Environmental Stewardship and hedgerows

Briefing for change - Key facts, figures and pointers

Hedgelink, January 2011

Summary

  1. £48.9M is spent annually on Environmental Stewardship hedgerow options (October 2010). Of this 93.5% is spent on Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) and Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS).
  1. Between 1998 and 2007 there was a significant 1.4% loss of hedgerows in England, and a 4.5% loss of hedgerow trees. The loss of hedgerows has been largely due to inappropriate management, not to grubbing out. About 42% of hedges are in favourable condition for biodiversity.
  1. The main reasons for decline in hedgerow extent and condition are that far too few hedges are being rejuvenated through laying or coppicing, an essential part of the management cycle. Insufficient new hedges are being planted to offset the loss.
  1. The amount of public money spent in England on hedgerow rejuvenation and new planting has fallen from a peak of £21.5M in 2004 (under Countryside Stewardship (CSS) and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs)) to about £2.2M pa in 2010 (under HLS). This is a 90% fall.
  1. Nearly all current expenditure under ELS (£45.7M) is for options which require cutting regimes more favourable for wildlife. Hedgelink welcomes the fact that 32% of England’s hedges are now subject to improved cutting regimes.
  1. However, currently for every £21 spent under Environmental Stewardship on improved cutting, just £1 is spent on rejuvenation.
  1. New evidence shows hedges cut on a two year cycle deliver few benefits for biodiversity. This is especially true if cut in the early autumn, the prevalent practice, since these hedges still produce only a minimal berry crop available to wildlife in the winter. Currently about £30M are spent each year on two year cutting options.
  1. Hedgelink welcomes the inclusion in 2010of hedge laying and gapping-up options in Uplands Entry Level Stewardship (UELS, together with the addition of options in ELS, OELS and UELS to encourage the recruitment of new hedgerow trees and to protect mature individuals. The success of these measures should be carefully monitored.
  1. All hedgerows consisting predominantly of native species are a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat. The habitat supports 130 priority species, including many farmland species that are rapidly declining. Hedgerows also deliver a very high number of ecosystem services, probably more than any other habitat.
  1. This document should be read in conjunction with the Key Messages document on the importance of hedges at Hedgelink-Keymessages on the importance of hedges.doc.
  1. The future development of Environmental Stewardship should aim to simplify the scheme and its delivery, especially at the Entry Level.
  1. Introduction
  2. The aim of this document is to provide briefing on the management options currently available though Environmental Stewardship (ES) agreements for hedgerow management, and on the impact these options are having on the delivery of the UK Hedgerow Habitat Action Plan (HAP).

1.2.The views of the Hedgerow HAP Group (Hedgelink) on how ES may be developed to improve delivery of wildlife and ecosystem benefits are presented. Individual member organisations may however choose to express these views in different ways.

  1. Hedgerow management options available (2010)

This is an overview: see hedgelink - Environmental Stewardship hedgerow options, January 2011.docfor more details. Note that where options are paired (eg EB1 and EB2), the first is where both sides of a hedge are entered into the scheme, the second where only one side is.

2.1.Entry Level Stewardship (ELS)

2.1.1.The main hedgerow options available under ELS require either that hedges should be at least 1.5 m high and not cut more often than once every two years (EB1 and EB2) or, for more points, that they should be at least 2.0 m high and not cut more often than once every three years (EB3). Under these options, hedges must not be cut before 1 September (a month after the first cutting date allowed under cross-compliance).

2.1.2.Additional options are available for the management of stone-faced hedge banks (EB4 & EB5), earth bank management (EB12 and EB13), and for the establishment of permanent margins alongside ditches running next to hedges (EB8, EB9 and EB10).

2.1.3.In 2010 another option was introduced, to encourage the establishment of hedgerow trees by tagging (EC23). Also, the roots of existing well-grown trees can be protected by the provision of buffer strips (EC24 for cultivated land and EC25 for grassland).

2.1.4.Note that no payments are available under ELS for hedge laying, coppicing, gapping-up or new planting.

2.2.Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS)

2.2.1.The same options are available under as under OELS. Here they are termed OB1, OB2 and OB3, etc.

2.3.Upland Entry Level Scheme (UELS

2.3.1.In contrast to ELS and OELS, under UELS, introduced in 2010 for Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDA), payments are available for capital works, namely laying/gapping-up (UB14), stone-faced bank restoration (UB15) and earth bank restoration (UB16). Up to 40m of hedge can be entered into each of these options each year, giving a maximum possible total per holding total of 200m over the course of the 5 year agreement. UELS applicants can also choose relevant options available under ELS and OELS (although for some the number of points scored is reduced for land above the Moorland Line).

2.4.Higher Level Stewardship (HLS)

2.4.1.Within HLS there is just one management option, for hedges of very high environmental value (HB11 & HB12). Such hedges are those which support target species of farmland birds, insects or mammals, or which are important because they make a significant contribution to the local landscape character or are historically important.

2.4.2.Payments are also available under HLS for capital works, including laying, coppicing and gapping up (HR), new hedge planting (HP), stone-face hedge bank repair (BR) or restoration (BS), earth bank restoration (ER) and planting hedgerow trees (STT).

2.4.3.Further supplementary payments are available for removal of old fence lines (HF), substantial pre-work (HSC) and top binding and staking (HSL).

  1. Uptake of hedgerow options (October 2010)

3.1.ELS

  • £43.7M (EB1/8 + EB2/9 + EB3/10)- average annual expenditure on ELS hedgerow options
  • 87,494 km of hedges (both sides) are managed so they are at least 1.5m high and not cut more than once every two years (EB1/8)
  • 48,864km of hedges (one side only) are managed so they are at least 1.5m high and not cut more than once every two years (EB2/9)
  • 38,293 km of hedges (both sides) are managed so they are at least 2.0m high and not cut more than once every three years (EB3/10)
  • 174,651 km – total length of hedge under improved cutting management (EB1/8, EB2/9 and EB3/10)
  • 32% - the percentage of England’s 547,000km of hedgerow which are under ELS and should be being cut every other year or once every three years

3.2.OELS

  • £2M (OB1/8, OB2/9, OB3/10)– average annual expenditure on OELS hedgerow options
  • 10,830 km – the total length of hedgerow under OELS options (OB1/8, OB2/9 and OB3/10) – a further 2% of England’s hedgerows

3.3.HLS

  • £2.2M –approx average annual expenditure under HLS (2005 – 2010) on hedge laying, coppicing, gapping-up and planting (HR and PH).
  • £1M – approximate average annual expenditure (2005 – 2009) on 2,000 km of hedges of very high environmental value (HB11 & HB12)
  • Under existing agreements (October 2010):
  • 3,010km of hedges have been, or will be, restored by gapping-up, laying or coppicing (HR)
  • 1141 km of new hedges have been, or will be, planted (PH)
  • 0.55% of hedges in England have been, or will be, restored
  • 2.5% - percentage of hedges that need to be laid or coppiced each year to sustain the resource (assuming 40 year management cycle), equivalent to 14,350 km pa
  • 1.1% of England’s 547,000km are, in total, under agreement to be managed under HLS

3.4.ES total

  • 48.9M –annual expenditure on ELS, OELS and HLS. (Figures for UELS not included as this scheme only opened for applications in 2010.)
  • 6.5% - proportion of annual ES expenditure spent on HLS (ELS:HLS ratio is 1:14)
  • 4.5% - proportion of annual ES expenditure spent on hedge restoration and planting
  • Cutting: restoration/planting expenditure ratio is 21:1
  1. Changes in expenditure on hedgerows under agri-environment schemes between 2000 and 2009
  • £9.5M - average annual expenditure under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) on hedge laying, coppicing, gapping-up and new planting.
  • £18.3M – peak annual CSS expenditure on above items (2004)
  • £1.3M – average annual expenditure under Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) agreements
  • £3.5M - peak annual ESA expenditure on above items (2004)
  • £21.5M - total amount spent under CSS and ESA in England on hedgerow capital works in 2004
  • 90% approximate fall in annual expenditure on hedgerow capital works between 2004 and 2010
  1. Impact of ES on delivery of Hedgerow Habitat Action Plan

The UK Hedgerow HAP has three groups of targets:

5.1.To prevent net loss

5.1.1.Between 1998 and 2007 there was a significant net loss of 1.4% of hedgerows in England (CS 2007). This reverses a slight net increase in then ten years before. New planting is no longer offsetting loss.

5.1.2.The main reasons for loss are hedgerows becoming relict features due to neglect or harmful management (largely repeated annual cutting for many years). Note that between 1998 and 2007 there was a 6% decline in the extent of managed hedges and 9% increase in hedges formed of lines of trees (i.e. beyond the stage at which they can be laid).

5.1.3.The high uptake of ELS hedgerow options (EB1, EB2, and EB3) to reduce the frequency of annual cutting may be expected to reduce the speed with which managed hedgerows become relict features through developing gaps. However, they will still become relict features eventually unless they are periodically rejuvenated from the base by laying or coppicing.

5.1.4.The 90% decline in availability of grant-aid for hedge rejuvenation(also termed restoration) and planting from the high point in 2004 may be expected to increase the rate of loss of hedgerows. More hedges will either be neglected altogether or only managed by annual cutting.

5.2.To improve hedgerow condition

5.2.1.In 2007, only 13% of managed hedges next to arable land were in favourable condition (CS 2007). Overall, however, 42% of hedges in England may be in favourable condition (Wolton, 2009). The main signs of poor condition are that hedges either have excessive gaps, or they are too short or too thin, or they produce low fruit (berry, etc) crops.

5.2.2.This reflects the lack of laying or coppicing, and repeated cutting year after year at the same height- the same causes as account for the net loss in 5.1 above.Likewise, the impact of ES option availability and uptake is similar, except with respect to fruit production.

5.2.3. Recent research (CEH 2010) suggests that ELS options EB1 and EB2, which encourage cutting every other year, result in little increase in fruit availability for wintering birds and other wildlife. Not only do hedge shrubs produce few flowers in the second year, but since most hedges are cut early in the autumn, any berries that are produced are removed before they can be taken by birds.

5.3.To halt the decline in isolated hedgerow trees

5.3.1.Between 1998 and 2007 there was a significant net loss of 4.5% of isolated hedgerow trees in England (CS 2007). There are far too few young trees to replace mature specimens that die or are felled.

5.3.2.The main reason for lack of recruitment is that saplings are prevented from growing by hedge cutting. The fall in tree numbers may be exacerbated by more mature trees being felled for Health and Safety reasons.

5.3.3.Before 2010 there were no measures to promote hedgerow trees in ES beyond the availability of capital payments for establishment in HLS (STT). However options were introduced in 2010 to ELS, OELS and UELS to support the tagging of young hedgerow trees and to protect the roost systems of mature trees.

5.4.Summary of impact

5.4.1.ES in its current form will not stop the loss of hedgerows in England, nor the decline in their condition. Indeed, the huge fall in availability of grant for hedge rejuvenation (laying and coppicing) and planting may be expected to exacerbate the problem.

5.4.2.Further funding for hedge rejuvenation and new planting is essential if the UK hedgerow HAP is to be delivered in England.

5.4.3.The recent availability of funding for hedge laying and gapping-up under UELS is a welcome step in the right direction, as is the inclusion of options in ELS, OELS and UELS to support hedgerow trees.

5.4.4.On-going Defra-sponsored research to improve understanding on the impact of different hedgerow cutting regimes on hedgerow wildlife, structure and sustainability is welcomed.

Environmental Stewardship and hedgerows – briefing for change, final,27 January 2011, Robert Wolton
hedgelink – working together for the UK’s hedgerows | 1