4 objective 1: scenarios 1 and 2 - changes in uptake under

NELMS Opportunity Assessment 53 November 2013

4 Objective 1: Scenarios 1 and 2 - changes in

uptake under individual objectives

4.1 As noted in Chapter 2, in the database each landscape theme is made up of a series of landscape objectives each with a bespoke landscape threshold (the point at which ES uptake will have a recognisable effect on the landscape). These thresholds are expressed as relevant ES uptake as a percentage of the overall stock of that feature in that NCA. It is the combination of these results that identifies the overall landscape result for each theme in each NCA.

4.2 Looking at the results by individual objective under each scenario provides more detail on the effects of changes under the scenarios. These effects are summarised below by landscape theme. The relevant figures can be found at the end of each scenario on the following pages. These figures identify the number of objectives in each ALT where the relevant thresholds are met or exceeded i.e. the number of objectives that ‘score’ positive. An example, of these figures is provided in Figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1: Example of a chart showing the number of positive objectives by ALT

4.3 There are many subtleties to be picked up from these figures. In the narrative below the emphasis is on identifying significant changes (over 50%) in the number of positive objectives brought about by the different scenarios. The findings here can be cross compared further with the figures in Appendix 3 which identifies those individual landscape objectives that are most influenced by changes in the coverage of ELS. The single objectives that are covered are:

A5: Protection of infield trees (there is very low uptake for hedgerow tree options – only introduced in 2010) B1: Management of hedgerows B4: Management and restoration of stone walls B5: Management of banks (and stone-faced hedgebanks)


C2: Retention of pastoral character (low input grasslands) D1: Retention of historic farm buildings E1: Retention and management of archaeology on arable E3: Retention and management of archaeology on grassland

NB These are not individual options – they are made up of a collection of options that meet the stated objective. The objective codes are those used in the database.

Scenario 1: What would be the landscape effect of a 43% reduction

in the current coverage of ELS across all NCAs?

Scenario 1(a) Comparison of the landscape effects under current level of ELS uptake (2013), with the landscape effects of a 43% reduction in the coverage of ELS

4.4 Woodland and trees (Figure 4.2): Under Scenario 1(a) only three objectives exceed the relevant thresholds: A2 Woodland protection, A5 Protection of field trees, and A7 Renewal of hedgerow trees. Of these, A5 is by far the most dominant across all ALTs.

4.5 Under this Scenario a 43% reduction in ELS coverage, results in three ALTs experiencing in excess of a 50% drop in the number of positive objectives. These three ALTs are: Chalk and Limestone Mixed (67% fall in positive objectives), Western Mixed (72% drop) and the Upland Fringe (58% drop). In all cases individual trees are a key characteristic of the landscape.

4.6 Field patterns and boundary features (Figure 4.3): Under Scenario 1(a) five objectives exceed the relevant thresholds, these are: B1 Management of hedgerows, B3 Management of ditches/dykes, B4 Management of stone walls, B5 Management of banks, and B6 Use of buffer strips to reinforce field patterns in arable areas. Of these B1 is by far the most dominant in the lowlands although B3 is also common in the Eastern Arable ALT. In the uplands objectives for walls and banks are also commonly positive.

4.7 With a 43% reduction in ELS coverage under this Scenario, there are two ALTS where the number of positive objectives drops by in excess of 50%. These are: the SE Mixed ALT (with a drop of 63% in positive objectives), and Western Mixed (a 54% drop) – the two most strongly pastoral lowland landscapes. In addition, the equivalent drop in the Upland Fringe is 47%.

4.8 Agricultural land use (Figure 4.4): Under Scenario 1(a) four objectives exceed the relevant thresholds, these are: C2 Low input grasslands, C3 Retention and management of wet grasslands, C4 Retention and management of rough pasture, and C5 Retention/restoration of traditional mixed stock grazing. Of these, C2 is by far the most dominant, except in the Uplands where it is matched by the combined effect of the other objectives.

4.9 It is notable that within the four lowland ALTs a 43% reduction in ELS coverage, results in no objectives remaining positive, confirming the findings in the last Chapter. Also in the Uplands ALT, a reduced ELS coverage results in a 50% drop in the number of positive objectives under this theme.

4.10 Traditional agricultural buildings (Figure 4.5): Under Scenario 1(a) only one objective exceeds the relevant threshold: D1 Retention of historic farm buildings. A 43% reduction in the coverage of ELS results in a significant drop in the number of positive objectives in three ALTs: Chalk and Limestone Mixed (50% drop), Eastern Arable (57% drop) and the Upland Fringe (55% drop). In the Uplands where these features are particularly important there is a 40% drop in positive objectives under this theme.

4.11 Historic environment (Figure 4.6): Under Scenario 1(a) four objectives exceed the relevant thresholds, these are: E1 Retention and management of archaeology on arable, E3


Retention and management of archaeology on grass, E4 Removal of archaeological features from cultivation, and E5 Retention and increased visibility of archaeology on moorland. Of these E3 is the most common. In addition, a significant number of NCAs meet the relevant threshold under E5 in the Uplands. With a 43% reduction in ELS coverage, the SE Mixed ALT shows a significant drop in positive objectives (a drop of 63%). There are also other noticeable decreases, with the Chalk and Limestone ALT showing a drop of 42% in positive objectives, and the Western Mixed showing a 48% drop.

4.12 Semi natural habitats (Figure 4.7): Under Scenario 1(a) three objectives exceed the relevant thresholds: F3 Management/restoration of upland hay meadows, F7 Maintenance and restoration of moorland, and F9 Retention/restoration of traditional cattle grazing on moorland commons. Under this Scenario the number of positive objectives drops by 31% in the Uplands ALT.

Figure 4.2: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for woodland and trees per ALT: Under Scenario 1(a)


Figure 4.3: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for field patterns and boundary types per ALT: Under Scenario 1(a)

Figure 4.4: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for agricultural land use per ALT: Under Scenario 1(a)


Figure 4.5: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for traditional farm buildings per ALT: Under Scenario 1(a)

Figure 4.6: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for historic environment per ALT: Under Scenario 1(a)


Figure 4.7: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for semi-natural habitats per ALT: Under Scenario 1(a )

Scenario 1(b) Comparison of the landscape effects under current levels of ES uptake (ELS+HLS) (2013) with the landscape effects of a 43% reduction in the coverage of ELS but with HLS uptake maintained at current levels

4.13 Woodland and trees (Figure 4.8): With the introduction of HLS under Scenario 1(b) a total of eight objectives come into play, all exceeding the relevant thresholds: A1 Active woodland management, A2 Woodland protection, A3 Woodland creation, A4 Semi-natural woodland regeneration, A5 Protection of field trees, A6 Protection of hedgerow trees, A7Renewal of hedgerow trees, A8: Management of riverside/bankside trees, and A9 Management and extension of traditional orchards. With this wide array of objectives no one objective dominates.

4.14 In no ALT under Scenario 1(b) does a 43% reduction in ELS uptake result in a significant reduction in the number of positive objectives. The most noticeable drop is in the Western Mixed ALT which experiences a 21% drop in positive objectives.

4.15 Field patterns and boundary features (Figure 4.9): Under Scenario 1(b) six objectives exceed the relevant thresholds, these are: B1 Management of hedgerows, B2 Creation of new hedgerow lengths, B3 Management of ditches/dykes, B4 Management of stone walls, B5 Management of banks, and B6 Use of buffer strips to reinforce field patterns in arable areas. Of these, B1 continues to dominate in the lowlands, with B4 commonly exceeding the relevant thresholds in the uplands.

4.16 Only in the SE Mixed ALT does a 43% reduction in ELS coverage, results in a significant reduction in positive objectives (a 63% drop). The other highest drops are the Eastern Arable ALT with a 32% drop, the Western Mixed ALT with a 37% drop, and the Upland Fringe with a 31% drop in positive objectives.

4.17 Agricultural land use (Figure 4.10): Under Scenario 1(b) it is the same four objectives as under Scenario 1(a) that exceed the relevant thresholds but with the introduction of HLS no one objective dominates. Further, with HLS now added, a 43% reduction in the coverage of ELS, does not result in any of the ALTs showing a significant reduction (over 50%) in positive objectives. The most evident drops under this theme are: the Chalk and Limestone ALT (30% drop) and the Uplands with a drop of 33%.


4.18 Traditional agricultural buildings (Figure 4.11): Under Scenario 1(b) both relevant objectives exceed the relevant thresholds: D1 retention of historic farm buildings, and D2 Restoration of historic farm buildings. Again, with HLS now added, a 43% reduction in the coverage of ELS does not result in any of the ALTs showing a significant reduction (over 50%) in the number of positive objectives. Those with the most evident drops are Eastern Arable ALT with a 41% drop, the Western Mixed with a 35% drop and the Upland Fringe with a 42% drop.

4.19 Historic environment (Figure 4.12): Under Scenario 1(b) with the introduction of HLS, seven objectives exceed the relevant thresholds, these are: E1 Retention and management of archaeology on arable, E2 Management of archaeology on arable as part of wider conservation objectives, E3 Retention and management of archaeology on grass, E4 Removal of archaeological features from cultivation, E5 Retention and increased visibility of archaeology on moorland, E6 Retention and management of parkland/wood pasture, .E7 Management of larger water features, and E8 Retention and management of small ponds. As a result of the thresholds of this wide range of objectives being met, no one objective dominates.

4.20 Again with HLS added, a 43% reduction in the coverage of ELS does not result in any of the ALTs showing a significant reduction (over 50%) in the number of positive objectives. In all cases the drops are under 15%.

4.21 Semi natural habitats (Figure 4.13): Under Scenario 1(b) with the addition of HLS, nine objectives exceed the relevant thresholds. These are: F1 Management/restoration/creation of lowland species-rich grassland, F2 Management/restoration/creation of upland species-rich grassland, F3 Management/restoration of upland hay meadows, F4 Management of lowland hay meadows, F5 Management/restoration/creation of lowland heathland, F6 Management/restoration/creation of fen, lowland raised bog and reedbed, F7 Maintenance and restoration of moorland, F8 Rewetting of areas of blanket bog, mires and flushes, and F9 Retention/restoration of traditional cattle grazing on moorland commons. With this array of objectives no one objective dominates, although there is variation between the ALTs reflecting the nature of habitats present.

4.22 With the addition of HLS under this Scenario there is little change in the number of positive objectives.

4.23 Coast (Figure 4.14): As all objectives under this theme relate to HLS uptake, there is no difference between current levels of ES uptake and uptake under Scenario 1(b).


Figure 4.8: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for woodland and trees per ALT: Under Scenario 1(b)

Figure 4.9: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for field patterns and boundary types per ALT: Under Scenario 1(b )


Figure 4.10: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for agricultural land use per ALT: Under Scenario 1(b)

Figure 4.11: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for traditional farm buildings per ALT: Under Scenario 1(b)


Figure 4.12: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for historic environment per ALT: Under Scenario 1(b)

Figure 4.13: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for semi-natural habitats per ALT: Under Scenario 1(b)


Figure 4.14: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for coast per ALT:

Under Scenario 1(b)


Scenario 2: What would be the landscape effect of concentrating the reduced

area (43% reduction) of ELS uptake into defined geographical or target areas

(mirroring the proposed targeting of the Mid-Tier of NELMS)?

Scenario 2(a) Comparison of the current level of ELS uptake (2013) across all NCAs, with ELS only operating within the ‘Target’ NCAs

4.24 Woodland and trees (Figure 4.15): As in Scenario 1(a) only three objectives exceed the relevant thresholds: A2 Woodland protection, A5 Protection of field trees, and A7Renewal of hedgerow trees. Again, A5 is by far the most dominant objective across all ALTs.

4.25 Under Scenario 1(a), there were three ALTs where a drop in ELS led to a significant drop in positive objectives under this theme. Under this Scenario, with ELS coverage now concentrated in target areas no ALTs are affected in this way. The most evident drops in positive objectives are found in the Chalk and Limestone ALT (44% drop) and the Upland Fringe ALT (33% drop).

4.26 Field patterns and boundary features (Figure 4.16): As in Scenario 1(a) the same five objectives exceed the relevant thresholds, again with BI (hedgerows) dominating in the lowlands and with B4 (walls) commonly exceeding the relevant thresholds in the uplands.

4.27 Under Scenario 1(a) there were two lowland ALTs that showed a significant drop in the number of positive objectives. Under this Scenario the number rises to three: the Chalk and Limestone ALT with a 55% drop in positive objectives, the Eastern Arable ALT with a 61% drop, and the Upland Fringe with a 50% drop. In addition, two further ALTs are showing a drop in excess of 40%: the Western Mixed ALT (44% drop) and the Uplands (a 47% drop). This suggests that for boundary features, the concentration on specific target areas may result in more NCAs failing to meet the relevant thresholds when compared to the results where there is a reduction in ELS coverage across all NCAs

4.28 Agricultural land use (Figure 4.17): The same four objectives exceed the relevant thresholds as in Scenario 1(a) and of these, again, it is the low input grasslands objective that dominates, except in the Uplands where it is matched by the combined effect of the other objectives.

4.29 However, unlike Scenario 1(a) where in the four lowland ALTs, a 43% reduction in ELS coverage, resulted in no positive objectives under this theme, under this Scenario all ALTs retain positive objectives. The only ALT showing a significant drop in positive objectives is the Eastern Arable ALT (50% drop), although there are also clear drops in the Chalk and Limestone ALT (42% drop), Western Mixed ALT (38% drop) and the Uplands ALT (43% drop).

4.30 Traditional agricultural buildings (Figure 4.18): As in Scenario 1(a) only one objective exceeds the relevant threshold (D1) and under this Scenario three ALTs experienced a significant drop in .positive objectives. Under Scenario 2(a), with ELS concentrated in target areas two ALTs: (Chalk and Limestone Mixed and Eastern Arable) show a 50% drop in positive objectives, while the Uplands show a 40% drop, as in Scenario 1(a). Under Scenario 1(a) the Upland Fringe ALT also showed a 50% drop in positive objectives while under Scenario 2(a) the equivalent figure is 33%.

4.31 Historic environment (Figure 4.19): Like Scenario 1(a) the same four objectives exceed the relevant thresholds, and it is E3 Management of archaeology on grassland that is the most common. In the Uplands a significant number of NCAs also meet the relevant threshold under E5 for the Management of archaeology on moorland.

4.32 With a concentration of ELS within target areas, the Eastern Arable ALT shows a 69% reduction in the number of positive objectives under this theme, while the Uplands ALT, while not breaching 50%, has a fall of 48% in positive objectives.


Semi natural habitats (Figure 4.20): The same three objectives exceed the relevant thresholds as in Scenario 1(a) and likewise the most significant drop in positive objectives is seen in the Uplands ALT where the number drops by 47%.

Figure 4.15: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for woodland and trees per ALT: Under Scenario 2(a)

Figure 4.16: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for field patterns and boundary types per ALT: Under Scenario 2(a)


Figure 4.17: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for agricultural land use per ALT: Under Scenario 2(a)

Figure 4.18: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for traditional farm buildings per ALT: Under Scenario 2(a)


Figure 4.19: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for historic environment per ALT: Under Scenario 2(a)

Figure 4.20: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for semi-natural habitats per ALT: Under Scenario 2(a)

Scenario 2(b) Comparison of the current level of ES uptake (ELS+HLS) (2013) across all NCAs, with current ELS+HLS uptake operating within the ‘Target’ NCAs, with HLS only operating in the remaining ‘Non-target’ NCAs (representing the site-specific ‘Upper-Tier‘ agreements of NELMS)

4.33 Woodland and trees (Figure 4.21): With the introduction of HLS under Scenario 2(b), as in Scenario 1(b) a total of eight objectives come into play, all exceeding the relevant thresholds. Likewise, as in Scenario 1(b) in no ALT does the concentration of ELS into target areas result in a significant reduction in the number of positive objectives.


4.34 Field patterns and boundary features (Figure 4.22): Again, as in Scenario 1(b) six objectives exceed the relevant thresholds, with B1 (hedgerows) dominating in the lowlands and B4 commonly exceeding the relevant thresholds in the uplands.

4.35 Under Scenario 2(b), in none of the ALTs does the drop in ELS coverage result in a 50% reduction in the number of positive objectives. However, this magnitude of reduction is close to being breached in a number of cases: Eastern Arable ALT (44% drop), Western Mixed (43% drop) and the Uplands ALT (49% drop) – the same ALTs that showed a significant drop in positive objectives under Scenario 1(b).

4.36 Agricultural land use (Figure 4.23): Scenario 2(b) is made up of the same four objectives as Scenario 1(b) all relating to the management of permanent pasture in different forms. Further, with HLS now added, a concentration of ELS into target areas, does not result in any of the ALTs showing a significant reduction (over 50%) in positive objectives. The ALT to show the largest proportional drop is the Uplands where there is a drop of 30% under Scenario 2(b).

4.37 Traditional agricultural buildings (Figure 4.24): As in Scenario 1(b) both relevant objectives exceed the relevant thresholds. Likewise with the addition of HLS under Scenario 2(b), a concentration of ELS uptake into target areas does not result in any of the ALTs showing a significant reduction (over 50%) in the number of positive objectives. The ALT to show the greatest drop is the Eastern Arable with a drop from 17 to 10, a 41% drop. The Uplands ALT where this objective is particularly important shows a drop from 23 to17, a 26% drop.

4.38 Historic environment (Figure 4.25): The seven relevant objectives are the same as those under Scenario 1(b) and across this wide range of objectives no one objective dominates. Again, with the addition of HLS, the concentration of ELS into target areas does not result in any of the ALTs showing a significant reduction (over 50%) in the number of positive objectives. The greatest drop under Scenario 2(b) is in the Uplands ALT which shows a drop from 42 to 30 positive objectives, a 29% drop.

4.39 Semi natural habitats (Figure 4.26): In Scenario 2(b) the same nine objectives exceed the relevant thresholds as in Scenario 1(b). Again with this array of objectives no one objective dominates, although there is variation between the ALTs reflecting the nature of habitats present.

4.40 Under this Scenario the main changes are in the Uplands ALT with a drop from 67 to 48 positive objectives, a drop of 28%.

4.41 Coast (Figure 4.27): As all objectives under this theme relate to HLS uptake, there is no difference between current levels of ES uptake or uptake under any of the Scenarios.


Figure 4.21: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for woodland and trees per ALT: Under Scenario 2(b)

Figure 4.22: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for field patterns and boundary types per ALT: Under Scenario 2(b)


Figure 4.23: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for agricultural land use per ALT: Under Scenario 2(b)

Figure 4.24: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for traditional farm buildings per ALT: Under Scenario 2(b)


Figure 4.25: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for historic environment per ALT: Under Scenario 2(b)

Figure 4.26: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for semi-natural habitats per ALT: Under Scenario 2(b)


Figure 4.27: Decrease in the number of positive objectives for coast per ALT: Under Scenario 2(b)


Conclusions: What the study of objectives under different scenarios tell us

4.42 The findings from the assessment of positive objectives under the different scenarios reinforce those of Chapter 3. The focus of the analysis is on significant drops (over 50%) in the number of positive objectives brought about by the different scenarios.

4.43 Overall it is Scenario 1(a) (43% reduction in ELS coverage across all NCAs) that shows the greatest reduction in positive landscape objectives across all themes. The exception is Boundaries where the greatest reduction in positive landscape objectives occurs under Scenario 2(a).

4.44 In Scenarios 1(b) and 2(b) underlying changes in the coverage of ELS under Scenarios 1(a) and 2(a) are largely masked by ELS and HLS working together.

4.45 These changes are illustrated in Table 4.1 below: This identifies the ALTs where (a) the number of positive objectives drops by 50% or more under each Scenario be theme; and (b) those ALTs where it drops by 43% - 49% i.e. it is focusing on where the landscape effects are the same or greater than the 43% reduction in ELS coverage modelled through the different scenarios.

Themes Significant drop in number of positive objectives (>43% drop)

Scenario 1(a) Scenario 1(b) Scenario 2(a) Scenario (2(b)

Woodland and trees

Drop of 50% or >

Chalk & Limestone ALT

Western \Mixed ALT

Upland Fringe ALT

Drop of 43%-49%

-

- - -

Boundaries Drop of 50% or >

SE Mixed ALT

Western \Mixed ALT

Drop of 43%-49%

Upland Fringe ALT

Drop of 50% or >

SE Mixed ALT

Drop of 43%-49%

-

Drop of 50% or >


Eastern Arable ALT

Upland Fringe ALT

Drop of 43%-49%

Western Mixed ALT

Uplands ALT

Drop of 50% or >

-

Drop of 43%-49%

Eastern Arable ALT

Western Mixed ALT

Uplands ALT

Agricultural land use

Drop of 50% or >


Eastern Arable ALT

SE Mixed ALT

Western \Mixed ALT

Upland Fringe ALT

Drop of 43%-49%

-

- Drop of 50% or >

Eastern Arable ALT

Drop of 43%-49%

Uplands ALT

-

Traditional buildings

Drop of 50% or >


Eastern Arable ALT

Upland Fringe ALT

Drop of 43%-49%

-

- Drop of 50% or >


Eastern Arable ALT

Drop of 43%-49%

-

-

Historic environment

Drop of 50% or >

SE Mixed ALT

- Drop of 50% or >

Eastern Arable ALT

-


Themes Significant drop in number of positive objectives (>43% drop)

Scenario 1(a) Scenario 1(b) Scenario 2(a) Scenario (2(b)

Drop of 43%-49%

Western Mixed ALT

Drop of 43%-49%

Uplands ALT

Semi-natural habitats

Drop of 50% or >

-

Drop of 43%-49%

-

- Drop of 50% or >

0

Drop of 43%-49%

Uplands ALT

-


5 Objective 1: Scenario 3 - How does the current

area of HLS uptake compare to the area of all

relevant designated sites?

5.1 This scenario does not directly respond to Objective 1. Nevertheless, it has been included to reflect the proposal that HLS (the ‘Upper-Tier’) will focus on designated and protected sites, much as HLS does currently.

5.2 The purpose of this scenario is to assess the extent to which current levels of HLS uptake meet or exceed the area of the designated and protected sites. This is a crude measure but gives some indication of whether current HLS uptake levels exceed or fall below the total area of designated and protected sites.

Designated sites

5.3 Table 5.1 indicates the total area of the main designations (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Scheduled Monuments, and Registered and Parks and Gardens). The area of SSSIs has been taken as a measure of nature conservation sites as all International designations will also be SSSIs and it is important to avoid double counting.

5.4 The area of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Scheduled Monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens has been taken from MAGIC and cut to the boundaries of the NCAs and then grouped by ALT.

5.5 Table 5.1 also shows the area of uptake of relevant HLS options (this assessment excludes HLS options measured as items or lengths). Using the existing database described in Chapter 2, all relevant HLS options have been ascribed to the relevant designation. The range of options has been checked against the full list of options held on the Genesis database to ensure that relevant options have not been missed out. This has included checking for ELS options that form part of HLS agreements. Supplements have not been included as these would result in double counting. Capital items have also not been included (with the exception of building restoration) as they are also likely to lead to double counting. The matching between designations and the relevant options is set out in Appendix 2.

``` Table 5.1: Area of designated sites compared to the area of relevant HLS uptake

ALT

%s = uptake as a

percentage of

stock

SSSIs Scheduled

Monuments

Registered Parks &

Gardens

To

tal A

rea

(Ha)

To

tal R

ele

van

t

HL

S u

pta

ke

(Ha)

To

tal A

rea

(Ha)

To

tal R

ele

van

t

HL

S u

pta

ke

(Ha)

To

tal A

rea

(Ha)

To

tal R

ele

van

t

HL

S u

pta

ke

(Ha)

Chalk & Limestone 109,161 80,758

(74%)

15,725 15,503

(99%)

53,683 5,773

(11%)

Eastern Arable 57,452 53,577

(93%)

5,994 5,104

(85%)

22,978 4,070

(18%)


ALT

%s = uptake as a

percentage of

stock

SSSIs Scheduled

Monuments

Registered Parks &

Gardens

To

tal A

rea

(Ha)

To

tal R

ele

van

t

HL

S u

pta

ke

(Ha)

To

tal A

rea

(Ha)

To

tal R

ele

van

t

HL

S u

pta

ke

(Ha)

To

tal A

rea

(Ha)

To

tal R

ele

van

t

HL

S u

pta

ke

(Ha)

SE Mixed (Wooded) 119,886 70,002

(58%)

3,515 1,005

(29%)

29,211 10,275

(35%)

Western Mixed 74,276 66,445

(90%)

8,290 9,533

(115%)

38,559 4,013

(10%)

Upland Fringe 37,605 54,838

(146%)

4,986 3,313

(66%)

17,078 2,448

(14%)

Upland 431,750

493,265

(114%)

11,940 4,731

(40%)

9,127 1,695

(19%)

Other 1,071 954

(89%)

345 6

(2%)

0 1,743

Totals 831,201 819,839

(99%)

50,795 39,195

(77%)

172,478 28,274

(16%)

5.6 SSSIs: Table 5.1 indicates that, overall, the area of relevant HLS uptake is equivalent to 99% of the area of SSSIs. Nevertheless, looking at the same comparison by Agricultural Landscape Type paints a slightly different picture. It indicates that the area of SSSIs is proportionally lower in the Eastern Arable, Western Mixed (a large ALT) and Upland Fringe ALTs. It also highlights the very large area covered by SSSIs in the Uplands, equivalent to over 50% of all SSSI area.

5.7 Equally it highlights that 67% of all HLS uptake relates to the conservation of habitats in the Uplands and Upland fringe. These figures, compared to the area of SSSIs in these ALTs, indicate that there may be considerable co-location of options. (i.e. with a number of options applied to the same area of land) with the area of HLS uptake equivalent to 117% of the area of SSSIs. The frequent co-location of options in the uplands was noted in the BD5303 research. Conversely in the four lowland ALTs, the area of HLS uptake overall is equivalent to 75% of the area of SSSIs (although this may also include the co-location of options). As indicated in Table 5.1 HLS coverage is proportionally higher in those ALTs that have smaller areas of SSSI, as in the Eastern Arable and Western Mixed ALTs.

5.8 This highlights the targeting of HLS in the Uplands. It also indicates that the significant targeting of HLS on the lowland heathlands of the South East Mixed ALT may have been at the expense of other designated habitats within this ALT, where relevant HLS uptake is only 58% of the area of SSSIs.

5.9 Scheduled Monuments: Table 5.1 indicates that overall HLS uptake covers the equivalent of 77% of the area of Scheduled Monuments, although in the uplands this is likely to be an under-estimation as it does not include the area of HD13 (maintaining the visibility of archaeology on moorland) as this is only recorded as the number of agreements.


In addition, some Scheduled Monuments may be ruins where the selected HLS options would not be relevant

5.10 The figures in Table 5.1 indicate a reverse pattern to that noted for SSSIs when comparing the uplands with the lowlands. In this case 66% of the area of Scheduled Monuments lies in the lowlands with 79% of the total area of relevant HLS uptake. Again there are differences between the ALTs, with the Chalk and Limestone, Eastern Arable and Western Mixed ALTs showing high levels of HLS uptake relative to the area of Scheduled Monuments but with lower levels of uptake in the South East Mixed, Upland Fringe and Upland ALTs.

5.11 Registered Parks and Gardens: Finally Table 5.1 indicates that only 16% of Registered Parks and Gardens are under HLS management. However, this is likely to be a very significant under-estimation as the uptake figures only relate to options for the maintenance, restoration and creation of parkland and do not include capital items for the preparation of Parkland Conservation Management Plans. In turn, these Plans may recommend the use of a wide range of ES options to assist in the conservation of parkland. Overall, therefore no great weight can be attached to these figures.

5.12 The evidence therefore suggests, making no allowance for co-location of options, that:

• 117% of the area of upland and upland fringe SSSIs could be under current HLS management

• 75% of the area of lowland SSSIs could be under current HLS management

• At least 47% of the area of Upland and Upland Fringe scheduled monuments could be under current HLS management

• Up to 93% of the area of lowland scheduled monuments could be under HLS management

• The uptake figures for registered parks and gardens are not sufficiently accurate to draw any firm conclusions.

BAP priority habitats

5.13 As a comparison with the SSSI HLS uptake data above, Table 5.2 on the following two pages looks at the area of HLS uptake relative to the area of BAP Priority Habitats. The area of BAP Habitats has been taken from Nature on the Map and cut to the boundaries of the NCAs and then grouped by ALT. Again no allowance is made in the figures below for the co-location of options. What this table indicates is that for:

• BAP semi-natural woodlands: HLS makes a small contribution (some 5%) overall to their conservation management, with the highest contribution in the Uplands ALT(13%) – currently the main contribution will be being made by EWGS.

• Traditional orchards: 11% of BAP traditional orchards are likely to be under HLS management, with the highest proportional area of uptake in the Uplands and Upland Fringe ALTs (22% & 18% respectively) – these are also the areas with the lowest stock of orchards. Particularly notable is the low uptake in the South East Mixed ALT (5%), once of outstanding importance for top fruits – including ‘the Garden of England’.

• Wet grasslands: 22% of BAP wet grasslands are likely to be under HLS management, with the highest levels of uptake in the Chalk and Limestone, Eastern Arable and South East Mixed ALTs (32% in all cases). N.B. Natural England considers that these stock figures are not accurate.

BAP semi-improved grasslands: The figures suggest that 226% of the area of BAP semi-improved grasslands could be under HLS management – but this is a habitat type where it is less easy to ascribe the right options and the stock figures are also likely to be an under-estimation..


Table 5.2: Area of BAP Priority Habitats compared to area of relevant HLS uptake

ALT

%s = uptake as a

percentage of stock

Semi-natural

woodland

Traditional

orchards

Wet grassland Semi-improved

grassland

Species-rich

grassland

Hay meadows

Tota

l A

rea

(H

a)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke(H

a)

Tota

l A

rea

(H

a)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke

(Ha)

Tota

l A

rea

(H

a)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke

(Ha)

Tota

l are

a (

Ha)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke

Tota

l are

a (

Ha)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke

(

Tota

l are

a (

Ha)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke

(Ha)


(4%)

2,420 193

(8%)

18,145 5,896

(32%)

15,923 25,142

(158%)

61,785 37,473

(61%)

1,320


(4%)

1,876 97

(5%)

49,891 16,231

(32%)

5,872 18,012

(290%)

6,449 4,916

(76%)

1,326


(3%)

2,193 103

(5%)

38,907 12,286

(32%)

6,528 12,482

(191%)

5,838 6,104

(105%)

471


(4%)

8,515 1,090

(13%)

109,887 13,377

(12%)

10,293 18,394

(179%)

18,431 13,462

(73%)

3,301


(3%)

1,275 234

(18%)

9.242 1,884

(20%)

6,154 16,553

(269%)

5,263 10,043

(52%)

1,573

Upland 77,569 10,409

(13%)

662 143

(22%)

8,008 1,440

(18%)

10,590 54,196

(516%)

21,658 15,916

(73%)

5,675

Other 1,695 5 5 0 - - 97 67 17 21

Totals 783,538 35,863

(5%)

16,945

1,860

(11%)

234,080 51,114

(22%)

54,459 144,846

(266%)

119,441 87,935

(74%)

13,666


Table 5.2/cont Area of BAP Priority Habitats compared to area of relevant HLS uptake

ALT

%s = uptake as a

percentage of stock

Lowland heathland Wetland habitats Moorland Blanket bog Saltmarsh Coastal sand dunes

Tota

l A

rea

(H

a)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke(H

a)

Tota

l A

rea

(H

a)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke

(Ha)

Tota

l A

rea

(H

a)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke

(Ha)

Tota

l are

a (

Ha)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke

Tota

l are

a (

Ha)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke

(

Tota

l are

a (

Ha)

Tota

l R

ele

vant

HLS

upta

ke

(Ha)


(26%)

3,515 2,652

(75%)

- - - - 131 166

(123%)

364 14

(4%)


(43%)

14,783 3,511

(24%)

- - - - 5,437 2,440

(45%)

4,190 808

(19%)


(83%)

4,821 844

(18%)

- - - - 2,074 1,480

(71%)

3,645 1,091

(30%)


(56%)

9,857 2,888

(29%)

1,054 220

(21%)

39 0

(0%)

10,854 6,407

(59%)

3,500 1,036

(30%)


(36%)

2,488 430

(17%)

22,328 18,769

(84%)

4,477 71

(2%)

75 103

(137%)

1,580 494

(31%)

Upland 8,148 2,335

(29%)

14,501 523

(4%)

250,007 406,607

(163%)

275,220 6,743

(2%)

67 45

(67%)

999 586

(59%)

Other 645 594

(92%)

18 25

(139%)

- - - - - - 54 47

(87%)

Totals 73,475 44,319

(60%)

49,983 9,340

(19%)

273,388 425,596

(155%)

279,736 6,814

(2%)

18,638 10,641

(57%)

14,332 4,076

(28%)


• Species-rich grassland: Up to 74% of BAP species-rich semi-natural grasslands are likely to be under HLS management. The largest area of semi-natural grassland resource is found in the Chalk and Limestone ALT followed by the Uplands. The Western Mixed ALT also has a sizeable semi-natural grassland resource but this is small compared to the overall area of this ALT. Four ALTs have HLS uptake levels that have the potential to cover over 70% of the species-rich grassland resource. These are South East Mixed ALT with HLS uptake equivalent to 105% of the species-rich grassland resource, Eastern Arable at 76% and the Western Mixed and Uplands ALTs at 73%. The Chalk and Limestone ALT with the largest species-rich grassland resource has an HLS uptake equivalent to 61% coverage.

• Hay meadows: These BAP hay meadows are likely to be on areas of species-rich grassland with uptake representing 11% of this resource.

• Lowland heathland: 60% of BAP lowland heaths are likely to be under HLS management (including areas of acidic grassland in the stock figure). If acidic grassland is removed from the stock figure, the proportion that is likely to be under HLS management rises to 77%. As identified through BD5303, the core concentration of this HLS uptake is in the South East Mixed ALT which includes the Wealden, Thames, Surrey, Dorset and New Forest heathlands. Here 83% of the heaths are likely to be under HLS, rising to 93% if areas of acidic grassland are removed from the stock figures. On the other hand, in the three remaining lowland ALTs areas of lowland heathland appear generally not to have been as strongly targeted. Here 41% of remaining lowland heaths are potentially under HLS management, rising to 61% if acidic grasslands are removed from the stock figures. Within these ALTs the main other areas of lowland heathland that have been targeted for HLS management are Thetford Chase, the Suffolk Coastal Heaths and Cannock Chase.

• Wetland habitats: 19% of BAP wetland habitats are likely to be under HLS management. Proportionally, the highest uptake is in the Chalk and Limestone ALT where the stock is not as high as in other ALTs but where 75% of these habitats are likely to be under HLS management. In all other ALTs the percentage of wetland habitats under HLS management is under 30%. NB. Natural England considers that these stock figures are not accurate.

• Moorland habitats: BAP Moorland habitats are only found in the Upland and Upland Fringe ALTs with a small area in the Western Mixed ALT. The figures indicate that 155% of moorland is likely to be under HLS management confirming the potential for high levels of co-location of options.

• Blanket bog: This assessment specifically focuses on the re-wetting of BAP blanket bog. The figures confirm a conclusion drawn in BD5303, that there has been poor uptake of this option, with only 4% of blanket bog potentially under the HLS re-wetting option.

• Saltmarsh: The figures indicate that 57% of BAP saltmarsh is likely to be under HLS management. Those ALTs with the highest proportion of HLS coverage of this habitat are those with relatively small areas of saltmarsh. That with the largest area of saltmarsh is the Western Mixed ALT and here 59% is under HLS management.

• Coastal sand dunes: Overall 28% of BAP sand dune habitat is likely to be under HLS management, with the largest area of sand dunes associated with the Eastern Arable ALT. Here 19% may be under HLS conservation management.

5.14 Overall, excluding woodlands, where EWGS will be the dominant scheme, and hay meadows which may duplicate the uptake for species-rich grassland, the percentage of the BAP resource that may be under HLS management is 69%. This compares to 94% for SSSIs (neither of these figures allow for the potential co-location of options). Comparing the two Upland ALTs with the four Lowland ALTs it is evident that:


• The uplands have 57% (649,003 ha) of the stock of BAP habitats and account for 69% (539,364 ha) of total HLS uptake for habitats

• The lowlands have 43% (485,483 ha) of total stock of BAP habitats and account for 31% (247,177) of total HLS uptake, showing a noticeable weighting towards the uplands.

Other HLS uptake

5.15 The only other remaining HLS uptake, other than supplements and capital items, and that relating to the historic environment, is shown in Table 5.3. below

Table 5.3: HLS uptake (2013) other than that relating to semi-natural habitats and the historic environment (including parkland)

Species

conservation on

arable

Intensive

grassland

Natural Resource

Protection

Traditional

buildings

Total Relevant HLS

uptake (Ha)

Total Relevant HLS

uptake (Ha)

Total Relevant HLS

uptake (Ha)

Total Relevant HLS

uptake (No. of

buildings)

25,122 58 4,004 514 No

17,179 28 3,308 470 No

4,299 29 839 53 No

15,550 166 3,537 737 No

4,683 96 2,094 199 No

2,521 ….87 1,014 503 No

3 0 0 13 No

69,357 464 14,796 2490 No

5.16 Of this other HLS uptake, species conservation on arable clearly dominates with HLS currently contributing relatively small areas to natural resource protection – an aspect that it is anticipated may fall more to the ‘Middle Tier’ of NELMS.

Conclusions for Scenario 3

5.17 Taking the figures from Tables 5.1 (but excluding all figures relating to registered parks and gardens where the HLS uptake figures are unreliable) the total area of designated sites is 881,996 ha compared to the total uptake of HLS (except that relating to parklands and woodlands, and excluding capital items and supplements) is 825,736ha equivalent to 94% of designated areas (these figures also do not include the ‘other’ HLS uptake identified in Table 5.3). This percentage does not allow for the co-location of options which is not uncommon and which the figures suggest may be significant in some instances.

5.18 However, as noted in the preceding section there has been an imbalance between the uplands and the lowlands, with the uplands receiving proportionally greater emphasis. There are equally imbalances between individual ALTs and the coverage of different habitat types. Of all habitats moorlands have received the greatest emphasis under HLS, accounting for 55% of all option uptake relating to BAP habitats.


6 Objective 2: Qualitative Scenarios

Objective 2: To extrapolate through qualitative predictions the

impact of a new agri-environment scheme with reduced land

coverage

6.1 In terms of area coverage, this Objective is partially informed by Scenario 2. Here the focus is on qualitative scenarios that explore the possible impacts of a new agri-environment scheme on the landscape. This is explored under 12 mini qualitative scenarios (two for each of the six Agricultural Landscape Types (ALTs) of England). These mini scenarios explore a best and a worst case for the landscape under NELMS for each ALT. Although qualitative, the scenarios build on the extensive quantitative data and analysis contained in the BD5303 research project.

6.2 For each ALT, a short description of the landscape is presented, followed by details of its key characteristics, background information on ES uptake in 2013, and a summary of what ES has achieved within this type of landscape, by landscape theme. The scenarios are then presented.

6.3 The ‘best for landscape’ scenario explores the scope, through the NELMS ‘Upper-Tier’ and ‘Mid-Tier’, to build upon the known landscape benefits of ES. This scenario is aspirational and is not constrained by a specific menu of options. It focuses on what would be best for the landscape within the targeted areas and does not distinguish between what might be covered by the Upper-Tier and the Mid-Tier within these areas. It makes suggestions as to the types of option that would be most beneficial to this landscape and the targeting priorities that might be applied. These suggestions could be included in NELMS Scheme Guidelines.

6.4 The ‘worst for landscape’ scenario explores the potential adverse landscape effects that might occur if NELMS targeting were very strongly focused on biodiversity and natural resource protection and ignored landscape considerations. It also suggests ways in which these adverse landscape effects might be alleviated, for example by sensitive choice and siting of particular options within the landscape. Again, this information could be included in NELMS Scheme Guidelines.

Agricultural Landscape Type: Chalk and Limestone Mixed

This type of landscape covers the chalklands and Oolitic and Jurassic limestones of England, which characteristically form dominant ridgelines across the South East, Dorset and Gloucestershire and spread north-eastward into Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. The ridgelines typically have a steep scarp slope largely under permanent grass or woodland cover and a gentler dip slope under arable production, as in the North Downs, South Downs, Chilterns and Cotswolds. In some areas the ridgelines give way to rolling chalk plateaux and hills, as in the Hampshire Downs, Salisbury Plain and Lincolnshire Wolds, again largely under arable production - primarily wheat and oilseed rape, although these areas were traditionally also associated with the production of malting barley. Salisbury Plain stands apart, providing one of the largest areas of calcareous grassland in lowland England retained on the military training grounds managed by the MOD. Where the underlying chalk and limestones are capped by deep clay soils, woodland cover may be extensive, often of ancient origin. Land ownership is characterised by large estates with


smaller mixed farms characteristic of the valley landscapes. Much of this type has been designated as National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), such as the South Downs, Lincolnshire Wolds, Kent Downs, North Wessex Downs, Cotswolds and Chilterns. Habitats of particular importance within these landscapes are ancient woodland, semi-natural calcareous grassland, the floodplain water meadows and marshes that may also include significant reed beds as in the Pang and Test Valleys, and calcareous rivers of the main river valleys that cut through the underlying bedrock.

Key characteristics of this landscape Woodlands and trees Relatively low woodland cover overall More extensive cover on scarp slopes as woodland ‘hangers’, by streams, and as extensive tracts on drift deposits (clays and coversands) Beech plantings and clumps often characteristic Woodland associated with country houses and estates Boundaries Mainly large, planned enclosures with thorn hedges or stone walls (the latter on limestone) Remnant ancient enclosures on scarp slopes Agricultural land use Mainly arable cropping Some pasture for dairy, cattle, sheep and mixed, especially on scarp slopes and in valleys Remnant floodplain water meadows Traditional farm buildings Vernacular buildings of brick and flint, limestone or ironstone depending on geology Large, courtyard plan farmsteads in areas of planned enclosure Historic environment Rich archaeological remains from a range of periods often forming important skyline features along ridgelines Historic ridge top communications routes e.g. the Ridgeway Many fine country houses and designed parklands Semi-natural habitats Semi-natural calcareous grassland, especially on Salisbury Plain Chalk streams and winterbournes (that only flow during late winter and spring) Areas of heath on coversands e.g. Breckland Coast Dramatic cliffs where chalk meets the coast e.g. Flamborough (but little coastline overall)

Main option groups (area and length) applied to ALT under ES (based on 2013 uptake data)

Chalk and Limestone Mixed ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Rank Option bundle

% of total uptake by scheme

ELS UELS HLS Total

1 Permanent low-input grassland management 28% 0% 1% 29%

2 Overwintering stubbles 8% 0% 3% 10%

3 Species-rich grassland management or restoration 0% 0% 10% 10%

4 Management of archaeological sites under grassland 5% 0% 2% 7%


5 Mixed stocking 5% 0% 0% 6%

6 Semi improved/rough grassland management or restoration 0% 0% 5% 5%

7 Reduced depth of cultivation 3% 0% 2% 4%

8 Wider buffer strips in arable (4/6m-12m) 3% 0% 1% 4%

9 Bird Seed Mixes 1% 0% 2% 3%

10 Field corners 2% 0% 0% 3%

11 Native breeds at risk grazing supplement 0% 0% 2% 2%

12 Cattle grazing supplement 0% 0% 2% 2%

13 Woodland management 0% 0% 2% 2%

14 Parkland management or restoration 0% 0% 2% 2%

15

Wet grassland management or restoration for breeding waders or wintering waders and wildfowl 0% 0% 1% 1%

16 Archaeological features taken out of cultivation 0% 0% 1% 1%

17 Scrub management 0% 0% 1% 1%

18 Management of crops/soil erosion options 1% 0% 0% 1%

19 Semi-improved grassland creation 0% 0% 1% 1%

20 Nectar sources 0% 0% 1% 1%

Total uptake 55% 0% 37% 92%

Chalk and Limestone Mixed (ALT): Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake

Rank

Option bundle

% Total uptake by scheme

ELS UELS HLS Total

1 Hedgerow Management 77% 0% 0% 77%

2 Ditch management 5% 0% 0% 5%

3 Hedge & Ditch management 5% 0% 0% 5%

4 Fencing 0% 0% 3% 3%

5 Woodland fencing 3% 0% 0% 3%

6 Linear access 0% 0% 2% 2%

7 Hedgerows 0% 0% 1% 1%

8 Stone wall protection and management 1% 0% 0% 1%

9 Management of hedgerows of very high environmental value 0% 0% 1% 1%

10 New hedge planting 0% 0% 0% 0%


Figures in the tables do not always add up to total uptake as these figures are for all uptake in the ALT, some of which

may not be included in the top 10 option bundles.


ccn Strongly positive landscape effects

Positive landscape effects

Neutral / negative landscape effects

What this ES uptake has done for this type of landscape

Summary of assessment results by theme for the NCAs of the Chalk and Limestone ALT

Theme Number of NCAs with this assessment result

Strongly positive Positive Neutral

Trees & woodland 2 11 15

Boundaries 13 14 1

Agricultural land use 1 20 7

Traditional farm buildings 2 9 17

Historic environment 7 15 6

Semi-natural habitats 13 11 4

Coast (23 N/A) 0 2 3

Potential benefits of NELMS (‘BEST FOR LANDSCAPE’ SCENARIO) Woodlands and trees

• NELMS ensures that larger woodlands (often coppice with standards, on large estates) are brought within management.

• Uptake for smaller woodlands also improves in areas such as the Chilterns and Northamptonshire Uplands which have had poor uptake in the past.

• Visually prominent scarp woodlands and, distinctive beech hangers are specifically targeted for management, as are hilltop clumps.

Boundaries

• There is a greater focus on restoration of stone walls in limestone landscapes such as the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Wolds, where walls appear to have been neglected in the past.

• Key hedgerows such as ancient hedgerows on scarp slopes are restored.

• Hedgerows generally are diversified by flower-rich margins, for example by using wide floristically enhanced buffer strips that run the full length of the field boundaries, helping to reinforce the field pattern.

• Where the arable field pattern is large and regular this is further reinforced through the use of wide buffer strips and conservation headlands to either side of boundary lines and features..


• Options for permanent and rough grassland are sited where they will link with and buffer existing permanent and rough grassland areas.

• Scarp slopes and river valley bottoms are spatial targets for the restoration or creation of continuous grassland cover.

• Beds, banks and adjacent land of winterbournes is under low input grassland cover to prevent erosion and soil loss in times of spate leading to turbidity downstream

• Distinctive valley floor wet grasslands and floodplain water meadows are restored.


• Uptake of options for overwintering stubbles is focused on the arable land of dip slopes and plateaux to add diversity to the winter landscape.

Traditional farm buildings

• Maintenance and restoration of vernacular farm buildings – especially characteristic courtyard plan farmsteads of flint, ironstone or other local materials – show improved uptake, especially in southern England.


• Areas with strong concentrations of archaeological resources, such as the many prehistoric ridgetop sites in the Cotswolds and Chilterns, are covered by options for conserving archaeology.

• Uptake of options for archaeology on arable, in particular, is increased in recognition of the special vulnerability of archaeological resources on arable land.

• More parklands, especially in the Midlands and North, are under management and restoration. Semi-natural habitats

• The landscape type’s important semi-natural calcareous grasslands are managed and restored as part of continuous interlinking habitat networks, with a spatial focus on areas such as the Howardian Hills and East Anglian Chalk where uptake of options for species-rich grassland has been poor in the past.

• Greater uptake of species-rich grassland options is also encouraged in the Midlands and North.

• Effective management and restoration of other relevant habitat types, such as heath on coversands e.g. Breckland, is continued and extended to other areas where this habitat is a characteristic landscape feature.

Coast

• There is continued uptake of options for coastal salt marsh and sand dunes in areas where these habitats occur, and improved uptake in North Norfolk where these options are underused.

Overall landscape impacts of the BEST FOR LANDSCAPE’ SCENARIO: Together the above measures could do much to retain and strengthen the inherent character of these large-scale chalk and limestone landscapes. If seen in conjunction with objectives for biodiversity and natural resource protection the combined targeting under NELMS could achieve multiple benefits in ways that also help to conserve and strengthen landscape character, much of which is recognised of national and international importance through designation as a National Park (the South Downs) and AONBs. As some examples:

• Conservation and extension of extensive interlinked woodland cover, especially on steep scarp slopes, will aid biodiversity connectivity and natural resource protection.

• Reversion of steep scarp slopes from arable to permanent pasture (extending, buffering and interlinking areas of semi-natural calcareous grassland) will conserve and enhance this internationally important biodiversity resource and help protect thin soils from erosion.

• Such scarp slope grasslands can be extended over the ridge line to protect nationally and internationally important archaeological monuments found along the ridgeline and to provide the setting for ridgetop national and regional trails (such as the Cotswold Way and Ridgeway).

• On rolling downland the targeting of permanent pasture and chalk grassland restoration under NELMS may be used to assist in improving the water quality of underyling aquifers.

• Wide grass (and ideally species-rich) buffer strips along field boundaries and especially as verges to droveways and rights of way can help strengthen field pattern at the same time as forming interlinking biodiversity corridors and aiding natural resource protection where they run across the slope of downs and plateaux.

• Conservation and restoration of valley bottom wet grasslands, wetlands and flood meadows can play an important role in flood alleviation, strengthening a nationally important biodiversity resource and helping protect the water quality of these internationally important calcareous rivers.

In turn, all the above will greatly help conserve and strengthen landscape character and sense of place


Potential adverse effects of NELMS (‘WORST FOR LANDSCAPE’ SCENARIO) Boundaries

• Increased uptake of fencing along watercourses (for natural resource protection) may create a well-vegetated edge to stream courses. The fence and vegetation may inhibit physical and visual access to the characteristic small chalk streams and bournes that occur in this landscape. It is fully recognised that fencing may be required to prevent stock entering water courses. It is suggested that evidence from existing capital works under ES should be pooled to assess the best approaches in this landscape type.

• Wider buffer strips in arable (for species conservation and natural resource protection) may be inconsistently applied in a way that does not reflect the landscape pattern, for example only partially following the length of a field boundary, so introducing different patterns that detract from or confuse existing field patterns, especially where seen on sloping ground. Avoid using this option in small scale fields of irregular pattern where they can look incongruous. In larger fields anchor strips against field boundaries and apply them consistently to the field edge, ensuring that they run the full length of the edge, following curves as necessary.


• In-field grass options to prevent erosion (for natural resource protection) may appear as noticeable blocks within arable fields. Apply these options in a natural, sinuous way that follows ‘valley’ contours, helping to define the underlying topography.

• Bird seed mix and/or nectar source options (for species conservation) may be sown in blocks within arable crops or inconsistently around field edges, where they may detract from or blur established field patterns. Avoid using these options in scattered blocks within a field; either apply consistently around field edges or use a large (field scale) block. Do not apply wide buffer strips around field edges in smaller scale organic-shaped fields of river valleys as this may blur the established field pattern; here rely on narrow buffer strips.

• Wide buffer strips along river courses (for natural resource protection) may follow geometric lines that detract from the river’s meandering course. Ensure these wide buffer strips follow the meandering course of the river, helping accentuate its presence or, ideally, encourage whole-field conversion to permanent pasture.

• Fallow plots (for species conservation) may become more widely used and appear as strips or blocks within arable fields, where their ‘weedy’ appearance may detract from the flow of landscape and alter the established field pattern. Use fallow margins in preference to fallow plots, especially on slopes or scarps that are exposed to view or apply as small in-field plots. Avoid large fallow plots in small-scale irregular shaped fields.

• Arable mosaics (for species conservation) may be introduced into mainly pastoral land, for example on this landscape type’s scarp slopes and river valley bottoms, disrupting the physical and visual continuity of their grasslands. Apply these options only in areas with a mixed farming character.

This scenario would also run the risk of overlooking the suggestions under the ‘best for landscape’ scenario, with possibly:

• No encouragement for interlinking chalk grasslands and permanent pastures on the scarp slopes.

• No encouragement for wet grassland and water meadow restoration along valley floors to provide a coherent and interlinking habitat network.

As a result NELMs could end up offering few benefits for the landscape and, at worst, could actually damage landscape character.

Overall landscape impacts of the WORST FOR LANDSCAPE’ SCENARIO: This scenario assumes that rather than seeing and planning for the landscape as a coherent whole: creating habitat networks that benefit biodiversity, natural resource protection and the landscape together, the emphasis is placed on a series of single objective options that do not relate one to the other and are imposed on the landscape rather than integrating with it.


This is a scenario of missed opportunities, where the landscape is not conserved and may be damaged. Clearly there will be a need for some single objective options but these can be applied, as indicated above, in ways that fit with the landscape. Here the primary issues are ones of scale and location, working with the grain of the landscape. However, there are real opportunities, under the targeted and landscape-scale approach proposed under NELMS to seek inter-linked approaches that bring multiple benefits as concluded for the ‘best for landscape’ scenario.


Agricultural Landscape Type: Eastern Arable

This landscape type is concentrated in the East of England, East Midlands, Yorkshire and Humber and along the North East coastal plain. It is bisected by the Chalk and Limestone Mixed agricultural landscape type where this is dictated by the underlying geology. This landscape type occurs at a low altitude (and includes the Fens and Humberhead Levels) although there are also some gently rolling areas and incised valleys. In these lower lying areas and in other areas of floodplain pump drainage schemes drain the land. General cropping (arable farming) is the dominant enterprise in all areas except the Fens and Breckland where large scale horticultural production predominates. This is very largely an enclosure landscape where the majority of field boundaries were established during the 18th and 19th century parliamentary enclosures and create a rectilinear pattern, with the majority of lower lying areas bounded by rectilinear patterns of ditches and dykes. Field sizes are often large, though not as large as those in the Chalk and Limestone Mixed landscapes. Some earlier enclosures survive around villages. Woodland is relatively sparse but on the heaviest clay soils there are sometimes extensive areas of ancient woodland and/or conifer plantations. Pasture is a minor component of land use and is limited to small fields in the valley floors. There are long stretches of coastline; and coastal marshes, peaty fenland and carrs survive in some areas, notably in the protected landscape of the Broads. The type includes part or all of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths, Norfolk Coast and Northumberland Coast Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs).

Key characteristics of this landscape Woodlands and trees Limited woodland Woodland concentrated on valley sides and heavy clays Hedgerow trees, tree clumps and shelterbelts Boundaries Medium to large rectilinear parliamentary enclosure fields Fields separated by thorn hedges and/or drainage ditches (the latter in former wetland areas) Some smaller, earlier enclosures with mixed hedges near villages and on clay Agricultural land use Mainly arable cropping with a very wide range of crops Horticulture in the Fens Pasture generally limited to valley floors and coastal fringes Traditional farm buildings Farmsteads mainly sandstone or brick with distinctive red pantile roofs Localised flint, timber frame and thatch in East Anglia Historic environment Many medieval sites and features, including moated manors, deserted medieval villages and ridge and furrow History of drainage and coastal reclamation from 17th century onwards 18th century country houses and parklands Semi-natural habitats Remnant valley and coastal wetlands and marshes Remnant heathlands on poorer sandy soils Coast Sandy beaches, dunes, coastal grazing marshes, intertidal mudflats, salt marshes and broads Generally low-lying but some coastal cliffs, especially in Northumberland



Eastern Arable ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Rank

Option bundle

% total uptake by scheme

ELS UELS HLS Total




4











14 Semi-improved grassland creation 0% 0% 2% 2%


16 Wet grassland creation for breeding waders or wintering waders and wildfowl 0% 0% 1% 1%

17 Lowland heathland management & restoration 0% 0% 1% 1%

18 Salt marsh management or restoration 0% 0% 1% 1%

19 Nectar sources 1% 0% 1% 1%

20 Archaeological features taken out of cultivation 0% 0% 1% 1%


Eastern Arable (ALT): Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake

Rank

Option bundle


ELS UELS HLS Total






5 Fencing 0% 0% 1% 1%


7 Hedgerows 0% 0% 1% 1%


9 Restoration / creation of ditches and dykes 0% 0% 0% 0%

10 Fencing along watercourses 0% 0% 0% 0%








Summary of assessment results by theme for the NCAs of the Eastern Arable ALT




Boundaries 11 14 1





Coast (12 N/A) 4 1 9


• There is greater uptake of all the relevant options for woodland and trees, strengthening the structure of these mainly open landscapes.

• Distinctive larger woods on valley sides, heavy clays and coversands are actively managed e.g. in the Tyne and Wear Lowlands, Central Lincolnshire Vale and Norfolk and Suffolk Claylands.

• Tree clumps around farmsteads and shelterbelts, which are very important in this relatively open landscape type, are managed and renewed.

• Uptake of options for protection and renewal of hedgerow trees, and management of bankside trees, is significantly increased, the many river vales within this type being specifically targeted.


• Traditional orchards are restored as an important landscape features in areas where they were once common, for example, in parts of Suffolk. In this ALT there has been very poor uptake of ES orchard options.

Boundaries

• Field boundaries are strengthened by selective restoration of hedgerows and conservation management of ditches/dykes.

• Hedgerow restoration ensures that the small surviving areas of ancient countryside with irregular, earlier enclosures are conserved e.g. around villages in the Fens and East Anglia.

• Where the arable field pattern is large and regular this is further reinforced through the use of wide buffer strips and conservation headlands to either side of boundary lines and features.


• Overwintering stubbles add diversity to the winter landscape; arable mosaics are applied within smaller scale field patterns; and through the use of options such as bird seed mixes and nectar sources that are applied as broad swathes along field boundaries where they can also help strengthen the field edge.

• Permanent, wet and rough pasture options are focused on traditional pastoral areas (embankments, valley floors, coastal fringes, around villages) to optimise landscape benefits, and uptake is increased overall.


• Maintenance and restoration of vernacular farm buildings of sandstone or brick and pantile (or flint, timber frame and thatch in East Anglia) show improved uptake, with coastal areas in particularly being targeted, as these often have lower uptake at present.


• Restoration and creation of permanent grasslands is combined with significantly increased uptake of options for the conservation of archaeology, focusing on the many deserted medieval villages and ridge and furrow sites, as well as on former wetland and coastal areas.

• Uptake of options for parkland management and restoration is improved, especially north of the Humber, where uptake is weakest at present.

• Conservation of distinctive and rare cultural landscapes created by traditional agricultural systems such as at the Isle of Axeholme.


• Greater emphasis is placed on restoration and creation of semi-natural habitats, especially in areas such as the Broads, the Fens, Holderness, the Tees Lowlands and the Vale of Pickering where these options are having little benefit at present.

• Restoration of remnant valley and coastal wetlands and marshes takes place in these areas at a landscape scale.

Coast

• There is continued uptake of options for coastal salt marsh and sand dunes in locations where these habitats occur.

• Greater targeting of coastal habitats in areas such as the Suffolk Coast, Holderness, and the Tees Lowlands is linked to the positive management of coastal processes.

Overall landscape impacts of the ‘BEST FOR LANDSCAPE’ SCENARIO

Together the above measures could do much to enhance the inherent character of these large-scale intensively managed arable landscapes. But these measures are not just for landscape and offer the potential to deliver a wide range of benefits.

This is a landscape of predominantly intensive agriculture with small areas of semi-natural habitat now forming isolated islands. There are concerns relating to: the conservation of the significant peat resource in areas such as the Fens and remaining areas of lowland raised bog in Yorkshire, the management of water resources – availability and quality, and the management of coastal processes along the east coast. These and other issues go well beyond the remit of NELMS but in some cases there may be the opportunity for the targeting of NELMS to play a part for the benefit of biodiversity, natural resource protection and enhancement of the landscape. Potential examples include:


• The re-creation and interlinking of permanent and wet grasslands along river valleys, combined with the conservation and restoration of wetland habitats, to form an important component of a relinked habitat network in these open arable landscapes, aiding biodiversity and natural resource protection as well as landscape and sense of place.

• Application of complementary options to support fenland restoration, as in the Great Fens Project, to form important focal points in a habitat network that aids peat conservation and the management of water resources as well as bringing significant benefits to biodiversity and landscape.

• Extension and buffering of remnant species-rich grasslands and the management of permanent pasture and species-rich grasslands over areas of ridge and furrow and the remains of deserted medieval villages, conserving the historic environment while creating other biodiversity focal points and increasing landscape diversity and sense of place.

• Conservation management of ditches/dykes and the restoration of hedgerows, to form a vital part of the habitat network, especially across areas of intensive agriculture, while also strengthening the weakened field pattern and significantly aiding natural resource protection, with grassland and flower-rich buffers created to either side of boundary features, including ditches and dykes.

• Conservation and creation of tree belts using deciduous species traditionally associated with the locality (pines in the Brecks) to bring landscape diversity, provide shelter to delicate crops, and aid soil conservation.

• Conservation and restoration of coastal grazing marsh, salt marsh, and intertidal habitats to play an important part in the management of coastal processes and managed realignment and, in so doing, bringing very significant benefits to biodiversity and the landscape.

• In addition, the retention of local characteristics such as farmstead tree belts, small organic patterned field boundaries around villages, parkland and locally important traditional orchards to heighten sense of place and enhance biodiversity in individual localities for the benefit of local communities.

Potential adverse effects of NELMS (‘WORST FOR LANDSCAPE’ SCENARIO’) Boundaries

• Increased uptake of fencing along watercourses (for natural resource protection) maybe visually intrusive in these flat open landscapes. The fence and vegetation may inhibit physical and visual access to dykes and river courses. It is fully recognised that fencing may be required to prevent stock entering water courses. It is suggested that evidence from existing capital works under ES should be pooled to assess the best approaches in this landscape type.

• Wide and floristically enhanced buffer strips (species conservation) of inconsistent location or width may appear as incongruous shapes within the regular pattern of arable fields, especially where there is rolling or incised landform. Anchor strips against field boundaries and apply them consistently to all edges of a field.


• In-field grass options to prevent erosion (for natural resource protection) may appear as noticeable blocks within arable fields. Apply these options in a natural way that follows ‘valley’ contours, helping to define the underlying topography.

• Bird seed mix and/or nectar source options (for species conservation) may be sown in blocks within arable crops or inconsistently around field edges, where they may detract from established field patterns. Again this effect may be most evident in areas of rolling countryside. Avoid using these options in scattered blocks within a field; either apply consistently around field edges or use a large (field scale) block.

• Arable mosaics (for species conservation) may be introduced into the few remaining mainly pastoral areas, for example on valley floors and coastal fringes within this landscape type, disrupting the physical and visual continuity of their grasslands. Apply these options in areas under arable monocultures.

This scenario would also run the risk of overlooking the suggestions under the ‘best for landscape’ scenario’.


Overall landscape impacts of the ‘WORST FOR LANDSCAPE SCENARIO’: As in the other ‘Worst’ scenarios, this assumes that single-objective options are imposed on the landscape rather than integrated into it. It equally assumes that opportunities are not sought to achieve multiple benefits through the co-ordinated targeting of options in ways that can strengthen landscape character at the same time as delivering biodiversity networks and natural resource protection. Clearly there will be a need for some single objective options but these can be applied, as indicated above, in ways that fit with the landscape. Here the primary issues are ones of scale and location, working with the grain of the landscape. The opportunity offered by the targeted and landscape-scale approach proposed under NELMS is for inter-linked approaches that bring multiple benefits as concluded for the ‘best for landscape’ scenario.


Agricultural Landscape Type: South East Mixed (Wooded)

The South East Mixed (Wooded) landscapes spread across the High and Low Weald of Kent, Sussex and Surrey and parts of the Hampshire coast, also taking in parts of Berkshire, Dorset and Hertfordshire and Essex. This is a diverse collection of areas but all are characterised by having poor agricultural soils, mainly sands (Greensand) and clays; hence these areas lie at the margins of modern intensive agriculture. They are generally heavily wooded with up to 20% woodland cover (compared to 8% average for England), much of it ancient, with iconic woodlands including Epping and Hainault Forests and Burnham Beeches, This type also includes the largest concentration of lowland heathland in England, much of it common land, including the Thames Basin Heaths, the Surrey and Dorset Heaths, the New Forest and Ashdown Forest. ES has done much to bring these heathlands under conservation management, although areas of smaller heathland commons may be birch dominated and largely unmanaged. Since the turn of the last century large tracts were converted to extensive conifer plantations. Much of the farmed landscape is derived from the medieval period, with small irregularly-shaped fields originating from clearance of the wildwood by individual farmers. Farms are typically small and pastoral in character, traditionally a mix of beef and sheep with small dairy herds. But as all these areas lie close to centres of population, farming has given way in many areas to hobby farming, horse keeping and other amenity uses. Key habitats of this landscape type are lowland heathland and acidic and neutral grassland. The type includes the New Forest National Park, and all or part of the Chichester Harbour, High Weald and Surrey Hills AONBs.

Key characteristics of this landscape Woodlands and trees Relatively high woodland cover (except in some coastal areas) Ancient and coppice woodlands including royal hunting forests as in the New Forest, Epping and Hainault Remnant pre-enclosure woodlands (shaws) Extensive areas of heathland converted to conifer plantations Riparian wet woods Traditional orchards especially in Kent and the Weald (the ‘Garden of England’) Boundaries Small, irregular fields with mixed species-rich hedgerows of Medieval origins Larger rectilinear fields on areas of former heath, enclosed by thorn hedges Coastal reclamation enclosed by ditches and dykes as along the outer Thames Estuary and on Romney Marsh and the Pevensey Levels Agricultural land use Mainly pastoral in character Unimproved wet pasture on coastal grazing marshes and in lower river valleys Also significant areas of cropping and horticulture including hop gardens in Kent (now very localised) Unique survival of ancient commoning system in the New Forest and other major commons Traditional water meadows in areas such as the Avon valley Traditional farm buildings Wealth and diversity of historic buildings and farmsteads Brick, tile hung and weatherboarded most common Distinctive features such as threshing barns and oast houses Many pre-1750 buildings Historic environment Many prehistoric remains Relics of Wealden iron industry, notably hammer ponds Distinctive military heritage on coast e.g. Napoleonic defences Large houses set in historic parklands, many originating from the Iron Masters of the Wealden industry and latterly the weekend retreat of London merchants


Semi-natural habitats Acid and neutral grassland, lawns and some of the most extensive areas of remaining wood pasture The most extensive areas of lowland heathland in England Coast Extensive open coastal salt marshes e.g. Romney Marshes and the outer Thames marshes Cliffs, estuaries, creeks and beaches


South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Rank

Option bundle


ELS UELS HLS Total



3










12 Supplement for difficult sites 0% 0% 2% 2%





17 Bracken control 0% 0% 1% 1%


19 Bracken control supplement 0% 0% 1% 1%

20 Lowland heathland creation 0% 0% 1% 1%



South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT: Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake

Rank

Option bundle


ELS UELS HLS Total





5 Fencing 0% 0% 7% 7%


7 Hedgerows 0% 0% 1% 1%


9 Restoration / creation of ditches and dykes 0% 0% 1% 1%









Summary of assessment results by theme for the NCAs of the South East Mixed (Wooded) ALT




Boundaries 0 4 11



Historic environment (1 N/A) 2 7 5


Coast (7N/A) 3 2 3



• Uptake of woodland and tree options generally is markedly strengthened.

• Ancient and coppice farm woodlands and wood pasture in areas such as the Thames Basin Heaths, Thames Basin Lowlands, South Hampshire Lowlands and New Forest, as well as pre-enclosure wooded shaws e.g. in the Low Weald, are brought into management (poor uptake under ES).

• Throughout the area the small field copses, lines of in-field and riparian trees, and the many ancient trees are managed and renewed.

• Distinctive sweet chestnut and hazel coppice in Kent is targeted for management.

• Traditional orchards, where characteristic, are managed and extended, especially in the High and Low Weald, North Kent Plain and Thames Valley (where uptake has been poor under ES).

Boundaries

• The small, irregular, mainly medieval field patterns are retained; and the larger rectilinear field patterns that occur on areas of former heath, enclosed by thorn hedges, are selectively restored where field boundaries are becoming weak.

• Areas that have seen low uptake of ES hedgerow options, including the New Forest, Dorset Heaths, Wealden Greensand and South Hampshire Lowlands, are targeted for restoration.

• Restoration of ditches and dykes takes place in relevant coastal landscapes including the Greater Thames Estuary, Romney Marsh, the Pevensey Levels and the South Coast Plain (where uptake has been poor under ES).


• The mainly pastoral or mixed character of this type is retained.

• Uptake of options for low input permanent pasture is focused on areas of semi-improved permanent pasture, where it can help buffer areas of semi-natural grassland and where it will help natural resource protection.

• Wet grassland options are focused particularly on the coastal grazing marshes of the Greater Thames Estuary, Romney Marsh, the Pevensey Levels, the South Coast Plain and on the floodplains of the Wealden and Essex Rivers.

• Traditional water meadows in areas such as the New Forest’s Avon valley and the South Hampshire Lowlands are actively managed.

• Mixed stock grazing, including ponies, is targeted to areas with ancient commoning systems and traditional mixed stocking, notably the New Forest.


• The special wealth and diversity of historic farm buildings in this landscape type is recognised through improved uptake of options for their management and restoration (uptake is currently low across most of this landscape type) although it is realised that there is very strong pressure for conversion.


• Retention and management of archaeology on arable and grassland continues and is extended further north, e.g. to the Thames Valley and Northern Thames Basin.

• The many hammer ponds and ancient field ponds, especially in the Weald but also in other areas, are targeted for management.

• Uptake of options for management of historic parklands and wood pasture is improved and extends more widely across the landscape type.


• There is high uptake of species-rich and wet grassland options for remaining semi-natural grasslands throughout this type.

• Strong targeting of lowland heath management and restoration in areas such as the Thames Basin Heaths, Surrey and Dorset Heaths, Ashdown Forest and the New Forest continues.

Coast

• There is continued uptake of options for coastal salt marsh and sand dunes in areas where these habitats occur.

• Uptake of salt marsh options is focused on the Romney Marshes, the South Hampshire Coastal Plain and the Greater Thames Estuary.


Overall landscape impacts of the ‘BEST FOR LANDSCAPE’ SCENARIO: This is primarily a rich and diverse small scale strongly historic Medieval landscape where the primary emphasis may be on conserving and enhancing the ingrained diversity and helping reinstate it where it has been lost. The strongly wooded character of much of this type with its myriad of small privately owned woodlands, as well as larger tracts of wooded estates and Forests in public ownership, is a defining characteristic. In an area under strong development pressure, these woodlands play a very important role in the biodiversity of the area, in providing amenity and in helping separate, visually, one settlement from another. These woodlands are likely to play a central role in any future integrated strategy for this type, with NELMs:

• Retaining and restoring the intricate pattern of small pastoral fields, including areas of neutral grassland and species diverse semi-improved grasslands, and thick hedgerows and shaws that define the landscape and sense of place, and that provide an interlinked habitat network and aid natural resource protection.

• Helping to stimulate woodland management and the re-kindling of local wood fuel industries and potentially encouraging community woodland projects to prevent wood lotting, especially of the ancient woodland resource, for the benefit of local communities, biodiversity and landscape.

• Encouraging the conservation management of larger woodlands, especially extensive areas of sweet chestnut coppice, helping build supply chains in wood fuel, which will be encouraged under the Heat Incentive.

• Helping raise the importance of the ancient tree resource, rare wood pasture and parkland for biodiversity, landscape and historical continuity.

• Supporting community orchards as part of local food projects.

• Continuing to manage and restore heathland and associated grazing projects, for biodiversity, landscape and public amenity.

• Retaining and restoring coherent stretches of wet grasslands on river valley floors and as coastal grazing marsh in coastal areas, combined with the conservation and restoration of wetland habitats, to aid flood alleviation and natural resource protection, as well as relinking habitat networks in these more open landscapes.

• Encouraging the conservation management of ditches and dykes on the coastal plains, encouraging their development as a biodiversity network in these open landscapes, and with buffer strips to either side to aid natural resource protection and strengthening field pattern in areas of arable cultivation.

• Encouraging salt marsh conservation and restoration as part of wider plans to counter coastal squeeze and in areas of managed realignment.


• Increased uptake of fencing along watercourses (for natural resource protection) maybe visually intrusive if the fence lines run on open ground. It is fully recognised that fencing may be required to prevent stock entering water courses. It is suggested that evidence from existing capital works under ES should be pooled to assess the best approaches in this landscape type.

• Field corners (for species conservation) may adversely affect field patterns if introduced as large square blocks into areas of small-scale and irregular field pattern. Field corners should be small and in keeping with the scale of the field and should take an organic shape that forms a natural extension to the network of hedgerows and shaws.

• Wide grass buffer strips or other forms of buffer strip (for natural resource protection and species conservation) will be unsuitable in small-scale irregular fields where they may introduce stripes and lines detracting from the established field pattern. In such areas only narrow buffer strips should be used. They will be suitable, however, in the larger scale open landscapes of the coastal plains.




• Bird seed mix and/or nectar source options (for species conservation) may be sown in blocks within arable crops or inconsistently around field edges, potentially detracting from the small-scale field pattern that dominates in this type. Avoid using these options in scattered blocks within a field; either apply as a field-sale block where fields are small and irregular or apply as a consistent field edge in areas of regular enclosure such as on the coastal plains and other areas of larger regular field pattern.

• Fallow plots (for species conservation) may become more widely used and appear as strips or blocks within arable fields, where their ‘weedy’ appearance may alter the established field pattern. These will be best applied as small plots on flat land (as opposed to sloping land) where the plots will be less visible.

• Arable mosaics (for species conservation), if introduced into mainly pastoral areas such as extensive unimproved coastal grazing, may disrupt perceptions of grassland continuity. Apply these options only in areas with a mixed farming character.

This scenario would also run the risk of overlooking the suggestions under the ‘best for landscape’ scenario. Overall landscape impacts of the ‘WORST FOR LANDSCAPE SCENARIO’: As in the other ‘Worst’ scenarios, this assumes that single-objective options are imposed on the landscape rather than taking cues from the existing landscape fabric. In this landscape, as indicated above, the best approach will be to conserve and restore the existing strong landscape structure which has the potential to provide a wide mosaic of interlinking habitats for wildlife and people and which, in this highly populated area, has the potential to provide other amenity and natural resource protection benefits.


Agricultural Landscape Type: Western Mixed

The western mixed agricultural landscape type lies in the central western part of England mostly over rich and well-drained clay and silt soils in river valleys and rolling hills. It occupies a large swathe of the West Midlands, extending north to Cheshire and the Lancashire coast and south through the Severn Vale and Somerset Levels to the Devon Redlands. As the name implies, dairy farming is a common and often predominant land use, but beef and sheep farming and mixed arable cropping, including root crops such as potatoes and stubble turnips, are also common along with the increasing growth of fodder maize. Woodland cover is lower than in most of the other landscape types although shelterbelts and small farm woodlands tend to be frequent. Impeded drainage often gives rise to meres and mosses, which may be distinctive landscape features, for example on the Staffordshire Plain, and there is a legacy of wetland reclamation in areas such as Morecambe Bay and the Somerset Levels. Some areas in the Midlands and North West have a coalfield industrial heritage and strong urban fringe influences. Building materials and types vary but are often very distinctive, for example half-timber in the Midlands. Relatively little of the area is protected under SSSI designation and individual sites tend to be small. Few Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty occur in this landscape type (the relatively small Solway Coast, Arnside and Silverdale and Cannock Chase AONBs being exceptions).

Key characteristics of this landscape Woodlands and trees Relatively low woodland cover apart from mature hedgerow trees (which in some NCAs can be highly characteristic), shelterbelts, small farm woodlands and estate parklands Some ancient semi-natural woodland in river valleys and on steep slopes Coppice woodlands on limestone; birch woodlands on mosses Floodplain willow pollards especially in south Hops and orchards in Herefordshire and orchards in Somerset (primarily in the Somerset Hills fringing the Somerset Levels) Boundaries Medium size fields divided by hedges Mixture of early irregular enclosures and later planned enclosures In coastal areas and levels, large rectilinear pastures and commons enclosed mainly by ditches Stone walls also locally characteristic Agricultural land use Dairy farming on improved pasture is prevalent Beef and sheep farming, mixed arable cropping and market gardening are also common Tradition of catch meadows on sloping ground in the South West, and flood meadows as on the Somerset Levels and as remnants in Vale landscapes and along the upper Thames, for example Traditional farm buildings Historic buildings in a variety of traditional materials, including local red sandstone, red brick and half timber Distinctive hop kilns, cider houses and cattle housing in some areas Extensive survival of late 17th century farm buildings Historic environment Range of prehistoric, Roman, medieval and other remains Widespread ridge and furrow in Midlands Ancient parklands and designed landscapes Legacy of wetland reclamation, as well as meres and field ponds in many areas Semi-natural habitats Species- rich grassland (but the resource is small compared to the area of the ALT) Remnant lowland heath Lowland raised bog, mires and mosses Coast Coastal cliffs, intertidal mudflats, creeks, beaches, dunes and estuaries in the North West and South West



Western Mixed ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Rank

Option bundle


ELS UELS HLS Total








8




11 Cattle grazing on moorland 0% 2% 0% 2%







18 Hay making supplement 0% 0% 1% 1%

19 Management of crops/soil erosion options 1% 0% 0% 1%




Western Mixed ALT: Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake

Rank

Option bundle


ELS UELS HLS Total




4 Fencing 0% 0% 4% 4%



7 Hedgerows 0% 0% 2% 2%











Summary of assessment results by theme for the NCAs of the Western Mixed ALT




Boundaries 11 24 8



Historic environment (1 N/A) 5 18 19


Coast (31 N/A) 7 4 1


• More woodlands are actively managed, particularly the ancient semi-natural woodlands (often in prominent locations in river valleys and on steep slopes) and distinctive coppice woodlands on limestone and birch woodlands on mosses.


• Elsewhere mature field and hedgerow trees, shelterbelts and small farm woodlands are protected and renewed, especially in the vale landscapes (Avon Vales, Trent Valley Washlands, Northamptonshire Vales, Leicestershire Vales, Upper Thames Clay Vales and Vale of Taunton) where they are the main form of tree cover.

• Areas with characteristic floodplain willows are targeted for pollarding.

• Traditional orchards are restored and extended, especially in Herefordshire and Somerset. Boundaries

• Field patterns are strengthened by selective hedgerow restoration e.g. in visually exposed locations such as hills and ridges.

• Characteristic drainage ditches, dykes and embankments are targeted for restoration in low-lying areas such as the Solway Basin, Lancashire Plain and Somerset Levels.

• Stone walls are restored where they are locally characteristic, for example, the Morecambe Bay Limestones, Eden Valley and Mid Severn Sandstone Plateau.


• There is greater uptake of options for low input permanent grassland, targeted where this will aid natural resource protection including prevention of soil erosion, conserve semi-improved grasslands and buffer and link the small remnants of semi-natural grasslands.

• Options for wet grasslands are targeted towards low lying areas and valley floors (especially in the North West), while semi-improved and rough pasture options are focused on coastal areas and steep slopes.

• The winter arable landscape is diversified by greater uptake of overwintering stubbles in areas such as the Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain.


• High uptake of options for management and restoration of historic farm buildings continues in the West Midlands and Cheshire and is extended more widely, particularly in the South West.

• Older buildings and distinctive farm building types such as hop kilns and cider houses of Herefordshire are specifically targeted.


• There is greater uptake of options for management of archaeology on both arable and grassland, notably in areas such as the Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain which have seen poor uptake to date.

• The distinctive ridge and furrow landscapes of the Midlands and areas of former coastal wetlands are conserved where possible, for example by removal from cultivation.

• There is much greater uptake of options for management and restoration of ancient parklands and designed landscapes across this landscape type but especially in the West Midlands.

• Characteristic water features, including moats, meres and field ponds, are maintained. Semi-natural habitats

• There is greater targeting of semi-natural habitats generally. This is especially important because of their declining area and increased fragmentation.

• Lowland raised bog, mires and mosses in the North West and the Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain are key targets

• Remnant lowland heath and lowland species-rich grassland (the latter especially in the North West) are also targeted.

Coast

• Where relevant, there is continued high uptake of options for salt marsh.

• Uptake of options for sand dunes sees an increase, especially along the Lancashire Coast and in north Somerset.

Overall landscape impacts of this ‘BEST FOR LANDSCAPE’ SCENARIO: Together the above measures could do much to retain and strengthen the inherent character of these diverse farmed landscapes. Some of the NCAs of this type, as is the case with the Upland Fringe, lie close to the conurbations of the Midlands and North while others form part of past coal mining areas, together creating urban fringe pressures. In this diverse landscape type there is a challenge to retain the considerable differences in landscape character between different areas


and to incorporate biodiversity into this increasingly intensively farmed landscape where semi-natural habitats are now much diminished and have received relatively less attention under ES when compared to the other ALTs. Nevertheless, as in the other landscape types there are opportunities to conserve and enhance the landscape, as noted above, in ways that also deliver a wide range of other benefits. Thus targeting under NELMs offers opportunities for:

• Conserving and reinforcing the very different patterns of enclosure and boundary types across this landscape. These, along with tree cover, help create the distinct sense of place of different areas within this type. They also play a vital role in providing a habitat network across this intensively farmed landscape and aid natural resource protection by blocking cross land flows and the leaching of nutrients. Achieved through the restoration and thickening of hedgerow lengths, restoration of walls and the conservation management of ditches and dykes where characteristic.

• Providing wide grass and floristically enhanced buffer strip adjacent to boundary features in arable where the field pattern is large and regular, so reinforcing field pattern, strengthening the habitat network and aiding natural resource protection, particularly important adjacent to drainage ditches.

• Conserving and reinstating hedgerow trees, field and ditch and riverside trees where they are characteristic of the landscape, to maintain sense of place and diversify the basic habitat network.

• Protecting and renewing shelterbelts and small farm woodlands where characteristic to strengthen the landscape, add diversity to the habitat network, and aid natural resource protection.

• Significantly improving the targeting of semi-natural habitats, conserving those that remain and seeking expansion and restoration, especially where they have been lost, again to strengthen sense of place and enhance the habitat network within this landscape.

• Of the above, paying particular attention to the conservation and restoration of lowland raised bogs which are a particular feature of parts of this type, for biodiversity, landscape and the conservation of an important carbon sink.

• The above complemented by targeted use of low input grassland options to provide a buffer around and link between areas of semi-natural grassland and other valued habitats, to help conserve and diversify areas of semi-improved permanent and rush pasture, and to aid natural resource protection on steeper slopes.

• Maintaining and restoring traditional orchards and ancient and designed parklands both to enhance the landscape and add further diversity to the habitat network – encourage the management of parkland with biodiversity in mind.

• Maintaining the archaeological resource of this landscape and the areas of ridge and furrow, ideally under low input grasslands or as part of grassland habitat restoration schemes, thereby both conserving the historic resource and adding to the habitat network.

• Creating continuous swathes of low input permanent pastures, wet grassland and wetland habitats, within river valley flood plains for the benefit of biodiversity and natural resource protection and also aiding flood management, especially where located in upper catchments, helping store and hold back floodwaters.


• Increased uptake of fencing along watercourses (for natural resource protection) may create well-vegetated borders to stream courses. The fence and vegetation may inhibit physical and visual access to ditches and streams. It is fully recognised that fencing may be required to prevent stock entering water courses. It is suggested that evidence from existing capital works under ES should be pooled to assess the best approaches in this landscape type.


• Wider buffer strips in arable (for species conservation and natural resource protection) may be inconsistently applied in a way that does not reflect the landscape pattern, for example only partially following the length of a field boundary, so introducing different patterns that detract from or confuse existing field patterns, especially where seen on sloping ground. Avoid using this option in small scale fields of irregular pattern. In larger fields anchor strips against field boundaries and apply them consistently to the field edge, ensuring that they run the full length of the edge, following curves as necessary.

• Field corners (for species conservation) may adversely affect field patterns if introduced into areas of small-scale, irregular field pattern in this landscape type. Field corners should generally not be used in such areas. In other areas ensure that the field corner follows the curve of the headland and is not imposed as a geometric block.



• Bird seed mix and/or nectar source options (for species conservation) may be sown in blocks within arable crops or inconsistently around field edges, potentially detracting from the regular field patterns. Avoid using these options in scattered blocks within a field; either apply consistently around field edges or use a large (field scale) block.

• Fallow plots (for species conservation) may become more widely used and appear as strips or blocks within arable fields, where their ‘weedy’ appearance may alter the established field pattern. Use fallow margins in preference to fallow plots, especially on slopes that are exposed to view or apply as small in-field plots but avoid larger blocks.

• Arable mosaics (for species conservation), if introduced into mainly pastoral areas, which are common in this type, may disrupt perceptions of grassland continuity. Apply these options only in areas with a mixed farming character.

This scenario would also run the risk of overlooking the suggestions under the ‘best for landscape’ scenario.

Overall landscape impacts of the ‘WORST FOR LANDSCAPE SCENARIO’: As in the other ‘Worst’ scenarios, this assumes that single-objective options are imposed on the landscape rather than integrated into it. It equally assumes that opportunities are not sought to achieve multiple benefits through the co-ordinated targeting of options in ways that can strengthen landscape character at the same time as delivering biodiversity networks and natural resource protection.

The opportunity offered by the targeted and landscape-scale approach proposed under NELMS is for inter-linked approaches that bring multiple benefits as concluded for the ‘best for landscape’ scenario.


Agricultural Landscape Type: Upland Fringe

This agricultural landscape type is located in the foothills of the Pennine spine in northern England, from the Scottish border to the fringes of the Peak District, and also in Devon and Cornwall. Most of this type is classified as Disadvantaged Area under the EU Less Favoured Area Directive. All of these areas (except the Blackdowns and Quantock Hills in the South West) border the upland agricultural landscape type, sometimes with a gradual change of character and sometimes with a much sharper demarcation. Dairy farming is the main farm enterprise on the more free-draining and flatter land, with stock-rearing (suckler beef and sheep production) on the less productive land. A high proportion of the land use is improved permanent pasture, with most of the remainder being grass leys (i.e. long-term grassland which is periodically ploughed and reseeded). Arable cropping is less common although forage crops such as stubble turnips are grown in place. Improved grassland gives way to unimproved acid grassland, valley mires and heathland on poorer soils. Woodland (dominated by oak, ash and hazel) occurs on steeper ground and the poorest soils. Field sizes are generally small with a strong network of large hedgerows which are ancient in origin and stone walls and hedgebanks on higher ground. Relatively little of the area is covered by protected landscape designations with the exception of the Blackdown Hills, the Quantocks and the coasts of Devon and Cornwall.

Key characteristics of this landscape Woodlands and trees Broadleaved woodland on steep slopes and valley sides, including ancient valley-side oakwoods Tree-lined streams, riparian and estate woodland Traditional orchards in parts of the South West Boundaries Distinctive enclosed medieval strip fields around older settlements Ancient, irregular hedged fields on lower ground Larger, rectilinear parliamentary enclosures on higher ground with drystone walls, hedges or hedgebanks (of beech in the South West) Agricultural land use Mainly pasture with both improved and unimproved grassland and some mixed farming Traditional farm buildings Traditional buildings mainly of stone with stone, slate or pantile roofs in north; of chert, flint, cob, render and other materials in South West Very high number of surviving traditional farmsteads Historic environment Widespread prehistoric and medieval remains Remains of rural extraction and processing industries e.g. coal, textiles, tin; mills, canals and railways Large country houses and designed parklands Semi-natural habitats Unimproved species-rich grassland (including Culm grasslands in the South West) and mires Varied moorland and heathland communities Coast Diverse coastal features in the South West, including cliffs, salt marshes, mudflats, sand dunes No coast elsewhere



Upland Fringe ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Option bundle


Rank ELS UELS HLS Total



3 Maintenance & Restoration of moorland 6% 1% 5% 11%






9 Upland semi-natural/rough pasture management or restoration 0% 0% 1% 2%


11 Supplement for management of heather, gorse and grass by burning, cutting or swiping 0% 0% 2% 2%


13 Rush pasture management 1% 0% 0% 1%



16 Seasonal livestock exclusion supplement 0% 0% 1% 1%


18 Shepherding supplement 0% 0% 1% 1%



Total uptake 61% 11% 22% 94%


Upland Fringe (ALT): Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake

Rank

Option bundle


ELS UELS HLS Total


2 Earth bank management 12% 0% 0% 12%


4 Stone-faced Hedgebank management 4% 0% 0% 4%


6 Fencing 0% 0% 0% 3%




10 Hedgerows 0% 0% 0% 1%








Summary of assessment results by theme for the NCAs of the Upland Fringe ALT




Boundaries 8 11 3





Coast (17 N/A) 1 2 2


Potential benefits of NELMS (‘BEST FOR LANDSCAPE ‘SCENARIO) Woodlands and trees

• Distinctive broadleaved woodlands on steep slopes and valley sides, including ancient valley-side oakwoods such as those in South Devon, are brought into management where this was traditionally characteristic in the past.

• Farm woodlands, field and hedgerow trees, and riparian trees, which are often key landscape features, are managed and renewed, particularly in areas such as the Derbyshire Peak Fringe and Lower Derwent, Culm, and the Quantock Hills.

• Traditional orchards, characteristic of parts of the South West, continue to be restored and extended.

Boundaries

• This landscape type’s varied and distinctive field patterns (enclosed medieval strip fields around settlements, irregular hedged fields on lower ground, and rectilinear parliamentary enclosures on higher ground) are retained and where necessary restored.

• Locally distinctive drystone walls and hedgebanks (especially in the South West) – often neglected in these landscapes – are targeted for restoration.


• A mixed/pastoral character is sustained through uptake of low input permanent pasture options, focusing especially on areas east of the Pennines and in Devon and Cornwall, targeted on steeper slopes aiding natural resource protection and on areas of semi-improved permanent and rush pasture and as a buffer around and link between areas of semi-natural grassland.

• Wet grassland options are effectively targeted to river floodplains; and rough grassland options to steep slopes and moorland fringes.


• Good uptake of options for management and restoration of historic farm buildings continues in Northumberland.

• Greater uptake is achieved in other areas also, particularly in on the fringes of the Peak District, in the Blackdown Hills, and in Cornwall.


• Land on the eastern fringes of the Pennines shows greater uptake of options for removal of archaeological features from cultivation.

• Options for retention and visibility of archaeology on moorland are used to help conserve the industrial heritage of the Southern Pennine and Peak fringes and within West Devon and Cornwall and restoration, especially in the North and around urban areas.


• Unimproved grasslands and mires, including the distinctive Culm grasslands of Devon and Cornwall, continue to be appropriately managed and restored.

• There is improved uptake of options for characteristic species-rich grasslands, hay meadows, wetlands, lowland heathland and moorland habitats in parts of the North where targeting of these options appears to have been neglected on the fringes of the protected landscapes.

Coast

• The coastal landscapes of the Culm benefit from additional uptake of options for salt marsh and sand dunes.

Overall landscape impacts of this ‘BEST FOR LANDSCAPE’ SCENARIO: Together the above measures could do much to retain and strengthen the inherent character of these diverse, often small-scale landscapes. As in the other landscape types there are opportunities to conserve and enhance the landscape as noted above in ways that also deliver a wide range of other benefits. Lying close to some of the main northern conurbations, fringing the northern National Parks, and forming much of Devon and Cornwall, these landscapes are important for recreation and tourism. Opportunities for NELMS to provide an integrated approach for the benefit of the landscape, biodiversity and natural resource protection are significant and are illustrated, as one example, by South West Water’s Upstream Thinking Programme that straddles


the Uplands and Upland Fringe with environmental improvements aimed at improving water quality in river catchments in order to reduce water treatment costs downstream (and meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive). This includes the Exmoor and Dartmoor Mires Projects, Wild Penwith, the work of the West Country Rivers Trust in the upper catchments of the Upper Fowey and Upper Tamar and others (all in the Uplands), and the Devon Wildlife Trust’s Working Wetlands Project operating in the Culm, and their Otter River Project (both in the Upland Fringe). All link to the Catchment Sensitive farming approach. Thus targeting under NELMS offers opportunities for:

• Bringing valley side woodlands and riparian trees under management and restoration, especially in areas of the South West affected by ‘Sudden Oak Death’ to assist natural resource protection and biodiversity linkage as well as landscape.

• Creation of continuous swathes of low input permanent pastures, wet grassland and wetland habitats, including valley mires, within river valley flood plains for the benefit of biodiversity and natural resource protection and also aiding flood management, especially where located in upper catchments, helping store and hold back floodwaters.

• The retention and restoration of field boundaries including hedgerow and hedgebanks, and field and riparian trees that together are a defining characteristic of these landscapes. These form a valuable part of the biodiversity network especially in areas of more intensive agriculture, and help reduce cross land flows and associated transport of nutrients, especially on steeper slopes.

• Maintaining and restoring traditional orchards as part of community and local food initiatives and adding to the tourism offer if used in local juices and ciders.

• Managing and restoring parklands for the historic environment and as a very major part of the tourism offer and an essential part of the biodiversity network.

• Conserving archaeology on lower lying ground and on moorland to underline the past industrial heritage of these areas.

• Conserving, restoring and recreating semi-natural grasslands, such as the Culm in Devon and Cornwall for the benefit of the landscape and biodiversity and as part of wider initiatives in natural resource protection, as being undertaken through the Upstream Thinking Programme.


• Restoration of arable areas to permanent low input grasslands where soil erosion is proving a significant problem (also helping retain the predominantly pastoral character of these landscapes).

• In addition, the retention and restoration of characteristic beech hedge banks as defining characteristics of the Quantocks and other parts of the south west, contributing to distinctive local character.


• Increased uptake of fencing along watercourses (for natural resource protection) may be visually intrusive on open ground. It is fully recognised that fencing may be required to prevent stock entering water courses and may help create a diversity of waterside habitats. It is suggested that evidence from existing capital works under ES is pooled to assess the best approaches in this landscape type.

• Changes in the location of gate openings to provide a barrier to cross land flows (for natural resource protection) may lead to new field openings that do not reflect the traditional vernacular and may introduce new modern materials and designs into the landscape. Where new gate openings are required they should reflect the local vernacular in design and choice of materials


while the blocking of the existing opening should reflect the construction of the adjacent wall or hedgebank.

• Buffer strips including those that have been floristically enhanced may look out of scale in the small scale field pattern of much of this type although they may be accommodated in larger rectilinear enclosures where they may help to reinforce the field pattern. In larger fields where these buffer strips are used apply them consistently to all edges of a field and ensure that they run the full length of each boundary, anchored to the boundary edge.

• Field corners (for species conservation) may adversely affect field patterns if introduced as large square blocks into areas of small-scale and irregular field pattern. Field corners should be small and in keeping with the scale of the field and should take an organic shape that forms a natural extension to the hedgerows. They should not be introduced into walled enclosures, where developing scrub will tend to mask the pattern of walls.



• Bird seed mix and/or nectar source options (for species conservation) may be sown in blocks within arable crops or inconsistently around field edges, potentially detracting from field patterns. Avoid using these options in scattered blocks within a field; either apply consistently around field edges or use a large (field scale) block.

• Fallow plots (for species conservation) may become more widely used and appear as strips or blocks within arable fields, where their ‘weedy’ appearance may alter the established field pattern. These will be best applied as small infield plots rather than larger block.

• Arable mosaics (for species conservation), if introduced into mainly pastoral areas, which are common in this type, may disrupt perceptions of grassland continuity. Apply these options only in areas with a mixed farming character.

This scenario would also run the risk of overlooking the suggestions under the ‘best for landscape’ scenario.

Overall landscape impacts of the ‘WORST FOR LANDSCAPE SCENARIO’: As in the other ‘Worst’ scenarios, this assumes that single-objective options are imposed on the landscape rather than integrated into it. It equally assumes that opportunities are not sought to achieve multiple benefits through the co-ordinated targeting of options in ways that can strengthen landscape character at the same time as delivering biodiversity networks and natural resource protection.



Agricultural Landscape Type: Uplands

This agricultural landscape type occurs in the higher regions of England (above 400m in the north but at a lower altitude in the South West). The largest area runs along the Pennine spine from the Scottish borders to the Peak District and includes the Cumbrian Fells, the Bowland Fells and the outlier of the North York Moors. The Cambrian massif crosses the border from Wales in western Shropshire and Herefordshire. In the South West, this landscape type occurs on Dartmoor, Exmoor, Bodmin Moor and Carnmenellis. In almost all areas, this landscape type gives way at lower altitudes to the upland fringe dairying and stock-rearing agricultural landscape type. High rainfall, thin and steep soils and low annual average temperatures mean that agricultural productivity is relatively low and is reliant on grazing livestock. Whereas low lying land is parcelled into fields (mostly permanent grassland and often bordered by stone walls) the highest and least productive land is unenclosed moorland and usually registered common land. All of the landscape type lies within the Less Favoured Area, most of it being classified as ‘Severely Disadvantaged’. A significant proportion of this landscape type is designated as SSSI (particularly the heather moorlands) and the large majority lies within National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). As noted elsewhere in this report, it is this landscape type that has benefited from very high levels of targeting under ES

Key characteristics of this landscape Woodlands and trees Broadleaved woodland in steep sided river valleys, on coastal combes and upland edges Ancient valley-side woodlands, often of oak Shelter planting around farms Woodland scarce on open moors other than conifer plantations Boundaries Generally open and unenclosed on the hills Larger, regular mainly walled enclosures on hill slopes Small fields bounded by mixed hedges and hedgebanks in the valleys Agricultural land use Pasture in valleys Unenclosed moorland (including grouse moor) and registered common land with extensive grazing, which may include ponies e.g. on Exmoor and Dartmoor Traditional farm buildings Traditional buildings of stone or render with stone or slate roofs Very high numbers of surviving traditional farmsteads Long houses, linear plan farmsteads and field barns common Historic environment Widespread prehistoric and medieval remains including fortified buildings, field systems, ecclesiastic sites and deer parks Ancient tracks, packhorse trails and drove roads Remains of rural extraction and processing industries e.g. lead, tin, coal, woollen milling Semi-natural habitats Heather moorland, blanket bog, peaty mires and mosses Species-rich semi-natural grasslands and wet flushes Important surviving hay meadows, calcareous grasslands, arctic alpine and other habitats in some areas e.g. Yorkshire Dales, North Pennines Coast Cliffs with sandy and rocky bays between (North York Moors, Exmoor and upland areas of Cornwall)



Uplands ALT: Top 20 option bundles by total area of uptake

Rank

Option bundle


ELS UELS HLS Total

1 Maintenance & Restoration of moorland 20% 3% 22% 45%



4 Seasonal livestock exclusion supplement 0% 0% 7% 7%

5 Supplement for management of heather, gorse and grass by burning, cutting or swiping 0% 0% 6% 6%


7 Shepherding supplement 0% 0% 4% 4%


9 Upland semi-natural/rough pasture management or restoration 0% 0% 2% 2%





14 Enclosed upland semi-natural/rough pasture management 1% 0% 0% 1%

15 Rush pasture management 1% 0% 0% 1%

16 Bracken control supplement 0% 0% 1% 1%


18 Moorland re-wetting supplement 0% 0% 0% 0%



Total uptake 37% 12% 49% 98%


Uplands ALT: Top 10 option bundles by total length of uptake


Rank Option bundle ELS UELS HLS Total

1 Stone wall protection and management 36% 9% 45%


3 Fencing 0% 0% 6% 6%

4 Stone-faced Hedgebank management 5% 0% 0% 5%


6 Earth bank management 2% 0% 0% 2%

7 Restoration of stone walls 0% 0% 2% 2%


9 Hedgerows 0% 0% 1% 1%




may not





Summary of assessment results by theme for the NCAs of the Upland Fringe ALT




Boundaries 12 8 2





Coast (18 N/A) 1 1 2



• Broadleaved woodland (including ancient oakwoods) on valley sides, coastal combes and upland edge gills/cloughs continues to be protected, managed, and is extended where appropriate through natural regeneration.

• Active management is also targeted on areas such as the Southern Pennines and Dark Peak where uptake is currently low.

• Wood pasture and shelter plantings around farms are protected, managed and renewed.

• There is significant uptake of options for field and hedgerow trees where these are important landscape elements, as in the North Pennines and Yorkshire Dales.

Boundaries

• Options for wall restoration continue to be applied to ensure that the large, regular patterns of upland enclosure remain intact.

• New uptake is directed especially to parts of Northumberland, Cumbria, Exmoor and Dartmoor, where uptake is currently poor.

• Selected hedgerow planting is undertaken, to replace key hedgerows removed or lost to fencing, for example on the moorland edge or floodplain farmland. Target areas for hedgerow planting might include the Border Moors and Forests and White Peak.


• Options for low input grassland continue to be applied to valley floor pastures, with wet and/or rough grassland options being targeted mainly on valley sides and applied more widely than at present in the South West.

• Extensive cattle grazing continues on moorland and registered common land.

• Traditional grazing by native cattle and sheep breeds (and by ponies where locally characteristic e.g. on Exmoor and Dartmoor) continues and is extended.


• Traditional farm buildings are managed and restored, with a focus on distinctive local building types such as long houses, linear plan farmsteads and especially field barns.

• Existing high levels of uptake in Northumberland National Park, the Yorkshire Dales and Moors, the North Pennines and the Shropshire Hills are extended (where buildings remain in farm use) to the Peak District, Southern Pennines, Dartmoor and uplands of Cornwall.


• Uptake of options for conservation of archaeology is increased in the internationally important historic landscapes of Exmoor, Dartmoor and the Cornish uplands; and continues to be high elsewhere.

• Uptake of options for retention and visibility of archaeology on moorland is also increased, especially in the Bowland Fringe, southern Peak District, Shropshire Hills and Bodmin Moor.

• Key historic features such as field systems, ancient tracks, packhorse trails and remains of rural extraction and processing industries, e.g. lead, tin, coal, woollen milling, are targeted for uptake.

• Parkland management and restoration continues in areas where it is characteristic. Semi-natural habitats

• The strong uptake of options for heather moorland, blanket bog, peaty mires and mosses in most areas continues and is extended in the Southern Pennines and Dark Peak.

• Important surviving hay meadows, calcareous grasslands, arctic alpine and other habitats areas such as the Yorkshire Dales and North Pennines, continue to be managed and restored.

• Uptake of options for re-wetting of blanket bog is targeted for improvement. Coast

• The relatively limited areas of coastal salt marsh and sand dune in the North York Moors, Exmoor and Cornwall show appropriate levels of uptake of the relevant options.


Overall landscape impacts of this ‘BEST FOR LANDSCAPE’ SCENARIO: If the above measures are implemented through NELMS this will do much to conserve and enhance these nationally and internationally important landscapes, most of which are either National Parks or AONBs and which are a major recreational and tourism resource. Nevertheless, as in the other landscape types, there are opportunities to conserve and enhance the landscape, as noted above, in ways that also deliver a wide range of other benefits, not least natural resource protection and enhanced biodiversity. Proposals for multi-benefit land management is potentially most advanced and best understood in the Uplands where the wide range of services provided by upland moorland is increasingly recognised in terms of water resource management, flood control and natural resource protection, along with the vital role played by blanket bogs and underlying peat and organo-mineral soils in storing and sequestering carbon. Thus targeting under NELMS offers opportunities, amongst other things for:

• The conservation management and restoration of open moorland and peat bogs and especially their underlying peat soils through: re-wetting, restoration of heather moorland, and introduction/restoration of extensive grazing programmes. These will need to be adapted to meet the needs of local biodiversity conservation and the management of their carbon resource to aid retention of water, both to regulate flooding downstream and feed the headwaters of the myriad of streams and rivers that flow off the moors.

• The conservation management and restoration of important surviving hay meadows, calcareous grasslands, arctic alpine and other habitats for the benefit of biodiversity and landscape.


• Creation of continuous swathes of low input permanent pastures, wet grassland and wetland habitats, including valley mires, within river valleys for the benefit of biodiversity and natural resource protection and also further aiding flood management.

• Bringing valley side woodlands under management and restoration, to assist natural resource protection and biodiversity linkage as well as landscape conservation.

• The retention and restoration of characteristic field boundaries, including the hedgerows and hedgebanks of the enclosed landscapes, and stone walls of higher ground, that together form a valuable part of the biodiversity network especially in areas of more intensive agriculture, and help reduce cross land flows and associated transport of nutrients, especially on steeper slopes.

• Managing and restoring parklands as an important part of the tourism offer and as an essential part of the biodiversity network.

• Conserving the internationally important archaeological resource of these landscapes both on enclosed and unenclosed land recognising its very strong contribution to sense of place as well as conservation of the historic environment.

• The conservation and renewal of features that further add to the sense of place of different localities in these nationally important landscapes, including field and hedgerow trees where they are characteristic, the areas of wood pasture and shelter plantings around farms, and the traditional stone field barns that characterise many upland landscapes such as the Yorkshire Dales, the North Pennines and parts of the Peak District.


• Increased uptake of fencing along watercourses (for natural resource protection) may be visually intrusive on open ground. It is fully recognised that fencing may be required to prevent stock entering water courses and may help create a diversity of waterside habitats. It is


suggested that evidence from existing capital works under ES is pooled to assess the best approaches in this landscape type.

• Changes in the location of gate openings to provide a barrier to cross land flows (for natural resource protection) may lead to new field opening that do not reflect the traditional vernacular and may introduce new modern materials and designs into the landscape. Where new gate openings are required they should reflect the local vernacular in design and choice of materials while the blocking of the existing opening should reflect the construction of the adjacent wall or hedgebank.

• Field corners (for species conservation) may adversely affect field patterns if introduced as large square blocks into areas of small-scale and irregular field pattern. Field corners should be small and in keeping with the scale of the field and should take an organic shape that forms a natural extension to hedgerows. They should not be introduced into walled enclosures, where developing scrub will tend to mask the pattern of walls.


• Arable mosaics (for species conservation), if introduced into mainly pastoral landscapes such as those of the uplands, may disrupt perceptions of grassland continuity. These options are generally unsuitable in the upland landscape type.

This scenario would also run the risk of overlooking the suggestions under the ‘best for landscape’ scenario’

Overall landscape impacts of the ‘WORST FOR LANDSCAPE SCENARIO’: As in the other ‘Worst’ scenarios, this assumes that single objective options are imposed on the landscape rather than integrated into it. It equally assumes that opportunities are not sought to achieve multiple benefits through the co-ordinated targeting of options in ways that can strengthen landscape character at the same time as delivering biodiversity networks and natural resource protection.



7 Conclusions (including Objectives 3 and 4)

7.1 This chapter draws together the findings of this study from the evidence presented:

• It summaries the quantification of impact on landscape with a reduction in ELS UAA coverage from 70% to 40% (Scenarios 1 & 3) (Objective 1)

• It considers quantitative and qualitative predictions of the potential landscape impacts of a new agri-environment scheme with reduced land coverage (Objective 2)

e) In so doing it considers whether a better targeted scheme with higher quality agreements would: a. Fail to compensate for the loss of coverage? b. Compensate the loss of coverage? c. More than compensate for the loss of coverage? taking into account the gradual transition from ES to new scheme agreements (Objective 3)

f) It describes any limitations and uncertainties in the results and underlying datasets (Objective 4).

Quantification of the landscape impact of a reduction in ELS UAA

coverage from 70% to 40% (a reduction of 43% in ELS uptake)

A 43% reduction in ELS uptake

7.2 This has been assessed through Scenario 1(a) that looks at a 43% reduction in ELS coverage spread evenly across all NCAs. This helps understand the effect of the gradual scaling back of current ELS coverage over time as ES agreements come to an end at the same time as the ‘Mid-Tier’ of NELMS starts to come into play.

7.3 The key finding from Scenario 1(a) is that a 43% reduction in ELS coverage would be significant for the landscape. The number of NCAs where ELS is assessed as currently having a positive or strongly positive effect on the landscape overall would drop from 47 to 14 NCAs (a 70% drop) and the number of neutral NCAs would increase from 109 to 142 (92% of all NCAs). Spatially, the only NCAs still to have a positive landscape effect under ELS would be concentrated in the north of England. There would be a disproportionate difference between the uplands and the lowlands. In the uplands the number of positive NCAs would drop from 26 to 12 (a 54% drop) while the lowland NCAs would see a drop from 21 to 2 positive NCAs (a 90% drop).

7.4 Within this overall assessment the landscape themes that would be most adversely affected under this Scenario are:

• Woodland and trees which would experience a drop in the number of NCAs where ELS is assessed as having a positive or strongly positive landscape effect under this theme from 42 to 21 (a 50% drop). This drop would be more pronounced in the lowlands. In the uplands the drop would be from 18 to 11 NCAs (a 39% drop); in the lowlands the fall would be from 24 to 10 NCAs (a 58% drop). These changes very largely relate to a reduced number of field trees being under relevant ELS options for their protection and regeneration.


• Agricultural land use where ELS has high uptake in options concerned with the conservation of permanent pasture (particularly options for low input grasslands and mixed stocking). Here the number of NCAs where ELS is assessed as having a positive or strongly positive landscape effect under this theme drops from 50 to 13 (a 74% drop). Again this drop is much more pronounced in the lowlands. In the uplands the drop would be from 27 to 13 NCAs (a 52% drop); in the lowlands the drop would be from 23 to 0 (a 100% drop). These changes very largely relate to a reduced uptake of options for low input grasslands, although in the uplands a greater mix of options comes into play.

• Traditional farm buildings where ELS options provide for the maintenance of these buildings. Under this theme the number of NCAs where ELS uptake is assessed as having a positive or strongly positive effect on the landscape decreases from 59 to 30 (a 49% drop). The uplands would experience a drop from 24 to 13 positive NCAs (a 45% drop) while the lowlands would experience a drop from 35 – 17 positive NCAs (a 51% drop)

• Semi-natural habitats. The majority of relevant ES options relating to semi-natural habitats are under HLS, the exception are a number of ELS and UELS options for upland hay meadows and moorland grazing. With reduced ELS coverage this would result in a drop in the number of NCAs where ELS is assessed as having a positive landscape effect under this theme from 28 to 15 (a 46% drop), with this drop entirely concentrated in the uplands.

7.5 As is evident from these figures, the drops would be disproportionally felt in the four lowland ALTs.

7.6 Under Scenario 1(a), those landscape themes that will fare better are those for Boundary Features and the Historic Environment. In both cases this reflects the levels of current uptake. In the case of boundary features, these tend to have high levels of uptake across the country and, as a consequence, often significantly exceed the identified landscape thresholds. Even with a 43% reduction in ELS coverage, therefore, uptake may still often be above the identified landscape thresholds. In the case of the historic environment, current patterns of uptake mean that the relevant landscape thresholds are either very significantly exceeded (especially in the Chalk and Limestone ALT) or are not met. Thus where they are met a 43% reduction will often not breach the relevant thresholds. The results under Scenario 1(a) for these two themes are:

• Boundary features would see a drop in the number of NCAs where ELS is assessed as having a positive or strongly positive landscape effect under this theme from 129 to 84 (a 35% drop). The drop in strongly positive NCAs would be from 50 to 8. As under other themes, the overall drop would be more evident in the lowlands than the uplands, with the uplands experiencing a drop of 38 to 27 positive or strongly positive NCAs (a 29% drop) and the lowlands experiencing a drop from 91 to 57 NCAs (a 37% drop). It is also important to note that within the lowlands the two ALTs to be most affected are the SE Mixed ALT (with a drop of 63% in positive boundary objectives), and the Western Mixed (a 54% drop in positive boundary objectives) – these are the two most strongly pastoral lowland landscapes where hedgerows are one of the most important landscape characteristics.

• Historic environment would see a drop in the number of NCAs where ELS is assessed as having a positive or strongly positive landscape effect under this theme from 55 to 43 NCAs (a drop of 22%). Again drops will be more evident in the lowlands, which will experience a drop from 43 to 23 positive or strongly positive NCAs (a 32% drop), whereas in the uplands the comparable drop will be from 21 to 20 NCAs (a 5% drop).

7.7 All the above is substantiated by the changes in positive objectives outlined in Chapter 4.


7.8 Thus from this Scenario we learn that a 43% drop in ELS coverage spread equally across all NCAs would lead to a drop in the landscape benefits provided by ELS. These effects would have a proportionally greater effect than the level of the actual drop, with a 70% drop in the number of NCAs where ELS is assessed as having a positive or strongly positive landscape effect overall. These drops would be particularly felt across the themes for woodland and trees, (primarily affecting the protection of field trees); agricultural land use (the conservation of permanent pasture), retention of traditional farm buildings, and the conservation of semi-natural habitats (moorland grazing and upland hay meadows). The drops would be less significant for boundary features and the historic environment (archaeology). In all respects, other than semi-natural habitats, these effects would be very much more evident in the lowlands than the uplands – the spatial distribution of which is shown in (Figures 3.1 – 3.17).

The role of HLS

7.9 This study has also looked at the role of HLS in this Scenario (Scenario 1(b)). This has demonstrated that HLS too (and the Upper-Tier under NELMS that will replace it) is playing an important role in the conservation and enhancement of landscape character. HLS helps to conserve important landscapes features such as small farm woodlands, orchards, wet and semi-improved grasslands, water meadows, parkland, visible archaeology and a wide range of semi-natural habitats.

7.10 Under Scenario 1(b) that looks at the combined landscape effects of ELS and HLS, the important contribution of HLS to landscape conservation is evident. In Scenario 1(b) with a 43% reduction in the area of ELS but the area of HLS remaining constant, the number of NCAs where ES is assessed as having a positive or strongly positive landscape effect overall drops from 122 to 95 NCAs (a 22% drop), within which the number of strongly positive NCAs drops from 22 – 10. The landscape effects of ELS under this modelling approach are therefore ‘masked’ by the positive contributions of HLS although the changes in ELS will be the same as in Scenario 1(a) and will be similarly evident.

7.11 Under NELMS it is proposed that the Upper-Tier will be focused on designated and protected sites, as has been predominantly the case under HLS. To understand better this relationship, therefore, Scenario 3 (Chapter 5) has looked at the ‘area match’ between designated sites and the area of HLS coverage. It should be stressed that this assessment has been based on the careful allocation of HLS options to the most appropriate designation (Appendix 2). HLS options that do not match with a designation type have been excluded.

7.12 The findings from Scenario 3 indicate that (not allowing for the co-location of options):

• 67% of all HLS uptake relating to the conservation of habitats, is in the uplands and upland fringe, 33% is in the lowlands.

• Relevant HLS uptake in the uplands is equivalent to117% of the area of Upland and Upland Fringe SSSIs.

• Relevant HLS uptake in the lowlands is equivalent to 75% of the area of lowland SSSIs. Relevant HLS uptake is proportionally higher in those lowland ALTs that have smaller areas of SSSI, as in the Eastern Arable and Western Mixed ALTs.

• Relevant HLS uptake is equivalent to 47% of the area of Upland and Upland Fringe scheduled monuments.

• Relevant HLS uptake is equivalent to 93% of the area of lowland scheduled monuments.

• The uptake figures for registered parks and gardens are not sufficiently accurate to draw any firm conclusions.


7.13 As a comparison, Scenario 3 has also looked at the area of BAP Habitats relative to the area of relevant HLS uptake. This indicates that.

• Moorland has been the greatest beneficiary amongst all BAP Habitats with relevant HLS uptake equivalent to 155% of the area of Moorland BAP Habitat, and with moorland accounting for 55% of all option-uptake relating to BAP Habitats.

• This is followed by Species-rich grasslands with the equivalent of 74% HLS coverage of the relevant BAP Habitats and Lowland heathland with the equivalent of 60% HLS coverage. Conversely there are other habitats with low uptake, such as the Traditional orchard BAP Habitat with 11% coverage by HLS of the BAP Habitat area.

7.15 These figures further emphasise the imbalance in ES coverage between the uplands and the lowlands and also highlight that greater ‘Upper-Tier’ coverage would be needed to bring all protected sites (and potentially BAP Habitats) under conservation management, especially in the lowlands. This would also be to the great benefit of the landscape.

Quantitative and qualitative predictions of the potential landscape

impacts of a new agri-environment scheme with reduced land

coverage

7.16 There are two considerations here: (a) the overall spatial distribution of landscape benefits under NELMS illustrated by Scenario 2; and (b) the particular nature of the landscape benefits achieved within the ‘target areas ‘ under NELMS illustrated by the response to Objective 2.

The overall spatial distribution of landscape benefits

7.17 Chapter 3 has compared the landscape effects of Scenario 1(a) described above with that of Scenario 2(a) which looks at current levels of ELS uptake now concentrated into a number of ‘target’ NCAs acting as a proxy for future target areas anticipated under NELMS. This indicates that the reduction in landscape benefits noted under Scenario 1(a) are less pronounced under Scenario 2(a). Under Scenario 2(a) the number of positive and strongly positive NCAs drops from 47 to 31 (a 34% drop), compared to the 70% drop noted under Scenario 1(a), and the number of neutral NCAs increases from 109 to 125 (80% of all NCAs).

7.18 These lesser falls are also evident across half the landscape themes, namely: Woodland and trees, Agricultural land use and Traditional buildings. They are higher, however, for Semi-natural habitats, Boundaries and the Historic environment. In the case of Semi-natural habitats, these are something of a special case relating to specific upland options and only relevant in the Uplands and Upland Fringe. On the other hand, Boundaries and Archaeology are found across all landscapes and are important components of nearly all landscapes.

7.19 Under Scenario 2(a) for Boundaries there is an overall drop in NCAs where ELS is assessed as having a positive or strongly positive effect on the landscape of 50% (compared to a drop of 35% under Scenario 1(a)), with drops of 55% in the uplands a 48% in the lowlands. For Archaeology there are drops of 38% overall (compared to a drop of 22% under Scenario 1(a)), with drops of 38% also recorded in both the uplands and lowlands. This indicates that for these ubiquitous but very important landscape features, a focus on target areas alone could result in a greater loss in landscape benefit than a reduction in agri-environment coverage across all landscapes. This is a point that is returned to below.

7.20 It is also noticeable that under Scenario 2(a) the drops are generally greater in the uplands than the lowlands, with an overall drop in the uplands of strongly positive and positive NCAs


for landscape of 38%, compared to 29% in the lowlands. Indeed, as much as drops are consistently higher across all themes in the lowlands under Scenario 1(a), so they are consistently higher in the uplands under Scenario 2(a).

7.21 These differences between the uplands and the lowlands are the consequence of both:

• proportionally much higher current levels of ELS (and HLS) uptake in the uplands compared to the lowlands

• the method of selecting the proxy ’target’ NCAs for Scenario 2 which involved the selection of an equal area of NCAs from each ALT proportionate to the total area of that ALT. Clearly, the actual targeting that is adopted under NELMS may be very different.

7.22 The overall conclusion to be drawn from comparison of Scenario 1(a) with 2(a) is that with reduced agri-environment coverage, spatial targeting (Scenario 2(a)) should be better for the landscape compared to an approach that sees an equal reduction in agri-environment coverage across all areas (Scenario 1(a)). The only exceptions would be in the case of boundary features and archaeology. Targeting could also result in a more even distribution of effects between the lowlands and the uplands, although this will be very dependent on the priorities for targeting, with targeting potentially continuing to favour the uplands.

7.23 Scenario 2(a) outlined above has only considered ELS uptake. However, Scenario 2(b), like Scenario 1(b) also takes account of HLS uptake. Like Scenario 1(b), it models HLS continuing as currently across all NCAs but, in this case, with ELS only found within the proxy ‘target’ NCAs.

7.24 Comparing Scenarios 1(b) and 2(b) that take account of the combined effects of ELS and HLS on the landscape, it is evident that across all themes and overall, Scenario 2(b) shows a greater decrease in the number of NCAs where ES is assessed as having a positive or strongly positive landscape effect, than Scenario 1(b) (paras 7.8 – 7.9). In other words, under Scenario 2(b) positive effects are more geographically focused, covering a smaller total area. This is contrary to the landscape effects of Scenario 2(a) noted above, where the concentration of ELS only into target areas had a more positive landscape effect than an even fall in ELS across all NCAs (Scenario 1(a)).

7.25 This is explained by the fact that under Scenario 1(b) there is still ELS uptake (albeit a reduced amount) that is ‘working with’ the HLS uptake enabling landscape thresholds to be met. On the other hand, under Scenario 2(b) there is no ELS uptake within the non-target areas and in most cases therefore HLS uptake alone is insufficient to meet the identified landscape thresholds.

7.26 Importantly though, within the target areas defined by Scenario 2(b), the number of strongly positive NCAs that are retained is consistently higher and sometimes much higher, than under Scenario 1(b), illustrating that while overall coverage may not be as great, outcomes within the targeted areas have the potential to be much better for the landscape - illustrating that targeting under NELMS has the potential to offer quality over quantity. It must be stressed that in this study proxy ‘target’ NCAs were specifically selected where ES has been assessed as having a strongly positive effect on the landscape. If the objectives for targeting were different, the consequences for landscape might be very different too.

The nature of the landscape benefits achieved under NELMS

7.27 The discussion above has indicated the potential spatial implications of targeting under NELMS. Chapter 6 describes qualitative scenarios that identify the best and worst for the landscape under NELMS within the targeted areas. It indicates that the landscape would benefit most from a menu of options that respond to key landscape characteristics. These qualitative scenarios also consider how these types of option might be applied to bring benefits for the landscape, sense of place, biodiversity and natural resource protection together.


7.28 On the other hand, a menu of options that only includes single benefit options aimed solely at natural resource protection and / or species protection on arable land would, at best have a neutral effect on the landscape and at worst could have a significantly damaging effect. Detrimental effects would result if such options are provided in locations and of a scale out of keeping with the landscape. There is evidence of this under ELS identified through BD5303.

7.29 Thus the response to the questions raised at the outset of this study are as follows:

d) A better targeted scheme with higher quality agreements would fail to compensate for the loss of coverage if options available under the Mid-Tier are solely focused on single benefit options designed only for natural resource protection and / or species conservation on arable. This approach has the potential of being significantly detrimental to the landscape, with no obvious landscape gains under the Mid-Tier.

e) A better targeted scheme with higher quality agreements would compensate for the loss of coverage if:

- options available under the Mid-Tier, and how they are applied, clearly respond to the needs of the landscape as set out in Chapter 6, with measures developed that aid the landscape, sense of place, natural resource protection and species conservation together.

- NELMS is seen as a ‘whole farm scheme’ with a requirement that environmental and landscape features are mapped and retained.

- targeted areas are scattered across the whole country rather than focused solely in

a few areas, reflecting the European Landscape Convention that all landscapes matter.

It should be noted that BD5303 acknowledged the clear benefits from a more targeted approach especially for ubiquitous options (such as those for low input grasslands that together account for by far the highest levels of area uptake across all ALTs except the Uplands).

f) A better targeted scheme with higher quality agreements would more than compensate for the loss of coverage if all three points made above are met plus:

- across ALL landscapes there is support for the restoration and conservation management of boundary features (hedgerows, ditches, walls and hedgebanks), field and hedgerow trees, and archaeological features.

7.30 These three elements together are characteristic elements of nearly all landscapes and their disposition is important in defining the scale and character of the landscape. These elements were specifically picked out under BD5303. It is also evident from Scenario 2 that boundary features and archaeology are more adversely affected by a targeted approach than an even reduction in ELS uptake across the country (Scenario 1(a)).

A gradual transition from ES to new scheme agreements

7.31 For each of the above options (a) to (c) the landscape effects will be influenced by the transition from ES to NELMS. Scenario 1(a) suggests that as the coverage of ELS reduces there will be a retreat of the positive landscape effects of ES to the north of England (mainly in the uplands), while the target areas under (a) or (b) or (c) above will increasingly come into play. However, where they come into play will be dictated by the targeting under NELMS.

Limitations of the results


7.32 The primary limitation of this work is that it has not involved more runs of the database to test a wider range of Scenarios. This was not possible in the time available. However, by drawing on the results of the BD5303 study, this study has utilised the most comprehensive data collected to-date on the landscape effects of agri-environment schemes – in this case Environmental Stewardship.

7.33 The database used, which builds on the findings of BD5303, provides the first consistent method for assessing the landscape effects of agri-environment schemes at the national level. The approach provides a consistent framework against which to consider these landscape effects. This is because:

a. It reviews landscape impacts across a range of landscape themes. This allows the balance of landscape effects between these different themes to be easily understood, giving a more nuanced view of the landscape effects of agri-environment on the landscape of each NCA and between NCAs

b. Each theme is made up of a series of landscape objectives. The relevant objectives are selected for each theme, according to the landscape characteristics of each NCA – the database therefore responds to the landscape character of each NCA.

c. The effects of ES uptake for each objective are then judged against a set threshold (one threshold for each objective) that measures the area / length of relevant uptake as a percentage of the stock of that feature.

d. The levels of ES uptake are taken from Natural England’s Genesis database cut to each NCA while the stock of each relevant features is taken from Land Cover Map 2007 and a range of other datasets again cut to the individual NCAs.

7.34 This provides the most comprehensive and rigorous approach developed to-date for

assessing the landscape effects of agri-environment schemes. However, we would note that the results do not specifically take account of the extent to which farmers may choose to carry on the protection and management of landscape elements without the benefit of agri-environment scheme funding. Separate research undertaken on behalf of Defra, based on farmer survey, has indicated that some farmers may choose to continue ELS management practices in certain cases without the benefit of support, as indicated in the table below: Table 7.1: Percentage of current ELS agreement holders who would require on-going payment to continue conservation management (1)

ELS options Upland ELS Option code

Options for: % of farmers that need to be incentivised to undertake ELS conservation management

Option code

Options for: % of farmers that need to be incentivised to undertake ELS conservation management

EB Boundary features 28% UEB Boundary features 100% EC Trees and woodland 28% UEC Trees and woodland 100% ED Historic and landscape

features 21% UED Historic and landscape

features 100%

EE Buffer strips 68% UEJ Protection of soil and water

100%

EF Arable land 63% UEL Grasslands and moorland inside SDAs

100%

EG Range of crop types 33% 1) Source: CCRI report for Defra estimating

incidental benefits of Environmental

Stewardship – Final Report 2010

2) Under UELS these upland options are assessed as

100%

EJ Protection of soil and water

50%

EK Grasslands (outside SDAs) and mixed stocking on grasslands

35%

EL Grasslands and moorland inside SDAs (2)

55%


Appendix 1 : Themes and their objectives

NB these objectives are written in terms of the desired outcome for the landscape

Theme A - Woodland/Tree cover

Objective A1: Active woodland management

Objective A2: Woodland protection

Objective A3: Woodland creation

Objective A4: Semi-natural woodland regeneration

Objective A5: Protection of in-field trees

Objective A6: Protection of hedgerow trees

Objective A7: Renewal of hedgerow trees

Objective A8: Management of riverside/bankside trees

Objective A9: Management and extension of traditional orchards

Theme B – Field patterns and boundary types

Objective B1: Management of hedgerows

Objective B2: Creation of new hedgerow lengths

Objective B3: Management of ditches/dykes

Objective B4: Management and restoration of stone walls

Objective B5: Management of banks (and stone-faced hedgebanks)

Objective B6: Reinforcement of field patterns in arable areas

Objective B7: Minimal negative landscape impact from deer fencing

Objective B8: Minimal negative landscape impact from fencing along watercourses

Theme C – Agricultural land use (covering area wide agricultural activities)

Objective C1: Diversity of winter arable landscape

Objective C2: Retention of pastoral character

Objective C3: Retention and management of wet grasslands

Objective C4: Retention and management of rough pasture

Objective C5: Retention/restoration of traditional mixed stock grazing

Objective C6: Retention and management of traditional water meadows

Objective C7: Minimal negative landscape impact from fallow plots

Theme D – Traditional farm buildings

Objective D1: Retention of historic farm buildings

Objective D2: Restoration of historic farm buildings

Theme E – Historic Environment


Objective E1: Retention and management of archaeology on arable

Objective E2: Retention and management of archaeology on arable as part of wider conservation objectives

Objective E3: Retention and management of archaeology on grass

Objective E4: Removal of archaeological features from cultivation

Objective E5: Retention and increased visibility of archaeology on moorland

Objective E6: Retention and management of parkland/wood pasture

Objective E7: Retention and management of larger water features

Objective E8: Retention and management of small ponds

Theme F – Semi-natural habitats

Objective F1: Management/restoration/creation of lowland species-rich grassland

Objective F2: Management/restoration/creation of upland species-rich grassland

Objective F3: Management/restoration of upland hay meadows

Objective F4: Management of lowland hay meadows

Objective F5: Management/restoration/creation of lowland heathland

Objective F6: Management/restoration/creation of fen, lowland raised bog and reedbed

Objective F7: Maintenance and restoration of moorland

Objective F8: Rewetting of areas of blanket bog, mires and flushes

Objective F9: Retention/restoration of traditional cattle grazing on moorland commons

Theme G – Coast

Objective G1: Conservation and management of salt marsh

Objective G2: Conservation and management of sand dunes

Objective G3: Creation of new coastal habitats


Appendix 2 : Designations and linked HLS options

Table A2.1: Designations and matching HLS options

Designation Options

SSSIs All HLS options for the maintenance, restoration and creation of woodland (HC7 – HC10); management of woodland edges (HC4 –

upgraded from ELS); maintenance, restoration and creation of successional areas of scrub (HC15 – HC17); upgraded options

from ELS for low input grasslands, rush pasture, and mixed grazing (HK2, HK3, HK4, HK5, HL2, HL3, HL4, HL21)3; options for semi-

natural species-rich grassland (HK6 – HK8); management of wet

grasslands for waders and wildfowl (HK9 – HK14); management of

grasslands for target features (HK15 – HK17);options for moorland

and upland rough grazing (HL7 – HL11); upgraded UELS options

to HLS for moorland (HL6, HL17); options for lowland heathland

(HO1 – HO5); options for inter-tidal and coastal locations (HP1 –

HP7); and options for wetlands (HQ1 – HQ10).

Scheduled Monuments Options for historic and landscape features (HD6 – HD11); and upgraded options from ELS for archaeological conservation (HD2 – HD5 & HD13 for maintaining the visibility of archaeology on grassland).

Registered Parks and Gardens In this case this is a clear under-estimation of HLS influence as it is

only based on uptake relating to options for the maintenance, restoration and creation of parkland and wood pasture (HC12 –

HC14). Clearly the majority of work on parklands is undertaken

through Capital items for Historical and archaeological feature

protection (HAP) which covers for the preparation of Parkland

Conservation Management Plans which may then lead to uptake of

other HLS options that together help deliver the management plan

Table A2.2: ‘Other’ HLS options

HLS options for species

conservation on Arable

HLS options on arable land (HE10, HF12, HF14, HF20, HF24,

HG5, HG6, HG7); and upgraded options from ELS on arable (HE1,

HE2, HE3,HE9, HF1,HF2,HF4, HF6, HF7, HF9, HF10, HF11,

HF13,HF15, HG1, HG4, HG5, HK1, HL1)

HLS options for intensive grassland HLS options on intensive grassland (HE11), and upgraded options

from ELS on intensive grassland (HE4 – HE6, HE7)

HLS options for natural resource

protection

HLS options for natural resource protection (HJ3, HJ4, HJ6, HJ7),

(HE9, HE10, HJ2, HJ5, HJ9, HJ10, HJ12, HJ13)

HLS options for historic buildings HLS Capital item (HTB) for the restoration of traditional farm

buildings and upgraded options from ELS for the maintenance of traditional farm buildings (HD1, HD12)

3 This is on the assumption that these options would primarily be upgraded to HLS on designated sites


Table A2.3: BAP Priority Habitats (replacing SSSIs) and matching HLS

options

BAP Priority Habitats Options

Semi-natural woodlands All HLS options for the maintenance, restoration and creation of woodland (HC7 – HC10); management of woodland edges (HC4 –

upgraded from ELS)

Traditional Orchards HLS options for the maintenance, restoration and creation of traditional orchards (HC16 – HC21)

Wet grassland Purple Moor grass

and Rush Pasture; Coastal and

Floodplain Grazing Marsh

HLS options for wet grassland (HK9 – HK14); upgraded options for

management of rush pasture from ELS (HK4)

Good Quality Semi-Improved

Grassland HLS options for management of grasslands for target features (HK15 – HK17) and for rough grassland grazing (HL7, HL8) and

upgraded ELS grassland options (HK2, HK3, HK5, HL2, HL3, HL5,

HL22, HL23)

Species-rich grassland: Limestone

Pavement; Lowland Meadows; Upland

Calcareous Grassland

HLS options for semi-natural species-rich grassland (HK6 – HK8)

Hay Meadows HK18 (supplement), HL21

Lowland Heathland; Dry Acid

Grassland;

HLS options for lowland heathland (HO1 – HO5)

Wetland habitats: Upland Flushes,

Fens & Swamps; Lowland Fens;

Lowland Raised Bog; Reedbeds

HLS options for wetlands (HQ1 – HQ10).

Moorland: Upland heathland;

Mountain Heath & Willow Scrub;

Grass Moorland; Fragmented Heath

HLS options for moorland and upland rough grazing (HL7 – HL11)

and upgraded UELS options to HLS (HL6, HL17)

Blanket Bog

HL13 (supplement)

Saltmarsh HLS options for (HP5 – HP6)

Coastal Sand Dunes; Coastal

Vegetated Shingle

HLS options for sand dunes and vegetated shingle systems (HP1 –

HP4)


Appendix 3: Individual landscape objectives that

are most influenced by changes in the coverage of

ELS

Figure A3.1: Objective A5 Protection of field trees: Scenario 1a

Figure A3.2: Objective B1 Management of hedgerows: Scenario 1a


Figure A3.3: Objective B4 Management of stone walls: Scenario 1a

Figure A3.4: Objective B5 Management of banks: Scenario 1a


Figure A3.5: Objective C2 Low input grasslands: Scenario 1a

Figure A3.6: Objective D1 Retention of historic farm buildings: Scenario 1a


Figure A3.7: Objective E1 Retention and management of archaeology on arable: Scenario 1a

Figure A3.8: Objective E3 Retention and management of archaeology on grass: Scenario 1a


Figure A3.9: Objective A5 Protection of field trees: Scenario 1b

Figure A3.10: Objective B1 Management of hedgerows: Scenario 1b


Figure A3.11: Objective B4 Management of stone walls: Scenario 1b

Figure A3.12: Objective B5 Management of banks: Scenario 1b


Figure A3.13: Objective C2 Low input grasslands: Scenario 1b

Figure A3.14: Objective D1 Retention of historic farm buildings: Scenario 1b


Figure A3.15: Objective E1 Retention and management of archaeology on arable: Scenario 1b

Figure A3.16: Objective E3 Retention and management of archaeology on grass: Scenario 1b


Figure A3.17: Objective A5 Protection of field trees: Scenario 2a

Figure A3.18: Objective B1 Management of hedgerows: Scenario 2a


Figure A3.19: Objective B4 Management of stone walls: Scenario 2a

Figure A3.20: Objective B5 Management of banks: Scenario 2a


Figure A3.21: Objective C2 Low input grasslands: Scenario 2a

Figure A3.22: Objective D1 Retention of historic farm buildings: Scenario 2a


Figure A3.23: Objective E1 Retention and management of archaeology on arable: Scenario 2a

Figure A3.24: Objective E3 Retention and management of archaeology on grass: Scenario 2a


Figure A3.25: Objective A5 Protection of field trees: Scenario 2b

Figure A3.26: Objective B1 Management of hedgerows: Scenario 2b


Figure A3.27: Objective B4 Management of stone walls: Scenario 2b

Figure A3.28: Objective B5 Management of banks: Scenario 2b


Figure A3.29: Objective C2 Low input grasslands: Scenario 2b

Figure A3.30: Objective D1 Retention of historic farm buildings: Scenario 2b


Figure A3.31: Objective E1 Retention and management of archaeology on arable: Scenario 2b

Figure A3.32: Objective E3 Retention and management of archaeology on grass: Scenario 2b

4 objective 1: scenarios 1 and 2 - changes in uptake under

Documents