount calculation. The 62.4 replies can be broken down as:

Average/single year	Average	Single Year	No Preference	Total
Number of replies	26.75	19.65	16	62.4

Again, an allowance has been made for respondents who expressed mixed opinions and, in some cases, could see the benefits of both an average and a single year.

32. Respondent 14 noted:

Having looked at the 3 proposed options, we as a family have concluded that option 1 would be our preferred method. We feel that it would be overall the fairest and simplest way to continue. It would help our farming business to know how much we would be receiving each year, making it easier to plan our future farming practices.

33. Respondent 19 noted:

This is the most straightforward of the three options, both for the applicant and for administration by the RPA. I favour this option because a reference period based on marking fees paid will provide the best assessment of relatively recent use of rights and will remove the incentive for commoners to increase the numbers of marking fees paid and in turn animals depastured.

34. Respondent 25 noted:

I believe that this is a workable option and can be implemented easily and accurately. The methodology has historical precedence in successfully establishing a reference year when utilised to introduce schemes locally in the past.

35. Respondent 60 noted:

I feel that Option 1 is the most viable option of the 3 as evidence is easily obtained to prove ownership of animals.

36. Respondent 63 noted:

I have considered the three options set out in the consultation and concluded that Option 1 is the only viable and practical means of assessing a commoner’s agricultural activity on the common….This is the most straightforward of the three options, both for the applicant and for administration by the RPA. I favour this option because a reference period based on marking fees paid will provide the best assessment of relatively recent agricultural use of the common grazing and will remove the incentive for commoners to increase the numbers of marking fees paid and in turn animals depastured.

37. All the farmers’ representative groups, that responded to the consultation, supported option 1. The NFU noted:

On balance Option 1 is the option that addresses our principles of giving certainty, minimising disruption and also minimises redistribution of BPS payments between New Forest commoners and set against the short future lifespan of the current approach to direct payments on the Forest.

38. The New Forest Commons Defence Assoc noted:

In 2015 we considered several other alternatives for allocation of BPS and concluded that none of them were viable. For these reasons we believe that there is only one realistic option (Option 1)

This is the most straightforward of the three options, both for the applicant and for administration by the RPA. We favour this option because a reference period based on marking fees paid will provide the best assessment of relatively recent use of rights and will remove the incentive for commoners to increase the numbers of marking fees paid and in turn animals depastured.

39. Forestry England noted:

We believe this to be the only viable option of the three presented in the consultation document. It does not require substantial changes to the existing system, is well understood, and the easiest to administer.

40. The National Trust noted:

Given the limited life of the BPS scheme, the National Trust believe that this option represents the most reasonable basis for payment of BPS for the remaining years of the scheme. It represents the simplest and most practical of the options and would not increase the risk of damage to the Forest.

41. However, the support from respondents was not unanimous and some were critical of this approach. Respondent 18 noted:

the link to marking fees is not desirable and has previously created a perverse incentive to keep more animals, which has in turn impacted on those of us who have not increased our herd size

42. Respondent 25 noted:

I do not agree with option 1: leaving aside the thorny question of which year to choose as the reference, option 1 also still pays excessive amounts of subsidy to commoners who have “gamed” the system turning out excessive numbers of animals causing environmental damage, allowing these irresponsible commoners to continue benefitting unfairly from huge BPS payments.

43. Respondent 3 noted:

Option 1 is totally unacceptable due to the excessively high numbers of animals turned out in years , 2015 to 2019 ., as there was a mad rush to turn out as many cattle as possible in order to get as large a share of the money available .

44. Respondent 64 noted:

It’s not surprising some commoners have taken advantage of the substantial financial incentive of the coupled subsidy system and it would seem obvious that those who have done that would want a later reference date/period to maximise their benefit. And those who have refrained from taking advantage of the system because they were concerned about its legality and/or its detrimental impact would want an earlier reference date as that would provide a more reasonable way of quantifying rights individual commoners hold.

45. The same respondent expressed concern RPA had steered respondents in this direction too strongly. Respondent 64 noted:

Although the RPA has now offered consultees 3 alternative options to its existing methodology - the RPA has made it clear that its preference is for Option 1 and that Option 2 and 3 are either not really worthy of contemplation and/or would not be possible to implement until 2022.’

46. For the avoidance of doubt, RPA does not accept that Option 2 and Option 3 were not properly put before consultees.

Possible reference year.

47. Further questions were asked of those respondents that preferred option 1. Some possibilities were suggested in the consultation and others have been suggested by consultees.

48. Of the respondents who preferred to take an average of several years, many did not specify what years they wanted. Of those who did, the majority expressed a preference for taking an average of the years 2015 – 2019. The 26.75 replies that preferred an average can be broken down as:

Average years	2015 - 2019	Other years	No preference	total
Number of replies	10.75	6	10	26.75

An average of several years

49. 58.5% of those who expressed a preference, preferred an average of several years.

50. Respondent 2 noted:

Our suggestion would be to use the first three years of BPS (15/16/17) It has been suggested by conservation groups that the New Forest was capable of carrying 7,000 animals and in 2018 and 2019 the numbers far exceed that

51. Respondent 18 noted:

The choice of base year or average over several years poses some risks but does de-link payments. It is important to recognise that whilst the majority of commoners have been responsible, a small but significant minority of commoners have exploited the system and have paid for more animals in later years. This penalises responsible commoners who have maintained their herd size and continue to turn out animals for the benefit of the wider Forest. We would prefer an average over several years

52. Respondent 31 noted:

There can only be one outcome and that would be option 1 and that as broad an average over multiple years as a guide would be best. This would help any person trapped by a one-year value and also reduce the effect of the rapid expansion of animals claimed for in more recent years

53. Respondent 43 noted:

Taking an average of several years would give a more accurate and realistic number of animals for all commoners (many who have been in the scheme from the beginning and have not been exploiting numbers are unlikely to see little change). The average should be taken from the life span of the BPS (2015 to date). This reference period option should be the one that is adopted

54. The New Forest Verderers noted:

As we believe that Option 1 is the only viable option, we go on to set out our views on the choice of reference period. We recognise that there are advantages and disadvantages to each choice…If an early year, such as 2015 is chosen, this will disadvantage some commoners who acquired entitlements after that date…The verderers are concerned that the number of cattle marked is not sustainable. However, using an earlier year will have no effect on future numbers because commoners will receive the payment regardless of how many they depasture provided they continue to use the Forest. We also recognise a reference period based on an average of marking fees over a range of years has the potential to disadvantage some commoners. Having considered the matter the Verderers support a reference period of a range of years, namely 2015-2019, based on the average of the years within the reference period in which the applicant claimed BPS

55. The New Forest Commoners Defence Association noted:

In some cases, the number of animals marked by a commoner in one particular year may not reflect the extent to which they “typically” exercise their rights. For example, a cattle commoner may have a TB Breakdown and may have significantly reduced the number of animals they marked in that year. Basing the reference year on one particular year risks disadvantaging such claimants.

A single reference year.

56. A good number of respondents preferred a single year (41.5% of those who expressed a preference).

57. Of the respondents who wanted a single year, all specified a particular year or suggested the years 2019 or 2020. The 19.65 replies can be broken down as:

Year	2015	2017	2019	2020	Best Year	total
Number of replies	5.15	0.5	5	8	1	19.65

58. Respondent 22 noted:

As far as the reference year…we would ask that either 2019 or 2020 be used as we have invested heavily on our return to set up our farm, infrastructure and to stock and integrate ourselves back into Forest life. This meant the considerable purchase of £25,000 in entitlements for our herd of forest ponies and cattle in 2018. You will be aware that to activate the entitlements currently, a marking fee receipt is required for the previous year so 2019 onwards will be crucial to us. The entitlements have been vital in assisting us to establish our commoning activities again and we cannot emphasise greatly enough the catastrophe damage setting an earlier reference date will have on our business and lives

59. Respondent 23 noted:

a young farmer who acquired 90 entitlements as a young farmer in 2019. Any date earlier than that would have a detrimental effect on her situation.

60. Respondent 36 noted:

I strongly believe that the reference period should be set as late as possible and as a paid-up year for 2020 is now established that this year is used, as it most accurately reflects the current situation. If that year is deemed too soon then 2019 would suffice

61. Respondent 42 noted:

The reference period should be an up-to-date year (2019 / 20) or the maximum number of stock turned. This would mitigate financial losses such as unused entitlements, under payments and would benefit all commoners. It would not discriminate against those that have built their herds up over time, often an expensive and slow business. A number of commoners in my area including myself would lose out considerably if an average reference period were used. A crusade to financially punish a few that has abused the system (4 that I know off) would have far-reaching financial effects on genuine commoners

62. The CAAV noted:

In setting the reference year for marking fees as the basis for this, we suggest that as recent a base year as possible is used for the reference year to reflect current activity.’

63. Hampshire County Council noted:

A key decision would be in determining the reference period that would relate to the overall number of entitlements, proportions allocated to commoners and the subsequent payment ceiling for the New Forest. In the absence of a consensus for grazing levels we would assume that the level of marking fees for 2019 (the highest) are commensurate with meeting the objectives of the HLS agreement across the wider Forest area. In principle, Hampshire County Council considers that the reference period used for claims would be one in which the calculation is carried out in a fair and transparent way, minimising the impact to existing businesses. We do recognise however that this may impact on smaller commoners wishing to grow their businesses

64. The National Farmers’ Union noted:

In summary, perhaps the most equitable approach to take is to allow commoners to 1) take the latest year but 2) adjust that year where a commoner had a higher level of claim in an earlier BPS year for anyone still intending to claim in 2021 (or a later year) and 3) give allowance for new commoners and 4) those affected by exceptional circumstances. At the same time requiring each year going forward for a commoner to still demonstrate agricultural activity in the form of paid marking fees, but clearly the number of paid marking fees per commoner in the future not impacting on the allocation of the common to an individual commoner

65. Respondent 53 wanted the choice of the best year in the period 2015 – 2019, an option noted in the consultation but only here supported:

I think we should have our own option, to decide what year, which payments we wish to receive from,

This will allow for TB breakdowns, which have accrued, in the New Forest,

And also incorrect payments being made by the RPA, We have had a raw deal in the New Forest, by the RPA, working a year behind with our marking fees, inaccurate mapping, fluctuating the multiplier.

Also, commoners had to buy entitlements, and pay vat on them, and now are going to have them taken away, another loss. This is why we should be able to choose our own preferred year

A year or years prior to the start of the BPS scheme

66. This was suggested by some.

67. Respondent 47 noted:

The general consensus was that the year should be something more like 2012 - at one of the webinars a participant asked whether the reference date could go back before 2015 and was told you were not sure and you would have to take legal advice from your barrister, subsequently you were asked if such advice had been sought and it appeared not - why was clarity not sought on this very important query?’

68. Respondent 57 noted:

Defra’s selection of a baseline period wholly within the BPS (Option 1 para 26) will be to the detriment of all genuine commoners who depasture all year round. If an average reference period is to be used it should reflect the period when stocking rates were sensible. In my view the average of 2010 to 2015 would be fair… it is my view that for the open Forest and its vegetation to survive in its current state it will be necessary for the small genuine commoner to continue to be expressly supported throughout the next few years and entry into any subsequent scheme to BPS. If the Forest environment as we know it is to survive, it will be the myriad of small commoners and their youngsters that will provide it.

69. Respondent 68 noted:

The preferred referred reference period would be an average from the period of the SPS (2005-2014), as a second-best option I would suggest 2015-2016. The choice of any later year (i.e. 2017-19), or the inclusion of these later years in an averaged period would NOT be appropriate due to the excessively high and unsustainable levels of stock during this period.

Responses to Option 2 – Levancy and Couchancy.

70. Four farmers supported this option, but more farmers raised the prospect that it could have a detrimental effect on commoning in the New Forest and practical difficulties would make this impractical for delivery in 2021.

71. Of those in support, respondent 16 noted:

I like this option but that is because it is a rule that I common by. It was only when the Verderers wrote to me as a practising commoner complaining about the poaching created by the large herds of cattle that my reply prompted them to tell me that levancy and couchancy no longer existed! It still exists in my book. How irresponsible would I be to amass livestock numbers that I could not manage on my own holding? What a welfare issue that could turn out to be!

72. Respondent 65 noted:

This is our preferred option because it limits the number of animals to the number that can be supported by the size of the holding. Hopefully ensuring good welfare for the livestock. Certainly, ensuring that animals can be removed to the holding if necessary owing to illness or epidemic (foot & mouth/TB).

73. However, many more farmers were opposed to this option. The NFU noted:

The NFU believes that the principles of Levancy and Couchancy would be too complicated to administer, and due to 1) the short timeframe of BPS being in existence before delinking is introduced in 2024 and 2) little time to implement this in 2021, with the strong likelihood there would be the need for an interim solution. We believe this option is not worthy of further exploration.

74. The New Forest Commoners Defence Association noted:

Many commoners occupy back up grazing land on informal agreements or licences which do not allow them to claim BPS on that land.

75. The Foundation for Common Land opposed both options 2 & 3 and noted:

Commoning delivers many public benefits and the financial support of BPS has been critical in maintaining this fragile farming system and therefore the landscape. The Foundation for Common Land in principle supports the move from Direct Payments to Public Payments for Public Goods but implementing the transition needs careful handling to avoid unintended consequences for the natural and cultural heritage of commons and commoning both in the New Forest and across the country.

Defra are proposing a phased reduction in BPS and it is critical this pathway is not accelerated and complicated by changes as a result of this legal challenge. Our view is this as would occur by options 2 and 3 causing a detrimental effect on individual commoners’ businesses, the wider commoning system and hence the public benefits that flow from common land.

76. The New Forest Farming Group also opposed both options 2 & 3 and noted:

There is consensus that Options 2 and 3, as laid out in the consultation paper, are impractical and do not offer anything to the primary interests of the member Groups represented. As such Option one (using marking fees during a reference period) is deemed the only viable option for the New Forest. There is further agreement that the reference period should be a number of years but in introducing a reference period or year that measures should be taken to ensure that young and new commoners are not blocked from claiming over the final few years of the scheme.

Responses to Option 3 – Broadening the allocation calculation to include de-coupled agricultural activity.

77. One consultee suggested using this option for landowners (seeing a difference between these and farmers and land managers). However, there was no support for this to be applied to all current farmers of the New Forest. Conversely, there was concern expressed at how this might adversely affect the common, and that unrestricted ‘habitat management’ might cause more harm than good.

78. The CLA noted:

Option 3 is highly impractical and would be difficult to monitor and enforce. We agree that the legal and practical difficulties associated with this option make it unattractive.

79. The NFU noted:

The NFU does not see this option as being a viable option for the reasons of legal difficulties, practical and timing issues associated with its development and also short timeframe of BPS being in existence.

80. The New Forest Verderers noted:

We agree with the consultation paper’s conclusion that it would be a major challenge to devise a mechanism to give credit for what is described as non-productive agricultural activity. Most of the suggested activities could not, in any event, be lawfully carried out by commoners. We therefore do not support this option.

81. Forestry England, who manage much of the common on behalf of the Crown, noted:

As landowner of the Crown Lands, we are responsible for undertaking the types of vegetation management you have suggested may be candidate non-productive agricultural activities. We currently deliver this through a combination of our own staff or contractors.

Contractors working on our land would need to meet several requirements and pass through our procurement processes. They would need to adhere to all the relevant health and safety regulations and standards and provide evidence of public liability insurance to an appropriate level. They would need to provide evidence of appropriate official competence and training for the activity to be delivered and ensure their machinery met all industry standards. They would also need to provide job-based risk assessments and they would need suitable business banking arrangements to allow processing of payments.

As a public body we have strict procurement processes which require different levels of open competition, submission of evidence, and tendering. Formal contracts would need to be in place and work delivered to the times defined in that contract. Although a small number of commoners do run contracting businesses, most would struggle to offer sufficient time and meet all the requirements of the processes above. It would be unlikely to be an equal opportunity for all commoners.’

Responses about alternative options.

82. 6 respondents (5 current BPS farmers) did not support any of the options presented by RPA. Some of those suggested alternative ways to allocate common land.

83. Respondent 25 suggested:

I suggest that a much better option than your preferred option 1 reference year, is to introduce a cap on the BPS subsidy.

84. Respondent 37 suggested:

I am in favour of a scheme linking the payment to the marking fee. The Verderers have a scheme that pays Commoners (VGS) and their payments are limited to pure bred New Forest Ponies and no more than 40 cattle.

85. Respondent 44 suggested:

I would therefore suggest The National park authority and Rural England should be allowed to determine a threshold for numbers of grazing animals.

86. Respondent 47 was unhappy with any of the 3 options:

The Options offered were unacceptable - as you pointed out 2 and 3 were not workable - Natural England, the verderer’s , the national park and the wildlife trusts would presumably not find it acceptable for individual commoners to go out and clear scrub and burn in the highly “protected” area to claim their agricultural status. Option 1 would support further damage to the delicate New Forest and reward those who have caused the damage, so that would go against reasonable thought.

87. Respondent 56 suggested a different approach was needed:

The options make clear that only a count of commoners’ actual use of the Forest grazing is likely to be workable, but it needs to have a very different approach to animal numbers. The Verderers have introduced a cap on the Verderers Grazing Scheme and some sort of graduated payment that rewards those with small numbers of animals, with a graded decline towards zero for numbers over an agreed maximum, would appear to be a more equitable way forward.

88. Respondent 64 suggested:

The Commons Agreement 1964 is a good example of how it has always been possible for the Secretary of State to have a decoupled methodology for the New Forest that would quantify and limit the number of animals for which farm subsidy could be claimed…. Although the Commons Agreement does not limit the number of animals that can be turned out by each commoner, the number of animals for which a benefit can be claim is quantified and limited (and in this case capped at a maximum of 60) and (importantly) attached to the private land part of a commoners holding.’

89. (The commons agreement referred to in the quoted paragraph above accompanied the passage of the 1965 New Forest Act, which brought a number of adjacent commons within the perambulation of the New Forest. The agreement was concluded between Verderers and the commoners on the adjacent commons and included a formula to allow the commoners to pay reduced marking fees, based on the number of animals each had turned out on 1st December 1963 and subject to an upper limit of 60 animals. Paragraph 5d of the Agreement notes

(….Where such rights or such a privilege as the case may be, were not being exercised or were not being fully exercised on that date, the number of animals in respect of which reduced marking fees may be claimed shall be such number as may be agreed between the Verderers and the occupier of the holding as fair and reasonable….)

90. Respondent 64 refers to paragraph 5 of that agreement, and states

an agreement similar to this would have provided the RPA with a fair and properly decoupled SPS/BPS for the whole New Forest area. And capping the benefit at 60 would help prevent excessive use by any individual, operator or Estate.

91. At one of the virtual ‘village hall’ meetings we were asked:

have individual grazing contracts been considered as another option.

92. These quotes demonstrate that – as well as the three options presented in the consultation – at least some respondents supported other options. Amongst those, the most important common factor was a concern about the current numbers of animals grazing the common and a suggestion that some form of capping should be used to limit animal numbers.

Analysis and discussion of responses about options.

Analysis and discussion of responses about alternative options

93. Six farmers proposed different options to those proposed by RPA. The common thread of most of their concerns was the number of animals allowed to graze in the New Forest and to address this by some form of a cap on animal numbers.

94. Capping is considered separately below.

95. As to the other suggestions:

a) A graduated payment scheme that rewards a smaller number of animals would not achieve the objectives set out in the BPS regulations and would arguably be seen as inequitable to those farmers with larger numbers of animals.

b) An approach based on the 1964 Commons Agreement would essentially combine the use of a reference period (as we are proposing) with a cap on the level of support. The issues with applying such a cap are discussed in detail below. We also believe that, while a test of what is “fair and reasonable” is appropriate in an agreement between the Verderers and the occupier of an individual holding, it is neither an adequate means of identifying rights, nor a workable proxy for them. The criteria for what is “fair and reasonable” are not clearly set out in the 1964 agreement, leaving the potential for unfairness and inconsistent application.

c) Individual grazing contracts were suggested as a way to limit animal numbers but as they would be connected to animal numbers this too would not achieve the objective of decoupling payment from production set out in the BPS regulations.

96. For the reasons given above, these options will not be considered further.

Analysis and discussion of responses to option 3

97. Whilst the methodology in option 3 would have been consistent with the principles of decoupling, and one respondent partially favoured option 3, the overwhelming response did not support this option. This is because of the potential damage that might result and because it would be very difficult to administer. The environmental concerns predominated, and respondents were concerned that unmanaged ‘agricultural activities’ would cause more damage than benefit. It was also noted in the public meetings that grazing was the predominant agricultural activity and that additional activities might be too small in comparison to resolve the issue of coupling.

98. When considering option 3, we recognised the validity of concerns expressed that there would be little change in practice, if most commoners continued to claim based on their grazing activity. We also considered how, and if, activities undertaken as part of the New Forest HLS Scheme could be taken into account in the calculation and that New Forest commoners’ rights do not extend to undertaking non-productive agricultural activity (apart from as an ancillary right).

99. As well as sharing the respondents concerns about the complication of administering non-agricultural activities, we consider that commoners might find it onerous to record and report each non-grazing activity. Consequently, this option will not be considered further.

Analysis and discussion of responses to option 2

100. Four farmers expressed some support for this option but only one fully supported it. The idea of relating the area of the common allocated for BPS in proportion to other land farmed appealed to some. We agree that, if it was workable in practice to quantify rights of pasture in this way, this approach would have allowed determination of allocation of an eligible area, without linking that allocation to production. This consequently would not encourage overgrazing on the common.

101. However, others saw this option as applicable in another age when commoners had other land to winter their animals on and doubted whether it could be applied to the modern situation. It garnered only limited support and some strong opposition.

102. Those opposed to this option noted that it was likely to be practically unworkable and almost impossible to deliver for 2021. They also noted the disruption could have a detrimental impact on business. We agree that it would be very difficult to link commoners’ rights to the extent of land, while taking into account the carrying capacity and other characteristics of the land, and there is a significant risk of inaccuracy. It could only be a loose application of the principle, which could be regarded as unfair to commoners. This could be, as one respondent pointed out, detrimental to some commoners as it is likely to result in a significant re-distribution of BPS payment. In addition, as pointed out by one respondent, it would not be possible to deliver in the short term and, given the phasing out of BPS in coming years, it would not be reasonable or practicable to devise this scheme when it would only be replaced in a few years. As a result, we are not going to consider it further.

Analysis and discussion of responses to option 1

103. Option 1 was the clear choice of respondents, with over 87% of respondents in favour. One respondent critcisedthat RPA steered respondents towards this option. We do not accept that the consultation unduly steered respondents towards option 1. In accordance with consultation principles, we explained that option 1 was our preferred option and highlighted the operational consequences of each of the options.

104. All the representative bodies have both supported this option and explained at some length the reasons for their support. There was an acknowledgement that animal numbers had increased across the years of the scheme and that further increases would probably lead to more extensive over-grazing. Many respondents noted a few farmers had substantially increased their animal numbers and that option 1 would remove the incentive to turn out more or even as many animals in future.

105. Foreseeability was seen as a major benefit of option 1. Farmers agreed that knowing what their claim would be based on would give them a level of certainty that the other options would not. We agree that, whilst a commoner’s eventual allocation would still be dependent on the number of farmers who applied each year, this method of allocation would allow them to plan their business for the next years. If options 2 or 3 were chosen, on the other hand, those methods would have the potential to disrupt businesses significantly and leave a lot of uncertainty as to what BPS payments a commoner would receive.

106. In the absence of another viable route for ascertaining commoners’ rights (the existence of other routes having been carefully considered) and in view of the problems presented by a system based on use (the options for which have also been assessed), option 1 appears the best way forward.

107. We have considered the use of a flexible reference period approach which would not require the re-submission of new marking fee receipts each year but would still generally permit farmers to submit additional receipts in subsequent years if they wished to increase the size of their apportionment. However, in the current circumstances, not least in view of the benefits of removing any incentive to increased grazing, it has not pursued this approach.

108. Possible Reference year/years. Further questions were asked of farmers who preferred option 1 and a reference year. Several options were explained both in the consultation document and in the virtual ‘village hall’ meetings. A clear difference of opinion has arisen, with about half of the respondents being concerned about increasing animal numbers and consequent over-grazing, and these farmers would like either an average of the years 2015 – 2019 or the use of either 2015 or 2016 when there were lower animal numbers. One respondent raised a concern for those farmers who had stopped or reduced grazing because of increasing animal numbers on the common, and that these farmers would lose out if later years were used. None of the respondents to the consultation mentioned doing this. Nevertheless, going back to earlier years in the BPS scheme would help those whose animal numbers have remained static, but where their proportion of the area allocated has decreased as others have increased their claims and received a greater proportion of the area.

109. The other opinion was for a more recent year to be used. Where consultees preferred this option 2019 or 2020 were well supported. Adopting that approach would capture the rights and interests as expressed at the point in time closest to the establishment of the new regime. One possible disadvantage of this approach is that it might reward the few who – it is said – have taken advantage of the historic system to substantially increase their animal numbers and payments.

110. For those who preferred a reference period covering more than one year, the two options strongly supported by consultees was to use a reference period of the years 2015 – 2019 or to use 2019 – 2020. Those wanting the longer reference period expressed concern about rising animal numbers and possible consequent over-grazing on some parts of the common. They were concerned that there are currently too many animals on the common, and some of them attributed this to the fact that some farmers had sought to ‘exploit’ the historic system. Our figures show that the number of animals in respect of which claims have been made has doubled since 2012 (though ‘claimed for’ does not necessarily mean turned out on the common for long periods of time as noted below in the Additional Information section).

111. Those who advocated adopting the years 2019-2020 were concerned that farmers who have invested in and built up their businesses will be penalised by reliance on an average that depends too heavily on years when their business was smaller.

112. The New Forest Verderers responded that they ‘are concerned that the number of cattle marked is not sustainable’. Whilst it is clear animal numbers have increased, we are not convinced that BPS has led to widespread over-grazing at this time. But we do want to avoid using an approach that might further incentivise grazing on the common. Using a marking fee based on a reference amount from the past would break that incentive to ‘mark’ more cattle in future.

113. Finally, we considered the benefits of using an average within a reference period versus using the “best year” within a reference period i.e. the year in which the marking fee receipts were the highest within a reference period. While there was good support amongst respondents for an approach, based on using an average over a reference period, it breaks the logic of using marking fees as a proxy for rights in the New Forest. In using marking fees as evidence of rights in the New Forest, the commoners should demonstrate the further extent of those rights, and that can only logically be done by using the “best year” as a basis for establishing a commoner’s reference amount.

114. Having considered all the circumstances, and all the representations received (including those not expressly referred to above), we have decided to use the best year within a reference period which covers the entirety of the BPS scheme, from 2015-2020. This breaks the direct link between one year’s marking fees and the following year’s BPS payment, thereby breaking any incentive to obtain marking receipts in future years. Using the widest reference period possible, which covers the entire BPS scheme, should help those commoners who have sought to limit their marking fee receipts in recent years, as well as support those farmers who have recently built up their businesses and new farmers who claimed for the first time in 2020. This achieves the objective of the Basic Payment Scheme: to provide ‘income support’ to ‘farmers’ who carry out ‘an agricultural activity’ and who keep their land in ‘good agricultural and environmental condition’. The evidence suggests that the common overall is in ‘good agricultural and environmental condition’.

Responses about New & Young Farmers.

115. Some respondents gave us a brief ’yes, support young farmers’ but other replies were more detailed. Some consultees wanted to impose some conditions and one farmer did not agree with additional support.

116. Respondent 30 noted:

I would hope that future generations will be encouraged to continue with the tradition of New Forest Commoning.

117. Respondent 57 noted:

If the Forest environment as we know it is to survive, it will be the myriad of small commoners and their youngsters that will provide it.

118. Respondent 36 noted:

I do not think that an earlier year or an average of earlier years should be used as it will increasingly severely disadvantage young and new entrants who have recently invested in their commoning and farming futures. This is grossly unfair, as it will deny them of their income invested and significant vital future funding for them to develop their business already accounted over the remainder of this scheme

119. The New Forest National Park Authority noted:

The chosen reference period does need to make allowance for providing the opportunity for new entrants to develop their business.

120. Respondent 66 noted:

Taking an average over a period, say 2015- 2019 (actually 2014 - 2018 as marking used are a year in arrears), will suit the majority of commoners very well, however it does not, in any way take account of Young Commoners, new commoners and Commoners who are trying to diversify. This minority group are currently struggling against all odds to build their herds and flocks mainly through good Commoning practises of breeding not by buying in stock to feed on the Forest for a year and then sell on once grants have been received. This group is already disadvantaged with the BPS payment being received on stock that is turned out in a previous year and does not relate to the stock they have built and paid for in the current year.

We believe the only fair and reasonably simple way is to consider these two distinct groups of farmers separately. By all means use an average for farmers who have been consistently commoning throughout the reference period but please do not disadvantage the minority young and new commoners who are building their herds and businesses at this very difficult time. For these farmers a trend in their commoning herds, and reference to 2020 turnout fees, should be utilised. These minority young and new farmers are an essential part of the future of the New Forest and need support over the next few years, not disadvantaged in favour of commoners who may well sell the majority of their herds as soon as the BPS payments are delinked.

121. Respondent 7 was a little more conditional in their support and noted:

It is important that an option is left open for Young Commoners and New start Commoners, with a qualifying period of 2 years.

122. Respondent 34 noted:

It is essential for new entrants and young farmers to be supported. No commoner I can think of is able to live solely from this activity, but we and our stock are at the heart of what makes the New Forest such a unique place. The verderers require new entrants to demonstrate commitment by paying through the Stewardship scheme only after three years of communing activity has been carried out. There is also a cap on the total number of animals any commoner can claim for. This seems a sensible policy and could be used to enable new entrants to develop their businesses.

123. Respondent 43 noted:

Regarding new entrants, I do believe it is important for our younger generation to be included. Each individual should be able to demonstrate their commitment of at least two if not three years of marking fees (could be retrospective) to be considered.

124. The National Farmers Union noted:

The RPA need to look at how payments can be allocated if the new entrant or young farmer were not farming in reference year situations. Evidence would perhaps be required to prove that the new entrant or young farmer had in fact planned to start their farming business and were not doing so to solely benefit from the BPS payment.

125. The National Trust noted:

The National Trust has no specific view on this question but would not be opposed for a special arrangement to be put in place so long as it was capable of ensuring that claimants are bona fide new or young farmers requiring access to BPS payments as part of a farming business

126. Respondent 63 wanted the scheme closed to new entrants and noted:

I do not believe that the RPA are able to distinguish between expansion and exploitation nor to judge if a new claim is genuine or the artificial division of an existing business. For these reasons I believe that the scheme should be closed to any further claims, even though my natural inclination is to encourage young commoners. I also believe that some new claims which have been made in recent years should be re-examined to verify that they are in fact separate businesses. BPS is phasing out and I do not consider that the remaining years should be complicated by additional claims

Analysis and Discussion of responses about New & Young Farmers

127. More than half the respondents expressed a concern that a mechanism should be developed so that young and new farmers should not be prevented from taking up farming on the common. However, a few respondents felt this ought to wait for the new environmental land management schemes that will follow the closure of BPS. Some of those in favour still thought new farmers ought to be on the common and paying marking fees for 2 or 3 years to show their serious intent.

128. There has been a clear request for provisions to be made for new and young farmers. However, in 2020 there were only two new farmers to the common (as measured by BPS applicants applying to the National Reserve as a new or young farmer), four in 2018 and five in 2019, and this would suggest that the current appetite for starting grazing on the common is relatively low.

129. Recognising the particular situation of those who began commoning in the New Forest in 2020 with the expectation of claiming BPS in 2021, we are proposing that these commoners will be allocated a reference amount based on their marking fees paid for 2020. The updated BPS 2021 guidance provides further information on completing the 2021 application form in these circumstances. If requested, commoners benefitting from this provision will need to be able to demonstrate they were new to commoning in the New Forest in 2020.

Responses about Capping of Livestock Numbers.

130. Over 20% of the respondents suggested capping the number of animals on the common, with the aim of a) cutting down potential over-grazing, b) limiting the funds going to larger farmers and c) safeguarding the funds for smaller farmers.

131. Respondent 11 noted:

As for Commoners grazing cattle a marking fee cap is placed on each claimant each year based on the previous year’s claim to minimise over grazing. Stock can be increased subject to the cap limit that is based on the common area grazed and only by a set small percentage increase each year. If over grazing occurs then no stock can be increased as administered by the Verderers via the marking fee scheme.

132. Respondent 34 noted:

There is also a cap on the total number of animals any commoner can claim for. This seems a sensible policy and could be used to enable new entrants develop their businesses.

133. Respondent 54 suggested:

In an ideal scenario a cap would be imposed, as this would ensure that the amount available to support the eligible area of common land is shared more equitably than has become the case. A review of BPS receipts for the local area suggests that commoners typically claim around £2000 per annum, amongst those who do claim under the BPS, with only a very small number exceeding £50,000 per annum. In the 20 years prior to the BPS the average size of large cattle herds (in excess of 40 animals) peaked at 80 animals: Assuming BPS support of around £400 per animal this would suggest that a cap of £32,000 would be consistent with recent commoning practice free of the BPS incentives on headage.

134. Respondent 56 noted:

Only a payment that rewards those with small numbers of animals, with a graduated taper towards zero for numbers over agreed maximums, would be likely to support the New Forest in a positive way and ensure the continuation of the cultural heritage of this ancient commoning system.

135. Sixteen respondents suggested that animal numbers and area allocation should be capped to keep numbers down and to reduce the perceived damage caused by high animal numbers. Often this was suggested to reduce the high numbers of a few farmers who had very recently expanded their stock numbers.

136. Several respondents suggested capping the numbers of animals allowed on the common by any one farmer. However, we believe that the introduction of direct controls on the level of grazing taking place in the New Forest would raise issues beyond the scope of this consultation and would be a matter for the Verderers to consider first and foremost.

137. We have, however, considered the possibility of capping the payment of BPS in the New Forest. The BPS scheme rules were designed by reference to the EU Regulation 809/2014. Article 39(2) of that regulation (which became part of UK domestic law in 2020) states:

Where an area is used in common, the competent authorities shall allocate it between individual beneficiaries in proportion to their use or right of use of it.

This means applying a cap would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement. In any event, using a reference amount in the past, as we proposed to do using Option 1, would remove any BPS-related incentive to graze more animals on the common.

Responses about Livestock Numbers and potential over-grazing.

138. Many of the attendees at the virtual public meetings and in the written responses were concerned about increased livestock on the common and consequent over-grazing. For many of the attendees at the virtual public meetings this was their principle concern. They had seen animal numbers rise over the years of the scheme and were concerned there were no limits on the animal numbers. We were sent some pictures to illustrate over-grazing in some parts of the common.

139. Respondent 15 noted:

Herds of 150-300 cattle in certain areas are damaging the New Forest and all it represents.

140. Respondent 29 noted:

Unfortunately, since the new scheme the BPS was introduced things have changed particularly with the number of cattle and how they are managed. In the years 2011 to 2019 the numbers [ of cattle ] have massively increased by 350% and ponies by 13%.

The cattle are not just free-range grazing in the winter as they are allocated feeding areas on the forest where they are fed silage hay or hard feed which concentrates numbers and causes poaching, run off and excess dung in these areas. This feeding also attracts other animals which alters their feeding habits and further adds to the problem.

141. However, the HLS scheme operated by Natural England does not consider the common as a whole to be over-grazed. Forestry England noted that, while there may appear to be overgrazing in some areas, this was sometimes an intentional strategy to allow animals to graze intensively to restrict the growth of unwanted species. We further note that the Verderers have the power to introduce bye-laws to limit the number of marking fees issued on the common.^{[footnote 3]}

142. A number of consultees also expressed concerns about the possibility that grazing might be reduced too much.

143. Hampshire County Council noted:

By its very special nature the New Forest is diverse in its character and carrying capacity so understandably differing views are held relating to the grazing management, particularly with regard to retaining its botanical and invertebrate interest. Much of the New Forest management is underpinned by an HLS agreement which should provide a framework for reaching good environmental outcomes and against which targeted management supports the objectives and outcomes of the SSSI and SPA.

144. The National Trust noted:

As both a SSSI and SAC, the New Forest commons are recognised as containing some of the most important wildlife habitats in the UK and Europe. As such it is important, that in so far as is practical, the reference period selected represents a period in which stocking levels are optimised so far as management of those habitats is concerned.

145. Respondent 61 noted:

It should be seen as a positive thing that at last there has been a good incentive to continue commoning and for younger commoners prepared to establish a new business, this in turn keeps the forest habitat unique as it stands now .. If stock numbers decline the forest will become overgrown and inaccessible to the public.

146. Conversely, other attendees at the virtual public meetings queried whether larger farmers actually turned out the animals for which they had marking fees. They queried whether marking fees were a good measure of production as they thought additional marking fees were being bought simply to receive a larger allocation of the common.

147. Respondent 51 noted:

Choice 1 is the most straightforward to implement at short notice and although using recent figures mean those that have joined the scheme to gain without actually turning out animals it also includes those new and young commoners that were not able to join the previous CSS scheme.

148. The Foundation for Common Land noted:

In further support of this option [ option 1 ] is the fact that payment is on the basis of marking fees paid and the existence of those animals but is not actually on the basis on animals actually grazed on the Forest so is not necessarily linked to any or a particular level of agricultural grazing of the New Forest. For instance, a commoner who has legal rights might pay marking fees but only turn out a proportion of their marked animals. That proportion could be zero.

149. It is clear animal numbers (and especially cattle) have increased over the years 2015 – 2020 and that some localised over-grazing has occurred (albeit this may in part be linked to specific attempts to limit the growth of unwanted species). However, contrary to the suggestions of some consultees, pursuing option 1 and using a “best year” approach will not result in widespread overgrazing. It will stop incentivising any future purchase of cattle in the New Forest. The evidence does not demonstrate that widespread over-grazing is currently a problem. Furthermore, farmers will be entitled to reduce their grazing numbers and still secure BPS payments (on the basis of the reference year system under option 1) as long as they still meet the definition of being a ‘farmer’.

Additional Information

150. Some additional information is presented here which has helped the us consider how to proceed in allocating the New Forest for the remainder of the life of the Basic Payment Scheme from 2021 onward.

151. The purpose of the Basic Payments Scheme (BPS). The BPS started in 2015 and was originally an EU scheme defined under ‘Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 17 December 2013’. This became part of UK law in 2020. The BPS aims to provide ‘income support’ to ‘farmers’ who carry out ‘an agricultural activity’ and who keep their land in ‘good agricultural and environmental condition’.

152. Marking Fee data reported to RPA over the time of the BPS scheme, 2015 – 2020. Some analysis was undertaken of the marking fees and livestock unit data across the BPS scheme years and it is clear the numbers of marking fees paid have increased across the years of the scheme. The perception that there are more animals on the common now than in the past is backed by these figures, though there is some debate, noted above, as to whether the actual number of stock turned out aligns with marking fees paid.

153. Verbal feedback on ‘turning out’ of stock. Below are some quotes from the virtual ‘village hall’ meetings we held which show the understanding among commoners that just because marking fees have been paid, it does not follow that animals are ‘turned out’ on the common.

with regards to turn out - there are those that in year do not turn out but receive payments for them

so, all those that have claimed and not turned out are you going to check them to make sure they have turned out?

It has proved impossible to know at any one time how many animals are actually out on the Forest Obviously the Verderers know how many marking fees are paid. The Agisters have a pretty good idea which commoners are turning out.

154. Operational considerations. An early analysis of the options was carried out by RPA to see the options were deliverable for the 2021 scheme year. Option 1 seemed the easiest to deliver, as the necessary information was already available to them. RPA wanted to ensure that consultees were presented with a range of options. However, they considered that it was necessary to explain to respondents the anticipated difficulties with options 2 & 3. Practicability and the speed of deliverability were legitimate subjects of concern and of interest to respondents.

155. The future of commoning in the New Forest. Several respondents replied with concerns about the future of the common and the proposed new schemes to come in the near future. As these concerns are outside the scope of the consultation exercise, the comments will be compiled into a report and sent on to the design group working on the new schemes for their consideration.

The next steps: what we plan to do as a result of the consultation

Future Allocation of land in the New Forest for the BPS scheme.

156. We intend to allocate land in the New Forest using a reference amount of Livestock units (LUs). This LU reference amount will reflect the rights of the commoners as exercised over the years 2015 – 2020 and will be based on marking fees declared for BPS in the reference period 2015 – 2020 (marking fees paid in 2014 – 2019), covering the entirety of the BPS scheme. The LU reference amount will be equal to the largest number of marking fees declared within those years.

157. By using a reference amount of Livestock Units instead of the previous year’s Marking Fees, we will remove the need for animals to be turned out on the common in order to support BPS claims.

158. Those who began commoning in the New Forest in 2020 will be able to declare marking fees paid in 2020 on their BPS 2021 applications, to be used as their reference amounts for 2021 and future years. We will not apply a cap to the animal numbers used in the reference amount calculation.

159. We aim to implement these changes in time for the 2021 BPS scheme and to inform farmers, so they have sufficient time to buy or sell entitlements in time for the 17 May 2021 scheme deadline.

160. We aim to write to BPS claimants on the Common in mid-April to inform them of how to apply to the BPS scheme for 2021.

1. A list of stakeholder organisations and representative bodies who responded to this consultation can be found in Annex 2 ↩

2. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-forest-consultation-november-2020/consultation-on-the-allocation-of-land-on-the-new-forest-common-for-the-basic-payment-scheme ↩

3. See s.9(1)(b) New Forest Act 1949. ↩