NatureScot Research Report 1254 - Evaluation of the biodiversity outcomes of the 2014-20 SRDP Agri-Environment Climate Scheme through a selection of case studies

Agri-Environment Climate Scheme; biodiversity; monitoring; arable; grassland; upland.

Background

The Agri-Environment and Climate Scheme forms part of the 2014 to 2020 Scottish Rural Development Programme. Its aim is to contribute to the delivery of targets relating to biodiversity, climate change, water quality and flooding, and to support organic farming, the historic environment and public access.

This document reports on work done to contribute to the monitoring of the biodiversity benefits of the scheme. Where possible other benefits of AECS were also to be assessed. The main objective of the project was to provide a qualitative assessment of a selection of AECS case studies and selected options. The approach proposed was based on three case study areas covering about 30-40 farms. The work involved three strands: a field survey of in-scheme and out-scheme farms, an analysis of case files of those in-scheme farms and a telephone questionnaire for the surveyed farms and an additional sample of in-scheme and out-scheme farms.

The field survey was designed to assess the differences in plants, pollinators and a range of environmental variables between in-scheme and out-scheme farms in the three case study areas, arable farms in north-east Scotland, grassland farms in Caithness and upland farms in south-west Scotland.

Main findings

Field survey

• Some options improved pollinator habitat including Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows (Arable only), Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds, Water Margins in Arable Fields and Species Rich Grassland Management. Creation of Hedgerows improved plant richness and diversity. However, the number of significant results was low as a result of low sample sizes.

Analysis of case studies

• The assessment of the applications funded by the scheme was positive. It showed that the location of options under the AECS was generally suitable and that management is appropriate confirming that the scheme is operating as intended. The context of the some of the options, i.e. what else is being funded on the farm, and the surrounding landscape may also have an impact, but it was not possible to assess this in depth for this study. The benefits of improving seed availability for farmland birds is likely to be felt when there is cover nearby and, for corn bunting, whether there are food resources available.
• It was also clear from the case studies that some lowland farm businesses have widely dispersed land holdings. In such circumstances, the assessment of synergies between the options within the farm may become far less important than understanding what is occurring on neighbouring farms. A gap identified in some of the arable farms surveyed was that the landscape would have benefited from more structure in the form of hedgerows.

Questionnaire

• Thirty in-scheme and thirty out-scheme farms were contacted with a response rate of 62 %. Applying to the scheme was seen as time-consuming and difficult, with an agent being used frequently to put together the application. Farmers outside the scheme cited the reduction of flexibility as being the main reason they did not enter.
• The respondents clearly acknowledged the importance of improving biodiversity as a motivation for putting in their applications. They also felt they would benefit financially. They held largely positive views on most of the options and sited them to improve prospects for wildlife, to improve connectivity and to complement farm management. Water margins were the main exception to this positive picture as they were perceived as difficult to implement by some respondents. Perceptions of change were more positive for in-scheme farmers than for out-scheme farmers, and more positive in the lowlands than the uplands.

Conclusions, modifications and recommendations

• The overall results of the project show that the Agri-Environment and Climate Scheme has benefits for biodiversity. While the sample size was low, overall results were indicative that options supported the maintenance of habitats of environmental value.
• Findings from the survey, the analysis of case studies and the questionnaire indicated that some parts of the scheme could be considered further. Specifically, there is scope for widening the geographic coverage of Creation of Hedgerows so that opportunities to create cover for birds and provide structure in the landscape are more widely available.  Other issues to consider further included how context (on the farm and outside of it) could influence the success of options aimed at farmland birds, water margins and how to assess widely dispersed farming operation.
• Monitoring could be made much more effective if it started at the same time as the scheme and then followed farms through time. The sample sizes monitored would need increasing to achieve sufficient power to assess realistic changes for some groups of species. The monitoring should cover the species targeted by each option; so, it should cover farmland and wading birds as well as plants, pollinators and, potentially, other targeted species groups.

Acknowledgements

The authors of this research would like to thank all the farmers and land managers who facilitated access and provided their views for the questionnaire.

Introduction

Background

Part of the 2014-20 Scottish Rural Development Programme is the £308m Agri-Environment Climate Scheme, which aims to contribute to the delivery of the 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity, contribute to Scotland’s climate change targets, improve water quality under the EU Water Framework Directive by reducing diffuse pollution, control flooding through natural flood risk management, support organic farming, preserve the historic environment and improve public access.

There is a requirement to monitor the success in reaching the biodiversity objectives of the scheme, and this contract contributes to that requirement. Where possible other benefits of AECS were also to be assessed.

Requirement of the tender

The main objective of the project was to provide a qualitative assessment of a selection of AECS case studies and selected options. The statement of requirement proposed an approach based on three case study areas covering about 10-12 farms per area as an economic way to collect as much information as possible on different options and to facilitate survey work.

The identification of the case study areas was informed by uptake maps from NatureScot with the aim to have some geographical spread of areas. The statement of requirements suggests that a stratified random approach was needed to ensure that as many options as possible are covered but that the sample is representative (farm data for this analysis was provided by NatureScot).

The statement of requirements specified that one of the case study areas would be based around the North East [which we took this to mean Aberdeenshire and Moray] and focus on arable options. Also, the case study areas must include a minimum number of grazing plans (8-10).

Methodological approach

Structure of the field survey

We followed the suggested focus on three case study areas containing 10 farms each:

1. An arable focussed case study in north-east Scotland – specifically Aberdeenshire and Moray. Within this region and set of farm types the goal was to get data for as many of the following options as possible: Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds, Forage Brassica Crops for Farmland Birds, Retention of Winter Stubbles for Wildlife and Water Quality, Grass Strips in Arable Fields, Water Margins in Arable Fields, Management and Restoration of Hedgerows and Creation of Hedgerows.
2. A grassland focussed case study concentrating on sampling as many options from Species-rich Grassland Management, Water Margins in Grassland Fields, Wader and Wildlife Mown Grassland and Wader Grazed Grassland as possible. It was decided by the Steering Group that this would centre on Caithness.
3. An upland focussed case study concentrating on options such as Moorland Management, Stock Disposal, Away Wintering Sheep and Summer Hill Grazing of Cattle. The Steering Group decided that this case study area would be S.W Scotland.

Farm selection

Within each case study area, the plan was to assess two sets of farms: (i) farms taking part in the scheme from the start (2015/2016) to allow for the largest likelihood of detecting differences (in-scheme) and (ii) farms not taking part in the scheme (out-scheme).

Selection of group (i) was based on farms being funded for a wide range of common options to (a) maximise the number of options that can be assessed and (b) maximise the value of a day’s fieldwork. It could be considered that this is not an unbiased sample of in-scheme farms, but rather a sample of farms with a diverse set of common options being funded.

The strategy behind the selection of group (ii) was to try and pair in-scheme farms with as similar as possible farms not in the scheme. For example, if a farm in group (i) focussed on barley and potatoes it was paired with a farm from group (ii) with a similar focus on barley and potatoes.

This approach is not the ideal BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) design that would involve sampling farms before the scheme started, some of which were planning to enter the scheme and some not, and then following them through time. The single visit approach in reality cannot say if the funding has helped biodiversity, only that the biodiversity of in-scheme and out-scheme is different. However, the pairing approach was used to ensure that likely starting positions were the same.

The field sampling followed a similar paired approach; an option on an in-scheme farm was paired with a suitable contrast on the out-scheme farm (option analogue). Some contrasts were straightforward, so a hedge being managed under Management and Restoration of Hedgerows on the in-scheme farm was paired with a hedgerow on the out-scheme farm. Other less straightforward pairings included contrasting areas planted with Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds versus a headland area on the non-scheme farm and a new hedge (Creation of Hedgerows) versus a typical farm boundary of the out-scheme farm.

Sampling focussed on plants and pollinators as the start of the contract and field survey period was too late in the year to assess farmland birds during the nesting season. In addition, quick visual assessments were made of resources available to pollinators and seed eating birds, as well as any visual signs of issues with water quality, soil erosion and soil compaction. Habitat structure was also measured and, for upland farms, the utilisation of heather by livestock – a key measure of long-term habitat quality. The sampling was designed so that a pair of fieldworkers could cover a farm in one day, sampling as many options or option analogues as possible.

Desk study

The applications of the 15 in-scheme farms (3 case study areas x 5 in-scheme farms per case study area) were inspected with the view of assessing if improvements could have been made to the application or assessment.

Interviews

All the 30 farms visited for fieldwork and another 30 farms, ten per case study in five pairs of in-scheme and out-scheme farms (selected in the same way as the farms in the field survey), were subjected to a questionnaire covering their reasons for applying or not applying to AECS, questions about the application process, implementation and success. Where applicable, questions on greening were also asked.

This report

The report has the following sections:

• a detailed methodology for the field survey, analysis of the case files and the questionnaire,
• the results from each of the three avenues of enquiry,
• a discussion of each avenue of enquiry separately, followed by an overall synthesis of how this work can be used to judge the efficacy of AECS.
• The report is headed by a summary and is followed by an annex containing all case studies and a separate annex with the questionnaire.

Methods

Structure of the study

To minimise both variation between farms and travelling between sites it was decided in discussion with NatureScot that arable farms (and their associated management options) would be assessed in north-east Scotland, grassland farms in Caithness and upland farms in the south-west. Alternative strategies would have increased the representativeness of farms across Scotland but the increased travelling between sites would have reduced the number sampled. This approach was seen as a reasonable trade-off between the dispersion of sites and travelling.

The basic design premise was that to minimise variability not associated with AECS management, the analysis was based around pairs of farms, one in the scheme and one not in the scheme. Detailed below is the method of selection.

Farm selection

Identification of “in-scheme” farms

Data on successful applicants to AECS in 2015 and 2016 were supplied by NatureScot. In order to maximise the number of options that could be assessed we identified common options and then ranked farms by the number of these common options they were in receipt of payment for. We selected five farms for field survey from each region, an additional five farms to include in the questionnaire survey as well as reserves for each (in case there were issues with access etc.). Farms were selected by choosing those with the highest ranking, and then selecting farms randomly from among those with equal ranking,

The common options for arable farms were: Grass Strips in Arable Fields, Management or Restoration of Hedgerows, Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds and Water Margins in Arable Fields. It was the wrong time of year to survey Retention of Winter Stubbles for Wildlife and Water Quality and there were insufficient farms with Corn Buntings Mown Grassland to survey in conjunction with other options.

For grassland farms: Creation of Hedgerows, Habitat Mosaic Management, Management or Restoration of Hedgerows, Species-rich Grassland Management, Wader Grazed Grassland, Water Margins in Grassland Fields and Wader and Wildlife Mown Grassland.

For upland farms there was no obvious most common options in the area selected. As the following options all had their focus on altering stocking rates to improve heather quality they were treated as one option: Moorland Management, Stock Disposal, Away Wintering Sheep and Summer Hill Grazing of Cattle.

Identification of “out-scheme” farms

For each region, scheme application (ACES) data from the local office(s) was supplied and combined with data from Scottish Government Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) (provided by the Rural Payments and Inspections Division (RPID)) for the years 2015 – 2017 and 2016 June Census Data, (JCD) (provided by the Rural & Environmental Science and Analytical Services (RESAS), Agricultural Census Analysis Team) using the unique Business Reference Number common to all datasets. The combined datasets held information related to cropping and other forms of land cover/use and was also used to identify the geographical locations of the AECS options and corresponding out of scheme holdings for surveying purposes. A matrix of similarities between farms was calculated from IACS/JCD data using selected key variables such as the area of different crop types. For each of the selected in-scheme farms, the three most similar farms not in the scheme were identified. The first of these became the out-scheme part of the pair, whilst the other two became reserves in case of problems with access.

Contact details for the out-scheme farms was then provided by NatureScot.

To aid the surveyors, maps of each farm to be surveyed were produced from IACS data.

During the survey two Arable farm were found to have entered the scheme after 2016 (Arable 6 and 8), so a reserve farm was also visited and recorded (Arable 11). One farm selected as an out-scheme arable farm during the telephone survey had also entered the scheme. It was also found that a surveyed out-scheme farm Grassland 4 had also entered the scheme. In consequence the pairings in the analysis are no longer balanced reducing the power of the statistical tests.

Field survey

Each farm was surveyed by a pair of surveyors on a single day. One surveyor was tasked with sampling plants and the other pollinators. A number of the options, such as Wader Grazed Grassland, are not aimed at these two groups. However, the survey took place too late in the year to survey birds and so the decision was taken to look at options such as Wader Grazed Grassland in terms of their wider effects. Each option or option analogue was also assessed in terms of their provision of seed resources for farmland birds.

Sampling of in-scheme farms was, of course, carried out on options receiving funds from AECS. On out-scheme farms sampling was focussed on analogues of these. So, hedges would be paired with existing hedges or other field boundaries, water margins with vegetation at the sides of watercourses, grass strips with vegetation in crop fields, and area-based options with similar areas of cultivated fields.

To aid in the surveying a manual of methods and appropriate recording forms were produced.

Plant and structure recording

Plant composition (visually assessed cover of all plant species) was recorded in quadrats (each with a GPS reading in case of future return for resurvey or more detailed spatial analysis).  A 2 m x 2 m quadrat was used for extensive habitats such as grasslands, moorlands and headlands, whilst a 10 m x 1 m quadrat was used for linear features such as hedgerows and grass strips. This was done to standardise recording with other datasets such as Countryside Survey. Sampling was spread out across all options of interest within the farm.

Habitat structure was recorded at the same time as vascular plant composition. The height of the topmost plant contact of a cane was used as the measure of vegetation structure (at 1 cm intervals up to 20 cm, 5 cm intervals above this) at five points per quadrat. An estimate of vegetation density was also made by placing a banded measuring stick vertically through the vegetation and recording the lowest 5 cm interval visible from a height of 1 m. For all habitats we also recorded pollinator resources and seed availability for birds (0-3 scale, where 3 represent high availability, Table 1).

In addition, we were asked to record soil erosion, soil compaction and problems with water quality. These were quick visual assessments and do not represent a detailed look at these issues. These again were recorded on a 0-3 scale, but where 3 represents poor conditions. For example, a zero score for soil erosion would be given where there were no signs of soil movement, whereas a score of 3 would represent eroding peat hags or severe drainage channels within arable fields. In addition, the structure of field boundaries including height and width was recorded.

Table 1. Brief descriptions of the 0 to 3 scales used to describe the availability of resources to pollinators and seed eating birds as well as scoring of water quality, soil erosion and soil compaction issues.

Score	Pollinator resources	Seed resources	Water quality	Soil erosion	Soil compaction
0	No suitable flowers	No suitable seed resources	Clear water	No signs of erosion	No signs of compaction
1	Limited availability of suitable species	Limited availability of suitable seed	Limited signs of eutrophication	Small surface movement of soil or peat.	Limited signs of compaction, e.g. narrow animal tracks
2	Frequent flowers of suitable species	Plans with suitable seed frequent	Clear signs of eutrophication, some sediment in the water.	Soil or peat movement from animal tracks	Some areas of severe surface compaction visible
3	Profuse flowering of suitable species	Profuse availability of seed	Obvious signs of faecal matter, heavy sediment load, smell	Obvious eroding peat hags, visible erosion scars in arable fields	Large areas of hard surface.

 

Heather utilisation was recorded for upland habitats. This is the proportion of the current year’s growth that has been consumed using a standard methodology (Grant et al. 1978). Recording took place along 11 short transects per plant composition quadrat. Transects were 10 cm apart and utilisation was recorded at six points at 5 cm intervals along each transect. For the heather shoot in contact at each point its status was scored in terms of its browsing status in Table 2. Using the formula in Grant et al. (1978) this was converted to percentage utilisation across the 66 points recorded.

Table 2. Scoring system for heather utilisation according to Grant et al. (1978).

Score	Status
0	Shoot intact
1	Less than half the length of the current season’s growth removed
2	More than half, but not bitten into older wood
3	All current season’s growth removed and bitten into previous season’s growth

 

Pollinator recording

This recording followed the standard Butterfly Transect method (Pollard & Yates 1993). For linear features the 10 m at either end was not recorded to avoid overlap with other features. For small features, such as headlands, a number of non-overlapping, short transects were employed to cover the whole area. For larger features such as grass fields and moorlands, transects were directed to cover as much of the feature as possible.

Only one day of recording was lost due to rain. However, some days were less than optimal but the pairing method should minimise differences due to weather.

Data analysis

The following data were analysed for each option:

• Plant species richness (species per 2 m x 2 m quadrat for areal features and 10 m x 1 m quadrats for linear features),
• Plant diversity (Shannon diversity index, -∑ (P_i * ln P_i), where P_i is the proportion of species i in the vegetation)
• Pollinator numbers (number seen per 100 m transect)
• Pollinator species richness (number of species seen per transect)
• Pollinator resources (0-3 scale)
• Seed-eating bird resources (0-3 scale)
• Soil erosion status (0-3 scale)
• Soil compaction status (0-3 scale)
• Water quality status (0-3 scale)
• Mean height (cm)
• Mean density (height where inserted stick is visible)
• Mean hedge height (for hedgerow options, cm)
• Heather utilisation (upland farms only, percentage of current season’s shoots consumed)
• Dwarf-shrub cover (upland farms only, percentage of vegetation cover)

Data were analysed using linear mixed models or generalised linear mixed models (count data) using the package lme4 (Bates et al. 2015) and lmerTest (Kuznetsova et al. 2017). Treatment means were calculated using emmeans (Lenth 2019), with degrees of freedom calculated by the Kenward-Roger method. Shannon diversity, a measure of evenness – high score – or dominance by a few species – low score – was calculated using vegan (Oksanen 2019). The sole fixed effect in the mixed models was “Scheme membership”, whilst the random effects were a nested sequence of Pair/Business Reference Number/Field identification number. In essence these models compare between in-scheme and out-scheme farms whilst taking account of how the pairs were selected and the non-independence of samples within a farm.

There were a number of options investigated and for each option a number of parameters measured. This multiple hypothesis testing would mean that some of the differences highlighted between in-scheme and out-scheme farms are where the null hypothesis of no difference between them has been falsely rejected. It was decided not to use an approach such as Bonferroni correction to account for this.

However, it should be borne in mind that differences where the probability of the null hypothesis being true is less than 0.001 (“highly statistically significant”) can be seen as having very strong support for a difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms, whilst p-values between 0.05 and 0.001 should be seen as being only moderate support for a real difference. Where there are low P-values in the tables (less than 0.05) and hence an indication of support for a significant difference between the two mean values the comparisons are highlighted in bold.

Analysis of case files

All the material submitted as part of the application was made available for the 15 in-scheme farms that were the focus of the field survey. To this information was added information on farm topography from Ordnance Survey maps and information on land cover from aerial photography.

Assessment was carried out by the lead author and took the form of:

• Would the options improve local conditions for targeted species?
• Would the options improve connectivity?
• Are options well sited to help issues such as water quality?
• Would different options have been of better value?
• Would additional options have enhanced the effect of the chosen options?
• Were grazing plans appropriate?

The original maps as part of the application could not be put in the report as they would have identified the farms. Resources were not available to fully digitise all the information, so the maps included do not show linear features in situ. Instead areal features are shown for the “field” they occupy, options that cover only part of a field such as Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds covers all the field they were located in, and field without any areal options are shown with linear options covering the whole field if present.

Questionnaire

An additional 30 farms were contacted in addition to the 31 surveyed in the field. Farms were contacted by experienced staff who had taken part in the field surveys.

The questionnaire is provided below. It was split into sections, some relevant to all farms, some to in-scheme farms and some to out-scheme farms. Also, some questions were tailored specifically for each type of farm. Sections covered:

• General questions about the respondent (all farms),
• General questions about the business (all farms),
• Reasons why AECS funding was not applied for (out-scheme farms),
• Questions about the application process (in-scheme and unsuccessful out-scheme),
• Reasons for applying (in-scheme and unsuccessful out-scheme),
• Questions about implementation (in-scheme),
• Questions concerning the siting of measures (in-scheme, separately for farm type),
• Questions concerning intentions behind applying (in-scheme, separately for farm type),
• Questions concerning the success of options (in-scheme, separately for farm type),
• Changes in wildlife groups (all farms, separately for farm type),
• Questions concerning arable greening (Arable farms only)
• Questions concerning grassland greening (Grassland farms only).

Results

Field survey

Dates of surveys

Farm surveys took place over an eight-week period starting with the arable farms and finishing with the upland farms (Table 3).

Table 3. Dates of field surveys.

Farm	Scheme	Date	Farm	Scheme	Date	Farm	Scheme	Date
Arable 1	In	06/08/19	Grassland 1	In	26/08/19	Upland 1	In	17/09/19
Arable 2	Out	23/08/19	Grassland 2	Out	27/08/19	Upland 2	Out	19/09/19
Arable 3	In	07/08/19	Grassland 3	In	28/08/19	Upland 3	In	18/09/19
Arable 4	Out	08/08/19	Grassland 4	In	28/08/19	Upland 4	Out	16/09/19
Arable 5	In	12/08/19	Grassland 5	In	03/09/19	upland 5	In	17/09/19
Arable 6	In	12/08/19	Grassland 6	Out	04/09/19	Upland 6	Out	18/09/19
Arable 7	In	13/08/19	Grassland 7	In	04/09/19	Upland 7	In	19/09/19
Arable 8	In	14/08/19	Grassland 8	Out	20/08/19	Upland 8	Out	24/09/19
Arable 9	In	15/08/19	Grassland 9	In	21/08/19	Upland 9	In	25/09/19
Arable 10	Out	16/08/19	Grassland 10	Out	21/08/19	Upland 10	Out	23/09/19
Arable 11	Out	02/09/19	-	-	-	-	-	-

Arable

Grass Strips in Arable Fields

There were no differences between any of the measures between in-scheme and out-scheme farms despite the apparent differences in mean values (Table 4). The difference for pollinator numbers and richness could not be determined as only one transect on a grass strip was walked on an out-scheme farm particularly for pollinator numbers and richness.

Of note was that soils and water quality appeared in good condition for the sample visited both for the in and out scheme farms. This was interpreted as an absence of poor farming practices on the fields/farms visited.

Table 4. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Grass Strips in Arable Fields. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold. nd = not determined.

-	In (n = 4)	Out (n = 2)	P
Plant richness	10.2	12.6	0.616
Plant diversity	1.31	1.71	0.454
Pollinator numbers	4.07	0	nd
Pollinator richness	3.98	0	nd
Pollinator resources	2.21	1.00	0.996
Seed resources	2.27	1.12	0.815
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0	0	1.000
Soil compaction	0	0	1.000
Mean height	67.6	75.9	0.730
Mean density	27.1	48.5	0.131

Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows

Plant richness was higher in in-scheme hedges than those on out-scheme farms (Table 5). Pollinator numbers were considerably higher along hedges within the scheme, almost by a factor of ten, indicating the value of hedges for pollinators. As with Grass Strips in Arable Fields, there were no negative impacts recorded of land management on soil or water quality with.

Table 5. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

-	In (n = 4)	Out (n = 3)	P
Plant richness	15.0	9.00	0.015
Plant diversity	1.77	1.52	0.205
Pollinator numbers	2.92	0.26	<0.001
Pollinator richness	2.12	0.69	0.104
Pollinator resources	0.95	1.20	0.699
Seed resources	1.99	1.68	0.736
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0	0	1.000
Soil compaction	0	0	1.000
Mean hedge height	225	190	0.136

 

Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds

Sowing in plants to produce seeds for wild birds did not increase plant richness and diversity compared to analogue areas on the out-scheme farms (Table 6). The increase in pollinator numbers was not significant, but the higher species richness of pollinators on in-scheme farms was significant. The availability of seed resources did not appear different to the headland areas surveyed on the out-scheme farms. As for the previous options, there were no differences between soil and water measures between in-scheme and out-scheme farms.

Table 6. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

WBS	In (n = 3)	Out (N = 1)	P
Plant richness	16.7	16.8	0.994
Plant diversity	2.05	1.88	0.999
Pollinator numbers	4.80	2.40	0.131
Pollinator richness	3.21	1.43	<0.001
Pollinator resources	1.86	2.40	0.422
Seed resources	1.67	2.50	0.124
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0	0	1.000
Soil compaction	0	0	1.000
Mean height	61.5	89.5	0.383
Mean density	53.2	13.0	0.340

Water Margins in Arable Fields

There were substantial differences between in-scheme and out-scheme farms in terms of pollinator numbers (p<0.001, Table 7), species richness (p<0.001) and pollinator resources (p = 0.048). As for the previous options, there was no difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms for the measures of soil and water quality. With no negative impacts of management on soil and water quality recorded.

Table 7. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Water Margins in Arable Fields. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

-	In (n = 7)	Out (n = 4)	P
Plant richness	11.6	13.7	0.439
Plant diversity	1.19	1.36	0.561
Pollinator numbers	13.8	1.26	<0.001
Pollinator richness	5.51	1.89	<0.001
Pollinator resources	1.78	1.00	0.048
Seed resources	1.16	1.22	0.824
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0	0	1.000
Soil compaction	0	0	1.000
Mean height	85.9	54.2	0.129
Mean density	NA	NA	NA

Grassland

Creation of Hedges

The comparator for the option Creation of Hedges were field boundaries without woody vegetation (walls and fences). Planting hedges substantially increases plant richness and diversity (Table 8), as well as the expected increase in height. This shows the positive impact that introducing hedges can potentially have within grass farms. The young age (and low height) of newly planted hedges has not worked its way through to significantly affecting pollinator numbers or resources suggesting that it takes time for the benefits to be seen.

Table 8. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Creation of Hedges. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

-	In (n = 4)	Out (n = 1)	P
Plant richness	15.0	6.0	0.032
Plant diversity	2.12	0.97	0.030
Pollinator numbers	2.50	3.00	0.785
Pollinator richness	1.75	2.00	0.868
Pollinator resources	1.50	2.29	0.194
Seed resources	1.25	2.02	0.253
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0	0	1.000
Soil compaction	0	0	1.000
Mean hedge height	79.2	18.2	<0.001

Habitat Mosaic Management

Habitat Mosaics had higher plant species richness on out-scheme farms (Table 9). There was weak evidence that vegetation height was higher on the in-scheme farms (p = 0.059) and evidence that seed resources for birds were higher on out-scheme farms (p=.048). For the two pairs of farms where both pairs had habitat mosaics, the paired areas were relatively similar being mixtures of wet heath and wet grassland.

Table 9. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Habitat Mosaic Management. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

-	In (n = 5)	Out (n = 2)	P
Plant richness	10.4	18.7	<0.001
Plant diversity	1.71	2.09	0.096
Pollinator numbers	1.30	0.94	0.630
Pollinator richness	1.09	0.92	0.836
Pollinator resources	1.50	0.67	0.319
Seed resources	0.22	0.72	0.048
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0	0	0.435
Soil compaction	0.10	0.75	0.194
Mean height	39.0	23.6	0.110
Mean density	22.2	15.3	0.269

Maintenance and Restoration of hedgerows

Maintaining/restoring hedges had no impact on plant species richness or diversity (Table 10), on pollinator numbers or richness or on pollinator resources or seed resources. There was no evidence of management effects on hedge height.

Table 10. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

-	In (n = 4)	Out (n = 3)	P
Plant richness	14.2	16.8	0.370
Plant diversity	2.22	2.17	0.626
Pollinator numbers	4.75	1.29	0.158
Pollinator richness	1.96	1.05	0.336
Pollinator resources	1.75	1.50	0.536
Seed resources	1.75	1.25	0.207
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0	1.5	0.134
Soil compaction	0	1.3	0.147
Mean hedge height	175	223	0.603

Species-Rich Grassland Management

Samples from Species Rich Grassland Management on in-scheme farms did not differ from those from similar habitat from out-scheme farms except that both pollinator numbers and richness were higher on in-scheme farms than on out-scheme farms (Table 11). In fact, no pollinators were observed on out-scheme farms for this option. Flowering is likely to improve quickly under this option, but it can take year for new plant species to arrive or existing species to spread.

Table 11. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Species-Rich Grassland Management. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

-	In (n = 4)	Out (n = 1)	P
Plant richness	14.4	16.0	0.688
Plant diversity	2.01	1.47	0.058
Pollinator numbers	5.15	0.00	<0.001
Pollinator richness	2.50	0.00	<0.001
Pollinator resources	1.33	2.00	0.286
Seed resources	1.33	2.04	0.442
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0	0	1.000
Soil compaction	0.25	0	0.225
Mean height	49.5	29.3	0.516
Mean density	24.2	13.5	0.998

Wader and Wildlife Mown Grassland

Comparison of Wader and Wildlife Mown Grassland with similar habitat on out-scheme farms revealed no differences in plant richness and diversity and in pollinator richness (Table 12). However, there were more pollinators observed on in-scheme farms (p=0.033).

Table 12. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Wader and Wildlife Mown Grassland. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

-	In (n = 3)	Out (n = 1)	P
Plant richness	6.40	6.00	0.849
Plant diversity	1.30	1.16	0.606
Pollinator numbers	2.33	0.60	0.033
Pollinator richness	0.50	0.60	0.823
Pollinator resources	1.50	1.25	0.978
Seed resources	0.13	0.13	1.000
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0	0	1.000
Soil compaction	0.45	0.25	0.771
Mean height	19.4	14.5	0.489
Mean density	11.2	7.99	0.431

Wader Grazed Grassland

Comparison of Wader Grazed Grassland with similar habitat on out-scheme farms revealed no differences in plant richness and diversity and in pollinator numbers and richness (Table 13).

Table 13. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Wader Grazed Grassland. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

-	In (n = 5)	Out (n = 4)	P
Plant richness	11.4	11.0	0.840
Plant diversity	1.84	1.45	0.166
Pollinator numbers	0.82	0.33	0.325
Pollinator richness	0.79	0.38	0.378
Pollinator resources	0.82	0.90	0.557
Seed resources	0.87	0.71	0.589
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0.38	0	0.369
Soil compaction	0.63	0.14	0.341
Mean height	42.9	32.1	0.328
Mean density	18.4	12.6	0.257

Water Margins in Grassland Fields

Comparison of Water Margins in Grassland Fields with similar habitat on out-scheme farms revealed no differences in plant richness and diversity. No out-scheme pollinator transects were carried out, so the contrast in pollinator numbers and richness was not possible to assess (Table 14). However, water margins on in-scheme farms were significantly taller than on farms not in the scheme.

Table 14. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Water Margins in Grassland Fields. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

-	In (n = 6)	Out (n = 4)	P
Plant richness	17.6	18.1	0.884
Plant diversity	2.15	2.15	0.989
Pollinator numbers	0.70	1.80	0.278
Pollinator richness	0.57	1.00	0.404
Pollinator resources	1.57	1.25	0.353
Seed resources	1.19	1.00	0.617
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0.86	0.75	0.900
Soil compaction	0.71	0	0.998
Mean height	72.7	34.4	0.014
Mean density	40.2	17.4	0.012

 

Across all options there were no differences between in-scheme and out-scheme farms in terms of their associated water quality, soil erosion and soil compaction. Scores were generally low but there was some evidence of impacts compared to the arable farms; grazing animals potentially driving soil erosion and compaction rather than machinery.

Upland

Moorland Management

There were no apparent differences between the upland farms within AECS and those not in the scheme (Table 15). Overall averages of heather utilisation were low and of no significance to heather condition, but this hides considerable variation between farms, within farms and within units on farms. The maximum levels of utilisation for a single “field” were c. 30 % on both in-scheme and out-scheme farms; a level where heather loss is possible (Pakeman & Nolan 2009). However, the levels of utilisation on almost all other areas were negligible indicating that grazing was at a level which should promote heather on both in- and out-scheme farms.

Table 15. Mean plant richness and diversity, pollinator numbers and diversity, and habitat descriptors for Moorland Management. n represents the number of farms providing data, though multiple locations were often recorded per farm. P-values are from mixed models testing the difference between in-scheme and out-scheme farms – a low P-value, less than 0.05, indicates support for a significant difference between the two mean values. Measures where the difference between means has a P-value of <0.05 are shown in bold.

-	In (n = 5)	Out (n = 5)	P
Plant richness	11.9	10.8	0.641
Plant diversity	1.65	1.44	0.421
Pollinator numbers	1.92	1.35	0.217
Pollinator richness	0.25	0.61	0.097
Pollinator resources	0.89	1.46	0.151
Seed resources	0.02	0	0.440
Water quality	0	0	1.000
Soil erosion	0	0	1.000
Soil compaction	0	0	1.000
Mean height	25.7	28.1	0.625
Mean density	NA	NA	NA
Heather utilisation	4.03	5.48	0.725
Dwarf shrub cover	34.3	47.2	0.266

Analysis of case files

The full analysis of each farm is set out in Annex 1. The main results with some examples are detailed in this section.

It should be noted that the maps included here are missing some of the information from the original application maps. However, these maps would allow the location of each farm to be worked out. The maps used remove all the contextual information, but for reasons of time the structure of the database means that linear features are not shown. If there is no other option associated with a land parcel, then the code for the linear features is shown as the appropriate colour, but if there is an option relating to the field itself, then any information about linear features is not shown.

Arable

For the arable farms surveyed many of the options used were focussed on improving water quality (capital options, grass strips and winter stubble), and these appear to have been placed in suitable locations.

Biodiversity focussed options were also important. Wild Bird Seed and Forage Brassicas areas have been sown to improve winter feeding for birds. Winter stubbles and Green Manure were used in some areas for wildlife and to protect soils. Some of the farms sampled had grassland areas managed for corn bunting and wetlands.

The context of the some of the options, i.e. what else is being funded on the farm and the surrounding landscape, would need also to be considered. The benefits of improving seed availability for farmland birds is likely to be felt more strongly where there is cover nearby and, for corn bunting improving nesting habitat will only help if there are suitable food resources available. In particular, some of the farms surveyed would have benefited from more structure in the form of hedgerows. It is well established that hedgerows offer many benefits for biodiversity and the surveys show the same pattern. Future modifications to this scheme or new schemes should encourage hedgerow planting and proper maintenance.

It was also clear from the case studies that some lowland farm businesses have widely dispersed land holdings. Hence synergies between options or with existing landscape features within the farm become far less important to assess than what is occurring on neighbouring farms.

Arable 1

This farm is a largely arable farm with little grassland.

• Grass strips and water margins have been used to protect watercourses in an appropriate manner.
• Wild Bird Seed and Forage Brassicas have been sown to improve winter feeding for birds.
• Winter stubbles and Green Manure has been used in some areas for wildlife and to protect soils.
• A small area of grassland has been managed for Corn Bunting.

The wetland management plan looks appropriate, but the grazing exclusion is for a relatively short time, 1st April - 31st May.

Overall, the management of the farm has been little affected by entering the scheme as the majority of the arable land is not under scheme management. The effectiveness of the small area managed for corn bunting would depend on the management of neighbouring farms.

Arable 5

This farm is a mixture of arable, improved grassland and semi-natural habitats. The survey concentrated on the arable aspects as it was selected as a farm in north-east Scotland carrying out a number of arable AECS options. However, this assessment covers the whole farm.

• A considerable proportion of the farm was entered into the scheme and a wide range of options selected.
• One significant area of lowland raised bog (D5) was the focus of ditch blocking measures which should wet up the bog and improve its condition.
• A large area of semi-natural habitat (D4) was also entered into Habitat Mosaic Management and, as this is adjacent to a field with wader management, then this should provide connected areas of habitat for wader breeding.
• Options such as Wader Grazed Grassland, Unharvested Conservation Headlands and Retention of Winter Stubbles were concentrated, potentially improving their ability to support breeding or wintering birds.
• There was a second area of bog (D4) and another large area of semi-natural vegetation (D5) which were not entered into the scheme which could represent a lost opportunity.
• The small areas under management for corn bunting may have limited effect (D1 & D3).

Scrub clearance and ditch blocking on the lowland raised bog should improve its condition. The grazing management plan for the habitat mosaic looks appropriate with a long livestock free period (1 April to 31 July) to prevent disturbance for ground nesting birds.

Overall, the options selected should improve habitat for birds as well as improving water quality. However, there seems to be a lost opportunity for the area centred on D4.

Grassland

Many of the farms surveyed had large areas of land dedicated to wader management which was appropriate given that they were either in or near a wader hotspot.

Grazing management and creation of species-rich grassland was also an important part of the AECS management of the farms surveyed. For new created areas it was not possible to obtain details about seed mix and source so this could not be considered, but grazing plans for some of the existing species-rich grassland looked appropriate.

Grassland 1

This is a mixed grassland and arable farm.

• The drier eastern part of the farm is largely unchanged by the selected options, except that the remaining hedges are being managed.
• The wetter western part of the farm is managed for waders in a sizeable block of land.
• A small area is managed as Species-Rich Grassland.

The large block of land managed for waders is a sensible use of the land for this farm especially as the farm is within a wader hotspot. 

Grassland 3

The farm is a mixture of grass fields and rough grazing.

• Significant areas are devoted to wader management, both mown and grazed. This complements the large areas managed as Habitat Mosaics.
• In addition, many of the hedgerows are being managed which is important in this open landscape for other farmland birds.

Grazing management of the newly created species-rich grassland look appropriate, but a better assessment could be made if details about seed mix and its source were available. The grazing plan for the existing species-rich grassland also looks appropriate, but it is difficult to judge without knowing how fast vegetation grows on the site and if the shading out of lower-growing species is likely. The wetland grazing plan looks appropriate; grazing is restricted to late summer to remove vegetation build up leaving the site undisturbed during the nesting season.

Overall, significant efforts are being made to manage for waders on this farm and to maintain/restore the structural elements present in the landscape.

Upland

Assessment of option used showed that these were being well deployed and will therefore be contributing to conservation objectives. The grazing plans for species-rich grassland and wetlands, and moorland management plans appeared appropriate although within the remit of this project it was not possible to assess them in depth. Upland Farms 5 and 9 for example illustrated situations where the moorland appears to have suffered from past grazing and/or heather beetle, or past drainage; where the reduction of stock adopted and improving its management may increase the amount of heather present and/or improve its condition. Other complementary management adopted included summer grazing by cattle, management for waders and grasslands.

Some of the cases considered had undertaken some peatland restoration, for Upland 1 ditch blocking and peatland restoration plans had been developed by a Peatland Action Project Officer designed to reduce drainage rates from a large area of peatland with a clear pattern of drains. This should be very effective in rewetting the peatland area.

Upland 1

This farm is largely made up of semi-natural vegetation with only a small amount of grassland surrounding the farm itself.

• The upland area is a mixture of heather and grass with evidence of past draining.
• The Wetland Management appears well situated.

The ditch blocking and peatland restoration plans have been developed by a Peatland Action Project Officer and are designed to reduce drainage rates from a large area of peatland with a clear pattern of drains. This should be very effective in rewetting the peatland area. The muirburn plan also looks appropriate. The grazing management plan looks appropriate as the aim is to use cattle to graze the rushes down; necessitating a relatively high stocking rate.

Overall, this is a large block of upland vegetation, and whilst it is difficult to assess the condition from aerial photography, the fact that all of it is entered should help its management to improve condition.

Upland 3

Upland 3 covers a large area of semi-natural vegetation with only a small amount of grassland down in the valley.

• Stock disposal covers much of the upland area which will reduce the pressure on the heather present.
• The Wetland Management appears well situated.
• The ditch blocking and peatland restoration plans have been developed by a Peatland Action Project Officer and are designed to reduce drainage rates from a large area of peatland with a clear pattern of drains. This should be very effective in rewetting the peatland area. The grazing plan looks appropriate.

Overall, this is a large block of upland vegetation, and whilst it is difficult to assess the condition from aerial photography, the fact that a large, contiguous block has been entered should help management to improve condition.

Upland 5

This is a very large block of upland habitat. There is some heather, but large areas appear dominated by grasses, particularly purple moor-grass (Molinia caerulea).

• The moorland appears to have suffered from past grazing and/or heather beetle. Improving its management may increase the amount of heather present.

The bracken management plan looks appropriate as it partly deals with follow-up from the previous scheme and partly with newly treated areas. In fact, any lack of follow-up would be wasting the money and environmental gain from the previous control efforts.

The grazing plans for species-rich grassland and wetland appear appropriate. The moorland management plan is comprehensive. However, it is difficult to assess how effectively they will be without detailed site knowledge. However, stocking rates across the open moors appear appropriate to maintain or improve heather condition.

Overall, it is difficult to judge the appropriateness of the options from aerial imagery. However, management as a large block may help improve management over the moor.

Questionnaire

Responses are grouped across all farms where there were no obvious differences between the farm types.

General questions about the respondent (all farms)

In total there were 37 respondents (out of 60, Table 16). There were more problems getting in touch and agreeing times for interviews with the grassland farmers.

Table 16. Number of questionnaire respondents per case study type and their scheme status.

-	Arable - In-scheme	Arable - Out-scheme	Grassland - In-scheme	Grassland - Out-scheme	Upland - In-scheme	Upland - Out-scheme
Respondents	9	5	5	3	9	6

 

The ages of the respondents were heavily skewed towards the higher age brackets with significant numbers even in the highest age bracket (70-79, Table 17).

Table 17. Age profile of the respondents

-	20-29	30-39	40-49	50-59	60-69	70-79
Age	1	1	9	8	9	5

The gender of the respondents was also heavily skewed to men (Table 18).

Table 18. Gender of the respondents

-	M	F
Gender	34	2

 

There seemed little difference in employment (in addition to the farmer) between in-scheme and out-scheme farms for arable and upland (Table 19). However, in-scheme grassland farms had much higher number of workers compared to out-scheme (though based on a small sample size).

Table 19. Average number of employees per farm

-	Arable In-scheme	Arable Out-scheme	Grassland In-scheme	Grassland Out-scheme	Upland In-scheme	Upland Out-scheme
Average number of employees	0.89	1	3	0.67	2.03	2.08

General questions about the business (all farms)

The average length of time running the farm was 25.9 years, which is in agreement with the skewed age ranges reported.

Most of the respondents owned the farm they were commenting on (Table 20). Most of the arable farmers interviewed had mixed operations, only 4 did not.

Table 20. Ownership and type of farm

Ownership - Owner	Ownership - Tenant	Ownership - Mixed	Farm type - Livestock	Farm type - Cropping	Farm type - Mixed
25	8	1	22	4	9

 

As might be expected the proportion of farms in LFA was smaller for the arable farms (Table 21). However, of the farms in the sample 4 out of 9 in-scheme farms had LFA land, but none of the out-scheme farms did. Similarly, the grassland and upland in-scheme farms had higher proportions of their land as LFA.

Both in-scheme arable and upland farms were smaller than the out-schemes ones surveyed. The opposite was the case for the grassland farms which matches their higher staffing numbers.

Table 21. Average proportion of farms in Least Favoured Area (LFA) and their average size.

-	Arable - In-scheme	Arable - Out-scheme	Grassland - In-scheme	Grassland - Out-scheme	Upland - In-scheme	Upland - Out-scheme
Average LFA (%)	14.8	0	100	76.7	98.3	84.3
Average size (ha)	331.6	538	325.5	175.5	1631.1	3011.2

Reasons why AECS funding was not applied for (out-scheme farms)

A surprisingly high proportion of out-scheme farmers who responded to this question said they were unaware of the AECS (Table 22). However, given that they answered the more detailed questions, this result should, perhaps, be disregarded.

A substantial number of respondents claimed that the application process was too long/difficult (4/9), cost too much if using an agent (4/10), options would threaten farm income (4/10), they would suffer penalties (6/10) and options would bring increased weeds (4/10. Half the respondents also thought they would not get enough points. However, the highest scoring objection was that being in AECS would limit flexibility in farm management (8/10).

Table 22. Responses from out-scheme farms concerning their reasons for not taking part in AECS.

Reason for not entering	Y	N
Unaware	3	6
Not applicable to my farm type	1	9
Not applicable to land use on farm	2	8
The application process was too difficult or would have taken too long	4	5
Cost of using an agent to prepare the application	4	6
Implementing the measures would have been too difficult or would have taken too long	4	6
Insufficient information regarding the options	4	6
The options would restrict the area available for farming	3	7
The options would limit flexibility in farm management	8	2
The options would threaten farm income	4	6
Option penalties would be problematic	6	4
The options would bring increased weeds	4	6
The options would bring increased pests	0	10
Dates for grazing or cutting were too restrictive	3	6
Not enough points	5	5

 

Comments included:

• “I don't really agree with current system of payments to keep farmers above board and would prefer a system which is market led compared to subsidies and payments but all in all would consider joining soon”,
• “I now have a wind farm and solar farm to provide income so less incentive to join scheme again”,
• “Scheme is overly prescriptive, compensation for restricting the area of land available for farming is not high enough, the scheme works on a 5-year political cycle and the timescale for making meaningful changes/differences on a farm is much longer than that, there should be much more of a focus on soil heath”,
• “It would have been difficult to get collaboration with neighbouring farms which meant that they might not have got enough points to get into the scheme”

Questions about the application process (in-scheme and unsuccessful out-scheme)

The application process averaged towards the difficult end of the spectrum, with more respondents reporting difficult experiences than easy ones (Table 23). The application process was generally time consuming and the majority of farmers employed an agent to do the application.

Table 23. Responses concerning the ease of application, the time taken to apply and the use of an agent.

How easy did you find the application process?	Easy	5	OK	10	Difficult	8
Describe how long it took for the application process.	Quick	3	OK	6	Time consuming	13
Did you use an agent?	No	3	Partly	4	Totally	16

 

Comments on the application process included:

• “Guidance is awful even for someone who has much experience in this area such as an agent/manager as myself. It is difficult to find all the information on the internet and too bureaucratic. Guidance can change. Before there was a booklet to guide you through everything, but now it is on the internet and can change with little knowledge of changes that may have happened to various measures/payments etc.”,
• “It’s a 5-year scheme so there can be problems when planning as it is difficult to change options and areas during the scheme, which is sometimes important in arable rotations to get the best from the land”,
• “Not really too difficult - all the information is on the internet”
• “Not difficult for an adviser, but it would be a lot of problems for a farmer on his own to do”,
• “Very tough if I had done it myself but an agent was used”,
• “Easy but were pushed into it by NatureScot as land on SSSI”,   
• “Large amount of paperwork”,
• “It's difficult to know how thorough the application needs to be to be successful”,
• “It's difficult to know what options are available and it takes a lot of time to draw up the maps”,
• “Lots of work and lots of time. Could do with being less complicated.”

There was quite a range of responses with a larger number finding the application process OK or easy, however, negative comments appear frequent as farmers with a positive experience tended not to give a detailed response to this question. Some of the comments received did indicate that the guidance was misunderstood.

Reasons for applying (in-scheme and unsuccessful out-scheme)

All the farmers who applied in the sample thought that being in the scheme would benefit them financially (Table 24). All farmers also thought it would benefit biodiversity. All reasons were supported to some extent, but the lowest number of respondents thought that being in the scheme would benefit soil erosion and soil carbon.

Table 24. Reasons for applying to the scheme

What were your reasons for applying?	Y	N
General financial benefit	22	0
Improved financial security for future	17	5
Improved environment for livestock	18	4
Improved environment for crop growing	9	8
Support for existing farm management	18	3
Potential to utilise poorer areas of land	16	6
Improved aesthetic landscape	14	8
Wildlife and biodiversity	22	0
Prevent soil erosion	11	10
Improve water quality	16	6
Improve soil carbon	11	10

 

Comments on why applications were made included:

• “Always have applied to schemes in the past so did so again”,
• “Continuing on/building from former schemes that the holding had been in”,
• “Been in former schemes so seemed sensible and silly not to carry on with some agri-environment based farming”
• “For Great Yellow Bumblebee”
• “To prevent flooding. The area is susceptible to flooding, drain blocking aims to slow the flow of water downhill and alleviate flooding to the local community”,
• “The rented part of the farm is organic farm. Organic and AECS are complementary, therefore it made sense to apply”,
• “Fits in with current farm management”,
• “It ticks lots of boxes to keep people happy and moorland management helped to finance heather management with a topper”              

From the sample of farms, 24 farms applied and only one was unsuccessful. This latter application focussed on destocking and away wintering, but it turned out that they were not eligible.

Questions about implementation (in-scheme)

Options were primarily sited to improve prospects for wildlife (21/21, Table 25), because the land was suitable for the option (19/21) and to improve connectivity (16/20). However, options also complemented farm management (19/21) and landscape aesthetics were improved (14/21). It also appeared that options were entered because the land was not suitable for other agricultural use for the majority of cases (12/20).

Table 25. Reasons for siting chosen measures.

Reasons for your choices for the location of your chosen measures	Arable - Y	Arable - N	Grassland - Y	Grassland - N	Upland - Y	Upland - N
Site complements or strengthens existing farm management	7	1	4	0	8	1
Land is not suitable for other agriculture	3	4	1	3	8	1
Improved aesthetic appearance of landscape	5	3	3	1	6	3
Improved prospects for wildlife	8	0	4	0	9	0
Land identified as particularly suitable for the option	6	2	4	0	9	0
Connectivity to similar areas	5	2	4	0	7	2

 

Comments as to why options were sited where they were included:

• “To gain income from capital works and less productive ground”,
• “Green manure was primarily used on further lying ground so did not have to transport manure so far from winter cattle sheds”.

Questions concerning the siting of measures (in-scheme, separately for farm type)

There was a strong contrast between the farm types in how they answered these questions (Table 26). Arable farmers were keen to add extra areas (8/8), not remove current areas (8/8) and to keep current options (6/8) but were also keen to relocate (5/8) and rotate (8/8). Upland farmers did not want to add to areas entered (8/9), would prefer to remove some areas (7/9), but would not relocate (8/9). The small number of grassland farmers who responded gave similar responses to the arable farmers.

Table 26. Would farmers site options differently in future?

Would you change locations if you had the chance to apply again?	Arable - Y	Arable - N	Grassland - Y	Grassland - N	Upland - Y	Upland - N
Would add extra areas in	7	0	3	1	1	8
Would relocate	5	3	3	1	1	8
Would rotate as part of the arable cycle	8	0	na	na	na	na
Would remove certain areas from the scheme completely	0	8	3	1	2	7
Would move land into another option	2	6	2	1	1	7

 

Comments concerning the siting of measures included:

• “No other real options for siting of measures”,
• “Generally happy with the existing location of the options”,
• “Wouldn't change any locations but would like to do more peat restoration, ditch blocking and possibly reduce the amount of swiping because it has proved quite difficult to do given the weather”,
• “Wouldn't change any locations - the farm is all poor ground and managed extensively so there isn't any scope to change things”,
• “Swap ground nesting bird option to a different field to enable a crop to be grown and do ditch blocking in another area because you can't do it in the same areas twice.”
• “Lack of flexibility and inability to move options around is a problem. Agent should have been more knowledgeable on this. Would be useful if the Department could accept that this wouldn't be detrimental to the scheme, so more flexibility required for this aspect, e.g. moving green manure crops around”.

In relation with this last comment, it should be noted that rotational options require the 5-year rotation to be included, but it is then possible to move a rotational option by requesting a variation. Habitat management options cannot be moved, but that is as these are habitats that the farmer is committing to 5-years management.

Questions concerning intentions behind applying (in-scheme, Arable)

Arable farmers gave positive responses to all reasons for applying (Table 27), particularly notable the interest in benefiting the environment, including wildlife, birds, pollinators, soil and water, as a key driver and motivation to apply for all those surveyed. The exception was to benefit game birds where only three of six respondents gave a positive answer. Birds, bees and butterflies were all positively viewed, but farmers also saw the benefits to soil and water quality.

Table 27. How would the application benefit biodiversity? Arable farms only.

Were your intentions in applying to benefit any of the following:	Y	N
Wildlife in general	9	0
Birds in general	9	0
Farmland birds	9	0
Game birds	3	3
Hares	8	1
Bees	9	0
Butterflies	8	1
Hedges	8	1
Native wild plants	6	2
Water quality	8	1
Soil health and carbon	9	0

Questions concerning the success of options (in-scheme, Arable)

Options reported to work well included Corn Bunting Mown Grassland, Retention of Winter Stubbles, Stubbles Followed by Green Manure and Unharvested Crop Headlands. More mixed reviews were provided for Forage Brassicas and Grass Strips (Table 28). Only negative reviews were provided for Water Margins.

Table 28. Detailed responses concerning individual arable options. N is the number of comments.

Option	N	Positive comments	N	Negative comments
Corn Buntings Mown Grassland	3	“Corn bunting management also seemed to be successful”, “Corn bunting worked well”, “Corn bunting options was easy enough to implement and worked well”	0	-
Forage Brassica Crops for Farmland Birds	1	“Forage brassicas have worked well”	1	“Brassicas didn’t fit in with farming very well. Due to the length of time before you could use the land for something else”
Grass Strips in Arable Fields	1	“Grass margins have worked well”	1	“The 15th August is rather too late for cutting grass strips in arable fields as there are some problems with docks and thistles. If you could cut them earlier, it would be more effective”
Retention of Winter Stubbles for Wildlife and Water Quality	2	“Stubbles good particularly as we crop late here”, “Retention of winter stubbles was easy enough to implement and worked well”	0	-
Stubbles Followed by Green Manure in an Arable Rotation	3	“Green manure - allowed soil improvement during arable rotations”, “Green manure is good”, “Green manure was easy enough to implement and worked well”	0	-
Unharvested Conservation Headlands for Wildlife	2	“Unharvested crops do well”, “Unharvested margins help deer and hares”	0	-
Water Margins in Arable Fields	0	-	3	“Water margins and wetland management. Some of these had to be put in the scheme to gain points even if the ground wasn't that suitable for the option”, “Small areas of water margins problematic for grazing or cutting at the back end so one removed as it was impractical to manage”, “Water margin management. Mowing dates can be quite late and would rather graze with a few sheep over winter than cut as size of water margins and machinery don't always go hand in hand - difficult to cut and then you have to remove material which is presumably better for wild plants but can be difficult to achieve without quite a lot of work”.
Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds	1	“Wild bird seed mix successful for birds and plants”	0	-
Habitat Mosaic Management	-	-	1	“Possibly habitat mosaics. Didn't really know what to expect and if successful or not in our case it referred to scrub and grassland mosaic management”
Other comments	-	-	-	“Option to plant more trees would have been good”, “Would like to see more capital payments for fencing to increase the flexibility of management”, “In general, it’s impossible to be flexible once the plan has been approved and you can get penalties even if a wrong field was chosen for a particular option, e.g. I put in a green manure crop in the wrong field, still did all the work and as required, but was penalised for doing so after I realized it was the wrong unit.”

 

Diary keeping had a mixed response, though only two out of eight reported it as difficult (Table 29). Only one respondent though the scheme was worse than the previous one, whilst three thought it better.

Table 29. Responses concerning diary keeping and how the scheme compared to earlier ones (Arable farms).

-	Easy	OK	Difficult
How was your experience in keeping a diary?	3	3	2
-	Better	Same	Worse
How does the current scheme compare to previous schemes?	3	4	1

 

In response to the question “Has the scheme helped you deliver your environmental objectives” there were eight positive responses and one lukewarm one: “Probably slightly but can't say without better knowledge of the farm itself and the environmental objectives can’t be looked at in isolation - incomes are at least as important.”

Changes in wildlife groups (all farms, Arable)

Unfortunately, with small numbers of respondents it is not possible to strictly test differences in perceptions between in-scheme and out -scheme farms (Table 30). However, in-scheme farms saw fewer declines (despite being more in number) and the balance between no change and positive responses was more in favour of the latter for in-scheme farms across all groups. Clearly the perception of arable farmers is that the measures are benefiting wildlife across the piece.

Table 30. Farmer perceptions of change for different wildlife groups on arable farms. ++ large increase, + small increase, 0 no change, - small decrease, -- large decrease.

In-scheme

-	++	+	0	-	--
Wildlife in general	1	7	1	0	0
Birds in general	1	7	1	0	0
Farmland birds	1	6	1	1	0
Game birds	0	4	2	0	0
Hares	1	5	3	0	0
Bees	1	4	4	0	0
Butterflies	1	4	4	0	0
Hedges	1	7	0	0	0
Native wild plants	1	4	3	0	0
Water quality	0	8	0	0	0
Soil health and carbon	0	7	2	0	0

 

Out-scheme

-	++	+	0	-	--
Wildlife in general	0	2	2	0	0
Birds in general	0	1	3	0	0
Farmland birds	0	1	1	2	0
Game birds	0	1	3	0	0
Hares	0	3	1	0	0
Bees	0	2	0	1	0
Butterflies	0	2	1	1	0
Hedges	2	0	1	0	0
Native wild plants	0	0	4	0	0
Water quality	0	3	1	0	0
Soil health and carbon	0	0	3	1	0

 

Questions concerning intentions behind applying (in-scheme, Grassland)

Only two farmers responded to this question (Table 31). Both were focussed on birds and not on bees, butterflies or plants. Given the poor response rate it is difficult to conclude anything.

Table 31. How would application benefit biodiversity? Grassland farms only.

-	Y	N
Wildlife in general	2	0
Birds in general	2	0
Farmland birds	2	0
Wading birds	2	0
Bees	0	2
Butterflies	0	2
Native wild plants	0	2
Soil health and carbon	1	0

Questions concerning the success of options (in-scheme, Grassland)

With respect to the grazing management plan, one respondent reported “OK, worked”, one said “OK, some issues (e.g. ragwort) but being resolved“ and one said “More difficult first year compared to previous schemes but after that it was fine”. So, with the small sample size there were no significant issues.

Regarding options that worked well the responses included:

• “All, would be doing them anyway”,
• “All options worked well, mainly due to increase in wildlife”,
• “Forage brassicas worked well as the option complemented new hedges, retention of winter stubbles and provided cover for wildlife“.

In general, the responses were generally positive but without much detail.

There was one response about an option that did not work well:

• “New hedges - if you were advised in September before the contract start date then you could prepare the ground, and this would aid establishment.”    

Responses concerning diary keeping were generally positive (Table 32), as were comments about the current scheme compared to the previous one.

Table 32. Responses concerning diary keeping and how the scheme compared to earlier ones (Grassland farms)

-	Easy	OK	Difficult
How was your experience in keeping a diary?	3	1	0
-	Better	Same	Worse
How does the current scheme compare to previous schemes?	3	0	1

 

In response to the question “Has the scheme helped you deliver your environmental objectives” there were three positive responses and one negative one.

Changes in wildlife groups (in-scheme farms, Grassland)

No out-scheme farmers provided information (Table 33). Farmer responses highlighted benefits for birds, including farmland and wading birds. There was no benefit recorded for bees, butterflies or soil health and carbon.

Table 33. Farmer perceptions of change for different wildlife groups on grassland farms (in-scheme only). ++ large increase, + small increase, 0 no change, - small decrease, -- large decrease.

In-scheme

-	++	+	0	-	--
Wildlife in general	2	2	0	0	0
Birds in general	1	2	1	0	0
Farmland birds	1	2	1	0	0
Wading birds	1	2	1	0	0
Bees	0	0	4	0	0
Butterflies	0	0	4	0	0
Native wild plants	0	1	3	0	0
Soil health and carbon	0	0	4	0	0

Questions concerning intentions behind applying (in-scheme, Upland)

Upland farmers gave positive responses to all reasons for applying with particular approval for upland birds as the main driver of application alongside heather condition (Table 34). It is notable the interest in benefiting the environment, including wildlife, upland and wading birds, heather, peatland and soil health and carbon.

Table 34. How would application benefit biodiversity? Upland farms only.

-	Y	N
Wildlife in general	9	1
Upland birds	10	0
Wading birds	8	2
Heather	9	1
Peatland or bog	8	2
Soil health and carbon	8	2

Questions concerning the success of options (in-scheme, Upland)

With regard to the moorland management plant, the responses were largely positive; six responses of either “OK” or “Simple”. More detailed responses included:

• “Good - useful document to work from. Baseline photos allow changes to be seen.”
• “No problem - required stock disposal but that was OK”,
• “Just a continuation of normal practice”

There were also two negative responses:

• “The specifications of some options were not very practical, i.e. the width of the area of heather to be burnt was not practical - fires cannot be controlled to that extent”
• Don't know – the contractor did it”

The latter suggest that the plan was not central to the management of the farm.

There were positive responses for some of the options, including Away Wintering of Sheep and Summer Hill Grazing of Cattle (Table 35).  In particular in relation with the latter it was noted “More floristic diversity in areas where cattle were allowed to graze during certain months”. The former was linked to responses such as “good for the farm and for the animals” and “more grass available for spring lambs”, which suggests the option is also seen as supporting better farm management in some cases, as well as environmental gains. There were more mixed reviews for stock disposal and for general moorland management, partly concerning integrating options into farm management and difficulties with carrying out the options.

Table 35. Detailed responses concerning individual upland options. N is the number of comments.

Option	N	Positive comments	N	Negative comments
Moorland Management	2	“The heather swiping had been beneficial even though they had problems getting it done due to the wet weather”, “Bracken spraying helped the farm a lot”	3	“Blocking drains caused a problem for the sheep” “Rush cutting was a bit onerous – 2 ha cut each year but there's not much money for doing this given the time it takes, and it doesn't bring many benefits” “Heather restoration - problem getting this done.”
Stock Disposal	1	“Wader options and stock disposal together with organic farming. Both the stock and the hill are better now there are less animals”	1	“The dates for things such as stock removal were not very flexible. It was difficult to find places to put livestock which had to be moved from the fields under the wader grazed grassland option. If dates were more flexible this would have helped”
Away Wintering Sheep	4	“More grass where sheep were removed in winter”, “Away wintering for hoggs was good for the farm and the animals”, “Away wintering hoggs - benefits the animals and works well with the farm”, “Taking sheep off in the winter meant there was more grass available in the spring for the lambs”	0	-
Summer Hill Grazing of Cattle	2	“More floristic diversity in areas where cattle were allowed to graze during certain months” “Summer cattle grazing fitted in well with what they were doing”	0	-
Other options	-	“Stock shut off wetlands, but they were moving stock away from these areas anyway as it was better for animal welfare”	-	“The funding for wild bird seed wasn't sufficient to make it worthwhile. Funding for hedges and water margins were not available in this scheme but had been in previous ones and should be included in future schemes” “Not being able to kill thistles along the waterside was an inconvenience”

 

Diary keeping was seen as not generally an issue (Table 36), and most respondents thought that the scheme was no different from the previous one.

Table 36. Responses concerning diary keeping and how the scheme compared to earlier ones (Upland farms)

-	Easy	OK	Difficult
How was your experience in keeping a diary?	0	8	1
-	Better	Same	Worse
How does the current scheme compare to previous schemes?	1	7	1

Changes in wildlife groups (all farms, Upland)

Responses from farmers on perceived changes in wildlife were more mixed than for arable and grassland, with a number of respondents reporting declines in wildlife in general, upland birds and wading birds (Table 37). However, in general responses were somewhat more positive for in-scheme farms for these three categories. Changes in heather condition, peatland condition and soil health and carbon were also somewhat more positively viewed on in-scheme farms.

Table 37. Farmer perceptions of change for different wildlife groups on upland farms. ++ large increase, + small increase, 0 no change, - small decrease, -- large decrease.

In-scheme

-	++	+	0	-	--
Wildlife in general	0	3	3	1	2
Upland birds	1	2	3	3	0
Wading birds	0	2	5	2	0
Heather	0	3	3	0	3
Peatland or bog	0	2	6	0	0
Soil health and carbon	0	3	6	0	0

 

Out-scheme

-	++	+	0	-	--
Wildlife in general	1	0	3	1	1
Upland birds	1	0	2	2	1
Wading birds	1	0	2	2	1
Heather	1	0	1	2	2
Peatland or bog	0	0	5	1	0
Soil health and carbon	0	0	4	1	0

Questions concerning arable greening (Arable farms only)

A small number of respondents had greening options covering protecting environmentally sensitive grassland, and views were neutral or positive (Table 38).

All respondents had to grow a minimum number of different crops. Responses regarding how easy this was were mixed, though slightly more positive than negative.

Most respondents had to farm 5 % of their arable as Ecological Focus Areas. All, or almost all, respondents used fallows, buffer strips and field margins to achieve this. Using catch crops or legumes were less popular. There were quite a few positive comments noted which indicated farmer awareness on the environmental benefits of some of these practices, including it was “All fine and probably all had some beneficial wildlife effects”, “All probably had some beneficial effects for biodiversity”, “Margins and cover crops are good for game birds and birds in general”, and “Most options probably had some beneficial effect for wildlife”.

Table 38. Responses on the difficulty of implementing arable greening.

-	Y	N	Easy	OK	Difficult
Protect environmentally sensitive permanent grassland	3	10	1	2	0
Grow a minimum number of crops	12	0	4	3	2
Farm 5% of arable land as an Ecological Focus Area (EFA)	11	2	2	4	2
Fallow land	10	1	-	-	-
Buffer strips	11	0	-	-	-
Field margins	11	0	-	-	-
Catch crop or green cover crop	7	4	-	-	-
Nitrogen-fixing crops	5	6	-	-	-

 

No comments were received about environmental sensitive grassland.

• Comments regarding the minimum number of crops included:
• “No particular problems with three crop minimum” [ten variations],
• “Can add complexity for sowing and harvesting with more crops”,
• “We always grew a variety of crops so no problem”.

Comments regarding if options might reach greening targets included:

• “Field margins changed but is it a particularly good one for the environment?“,
• “Most seemed to have some beneficial effects”,
• “All three that I implemented (Fallow land, Buffer strips, Field margins) would meet the objectives”,
• “Yes”,
• “All that have been used”,
• “All”
• “Farmers generally much more aware now of the importance of biodiversity and how it can help alongside agriculture and benefit it. There is also a need to plant more trees for carbon capture”,
• “All fine and probably all had some beneficial wildlife effects”,
• “All probably had some beneficial effects for biodiversity”
• “Margins and cover crops are good for game birds and birds in general”,
• “Most options probably had some beneficial effect for wildlife”.

Problems in implementation generated the following comments:

• “Practicalities of fitting enough options to areas that seemed not always that suitable for the habitat they were supposed to be for”,
• “None particularly” [nine similar comments]

Questions concerning grassland greening (Grassland farms only)

We had no responses about greening options from the grassland farmers.

Discussion

Field survey

Summary of results

This section provides a summary overview of the field survey results and discusses their interpretation. The table below synthesises the results where there was a statistical difference in- and out-scheme farms for the main options surveyed; all results where P<0.05 are repeated in Table 39. There was a total of 131 statistical tests carried out. Taking the generally accepted threshold of statistical significance as 0.05 (one in twenty) it means that with this number of tests between six and seven false positives would contribute to the 16 results where p < 0.05. So, to repeat material from the methods section, this means that P-values less than 0.001 should be taken as strong support for a difference between the two means, whilst values between 0.05 and 0.001 should be seen as moderate support.

Table 39. Summary of results from Tables 4 to 15 where P-values for biodiversity measures are <0.05.

Arable

Option	Biodiversity measure	In	Out	P
Grass Strips in Arable Fields	-	-	-	-
Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows	Plant richness	15.0	9.00	0.015
-	Pollinator numbers	2.92	0.26	<0.001
Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds	Pollinator richness	3.21	1.43	<0.001
Water Margins in Arable Fields	Pollinator numbers	13.8	1.26	<0.001
-	Pollinator richness	5.51	1.89	<0.001
-	Pollinator resources	1.78	1.00	0.048

 

Grassland

Option	Biodiversity measure	In	Out	P
Creation of Hedgerows	Plant richness	15.0	6.0	0.032
-	Plant diversity	2.12	0.97	0.030
-	Mean hedge height	79.2	18.2	<0.001
Habitat Mosaic Management	Plant richness	10.4	18.7	<0.001
-	Seed resources	0.22	0.72	0.048
Species Rich Grassland Management	Pollinator numbers	5.15	0.00	<0.001
-	Pollinator richness	2.50	0.00	<0.001
Wader and Wildlife Mown Grassland	Pollinator numbers	2.33	0.60	0.033
Wader Grazed Grassland	-	-	-	-
Water Margins in Grassland Fields	Mean height	72.7	34.4	0.014
-	Mean density	40.2	17.4	0.012

 

Upland

Option	Biodiversity measure	In	Out	P
Moorland Management	-	-	-	-

 

What is immediately apparent from the results repeated in Table 39 is that some of the options clearly improved pollinator habitat: Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows (Arable only), Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds, Water Margins in Arable Fields, Species Rich Grassland Management and, possibly, Wader and Wildlife Mown Grassland. There was some evidence that this may also be the case for Grass Strips in Arable Fields but there were not enough samples from out-scheme farms for a robust statistical test.

There was strong evidence that the Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows (Arable only) and Creation of Hedgerows (Grassland only) improved plant richness or diversity.

Habitat for pollinators can be improved by either adding new plant species (Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds), reducing the intensity/frequency of management (Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows, Water Margins in Arable Fields) or by reducing stocking rates at key times of year (Species Rich Grassland Management, possibly Wader and Wildlife Mown Grassland). Pollinators were not the focus of these options, but they have clearly benefitted from some of the options investigated.

It is less surprising that benefits for plants were less obvious as colonisation can take time, so increases in diversity are dependent on species already present spreading or emerging from the seedbank. Reducing the frequency of management (Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows) and planting hedgerows (Creation of Hedgerows) clearly benefit plant diversity.

The results for Habitat Mosaic Management, contrasted in that, Plant Richness and, possibly, Seed resources were higher on Out-scheme farms. This may be because this option covers a wide range of possible habitat combinations and by chance the out-scheme farms had more plant diversity in their habitats than the in-scheme farms or that the in-scheme farms had entered this option specifically to raise the quality of their habitat mosaics.

Generally, soils and water quality appeared in good condition with no signs of erosion or compaction for the in- and out-scheme farms. This was interpreted as an absence of poor farming practices on the fields/farms visited.

Comparison with other data

It is difficult to assess the absolute quality of the habitats sampled (rather than the relative value of in-scheme and out-scheme) to difficulty in identify comparators. However, for plants some comparisons can be made with Countryside Survey 2007 (CS2007, Norton et al. 2009).

For arable options there were not enough samples in CS2007 to calculate an average species richness per quadrat with Scotland (Norton et al. 2009), so it is not possible to compare Grass Strips in Arable Fields (GSAF) and Water Margins in Arable Fields (WMAF). However, they appear low compared to UK means (GSAF 11.4, WMAF 12.6 compared to CS2007 16.5 species per quadrat from linear features in arable fields, Carey et al. 2007). A comparable figure for Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows is 14.7 (per 10 m x 1 m quadrat) from CS2007 (Norton et al. 2009). In-scheme farms had very similar values (15) to the national average but plant species richness on the out-scheme farms was below this average (9).

Similarly, the hedgerows on the grassland farms had similar values to this national average of 14.7; average across in-scheme and out-scheme for existing hedges c. 15.5 per quadrat and 15 per quadrat for newly created hedgerows. The comparator for Species Rich Grassland Management (c. 15.2 averaged across in-scheme and out-scheme) is likely Neutral Grassland from CS2007. The Scottish Average for this is habitat was 12.2 in CS2007 (Norton et al. 2007), suggesting this habitat in Caithness is better than average. The two wader focussed options cover a multitude of grassland types, so it is not possible to compare them with other data. The option also focuses on protecting nesting birds, so plant species richness is less relevant. The richness of the quadrats from Water Margins in Grassland Fields was high (c. 18 per quadrat) compared to other sampled habitats and had similar richness values to linear features in fertile grasslands (16.4) and infertile grasslands (19) across Scotland (Norton et al. 2009).

As the upland quadrats covered a wide range of vegetation types it is difficult to compare between samples from his project and other sources. However, what was clear from the upland data was the very low average utilisation of heather on both the in-scheme and out-scheme farms. This suggests that stocking levels across all the ten farms sampled (c. 5 %) are generally at a level which can be sustained by the heather (< 20 %, Pakeman & Nolan 2009). There were a small number of land parcels with heather utilisation greater than 20 % so it appears that grazing levels on parts of the studied farms are in need of some adjustment.

Pollinator numbers averaged between 0 for some out-scheme options and 13.8 per 100 m for in-scheme Water Margins in Arable Fields. Low values for habitats such as those for Wader Grazed Grassland are typical of grazed habitats and reflect the lack of resources for pollinator due to grazing (Cole et al. 2015). Enclosed grasslands and water margins provide the opportunity for flowering and hence can have high numbers of pollinators. In fact, the numbers seen on Water Margins in Arable Fields are very similar to values from wide buffer strips in a study of grassland buffer strips in south-west Scotland (Cole et al. 2015).

Limitations of the field survey

As noted in the methods there are a range of limitations to note in terms of the field survey:

• The paired sampling is not as strong or as informative as monitoring farms through time (Before-After-Control-Impact). A BACI approach avoids the problem of different starting positions for in-scheme and out-scheme farms.
• The restriction of sampling to three case study areas may not be representative of the whole of Scotland. Uplands in the south-west may be quite dissimilar to those in the north-east.
• The sample size was extremely small. As options and their analogues were not distributed evenly, rarely was testing able to compare five in-scheme and out-scheme farms. The small sample size meant that the power available to test differences was limited and that benefits of the scheme were missed. For example, there was a 3.7-fold difference in the number of pollinators seen along existing hedgerows between in-scheme and out-scheme grassland farms (Table 10), but there was insufficient power to detect a real difference.
• The survey ran too late in the season to make it possible to monitor many of the main targets of the scheme, namely farmland and wading birds.

The scale and timing of the contract means that this analysis has limitations. Future surveys ought to be based on re-visitation, have sample sizes capable of detecting predefined improvements, e.g. 10 % increase in plant diversity (this survey can be used as a data set to develop power analyses to do this) and cover all the major focal species for the options, including farmland and wading birds.

Conclusions of the field survey

Despite the limited power of the field survey, it was clear that some options improved habitat for pollinators:

• Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows (Arable only),
• Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds,
• Water Margins in Arable Fields,
• Species Rich Grassland Management,
• Wader and Wildlife Mown Grassland (possibly),
• Grass Strips in Arable Fields (possibly).

Plant diversity was higher on in-scheme farms for:

• Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows (Arable only),
• Creation of Hedgerows (Grassland only).

However, a number of options had no detectable impact on the groups monitored including Wader Grazed Grassland and Moorland Management.

Analysis of case studies

Synthesis of findings

Bringing together the comments from the individual farms the following generalisations can be made:

• The arable farms had clearly used the scheme to attempt to improve water quality through well sited grass strips and water margins, as well as employing stubbles to reduce erosion.
• Where wetland and peatland management are options followed, the works and management appear appropriate and should have achievable benefits. Peatland restoration options in the uplands had clearly benefitted from interaction with a Peatland Action Project Officer.
• Grazing plans appeared appropriate, but they are difficult to assess without visiting the site as the intrinsic productivity of the vegetation will set the number of animals that a site can accommodate. This is especially true of the uplands where the type of grass and its cover will determine how much grazing a site dominated by heather can accommodate sustainably.
• For options designed for farmland birds, e.g. Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds, it was not always clear if these had been funded taking into account the birds other habitat requirements. Where there is a lack of cover this option may not bring benefits, so it is recommended that this option is considered where there is existing cover or where hedgerows are created to provide it.
• Some of the farms surveyed had adopted Corn Buntings Mown Grassland as an option, i.e. delayed mowing of grassland to provide nesting habitat. However, as for Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds, the context for the option needs consideration. Corn buntings require neighbouring spring-sown cereal fields as well as landscape features to provide song posts for males. The appropriate context is important for the success of this option (Perkins et al. 2013).
• Setting aside areas for the wader focussed options were usually done in large blocks to maximise benefit. However, the period of grazing exclusion for one site was set at the earliest possible (animals allowed back in on 26 May) which may not provide the best conditions for wader breeding.
• Within the remit of this project it was not possible to look at the detail of what species had been used for creating species-rich grassland, but, what seeds are being sown and their provenance would be useful for the assessment process.
• A number of lowland farms were widely dispersed across an area making the benefit of options highly dependent on what is occurring on neighbouring farms and so assessing the larger scale influences on the likely success of options becomes complex.
• Some applications appeared to miss important features that would benefit from some of the scheme options. It maybe that these were not included as “enough” had already gone into the application and so opportunities had been missed.

Limitations of the case study assessment

Ideally the assessment would have been carried out at the same time as the field survey. However, the information was not available at the time to do this. Arguably, this means that the assessment was done with similar information to that made during the initial funding application. In effect, there are a number of limitations including the lack of detailed information on vegetation and, in particular, its productivity and capacity to carry grazing livestock, as well as not being able to assess the measures in situ for their likely effectiveness. This might only be properly assessed with a field visit by the case officer.

Conclusions from analysis of case studies

The assessment of the first author largely coincided with what was funded under the scheme. The major differences in opinion centred on:

• Consideration of context, specifically cover for birds, when funding options for farmland birds.
• Consideration of context when funding corn bunting focussed options including spring-sown crops and other farmland bird options in the surrounding fields.

There needs to be some thought given on how to assess applications from farms that have dispersed holdings. Often the context for the options is outside the farm and therefore difficult to assess. Also, thought might be given as to whether missing opportunities within an application should count against it.

Questionnaire

Applications and the application process

A wide range of reasons were given for not applying to the scheme. The predominant ones focussed on the reduced flexibility in farm management that would stem from being in the scheme and fear over penalties. There were also some concerns over the difficulty and cost of application, and some farmers thought they would not score high enough.

The comments were revealing in that they highlighted the difficulty of collaborative working and the short-term nature of the funding. They also revealed that other income streams play a role in going for funding.

For applicants, the responses were skewed towards the scheme being difficult and time consuming to apply to, and the majority therefore used agents. There was a wide range of comments from “guidance is awful” to “not really too difficult”. However, it was clear that the application was daunting and that there was a desire for further simplification.

Interestingly, the responses to questions about reasons behind application highlighted both financial, biodiversity and other environmental benefits. This suggests that the farmers are fully aware of the benefits of the scheme for the environment but have factored the scheme into the continuing profitability of their enterprise. The comments stressed that continuity of funding was important to build on past improvements. Only one comment was specific enough to mention an individual species – the Great Yellow Bumblebee (a species now restricted to the Hebrides and the north coast).

Implementation

The responses about siting showed that farmers were clearly thinking about the suitability of the site for the option and how it would improve prospects for wildlife and connectivity. However, it was also clear that for the majority of farmers the land entered was the least suitable for agriculture. This went so far as to say that entering the scheme would “gain income from less productive ground”.

Lowland farmers were keen to add extra areas into the scheme and keep their current options but were also keen to rotate or relocate. In contrast, upland farmers did not want to add areas, and some wanted to remove areas. There was concern about a lack of flexibility in relocating options.

Benefits

Arable

Arable farmers clearly wanted to benefit all of the groups of species mentioned in the questions, alongside soil carbon and water quality. The exception was game birds, which only a minority were interested in.

Positive comments were given for some options, including Corn Bunting Mown Grassland, Retention of Winter Stubbles, Stubbles Followed by Green Manure and Unharvested Crop Headlands. Mixed reviews were provided for Forage Brassicas and Grass Strips. Unfortunately, only negative reviews were provided for Water Margins which suggest that this option needs more thought in trying to integrate biodiversity benefits with agronomic management.

Perceptions on biodiversity changes were definitely positive for in-scheme farms whilst being approximately neutral for out-scheme farms.

Grassland

The responses were too few to draw substantial conclusions from. However, for the in-scheme farms the perception of change was generally positive.

Upland

As for arable farms, upland farmers wanted to benefit all the species groups asked about including wildlife in general, upland and wading birds, heather, as well as soil carbon and bogs.

Responses were largely positive and highlighted that the benefits of being in the scheme included better farm management. Away wintering sheep was the most positively received option as well as Summer Hill Grazing of Cattle. Bracken control was looked on favourable, but rush control was not.

Perceptions of change were more mixed than for arable, with a number of respondents reporting declines in wildlife, including upland and wading birds. However, respondents were more positive in their responses if they were in the scheme.

Greening

Responses to the questions about Greening were brief. They were, on average, positive to neutral, with growing multiple crops more favourably received than Ecological Focus Areas. Farmers were largely positive about the likely benefits for biodiversity.

Limitations to the approach

Ultimately the approach is limited because of the number of interviews. The approach was a structured interview to make analysis of the responses more straightforward. A more in depth, less structured approach may have yielded deeper insights but would have only been possible with a handful of farms. It also proved difficult to even get the limited time for the structured interview, with a response rate of 62 % from repeated calls.

The in-scheme and their out-scheme pairs were carefully selected to present as unbiased a sample as possible. However, we could not control who responded. So, there is a potential risk that the farmers who did take part had stronger views than average or were more interested in biodiversity and the environment. This is especially true of the out-scheme farms where the response rate was lower and so bias could creep in.

Conclusions from the questionnaire

It is not straightforward to generalise from the responses of a wide range of farmers. However, a number of points can be made:

• Applying to the scheme is time consuming and difficult, and farmers usually employ an agent to act for them.
• Many reasons were given for not applying, but the most cited were that being in the scheme would reduce flexibility, respondents thought they would not get enough points and that applying was an arduous task.
• In general, the responses highlighted the importance of biodiversity and the environment, though farmers were also using the scheme to enhance profitability.
• A number of options were received positively, though Water Margins appeared to garner only negative comments.

Perceptions of biodiversity changes were more positive for in-scheme farmers than for out-scheme. They were also more positive for lowland farmers than upland ones. How much that is driven by real changes in biodiversity and how much by being in the scheme driving perceptions is not possible to quantify.

Overall conclusion

The overall results of the project show that the Agri-Environment and Climate Scheme has provided some benefits to biodiversity. Despite the small sample sizes for the field study, it was clear that some options clearly improved pollinator habitat including Maintenance and Restoration of Hedgerows (Arable only), Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds, Water Margins in Arable Fields and Species Rich Grassland Management. Hedgerow creation also benefitted plant biodiversity.

However, it should be stressed that there were relatively few statistically significant differences between in-scheme and out-scheme farms. Whether this is a result of small samples sizes or options that have no measurable benefit is not possible to assess.

Analysis of the applications revealed that they were well targeted, and options were being used appropriately. However, it wasn’t always possible to assess if different species requirements were being met; for example for some of the farmland bird focussed options as well as food resources provided by scheme options, the availability of cover from other options or existing features is also important.

Finally, many lowland farms are dispersed so that the assessment of how options work together and how options might improve connectivity are very much dependent on adjacent land holdings. This will be more difficult to assess but is necessary to get the full benefit of the funds.

The questionnaire revealed that farmers were well aware of the biodiversity and other environmental benefits of being in the scheme, but that the process of applying was a significant step in terms of time and money. Most options were positively viewed, and in-scheme farmers perceptions of biodiversity change were more positive than those out of the scheme.

Recommendations for future schemes and their monitoring

Modifications of the Agri-Environment and Climate Scheme

It is relatively late in the life of the scheme to suggest improvements. However, a number of issues might be investigated:

• The need to take into account context when assessing farmland bird and corn bunting options. These species need other resources in the landscape like cover for nesting (farmland birds) and spring cereals (corn bunting). This might mean widening the geographic coverage of Creation of Hedgerows to provide that cover.
• Farmers found the water margins the least satisfactory option to manage. They did provide measurable benefits for pollinators in arable situations, but it is possible that management of this option could be reviewed.
• How to assess the benefits of options for businesses that have widely dispersed land holdings. There may be little synergy between options and their benefits will depend much more on neighbouring holdings than for a farm with contiguous fields.

Future monitoring of schemes

The shape of the replacement for AECS is as yet uncertain, so these comments may or may not be of relevance. However, the following points are important:

• The most powerful design to detect change is a Before-After-Control-Impact study (BACI). So, taking the 2014-2020 AECS scheme as a focus, then a first field season would have been done in 2014 and a second one in 2020 *Before-After). Farmers intending not to apply and those intending to apply would have formed the basis of the Control-Impact part of the design. This type of design removes uncertainty about whether the result of differences between in-scheme and out-scheme farms are due to initial differences of the effect of the scheme.
• We found a number of farms who had entered the scheme subsequent to the initial identification of in-scheme farms from the 2015-2016 data. Having an up-to-date list of all farms in the scheme would have helped with our sampling, but it must be acknowledged that for a BACI design the original out-scheme group should be bigger than the in-scheme group to allow for farms to join the scheme later.
• The sample sizes in this study were too small to have enough power to detect all but the most sizeable changes. A proper power analysis ought to be carried out prior to future contracts being let so that minimum sample sizes can be specified. The data from this project could be used to run those simulations. Sample sizes would be calculated on the number needed to assess each option and then farm selection carried out to get those numbers.
• As birds are the focus of many options, these should form part of the monitoring and so the timing of contracts being started must take into account when birds need to be monitored (April-May).

References

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. and Walker, S. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1-48.

Carey, P.D., Wallis, S., Chamberlain, P.M., Cooper, A., Emmett, B.A., Maskell, L.C., McCann, T., Murphy, J., Norton, L.R., Reynolds, B., Scott, W.A., Simpson, I.C., Smart, S.M. and Ullyett, J.M. 2008. Countryside Survey: UK Results from 2007. NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 105pp.

Cole, L.J., Brocklehurst, S., Robertson, D., Harrison, W. and McCracken, D.I. 2015. Riparian buffer strips: Their role in the conservation of insect pollinators in intensive grassland systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 211, 207-220.

Grant, S.A., Barthram, G.T., Lamb, W.I.C. and Milne, J.A. 1978 Effects of season and level of grazing on the utilization of heather by sheep. I. Responses of the sward. Journal of the British Grassland Society, 33, 289–300.

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P.B. and Christensen, R.H.B. 2017. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1-26.

Lenth, R. 2019. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.4.3.01.

Norton, L.R., Murphy, J., Reynolds, B., Marks, S. and Mackey, E.C. 2009. Countryside Survey: Scotland Results from 2007. NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, The Scottish Government, Scottish Natural Heritage, 83pp.

Arable 3

Arable 3 is a dispersed business with arable predominating in the northern (F&G1), south-eastern (H9&10) and south-western parts (D8&9), and grassland in the western (C7) and central parts (G7).

• Many of the options relating to arable are focussed on water quality (capital options, grass strips and winter stubble).
• Biodiversity focussed options for the arable parts include small areas of Forage Brassicas Wild Bird Seed, as well as Winter Stubbles.
• The landscape would benefit from more structure in the form of hedgerows.
• The farm was selected on the basis of its arable management. However, the two parts of the farm in the centre are clearly addressing management for waders, but that and the area managed for Corn Bunting is small and their effect dependent on the management of surrounding ground.

Overall, the management of the arable parts of the farm are relatively unchanged by the options, though water quality in the streams draining the area should be improved by the work carried out.

Arable 5

This farm is a mixture of arable, improved grassland and semi-natural habitats. The survey concentrated on the arable aspects as it was selected as a farm in north-east Scotland carrying out a number of arable AECS options. However, this assessment covers the whole farm.

• A considerable proportion of the farm was entered into the scheme and a wide range of options selected.
• One significant area of lowland raised bog (D5) was the focus of ditch blocking measures which should wet up the bog and improve its condition.
• A large area of semi-natural habitat (D4) was also entered into Habitat Mosaic Management and, as this is adjacent to a field with wader management, then this should provide connected areas of habitat for wader breeding.
• Options such as Wader Grazed Grassland, Unharvested Conservation Headlands and Retention of Winter Stubbles were concentrated, potentially improving their ability to support breeding or wintering birds.
• There was a second area of bog (D4) and another large area of semi-natural vegetation (D5) which were not entered into the scheme which could represent a lost opportunity.
• The small areas under management for corn bunting may have limited effect (D1 & D3).

Scrub clearance and ditch blocking on the lowland raised bog should improve its condition. The grazing management plan for the habitat mosaic looks appropriate with a long livestock free period (1 April to 31 July) to prevent disturbance for ground nesting birds.

Overall, the options selected should improve habitat for birds as well as improving water quality. However, there seems to be a lost opportunity for the area centred on D4.

Arable 7

The main part of Arable 7 is dominated by arable farming. The other two part are wetlands (H10) and grassland (B&C4).

• The main part of the farm has options focussed largely at farmland birds with Forage Brassicas and Winter Stubbles.
• The western area is managed for Corn Buntings but is surrounded by arable fields and hence may be of little benefit.
• The southern area H10 is managed as a wetland.

The grazing management plan for the wetland area is designed to reduce rank vegetation and includes the option of cutting if grazing is not sufficient. This looks appropriate.

Overall, there seems to be a significant focus on farmland birds. However, given the open nature of the farm, the birds would benefit from structure in the landscape like hedgerows.

Arable 9

The farm is predominantly arable.

• The eastern part has some appropriate wetland management. The large area of Wild Bird Seed is misleading as only a small corner of this arable field is given over to this option.
• Much of the western part is managed with a focus on water quality including the use of Water Margins, Grass Strips, Winter Stubbles and Stubbles followed by Green Manure.
• The Lowland Bog Management appears appropriate, but the area given over to Corn Bunting Management is very small.

The ditch blocking, scrub control and peatland restoration plans should improve the condition of the lowland raised bog. The grazing plan for the habitat mosaic looks appropriate, but it is difficult to assess whether grazing levels will maintain lower-growing species in the sward.

Overall, the benefits of AECS management on this farm will largely be felt in terms of water quality rather than biodiversity. Whilst there are areas of trees on the farm, the landscape is very open and farmland birds would benefit from more structure such as hedgerows.

Grassland

Grassland 1

This is a mixed grassland and arable farm.

The drier eastern part of the farm is largely unchanged by the selected options, except that the remaining hedges are being managed.

The wetter western part of the farm is managed for waders in a sizeable block of land.

A small area is managed as Species-Rich Grassland.

The large block of land managed for waders is a sensible use of the land for this farm especially as the farm is within a wader hotspot.

Grassland 3

The farm is a mixture of grass fields and rough grazing.

• Significant areas are devoted to wader management, both mown and grazed. This complements the large areas managed as Habitat Mosaics.
• In addition, many of the hedgerows are being managed which is important in this open landscape for other farmland birds.

Grazing management of the newly created species-rich grassland look appropriate, but a better assessment could be made if details about seed mix and its source were available. The grazing plan for the existing species-rich grassland also looks appropriate, but it is difficult to judge without knowing how fast vegetation grows on the site and if the shading out of lower-growing species is likely. The wetland grazing plan looks appropriate; grazing is restricted to late summer to remove vegetation build up leaving the site undisturbed during the nesting season.

Overall, significant efforts are being made to manage for waders on this farm and to maintain/restore the structural elements present in the landscape.

Grassland 5

The majority of this farm is grassland or a mosaic of semi-natural vegetation.

• Most of the farm is over to management sympathetic to waders.
• On the western side there is also management and creation of Species-Rich Grassland.

The grazing management plan for the wetland looks appropriate using a long period of no grazing, 1st April - 15th Aug, followed by high grazing levels to remove vegetation build up.

Overall, there is little else the farm could do to improve its choice of options given the type of land it occupies. It forms a cohesive block of options geared towards benefiting wader populations.

Grassland 7

This business is widely dispersed. The southernmost part (D5) is a mix of semi-natural vegetation, grassland and arable. The easternmost part (E4&5) is a mix of arable and semi-natural vegetation. The northernmost (C1&2) is grassland, arable and wetland. The westernmost (A2&3) is mostly grassland.

• The southernmost part has a large area of Species-Rich Grassland management with an adjacent area of creation and this fits well with the quadrats taken here.
• Management of the easternmost part for waders is appropriate given the proximity of wetland.
• A considerable part of the northernmost area is given over to wader management with wetland management adjacent to a stream. There is also some hedgerow management; necessary in this very open landscape.
• The westernmost part is largely given over to wader management making up a significant block of land.
• The siting of options looks appropriate and fits well into the local landscape. The blocking of fields with the same option should enhance their performance in attracting waders.

Part of the plan includes sowing a seed mix to expand the species-rich grassland. More details of the contents of the mix and its origin would be useful in assessing its suitability. The continuing management of the existing species-rich grassland looks appropriate, but it is difficult to assess whether it might be too lax allowing taller species to exclude shorter ones. The management for waders follows prescriptions, but it would have been useful to see how they were adapted for local conditions, e.g. evidence of planned stocking rates.

The grazing management plan for the habitat mosaic looks appropriate, but it is difficult to judge how likely it is that low-growing species may be excluded if grazing is too lax.

Grassland 9

The farm has a mixture of arable and grassland in the south and a large area of semi-natural vegetation to the north.

• A number of hedgerows are the focus of Management or Restoration which will improve the structural component of the landscape.
• Two fields are managed as Species-Rich Grassland and one as a Habitat Mosaic. The northern area was dominated by Nardus and had little in the way of species beyond grasses and rushes making it an odd choice for this type of management.

The wader grazed grassland plan provides only a short window of no grazing 15 April to 26 May. Arguably a longer period may allow sufficient grass growth to provide better cover for wader chicks. However, it is difficult to be certain without precise knowledge of site fertility. The species-rich grassland management plan appears appropriate, but again difficult to assess without information about vegetation height and the likelihood of shading out of lower-growing species. The grazing plan for the habitat mosaic also appears appropriate.

Overall, the funded options on this farm are relatively small scale, but additional structural components like hedgerows should make a difference in this landscape.

Upland

Upland 1

This farm is largely made up of semi-natural vegetation with only a small amount of grassland surrounding the farm itself.

• The upland area is a mixture of heather and grass with evidence of past draining.
• The Wetland Management appears well situated.

The ditch blocking and peatland restoration plans have been developed by a Peatland Action Project Officer and are designed to reduce drainage rates from a large area of peatland with a clear pattern of drains. This should be very effective in rewetting the peatland area. The muirburn plan also looks appropriate. The grazing management plan looks appropriate as the aim is to use cattle to graze the rushes down; necessitating a relatively high stocking rate.

Overall, this is a large block of upland vegetation, and whilst it is difficult to assess the condition from aerial photography, the fact that all of it is entered should help its management to improve condition.

Upland 3

Upland 3 covers a large area of semi-natural vegetation with only a small amount of grassland down in the valley.

• Stock disposal covers much of the upland area which will reduce the pressure on the heather present.
• The Wetland Management appears well situated.

The ditch blocking and peatland restoration plans have been developed by a Peatland Action Project Officer and are designed to reduce drainage rates from a large area of peatland with a clear pattern of drains. This should be very effective in rewetting the peatland area. The grazing plan looks appropriate.

Overall, this is a large block of upland vegetation, and whilst it is difficult to assess the condition from aerial photography, the fact that a large, contiguous block has been entered should help management to improve condition.

Upland 5

This is a very large block of upland habitat. There is some heather, but large areas appear dominated by grasses, particularly purple moor-grass (Molinia caerulea).

• The moorland appears to have suffered from past grazing and/or heather beetle. Improving its management may increase the amount of heather present.

The bracken management plan looks appropriate as it partly deals with follow-up from the previous scheme and partly with newly treated areas. In fact, any lack of follow-up would be wasting the money and environmental gain from the previous control efforts.

The grazing plans for species-rich grassland and wetland appear appropriate. The moorland management plan is comprehensive. However, it is difficult to assess how effectively they will be without detailed site knowledge. However, stocking rates across the open moors appear appropriate to maintain or improve heather condition.

Overall, it is difficult to judge the appropriateness of the options from aerial imagery. However, management as a large block may help improve management over the moor.

Upland 7

This farm consists of a large block of semi-natural vegetation with some fields of improved and semi-improved pasture nearer the farm.

• The upland area is dominated by grasses with little heather visible. The main block is grazed by cattle which may reduce the dominance of purple moor-grass. There is evidence of previous drainage.
• The lower areas managed for waders or as wetland are mostly grouped together and so should be effective.

Like the other upland farms, judging the likely efficacy of the options is tricky from aerial imagery, but they appear in line with the scheme.

The wetland management plan looks appropriate for one area – only grazed in August and September to remove vegetation build up. However, the other area is grazed through the spring until 14 May, possibly preventing the nesting of waders through disturbance. The proposed management of the species-rich grassland looks appropriate. Moorland management appears appropriate for the described areas, but as for the other sites it is difficult to judge without local knowledge.

Upland 9

The majority of the farm is a large block of semi-natural, upland vegetation, with grassland down in the valleys.

• The upland area appears to have considerable heather cover and not too many areas dominated by grasses. There is evidence of past drainage. Reducing stocking levels should help improve the condition of the heather.
• Small fields are also managed for waders and species-rich grassland. The Wader Grazed Grasslands are in block, so could be useful for local wader populations.

Grazing management of the new species-rich grassland appears appropriate, but details were lacking on seed source and species in the mix. The grazing management of other areas of species-rich grassland also appeared appropriate, but it is difficult to assess without information on rates of sward growth. The same applies to the wetland management plan, but this is explicitly focussed on controlling rank vegetation.

The moorland grazing plan probably sets stocking at appropriate rates, but it is difficult to judge without detailed local knowledge.

Overall, the chosen options appear in keeping with the objectives of the scheme.

Annex 2 – The telephone questionnaire 

-	Question	Response	Instruction to surveyor
1	Are you the current main decision maker for your farm?	Y/N	-
2	Have you been the main decision maker for your farm since the start of 2014?	Y/N	-
3	Age	20-29, 30-39, etc.	-
4	Gender	M/F	-
5	Other than yourself, how many other people who work on your farm?	Number	-
6	Are you full time or part time	F/P	-
7	How long have you been running the farm (years)	Number	-
8	Ownership. Owner/Tenant/Mixture	O/T/M	-
9	Farm type. Livestock, Crops, Both, Other	L/C/B	-
10	Main product	Description	-
11	What percentage of your land is Less Favoured Area	Y/N	-
12	How big is your farm (hectares)	Number	-
13	Did you apply for funding under AECS	Y/N	If N go to 14, If Y go to 15
-	If you did not apply was it because you were	-	-
14a	Unaware	Y/N	-
14b	Not applicable to my farm type	Y/N	-
14c	Not applicable to land use on farm	Y/N	-
14d	The application process was too difficult or would have taken too long	Y/N	-
14e	Cost of using an agent to prepare the application	Y/N	-
14f	Implementing the measures would have been too difficult or would have taken too long	Y/N	-
14g	Insufficient information regarding the options	Y/N	-
14h	The options would restrict the area available for farming	Y/N	-
14i	The options would limit flexibility in farm management	Y/N	-
14j	The options would threaten farm income	Y/N	-
14k	Option penalties would be problematic	Y/N	-
14l	The options would bring increased weeds	Y/N	-
14m	The options would bring increased pests	Y/N	-
14n	Dates for grazing or cutting were too restrictive	Y/N	-
14o	Not enough points	Y/N	-
14p	Other barriers	Free text	-
-	No application to AECS	-	Go to Arable 27
-	-	-	Go to Grassland 29
-	-	-	Go to Upland 31
-	Application to AECS Y	-	-
15	How easy did you find the application process? Easy/OK/Difficult	E/O/D	-
15a	What was difficult?	Free text	-
16	Describe how long it took for the application process. Quick/OK/Time consuming	Q/O/T	-
17	Did you use an agent? No/Partly/Totally	N/P/T	-
-	What were your reasons for applying - set of yes/no questions?	-	-
18a	General financial benefit	Y/N	-
18b	Improved financial security for future	Y/N	-
18c	Improved environment for livestock	Y/N
18d	Improved environment for crop growing	Y/N	-
18e	Support for existing farm management	Y/N	-
18f	Utilises poorer areas of land	Y/N	-
18g	Improved aesthetic landscape	Y/N	-
18h	Wildlife and biodiversity	Y/N	-
18i	Prevent soil erosion	Y/N	-
18j	Improve water quality	Y/N	-
18k	Improve soil carbon	Y/N	-
18l	Other	Free text	-
19	Were you successful	Y/N	If Y go to 22, If N go to 20
20	If you applied and were unsuccessful do you know why?	Free text	-
21	Did you change your management anyway?		Go to Arable 26
-	-	-	Go to Grassland 28
-	-	-	Go to Upland 30
22	How easy overall was implementation. Easy/OK/Difficult	E/O/D	-
23	Which options were difficult?	Free text	-
-	We'd like to explore reasons for siting of measures		-
24a	Site complements or strengthens existing farm management	Y/N	-
24b	Land is not suitable for other agriculture	Y/N	-
24c	Improved aesthetic appearance of landscape	Y/N	-
24d	Improved prospects for wildlife	Y/N	-
24e	Land identified as particularly suitable for the option	Y/N	-
24f	Connectivity to similar areas	Y/N	-
24g	Other reasons	Description	-
-	Would you change locations if you did it again	-	-
25a	Would add extra areas in	Y/N	-
25b	Would relocate	Y/N	-
25c	Would rotate as part of the arable cycle	Y/N	-
25d	Would remove the area from the scheme completely	Y/N	-
25e	Would move land into another option	Y/N	-
25f	Please give you reasons for changing locations	Free text	-
-	-	-	Go to Arable 26
-	-	-	Go to Grassland 28
-	-	-	Go to Upland 30

 

Arable

-	Question	Response	Instruction to surveyor
-	Were your intentions in applying to benefit any of the following:	-	-
26a	Wildlife in general	Y/N	-
26b	Birds in general	Y/N	-
26c	Farmland birds	Y/N	-
26d	Game birds	Y/N	-
26e	Hares	Y/N	-
26f	Bees	Y/N	-
26g	Butterflies	Y/N	-
26h	Hedges	Y/N	-
26i	Native wild plants	Y/N	-
26j	Water quality	Y/N	-
26k	Soil health and carbon	Y/N	-
-	-	-	If not in scheme skip 81-85
81	What options worked well and why	Free text	-
82	What options did not work well, or could be improved	Free text	-
83	How was your experience in keeping a diary? Easy, OK, Hard work	E/O/D	-
84	Has the scheme helped you deliver your environmental objectives	Free text	-
85	Is it better, the same or worse than previous schemes	B/S/W	-
-	Have you seen changes in those groups? Large increase, small increase, no change, small decline, big decline	-	-
27a	Wildlife in general	++/+/0/-/--	-
27b	Birds in general	++/+/0/-/--	-
27c	Farmland birds	++/+/0/-/--	-
27d	Game birds	++/+/0/-/--	-
27e	Hares		-
27f	Bees	++/+/0/-/--	-
27g	Butterflies	++/+/0/-/--	-
27h	Hedges	++/+/0/-/--	-
27i	Native wild plants	++/+/0/-/--	-
27j	Water quality	++/+/0/-/--	-
27k	Soil health and carbon	++/+/0/-/--	-

 

Grassland

-	Question	Response	Instruction to surveyor
-	Were your intentions in applying to benefit any of the following:	-	-
28a	Wildlife in general	Y/N	-
28b	Birds in general	Y/N	-
28c	Farmland birds	Y/N	-
28d	Wading birds	Y/N	-
28e	Bees	Y/N	-
28f	Butterflies	Y/N	-
28g	Native wild plants	Y/N	-
28h	Soil health and carbon	Y/N	-
-	-	-	If Not in scheme skip 86-91
86	What was your experience with the grazing management plan	Free text	-
87	What options worked well and why	Free text	-
88	What options did not work well, or could be improved	Free text	-
89	How was your experience in keeping a diary? Easy, OK, Hard work	E/O/D	-
90	Has the scheme helped you deliver your environmental objectives	Free text	-
91	Is it better, the same or worse than previous schemes	B/S/W	-
-	Have you seen changes in those groups? Large increase, small increase, no change, small decline, big decline	-	-
29a	Wildlife in general	++/+/0/-/--	-
29b	Birds in general	++/+/0/-/--	-
29c	Farmland birds	++/+/0/-/--	-
29d	Wading birds	++/+/0/-/--	-
29e	Bees	++/+/0/-/--	-
29f	Butterflies	++/+/0/-/--	-
29g	Native wild plants	++/+/0/-/--	-
29h	Soil health and carbon	++/+/0/-/--	-

 

Upland

-	Question	Response	Instruction to surveyor
-	Were your intentions in applying to benefit any of the following:	-	-
30a	Wildlife in general	Y/N	-
30b	Birds in general	Y/N	-
30c	Wading birds	Y/N	-
30d	Heather	Y/N	-
30e	Peatland or bog	Y/N	-
30f	Soil health and carbon	Y/N	If not in scheme skip 92-97
-	-	-	-
92	What was your experience with the moorland management plan	Free text	-
93	What options worked well and why	Free text	-
94	What options did not work well, or could be improved	Free text	-
95	How was your experience in keeping a diary? Easy, OK, Hard work	E/O/D	-
96	Has the scheme helped you deliver your environmental objectives	Free text	-
97	Is it better, the same or worse than previous schemes	B/S/W	-
-	Have you seen changes in those groups? Large increase, small increase, no change, small decline, big decline		-
31a	Wildlife in general	++/+/0/-/--	-
31b	Birds in general	++/+/0/-/--	-
31c	Wading birds	++/+/0/-/--	-
31d	Heather	++/+/0/-/--	-
31e	Peatland or bog	++/+/0/-/--	-
31f	Soil health and carbon	++/+/0/-/--	Finished

 

Arable Greening

-	Question	Response	Instruction to surveyor
60	Have you had to implement Greening requirements within the Common Agricultural Policy?	Y/N	If N finished
-	-	-	If Y Which?
61	Protect environmentally sensitive permanent grassland	Y/N	If Y 61a
62	Grow a minimum number of crops	Y/N	If Y 62a
63	Farm 5% of arable land as an Ecological Focus Area (EFA)	Y/N	If Y 63a
-	Environmentally sensitive permanent grassland	-	-
61a	How easy did you find the implementation? Easy, OK, Difficult	E/O/D	-
61b	Please explain problems or successes	Free text	-
-	Growing minimum number of crops	-	-
62a	How easy did you find the implementation? Easy, OK, Difficult	E/O/D	-
62b	Please explain problems or successes	Free text	-
-	Farming 5% of arable land as an Ecological Focus Area	-	-
63a	How easy did you find the implementation? Easy, OK, Difficult	E/O/D	-
-	Which of the following have you used?	-	-
63b	Fallow land	Y/N	-
63c	Buffer strips	Y/N	-
63d	Field margins	Y/N	-
63e	Catch crop or green cover crop	Y/N	-
63f	Nitrogen-fixing crops	Y/N	-
63g	Which options do you think met their greening objectives	Free text	-
63h	Which options caused you problems	Free text	-

 

Grassland Greening

-	Question	Response	Instruction to surveyor
70	Did you have to implement Greening requirements for environmentally sensitive grassland?	Y/N	If N finished
-	-	-	If Y 70a
70a	How easy did you find the implementation? Easy, OK, Difficult	E/O/D	-
70b	Please explain problems or successes	Free text	Finished