5. HIGHER LEVEL STEWARDSHIP PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

5.1 Introduction ...... 6 5.2 Methods ...... 6 5.3 Results...... 7 5.3.1 Background information and general attitudes...... 7 5.3.1.1 Area of land within HLS agreement (Q5)...... 7 5.3.1.2 Farm ownership (Q7)...... 7 5.3.1.3 Conservation work on the farm (Q9) ...... 8 5.3.1.4 Awareness of Defra Environmental Stewardship Scheme (Q11)...... 8 5.3.1.5 Purpose of Environmental Stewardship (Q13) ...... 9 5.3.1.6 Approach to HLS (Q14) ...... 10 5.3.2 Application...... 14 5.3.2.1 The quality and content of the HLS handbook (Q15)...... 14 5.3.2.2 Pre-application contact with RDS adviser (Q16) ...... 15 5.3.2.3 Application form and map request from RDS (Q17) ...... 15 5.3.2.4 Help with your FEP (Q18) ...... 16 5.3.2.5 Completing the FEP (Q19)...... 16 5.3.2.6 Completion of Application form and maps (Q20)...... 19 5.3.2.7 Choice of options (Q21) ...... 20 5.3.2.8 Current options (Q22) ...... 23 5.3.2.9 Additional ELS/OELS options (Q23) ...... 24 5.3.2.10 Access options (Q24)...... 25 5.3.2.11 Capital Works (Q25) ...... 27 5.3.2.12 Other sources of advice (Q26) ...... 28 5.3.2.13 RDS Assessment (Q27)...... 30 5.3.2.14 Future sources of advice (Q28)...... 32 5.3.3 Agreement...... 33 5.3.3.1 Agreement Document (Q29)...... 33 5.3.3.2 Guidance on option management (Q30) ...... 38 5.3.3.3 Indicators of success (Q31) ...... 39 5.3.3.4 Delivery of options (Q32) ...... 39 5.3.4 Impact of the scheme ...... 41 5.3.4.1 Impact of the scheme on individual farms (Q33) ...... 41 5.3.4.2 Impact on the farming system (Q34)...... 42 5.3.4.3 Payment rates (Q35)...... 43 5.3.4.4 Future choice of options (Q36)...... 44 5.3.5 Visit questionnaire – chosen and non-chosen options ...... 46 5.3.5.1 Option choice and management (QC1)...... 46 5.3.5.2 Management undertaken in the past? (QC1b) ...... 51 5.3.5.3 Management if option not chosen (QC1c)...... 52 5.3.5.4 Effects of option on the business (QC1d)...... 52 5.3.5.5 Payment rates (QC1e)...... 53 5.3.5.6 Continuation of management (QC1f)...... 53 5.3.5.7 FEP features not adopted – non-chosen options (QC1g)...... 54 5.4 Discussion...... 56 5.5 Conclusions and recommendations...... 61 Appendix 5.1...... 63 Background information and general attitudes ...... 63 Background information on all farms (Q1 - 4) ...... 63 Area of land within HLS agreement (Q5) ...... 64 Organic registration (Q6)...... 64 Water pollution (Q8) ...... 65

1 Agri-environment schemes (Q10)...... 66 Awareness of Defra Environmental Stewardship Scheme (Q11)...... 67 Impact of CAP reform including SPS and Cross Compliance (Q12) ...... 68 Application ...... 69 Completion of Application form and maps (Q20) ...... 69 Choice of options (Q21) ...... 70 Capital Works (Q25)...... 70 Other sources of advice (Q26) ...... 71 Future sources of advice (Q28) ...... 72 Agreement ...... 73 Agreement Document (Q29) ...... 73 Delivery of options (Q32)...... 74 Visit questionnaire – chosen and non-chosen options...... 75 Management undertaken in the past? (QC1b)...... 75 Management if option not chosen (QC1c)...... 75 Effects of option on the business (QC1d) ...... 75 Payment rates (QC1e)...... 76 Continuation of management (QC1f)...... 76 FEP features not adopted – non-chosen options (QC1g)...... 77 Appendix 5.2 HLS option and capital item codes and payment rates ...... 79

2

Table 5.1 Details of questionnaire returns and farm visits...... 6 Table 5.2 Reasons given for not entering the total holding into an HLS agreement (n includes those respondents who said an answer was not applicable)...... 7 Table 5.3 Farm ownership...... 8 Table 5.4 Proportion of respondents undertaking conservation work on the farm prior to their HLS agreement...... 8 Table 5.5 Sources of information used by respondents...... 9 Table 5.6 The main aims and purpose of Environmental Stewardship...... 10 Table 5.7 Main reasons for applying to join HLS...... 11 Table 5.8 Perceived barriers to entering HLS...... 12 Table 5.9 Perceived positive aspects of HLS...... 12 Table 5.10 Perceived negative aspects of HLS...... 13 Table 5.11 Perceived difficulties over the next ten years from being in the scheme...... 14 Table 5.12 Proportion of respondents reading the handbook...... 14 Table 5.13 Suggestions for the improvement of the handbook...... 15 Table 5.14 Proportion of respondents having pre-application discussions and visits from a RDS adviser...... 15 Table 5.15 Ease in obtaining an application form and maps...... 16 Table 5.16 Person conducting the FEP if not undertaken by the respondent...... 16 Table 5.17 Length of time taken to complete the FEP (in hours)...... 17 Table 5.18 Proportion of FEP costs perceived by respondents as being covered by the Defra payment...... 18 Table 5.19 Reactions to the FEP...... 18 Table 5.20 Usefulness of the FEP...... 19 Table 5.21 Ease of completing the application form and maps...... 19 Table 5.22 Time taken to complete the application form and options maps...... 20 Table 5.23 Proportions of respondents using various sources of information to make option choices...... 21 Table 5.24 Perceived levels of usefulness of various sources of information...... 22 Table 5.25 Technical guidance notes used...... 23 Table 5.26 Proportion of respondents understanding the JCA target statement...... 23 Table 5.27 Main reasons for choosing options for the farm...... 24 Table 5.28 Proportion of respondents including additional options on their HLS application...... 24 Table 5.29 Reasons given for entering additional ELS/OELS options into an HLS agreement...... 25 Table 5.30 Proportion of respondents choosing to do any access and educational access options...... 25 Table 5.31 Reasons for choosing or not choosing any access options...... 26 Table 5.32 Reasons for choosing or not choosing any educational access options...... 27 Table 5.33 Reasons for choosing capital items...... 28 Table 5.34 Other sources of advice...... 28 Table 5.35 Sources of advice and degree of usefulness...... 29 Table 5.36 Usefulness of discussion with RDS adviser...... 30 Table 5.37 Type and level of change required after discussion with RDS adviser...... 31 Table 5.38 Reasons for making changes to an agreement...... 31 Table 5.39 Usefulness of future sources of advice...... 33 Table 5.40 Understanding of different parts of the agreement document...... 35

3 Table 5.41 Proportion of respondents having a particular problem with their agreement document...... 35 Table 5.42 Proportion of respondents feeling improvements could be made to the agreement document...... 36 Table 5.43 Other comments made by respondents ...... 38 Table 5.44 Sources of guidance used by respondents...... 38 Table 5.45 Usefulness of indicators of success...... 39 Table 5.46 Proportion of respondents who will achieve their indicators of success...... 39 Table 5.47 Degree of confidence at being able to deliver requirements for selected options...... 40 Table 5.48 Problems that could affect delivery of options...... 40 Table 5.49 Areas where respondents needed more support and sources of this support...... 41 Table 5.50 Perceived importance of chosen options to environmental objectives...... 42 Table 5.51 Impact of HLS on farming system...... 43 Table 5.52 Proportion of respondents who thought the cost of implementation would be covered by the payment rate...... 43 Table 5.53 Comments given by respondents in relation to costs and payment rates...... 44 Table 5.54 Proportion of respondents who would like to see other options included in the scheme...... 44 Table 5.55 Options respondents would like to see included in the scheme...... 45 Table 5.56 Proportion of respondents who felt payments were either too low or too generous...... 45 Table 5.57 Options mentioned by more than one respondent as having incorrect payment allocations...... 46 Table 5.58 Reasons for choosing HLS options. Due to the low number of respondents choosing options, few option percentages have been calculated...... 48 Table 5.59 Other reasons for option choice...... 51 Table 5.60 Proportion of option choices where the management required has been or is currently being undertaken...... 52 Table 5.61 Proportion of option choices where management would still have been carried out despite not choosing the option...... 52 Table 5.62 Effects of option on the farm business...... 52 Table 5.63 Perceived level of payment rates for option choices...... 53 Table 5.64 Proportion of responses where management would be continued...... 53 Table 5.65 Proportion of responses where FEP features have not been adopted within the HLS agreement...... 54 Table 5.66 Reasons for not including a feature in the HLS agreement...... 55 Table 5.67 Average size of holding, and area of LFA land (hectares) and average proportion of each crop type on a holding. Average is calculated using the total number of respondents who answered the question. The number in bold refers to the actual number of respondents who had each crop and LFA land...... 63 Table 5.68 Average number of livestock on a holding. Numbers in bold are the actual number of respondents reporting each livestock type...... 64 Table 5.69 Reasons for not entering all land on the holding into an HLS agreement...... 64 Table 5.70 Average area of land registered organic and entered into an OHLS agreement...... 65 Table 5.71 Main causes of agricultural pollution ...... 65

4 Table 5.72 Main causes of pollution of watercourses and waterbodies as perceived by respondents (answers ranked in order of importance, where 1 is the most important and 5 is the least important)...... 66 Table 5.73 Proportion of respondents who have, or have ever had, an agri- environment scheme, other than ELS/HLS, on their land...... 66 Table 5.74 Other agri-environment schemes specified by respondents...... 67 Table 5.75 Other organisations information used by respondents...... 67 Table 5.76 Other advisers and consultants used by respondents...... 68 Table 5.77 Proportions of respondents submitting a combined application or already having an ELS/OELS agreement before applying for HLS...... 68 Table 5.78 Impact of Single Payment Scheme and Cross Compliance on the decision regarding Environmental Stewardship...... 69 Table 5.79 Proportion of respondents having trouble filling in the application form...... 69 Table 5.80 Completion and understanding of the application form and maps...... 70 Table 5.81 Other information used...... 70 Table 5.82 Other reasons for choosing capital items...... 70 Table 5.83 Reasons for not choosing a capital works plan/a subsequent works plan...... 71 Table 5.84 Other sources of advice used by respondents...... 72 Table 5.85 Alternative sources of advice used by respondents...... 72 Table 5.86 Organisations to hold farmer meetings in the future...... 73 Table 5.87 Other sources of advice in the future...... 73 Table 5.88 Proportion of respondents aware of management conditions in both the handbook and agreement document...... 74 Table 5.89 Use of contractors to implement HLS options...... 74 Table 5.90 Proportion of respondents using the management required for the five most popular options, in the past...... 75 Table 5.91 Proportion of respondents for the five most popular options who would have carried out the management despite not choosing the option...... 75 Table 5.92 Number of respondents perceiving an effect on business...... 76 Table 5.93 Perceived levels of payment for the five most popular option choices...... 76 Table 5.94 Proportion of respondents who would continue with option management even if they left HLS...... 77 Table 5.95 Features identified in the FEP of targeting statement that are not included in the HLS agreement...... 77

5

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) of Environmental Stewardship (ES) is set to replace aspects of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) schemes. Although there are many similarities to these former schemes, the HLS will cover a wider range of objectives, including flood management and conservation of genetic resources, as well as wildlife conservation, maintenance and enhancement of landscape quality and character, protection of natural resources and the historic environment, and promotion of public access and understanding of the countryside. HLS agreements are usually 10 years with a break point after five years. Entry to HLS is discretionary and is targeted on local environmental priorities, which are used for assessing applications. Entry is also usually conditional upon application to Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) or Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS). The scheme is outcome-focused and so in order to maximise its potential, those intending to apply need to prepare a Farm Environment Plan (FEP) which builds on the Farm Environment Record (FER) needed for ELS/OELS applications. This FEP provides a detailed assessment of the environmental features on the holding. This survey, comprising of a postal questionnaire followed by a face-to-face interview of a small sample of farmers, has been undertaken in order to determine and evaluate the characteristics for farmers entering the scheme, their attitudes to and their experience of the HLS application process, their sources of guidance, advice and information and their opinion and choice of options.

5.2 METHODS

The HLS evaluation included a postal survey plus a number of face-to-face interviews. A postal questionnaire was sent out to all HLS agreement holders with start dates of 1 February 2006 (213 questionnaires sent out) and 1 May 2006 (127 questionnaires). Due to a low response rate, a second send-out of questionnaires was made to those who had not returned the first one (129 February agreement holders and 88 May agreement holders). Overall, 136 questionnaires were returned, 89 from those with a February start date and 47 with a May start date. Due to the low number of replies it was not possible to stratify the sample on robust farm type or on agreement start date. However, respondents were stratified on previous agreement status (not necessarily on their present holding) (Table 5.1). Past schemes taken into consideration covered CSS, ESA and WES (Wildlife Enhancement Scheme). From these 136 questionnaire returns 100 respondents were selected for an interview survey; these respondents were equally split between those with and those without a previous agreement (Table 5.1). Table 5.1 Details of questionnaire returns and farm visits.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement Postal returns 136 66 70 Interview surveys 100 50 50

Questions 1 to 36 inclusive present the results of the postal questionnaire. Questions QC1a to QC1f were asked at the face-to-face interviews and refer to options chosen for

6 the HLS agreement. As each of the 100 respondents had chosen several options, this gave a total of 511 responses. The final question QC1g covers FEP features that were identified but were not adopted as options within the HLS agreement, giving 108 responses. For all questions, results are given for all respondents and stratified by previous agreement status. Percentages have been calculated and are presented where the ‘n’ value is larger than 20.

5.3 RESULTS

Only the results of key questions or the most interesting results are reported here. Full details of the results for all other questions/parts of questions are given in Appendix 5.1. A full list of HLS codes, capital item codes and payment rates are given in Appendix 5.2. Complete copies of both the postal and interview questionnaires can be found in Appendices 5.3 to 5.5. At the time the questionnaire and interviews were undertaken, HLS was administered by RDS and this name has been used in report. RDS become part of Natural England in October 2006.

5.3.1 Background information and general attitudes

5.3.1.1 Area of land within HLS agreement (Q5) Of the 134 respondents who answered this question, 60% stated that their HLS agreement covered the whole of their holding. A higher proportion of those with a previous agreement (68% of 68 respondents) compared to those without (52% of 66) had a whole farm agreement. If respondents did not have an HLS agreement covering the whole of the holding they were asked to indicate why this was so. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that the remainder of the land on their holding was ineligible (42% said that this reason was not applicable) (Table 5.2). No respondents stated that the remainder was organic which they did not want to enter into OELS (62% indicated that this answer was not applicable). Not wanting to enter eligible land into HLS was cited by 33% of respondents. Almost three times as many of those who had no previous agreement gave this reason (47%) as previous agreement holders (17%). Forty-three percent of overall respondents said this reason was non-applicable. Table 5.2 Reasons given for not entering the total holding into an HLS agreement (n includes those respondents who said an answer was not applicable).

No previous Previous All respondents agreement agreement Remainder of land ineligible n = 62 n = 32 n = 30 29 25 33 Remainder of land organic n = 47 n = 23 n = 24 0 0 0 Do not want to enter it into HLS n = 54 n = 30 n = 24 33 47 17

5.3.1.2 Farm ownership (Q7)

7 When asked about farm ownership, 62% of those who answered this question stated that they were the owners and 12% were tenants (Table 5.3). Twenty-five percent of respondents had some other form of ownership, usually combining two or more of ownership, tenant or FBT. A higher proportion of previous agreement holders were owners (66%) compared to those who had no previous agreement (58%), whereas a higher proportion of those without a previous agreement were tenants (17%). Twelve respondents gave further details on the length of time remaining on their farm business tenancy (FBT). Previous agreement holders had an average of 6.6 years remaining whereas those without a previous agreement generally had about four years. Table 5.3 Farm ownership

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=136) % (n=66) % (n=70) Owner 62 58 66 Tenant 12 17 7 FBT 1 2 1 Other 25 24 26

Mean time left on FBT (yrs) 5.6 4.4 6.6

5.3.1.3 Conservation work on the farm (Q9) Respondents were asked whether they had carried out any conservation work on their farm, including nature conservation and the protection of the historic environment, prior to their current HLS agreement. Eighty-one percent of all respondents stated that they had (Table 5.4). Although, unsurprisingly, the proportion of those with a previous agreement (96%) undertaking conservation work was higher than for respondents without a previous agreement (65%), only 86% of previous agreement holders stated that this work was done as part of an existing agri-environment scheme and approximately half indicated that conservation work was carried out outside an existing agri-environment scheme. Table 5.4 Proportion of respondents undertaking conservation work on the farm prior to their HLS agreement.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes % yes % yes Conservation work prior to HSL n = 136 n = 66 n = 70 81 65 96 Part of an existing scheme n = 106 n = 41 n = 65 53 0 86 Outside an existing scheme n = 72 n = 24 n = 48 56 58 54

5.3.1.4 Awareness of Defra Environmental Stewardship Scheme (Q11)

8 When asked where respondents obtained their information about ELS, HLS and OELS, nearly half of all respondents had consulted non-Defra advisers and 42% mentioned the farming press (Table 5.5). Only one third of respondents quoted the handbook as a source of information. Those with a previous agreement were less likely to have consulted non-Defra advisers, the farming press, other organisations' leaflets or have attended workshops, but were more likely than those without a previous agreement to have consulted a Defra adviser directly. Possibly these respondents were likely to have more contact with an RDS adviser due to their participation in another agri-environment scheme. IOTA and organic inspection bodies were not used by any respondents. Table 5.5 Sources of information used by respondents.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=135) % (n=66) % (n=69) Other adviser/consultant 47 52 43 Farming press 42 47 38 Defra handbook 36 36 36 Defra leaflets 33 29 36 Defra adviser 27 21 32 Defra workshop 21 27 16 Other leaflets 16 21 10 Defra website 9 11 7 Other workshops 9 14 4 Local press 2 3 1 Radio 1 2 1 OCIS 1 2 0 IOTA 0 0 0 Organic inspection bodies 0 0 0 OCIS: Organic Conversion Information Service IOTA: Institute of Organic Training and Advice

5.3.1.5 Purpose of Environmental Stewardship (Q13) Respondents were asked to state what they considered to be the main aims and purpose of the Environmental Stewardship Scheme. Helping conservation and wildlife and protecting the countryside, environment and landscape were both mentioned by over 50% of respondents (Table 5.6). Most other answers were given by less than 10% of those who answered this question. A desire to change farming practices, often to less intensive management was mentioned by 13% of respondents. There were no clear differences in the answers given between previous agreement status.

9

Table 5.6 The main aims and purpose of Environmental Stewardship.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=130) % (n=64) % (n=66) Help conservation/wildlife 55 59 50 Protect countryside/environment/landscape 51 45 56 Change/less intensive management 13 13 14 Benefit public and/or PR 9 11 8 Protect historic features/heritage 6 6 6 Reduce pollution 6 8 5 Financial help 5 8 3 Regulate farming/production 5 6 5 Benefit farming 5 8 2 Benefits Government 4 3 5 Promote access 4 5 3 Other 10 8 12

5.3.1.6 Approach to HLS (Q14) Respondents were asked to state the main reasons for applying to join HLS. An interest in conservation, including biodiversity and care of the environment was given as the main reason for applying to join HLS by two-thirds of respondents (Table 5.7). Fitting in with the existing farm business and financial reasons were both cited by approximately a third of those who answered this question. Only thirty percent of previous agreement holders said that it was a continuation of a previous agri-environment scheme. Although it might be expected that this proportion would be higher, it is possible that for some respondents their previous agri-environment scheme agreement ended some time ago. Also, some respondents may regard participation in a previous scheme as resulting from an interest in conservation and the environment; thus this interest was given as the main reason for entering HLS. Fourteen percent of those with no previous agreement said that they wished to farm in a more environmentally friendly way whereas this reason was not given by any respondents with a previous agreement; it is possible that those with previous agreements already perceived themselves as farming in this way, and so just stated a continuation of this scheme. It is possibly for this same reason that an interest in conservation and the environment was cited by a higher proportion of those without a previous agreement. ‘Other’ reasons given included: wanting to change the workload on the farm, complementing an adjacent SSSI, the farm lending itself to HLS and strong promotion from the landlord.

10

Table 5.7 Main reasons for applying to join HLS.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=133) % (n=64) % (n=69) Interest in conservation/biodiversity/care of environment 67 72 62 Fits in with existing farming business/practices 32 31 33 Financial reasons 29 31 26 Continuation of previous scheme 16 0 30 Environmental way of farming/less intensive 7 14 0 Features already on farm 7 6 7 Improve farm 5 8 3 Benefits for others (public/community) 5 5 4 Other 11 13 10

When respondents were asked whether they had experienced any barriers to entering HLS, 37% of the 133 who answered this question stated that they had. This proportion was slightly higher for those with previous agreements (42% of 67 respondents) compared to those without (32% of 66). Problems with mapping, in particular difficulties and delays in obtaining correct and accurate maps were specified by 37% of respondents as being a particular barrier to entering HLS; this was perceived as being more of a problem to those new to agri- environment schemes (41%) than previous agreement holders (33%) (Table 5.8). Delays in the start of the scheme were cited by 19% of all respondents, though twice as many respondents with no previous agreement (27%) as previous agreement holders (13%) reported this. ‘Other’ barriers included being tied in for 10 years, possible financial risks, difficulties getting site visits and applications getting lost. As many of these problems might be perceived as ‘teething problems’ at the start of a new scheme, it is probable that future applicants will report fewer problems.

11

Table 5.8 Perceived barriers to entering HLS.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=52) % (n=22) % (n=30) Mapping problems 37 41 33 Late start of HLS/time delays 19 27 13 Too much/complicated paperwork 15 14 17 Complex application process 12 9 13 Bureaucracy/inflexibility of scheme 12 9 13 Computer problems 10 14 7 Changes in rules/scheme 8 9 7 Land/options rejected 6 5 7 Lack of cooperation 6 5 7 Other 27 32 23

One hundred and twenty-two respondents stated what they felt to be the most positive aspects of HLS (Table 5.9). Financial rewards and the benefit to biodiversity and conservation were both mentioned by a third of respondents, but by a slightly higher proportion of those who had no previous agreement. Benefits to the landscape or environment, improvements to the farm and more environmental farming were also seen as positive aspects. The flexibility of the scheme, the wide range of options and the continuation of other schemes were also perceived as other positive aspects to HLS. Table 5.9 Perceived positive aspects of HLS.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=122) % (n=59) % (n=63) Financial reward 34 39 30 Benefit biodiversity/conservation 33 37 29 Benefits landscape/environment 16 20 13 Improve farm/care of farm 11 8 14 Environmental/less intensive farming 10 7 13 Specific improvements e.g. hedgerows, stone walls, orchard restoration 7 7 8 Help and advice 6 7 5 Reinforcing existing practices 5 7 3 Other 26 22 30

Slightly fewer respondents (115) listed what they felt to be the negative aspects of HLS. For both those with and without previous agreements (26%), the bureaucracy and the large quantities of paperwork needing to be undertaken were considered to be one of the worst aspects (Table 5.10). Although the flexibility of the scheme had been mentioned as

12 a positive aspect (categorised under ‘Other’ in Table 5.9 above), 30% of respondents stated that in their opinion the scheme lacked flexibility, and had too many restrictions, particularly with regard to the grazing of grassland and the timing of farm operations. Those who were new to agri-environment schemes were a little more likely to consider the scheme inflexible and restrictive; it is possible that those with previous agreements are used to working within management prescriptions. Other negative aspects perceived by respondents included the complexity of the scheme, payments being too low, being too target orientated and the lack of time to carry out all the work. Table 5.10 Perceived negative aspects of HLS.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=115) % (n=57) % (n=58) Paperwork and bureaucracy 30 32 28 Lack of flexibility/too many restrictions 30 32 30 None/too early to comment 15 18 12 Specific problems 11 9 14 Poor organisation 6 7 5 Long term commitment 5 9 2 Poor advice/poor communication/too many visits 4 7 2 Other 27 25 29

Overall, 36% of 126 respondents thought that they might have difficulties over the next ten years from being in the scheme. This proportion was higher for those with no previous agreement (39% of 64 respondents) than for those with a previous agreement (32% of 62). When asked to state what these difficulties might be 18% of those who answered this question said that it was too soon to tell (Table 5.11). The proportion of those without a previous agreement who gave this answer (24%) was double that of previous agreement holders (11%); it is possible that having participated in a previous agri-environment scheme, this group of respondents are more aware of the sort of problems that could occur and so could give a more specific answer. Financial problems, including cost of the FEP survey, costs of capital works and doubts over profitability, and changes in agriculture, particularly in laws and funding of the scheme over that length of time, were both mentioned by 11% of respondents. Finance was perceived to be of more of a potential problem for those who had not participated in the past (17%) than previous agreement holders (4%). As well as changes in agriculture, previous agreement holders showed most concern about achieving targets (11% for each category). ‘Other’ difficulties were mentioned by more previous agreement holders and covered a variety of subjects: animal welfare issues, selling land in the future, problems with the weather and specific difficulties such as the natural regeneration of grass.

13

Table 5.11 Perceived difficulties over the next ten years from being in the scheme.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=56) % (n=29) % (n=27) Too soon to say 18 24 11 Finance 11 17 4 Changes in agriculture/laws/funding 11 10 11 Achieving targets 9 7 11 Weed control 9 10 7 Land management restrictions 9 14 4 Payment rates 7 10 4 Prescription dates 7 7 7 Inflexibility of scheme 5 10 0 Other 36 24 48

5.3.2 Application

5.3.2.1 The quality and content of the HLS handbook (Q15) Only just over half (55%) of those who answered this question said that they had read the entire handbook (Table 5.12). Only one person, a previous agreement holder, appeared to have read none of it. When asked about its usefulness almost all respondents found it either very useful or fairly useful; a higher proportion of those who had no previous agreement (54%) stated that the handbook was very useful compared to previous agreement holders (40%). A few respondents did not find the book useful. Those who had not read the handbook or did not find it useful may have been relying on third parties to advise them. Table 5.12 Proportion of respondents reading the handbook.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement How much of the handbook was read? % (n=135) % (n=66) % (n=69) All 55 56 54 Some 44 44 45 None 1 0 1

Usefulness of the handbook % (n=131) % (n=63) % (n=68) Very useful 47 54 40 Fairly useful 52 44 59 Not useful 2 2 1

14 Respondents were also asked to suggest any improvements they felt could be made to the handbook. Although 36 respondents filled in some text, only 28 actually made suggestions for improvements (Table 5.13). Of these, 25% felt that it needed to be condensed, and 21% stated that it needed to be simplified. Code improvements included the need for one comprehensive code list and the need for the coding between ELS and HLS options to be made simpler. Other suggestions included giving an index, including more photographs of ideal outcomes, more information on Cross Compliance, extra details on stocking levels for relevant prescriptions, and combining the ELS and HLS application and maps. Table 5.13 Suggestions for the improvement of the handbook.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=28) n n Needs to be condensed 25 3 4 Needs to be simplified 21 2 4 Code improvements 14 1 3 Option details on one page 7 1 1 Other 39 7 4

5.3.2.2 Pre-application contact with RDS adviser (Q16) When asked about pre-application contact with an RDS adviser, 78% of respondents said that they or their agent had discussed their application with a local RDS adviser before applying for the scheme (Table 5.14). A higher proportion of previous agreement holders had discussions (84%) compared to those with no previous agreement (72%). It is possible that previous agreement holders routinely have more contact with RDS if they are currently or were recently involved in another agri-environment scheme and so had more opportunities to discuss the HLS scheme. A higher proportion also received a pre- application visit from their local RDS adviser (72%), though the difference from those with no previous agreement (67%) was less pronounced. Table 5.14 Proportion of respondents having pre-application discussions and visits from a RDS adviser.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes % yes % yes Discuss with RDS n = 134 n = 65 n = 69 78 72 84 Visit from RDS n = 132 n = 64 n = 68 70 67 72

5.3.2.3 Application form and map request from RDS (Q17) When asked how easy it was to obtain a pre-populated application form and a correct set of application maps from RDS, almost half of respondents (48%) found this process to be difficult (Table 5.15). This proportion was lower for previous agreement holders (43%) than for those without a previous agreement (52%). However, 29% of respondents found this process to be easy, with no real difference between the two groups.

15 Table 5.15 Ease in obtaining an application form and maps.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=132) % (n=63) % (n=69) Easy 29 27 30 Neither 23 21 26 Difficult 48 52 43

5.3.2.4 Help with your FEP (Q18) Only 16% (of 134 respondents) conducted their own FEP and there was no difference between previous agreement status (No previous agreement = 17% of 65; Previous agreement = 14% of 69). Of those who got someone else to undertake it, 52% used someone from FWAG and 31% a consultant (Table 5.16). If another person other than FWAG, a land agent or consultant had conducted the FEP, respondents were asked to specify who this was. Only eight respondents gave these ‘other’ details, which included Wildlife Trusts, National Park staff and Defra. Table 5.16 Person conducting the FEP if not undertaken by the respondent.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=115) % (n=56) % (n=59) FWAG 52 52 53 Consultant 31 32 31 Land agent 10 11 8 Other 7 5 8

If the respondent did not conduct the FEP they were asked if it was easy to find someone else to do it. Ninety-four percent (of 114 respondents) reported that this had been easy. When asked to specify any difficulties they might have had only seven respondents completed the text box. Two stated that the FEP was complicated and one said that they had difficulty finding someone to undertake the FEP, without giving further details. One respondent stated that agents had been overwhelmed by requests, and another that there were not enough agents. Supplying the applicant at the start of the application process with an approved list of people or organisations who could undertake the FEP might help to spread the demand for FEPs between agents and ensure that all applicants found a FEP agent easily if required.

5.3.2.5 Completing the FEP (Q19) Respondents were asked how many hours it took to complete the FEP. As this question was not specifically targeted to only those who had completed their own FEPs, time estimates were also given by some whose FEPs had been completed by an agent. Times given ranged from two hours to 100 hours, with an average time for 47 respondents of 29 hours (Table 5.17). The average time taken for previous agreement holders (25 hours) was lower than for those with no previous agreement (31 hours). Sixty percent of previous agreement holders managed to complete their FEPs in 24 hours whereas it took the same proportion of those without a previous agreement up to 36 hours to complete

16 their FEPs. No previous agreement holders took longer than 60 hours compared to 7% of those new to agri-environment schemes. The shorter length of time taken by previous agreement holders and their agents and consultants could be a result of having more experience of completing agri-environment scheme applications and also being more aware of features present on the holding. It is likely that over time, as agents and consultants become more experienced in completing the FEP forms, the time taken to complete one will decrease. Table 5.17 Length of time taken to complete the FEP (in hours).

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=47) % (n=29) % (n=18) 0-12 31 28 33 13-24 19 14 28 25-36 13 21 0 37-48 17 17 17 49-60 17 14 22 >61 4 7 0

Average time to conduct a FEP (hours) 29 31 25

Only 34% (of 131) respondents felt that the Defra payment would cover the full cost of the FEP. Those who had answered ‘No’ to this question were asked to indicate what percentage of the full cost they felt it would cover. For the 78 respondents who answered this question an average of 63% of the cost of the FEP would be covered by the Defra payment, with no difference between respondents with and without a previous agreement (Table 5.18). A higher proportion of previous agreement holders (23%) perceived the payment as covering less than 50% of costs but 3% also felt that almost all the costs would be met. Almost half of those with no previous agreement said that up 60% of FEP costs would be covered.

17

Table 5.18 Proportion of FEP costs perceived by respondents as being covered by the Defra payment.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n = 78) % (n = 39) % (n = 39) <50 15 8 23 50-60 31 41 21 61-70 17 18 15 71-80 27 21 33 81-90 9 13 5 91-100 1 0 3

Average proportion of FEP cost covered by Defra payments 63 63 62

Respondents were asked whether they found the completed FEP easy to understand, whether they were surprised by any of the features identified on the farm and also whether they found it useful. Sixty-nine percent of respondents found the FEP easy to understand and 37% stated that they were surprised by some of the features identified. For these two questions there was little difference between previous agreement status in the responses given. Overall, 66% of respondents found the FEP useful; however this proportion was slightly higher for those new to agri-environment schemes than previous agreement holders. As the latter group appear to see HLS as a continuation of previous agri-environment schemes (see Q14, Table 5.7 above) it is probable that many of them already have a good idea of the features present on their holding and the ones they would like to enter into the scheme, so in this respect the FEP might be of less use to them than to those with no previous agreement. Table 5.19 Reactions to the FEP.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes % yes % yes FEP easy to understand n = 122 n = 61 n = 61 69 72 66 Surprised by FEP n = 127 n = 64 n = 63 37 39 35 FEP useful n = 121 n = 59 n = 62 66 73 60

Respondents were asked to specify how they found the FEP useful. Twenty percent stated that it gave them a greater appreciation of the features on the farm and 14% said that it identified new features; in many instances these were historical or archaeological features (Table 5.20). The identification of which option to enter was mentioned by a

18 higher proportion of those with no previous agreement (16%), reinforcing the idea that previous agreement holders had a better perception of which options were suitable for their holding. However, a higher proportion of those with a previous agreement felt that the FEP was good at giving a whole farm view. Negative comments about the FEP were also given and covered the complexity of the process, the amount of detail, its lack of usefulness and the fact that if RDS check the FEP then they could complete them as well. Table 5.20 Usefulness of the FEP.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=66) % (n=37) % (n=29) Greater appreciation of farm features 20 19 21 New features identified 14 14 14 Identified options to enter 12 16 7 Reference document/summary 11 11 10 Negative comments 11 8 14 Basis of the scheme/necessary for application 11 19 0 Helps in management 9 14 3 Gave whole farm view 9 3 17 Identified best features 6 8 3 Other 17 8 28

5.3.2.6 Completion of Application form and maps (Q20) When asked about the completion of the application form and maps 24% (of 133) stated that they had undertaken this themselves. Of those who undertook this process themselves, 39% found it difficult and only 17% reported finding it easy (Table 5.21). Previous agreement holders appeared to find this easier than those new to agri- environment schemes. Table 5.21 Ease of completing the application form and maps.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=41) % (n=22) % (n=19) Easy 17 14 21 Neither 44 41 47 Difficult 39 45 32

Respondents were asked how long it took to fill out the application form and the options map. It is likely that the time estimates given cover completion of both the ELS and HLS elements of the application form and maps. On average the application form took 12 hours (Table 5.22) and the maps 9 hours. In both instances those with no previous agreement took longer to complete this paperwork compared to previous agreement holders, a result that might be expected if previous agreement holders are used to completing similar forms and have more knowledge of their farm’s features. However,

19 approximately 75% of respondents completed each part in 12 hours or less. Only individuals with no previous agreement took longer than 36 hours to complete the form or map. Thus, it appears that for the majority of respondents the process of completing the form and maps is relatively quick, and for only a few can it be extremely time consuming. Table 5.22 Time taken to complete the application form and options maps.

Application form Options maps No No All previous Previous All previous Previous respondents agreement agreement respondents agreement agreement hours % (n=39) n n % (n=36) n n 0-6 44 6 11 53 7 12 7-12 28 6 5 22 4 4 13-18 5 1 1 0 0 0 19-24 5 1 1 19 5 2 25-30 10 3 1 3 1 0 31-36 3 0 1 0 0 0 >36 5 2 0 3 1 0

Average time (h)* 12 14 9 9 11 7 * One respondent (67 ha holding) stated that they took 168 and 245 hours to complete the application form and maps respectively. These figures have not been included in the calculation for average time.

5.3.2.7 Choice of options (Q21) Respondents were asked to indicate which sources of information they used for selecting their options (Table 5.23) and also how useful they felt each of these sources were in making their decision (Table 5.24). The FEP was used a lot by 54% of respondents, though by a higher proportion of those with no previous agreement (62%) than previous agreement holders (46%), 11% of which stated that they did not use their FEP at all. Ninety-two percent of respondents found the FEP to be either very or fairly useful though again the proportion for previous agreement holders was lower than those new to agri- environment schemes. Again, this reinforces the idea that those who have been in agri- environment schemes in the past already know the holding and its features well; the FEP contains less information that is new to them and so is of less use for option selection. However, previous agreement holders did make more use of the Environmental Information Plan, with 33% saying that they used this a lot and 28% finding it very useful compared to 15% of those with no previous agreement using it with 16% considering it to be very useful. The target statements were used either a lot or a little by 95% of respondents with over 90% reporting them to be useful.

20

Table 5.23 Proportions of respondents using various sources of information to make option choices.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes % yes % yes Environmental Information Map n = 99 n = 48 n = 51 A lot 24 15 33 A little 57 65 49 Not at all 19 21 18 Farm Environment Plan n = 104 n = 50 n = 54 A lot 54 62 46 A little 39 36 43 Not at all 7 2 11 Target statements n = 98 n = 49 n = 49 A lot 50 49 51 A little 45 49 41 Not at all 5 2 8 Technical guidance notes n = 84 n = 38 n = 46 A lot 44 47 41 A little 35 34 35 Not at all 21 18 24 Other information n = 48 n = 23 n = 25 A lot 40 52 28 A little 38 35 40 Not at all 23 13 32

21

Table 5.24 Perceived levels of usefulness of various sources of information.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes % yes % yes Environmental Information Map n = 73 n = 37 n = 36 Very useful 22 16 28 Fairly useful 55 57 53 Not useful 23 27 19 Farm Environment Plan n = 75 n = 40 n = 35 Very useful 48 55 40 Fairly useful 44 43 46 Not useful 8 3 14 Target statements n = 75 n = 41 n = 34 Very useful 43 41 44 Fairly useful 51 51 50 Not useful 7 7 6 Technical guidance notes n = 61 n = 31 n = 30 Very useful 48 48 47 Fairly useful 38 39 37 Not useful 15 13 17 Other information n = 30 n = 17 n = 13 Very useful 40 53 23 Fairly useful 40 29 54 Not useful 20 18 23

Other technical guidance notes were used by 79% of respondents; 86% of respondents found them either fairly or very useful, with no differences between previous agreement status. Thirty-three farmers gave more specific details as to the sort of guidance notes used (Table 5.25). Thirty-six percent mentioned the ELS/HLS handbooks whilst 18% used other Defra information including mailshots and the guidance notes found on the Defra website. Specific information covered topics for which information was sought, such as grassland, woodland and orchards and wading birds, but not the source or form of the information. Other technical guidance used included the historic environment record, management plans, biodiversity action plans and grassland keys.

22

Table 5.25 Technical guidance notes used.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=33) n n ELS/HLS handbooks 36 7 5 Other Defra information 18 6 0 Specific information 12 2 2 FWAG 6 2 0 Other 33 4 7

Respondents were also asked to indicate how these sources of information could be improved. Although 27 respondents completed the text box, only nine actually answered this question. Three respondents wanted more contact with an RDS/Defra adviser with a pre-application visit or interview to discuss the options. Target statements were mentioned by five, with comments that the Joint Character Area (JCA) areas were too large, local characteristics were more relevant, the need for more pictures of different land uses in each area with suggested options and more information on target species. Other improvements mentioned by single respondents included simplifying the FEP, using bullet point statements, and giving stocking levels for each prescription. Respondents were finally asked whether they understood the JCA target statement. Although 66% of all respondents stated that they did, the proportion that showed an understanding was lower for previous agreement holders compared to those new to agri- environment schemes (Table 5.26). Table 5.26 Proportion of respondents understanding the JCA target statement.

% yes n All respondents 66 101

No previous agreement 74 54 Previous agreement 57 47

5.3.2.8 Current options (Q22) Respondents were asked to indicate from a list provided, the main reasons for choosing the options for their farm agreement. Increasing wildlife and features already in place were both reasons selected by over 90% of respondents (Table 5.27). Easier crop management and increasing the assets on the farm were the only two reasons selected by less than 50% of respondents (26% and 45% respectively). There were no large differences between previous agreement status except for the statement that the management for at least one option in their agreement was already in place. As expected, a higher proportion of previous agreement holders (90%) gave this reason compared to those with no previous agreement (75%); many previous agreement holders have already stated that they see HLS as a continuation of previous agri-environment schemes where they would have been undertaking the same or similar management on at least one of their option choices.

23 Table 5.27 Main reasons for choosing options for the farm.

All respondents No previous Previous agreement agreement % n % n % n Increase wildlife 96 128 97 64 95 64 Features already in place 94 26 95 63 94 63 Protect landscape features 88 122 90 61 85 61 Management already in place 83 114 75 52 90 62 Features identified in FEP 82 112 86 58 78 54 Suggested by RDS adviser 80 111 84 55 77 56 Protect historic features 77 110 72 54 82 56 Suggested by agent 77 115 77 57 78 58 Comply with other requirements 71 110 69 58 73 52 Reduce pollution and soil erosion 62 107 67 55 56 52 Feature identified in JCA statement 61 95 64 50 58 45 Increase gross margins 58 110 61 57 55 53 Increased assets on farm 45 107 49 55 40 52 Easier crop management 26 101 25 51 26 50

Respondents were also given the opportunity to mention any other reasons that influenced their choice of options. Fourteen people gave further details. Most gave a different reason for their option selection though two stated that they wanted to continue with work they had already started. Other reasons given included: wanting to restore landscape characteristics, replacing poor hedging and balancing a viable farm with improving the environment.

5.3.2.9 Additional ELS/OELS options (Q23) Respondents were asked whether their HLS application included additional ELS/OELS options above those needed to meet their ELS/OELS points target. Fifty-seven percent of those who answered this question stated that they had included other options (Table 5.28). This proportion was higher for those with no previous agreement (67%). Table 5.28 Proportion of respondents including additional options on their HLS application.

% yes n All respondents 57 121

No previous agreement 67 61 Previous agreement 47 60

If respondents had included other ELS/OELS options on their HLS application, they were asked to give a reason why. Fifty-one percent of those who gave a reason said that the management prescribed for the ELS/OELS option was the best management for the chosen feature (Table 5.29). Attractive payment rates were mentioned by 38% of

24 respondents; a slightly higher proportion of those with no previous agreement gave this answer compared to previous agreement holders. The management of the chosen feature being easier under ELS/OELS than HLS was only mentioned by 15% of respondents. Table 5.29 Reasons given for entering additional ELS/OELS options into an HLS agreement.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=73) % (n=41) % (n=32) HLS targeting statement 32 32 31 Best management 51 49 53 Management easier 15 15 16 Attractive payment rate 38 41 34

Six respondents stated other reasons for including additional ELS/OELS options. However, three of these stated that they did not need the ELS/OELS points. Enhancement of an adjacent HLS option, to improve/manage features of their choice and the lack of a relevant HLS option for a feature were each mentioned by one respondent.

5.3.2.10 Access options (Q24) Twenty-eight percent of respondents stated that they had chosen access options as part of their HLS agreement. These options were selected by a smaller proportion of previous agreement holders (Table 5.30). Previous agreement holders are more likely to have holdings situated within National Parks, AONBs and ESAs, all of which tend to have a well-established and well-used network of Public Rights of Way. This could possibly explain why those with a previous agreement were less likely to choose access and educational access options. Table 5.30 Proportion of respondents choosing to do any access and educational access options.

Any access options Any educational access % yes n % yes n All respondents 28 126 34 65

No previous agreement 37 62 37 38 Previous agreement 19 64 30 27

Respondents were then asked to give their reasons for either choosing or not choosing access options (Table 5.31). Education was the most commonly cited reason for choosing these options, followed by good payments for these options and wanting to share interests and land with others. The most common reason citied for not choosing access options was that footpaths and public access were already available on the farm (40%). Disturbance to wildlife and problems caused by access, such as security and gates being left open were each stated by 11% respondents. Other reasons included a lack of interest, requests by the landlord and the small size of the holding.

25 Table 5.31 Reasons for choosing or not choosing any access options.

No previous Previous All respondents agreement agreement Reasons for choosing access options % (n=30) n n

Education 23 4 3 Good payment 17 4 1 Share interests and land with others 13 4 0 Improve local amenities 10 2 1 Link existing paths 10 3 0 Encourage access 7 1 1 Other 27 5 3

Reasons for not choosing any access options % (n=47) n n Already have footpaths/public access 40 10 9 Disturb wildlife 11 3 2 Problems caused by access 11 1 4 Too many footpaths/too much access 6 1 2 No current paths/access poor 6 1 2 Not pay enough 4 1 1 Footpaths available nearby 4 0 2 Other 26 5 7

Of 65 respondents who had chosen access options, 34% stated that they were doing educational access options (Table 5.30). Wanting to pass on knowledge to others was the most frequently given reason. Unsuitability of the holding was the most common reason given for not undertaking educational access options (Table 5.32).

26

Table 5.32 Reasons for choosing or not choosing any educational access options.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement Reasons for choosing educational access options n n n Pass on knowledge to others 8 5 3 Local need from schools/groups 4 3 1 Financial reasons 2 2 0 Controls access 2 2 0 Other 7 4 3

Reasons for not choosing educational access options n n n Site not suitable 4 2 2 Too time consuming 3 2 1 Already being undertaken 3 1 2 No demand 3 1 2 Maybe in future 3 2 1 Not enough options 2 2 0

5.3.2.11 Capital Works (Q25) Respondents were asked whether they had a capital works plan in their HLS agreement. Ninety-five percent of 136 respondents who answered this question said that they did. All those with no previous agreement (66 respondents) were undertaking capital works compared to 90% of those with a previous agreement (70 respondents). If respondents did have a capital works plan, they were asked to indicate why they chose the capital items. Sixty-two percent stated that these capital items were necessary for option management (Table 5.33). An attractive payment rate was only mentioned by 22% of respondents. A higher proportion of those with no previous agreement stated that they were going to conduct the work anyway (32%) and that their RDS adviser wanted the capital items included (47%) compared to previous agreement holders (21% and 33% respectively). The lower proportion of previous agreement holders with a capital works plan is probably a result of many capital items already being in place as a result of previous scheme. Also, as many previous agreement holders appear to be choosing options where the management is already being undertaken, it is possible that capital items are not required.

27

Table 5.33 Reasons for choosing capital items.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=129) % (n=66) % (n=63) Necessary for option management 62 64 60 Benefits farm management 57 58 57 Payment rate 22 20 24 Do work anyway 26 32 21 RDS adviser wanted it 40 47 33

5.3.2.12 Other sources of advice (Q26) Respondents were asked about various sources of advice they had used and their degree of usefulness. In most instances, a higher proportion of those with no previous agreement used other sources of advice compared to previous agreement holders (Table 5.34). Of those sources listed on the questionnaire form, telephone advice from RDS staff was used by the highest proportion of overall respondents (74%). Meetings held by Defra staff were also popular (71%). Catchment Sensitive Farming Officers were only used by 11% of respondents, probably because these work only in specific catchments , and so only a small proportion of respondents would have had access to a local CSF Officer. Table 5.34 Other sources of advice.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes n % yes n % yes n Meetings held by Defra staff 71 134 77 65 65 69 Other farmer meetings 35 135 46 65 24 70 Telephone RDS staff 74 135 78 65 70 70 Catchment Sensitive Farming Officer 11 135 15 65 7 70 Other telephone advice 34 134 34 64 34 70 Defra website 26 134 32 65 20 69 Other organisations' website 16 134 23 64 9 70 Other organisations' leaflets 20 134 31 65 10 69

As well as indicating which sources of advice were used, respondents were also asked how useful the various sources had been. Advice given at meetings held by Defra staff and by RDS staff on the telephone was seen as helpful by over 70% of respondents who used them. Telephone advice from someone else was used by 34% (Table 5.34) and was seen as helpful by a larger proportion of previous agreement holders than those with no previous agreement. Advice from the Defra website was regarded as poor by 31% of respondents. The advice given by Catchment Sensitive Farming Officers (CSFOs) was used by only a low number of respondents, but was found helpful by 60% of previous agreement holders, and poor by 40% of those with no previous agreement.

28 Table 5.35 Sources of advice and degree of usefulness.

No previous Previous All respondents agreement agreement % yes % yes % yes Meetings held by Defra staff n = 95 n = 50 n = 45 Helpful 76 72 80 Neither 17 18 16 Poor 7 10 4 Other farmer meetings n = 47 n = 30 n = 17 Helpful 62 60 65 Neither 30 33 24 Poor 9 7 12 Telephone RDS staff n = 100 n = 51 n = 49 Helpful 73 71 76 Neither 23 25 20 Poor 4 4 4 Catchment Sensitive Farming Officer n = 15 n = 10 n = 5 Helpful 33 20 60 Neither 40 40 40 Poor 27 40 0 Other telephone advice n = 46 n = 22 n = 24 Helpful 76 64 88 Neither 17 23 13 Poor 7 14 0 Defra website n = 35 n = 21 n = 14 Helpful 34 33 36 Neither 34 38 29 Poor 31 29 36 Other organisations' website n = 21 n = 15 n = 6 Helpful 29 27 33 Neither 52 60 33 Poor 19 13 33 Other organisations' leaflets n = 27 n = 20 n = 7 Helpful 59 65 43 Neither 26 25 29 Poor 15 10 29

As both face-to-face and telephone contact with RDS staff appear to be beneficial to respondents, these methods of communication should be continued and possibly increased for both current participants of HLS as well as for new applicants. Websites, both Defra’s and other organisations’, appear to be of less use and possibly need to be improved, with clearer links and information made easier to find. Raising awareness of ES and HLS among Catchment Sensitive Farming Officers would probably help to increase their perceived degree of usefulness as a source of advice.

29 5.3.2.13 RDS Assessment (Q27) Respondents were asked how useful they found the discussion with the RDS adviser during the agreement visit. Overall, 75% of those who answered this question found the discussion very useful (Table 5.36). Only 2% did not find it useful. Table 5.36 Usefulness of discussion with RDS adviser.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=133) % (n=66) % (n=67) Very useful 75 79 72 Quite useful 23 21 24 Not useful 2 0 4

After discussions with an RDS adviser, it is possible that an agreement may be changed. Respondents were asked to indicate the type and degree of change they needed to make to their agreements following their discussions. For choice of options and the number and amount of options, approximately 70% of respondents only had to make a little change to their agreements (Table 5.37). Higher proportions of respondents made no change (approximately 18%) than made a lot (11%). A higher proportion had to make no change to the location of options, but no changes were more common for those with a previous agreement (46%) than those with no previous agreement (34%). The inclusion of capital works required the most changes (18% overall); a higher proportion of those new to agri- environment schemes (23%) were required to make a lot of changes compared to previous agreement holders (13%). However, forty percent of respondents still did not need to make any changes to the inclusion of capital works. Generally a higher proportion of previous agreement holders did not have to make changes to their agreements. This supports the idea that this group of respondents are more aware of the features available on their holdings and their potential for entry into HLS.

30

Table 5.37 Type and level of change required after discussion with RDS adviser.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes % yes % yes Choice of option n = 126 n = 63 n = 63 A lot 10 10 11 A little 72 70 75 Not at all 17 21 14 Number and amount of options n = 122 n = 59 n = 63 A lot 12 12 13 A little 69 71 67 Not at all 19 17 21 Location of options n = 120 n = 61 n = 59 A lot 8 10 7 A little 52 56 47 Not at all 40 34 46 Inclusion of capital works n = 124 n = 62 n = 62 A lot 18 23 13 A little 43 40 45 Not at all 40 37 42

As well as indicating the type and degree of change, respondents were also asked to give the most frequent reasons for making changes to their agreements (Table 5.38). Table 5.38 Reasons for making changes to an agreement.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=77) % (n=41) % (n=36) Improve environmental benefit 18 59 6 RDS recommendations 16 17 14 Meet scheme requirements 9 5 14 Meet practicalities 9 15 3 Management queries 9 5 14 Changes better suited the land 6 7 6 Financial issues 5 2 8 Fresh outlook/identify new features 5 5 6 Options/features excluded 5 2 8 Make best use of option choices 5 2 8 Other 23 24 22

31 Improving environmental benefit was the most commonly cited reason for making changes (18% overall), however there was a large difference in the proportions of those with no previous agreement (59%) compared to previous agreement holders (6%) giving this reason. It is probable that participants of a previous agri-environment scheme had more experience of what was required and so had already chosen and entered those options and features with the most environmental benefit, so needing less change to their agreements. More of those with no previous agreement (15% compared to 3% previous agreement holders) needed to make changes in order to meet the practicalities of farming and being in the scheme. Again, previous agreement holders' prior experience of combining farming with an agri-environment scheme would make them more aware of exactly what was achievable on their holdings. Management queries usually referred to specific problems such as grazing periods and hedge management and provision for wild birds, possibly with potential management problems being highlighted. Other reasons cited for making changes to an agreement included the addition of some features a lack of cooperation between advisers and improved understanding of the HLS scheme

5.3.2.14 Future sources of advice (Q28) Respondents were asked how useful various sources of advice would be over the next ten years, the life of their agreement. Of the options given, access to RDS staff on the telephone was selected by the highest number of respondents (126) of which 90% felt that this source would be very useful (Table 5.39). Farm visits by RDS staff were seen as useful by 76% of respondents. Only previous agreement holders (5% RDS telephone and 7% RDS visits) suggested that these two sources of advice would not be useful. Receiving a regular newsletter by email was seen as being the least useful of the listed sources of advice (42% of respondents); a lower proportion of those with no previous agreement (31%) thought this would not be useful compared to 53% of previous agreement holders. Farmer meetings held by Defra (45%) were considered to be more useful than those run by other organisations (37%).

32

Table 5.39 Usefulness of future sources of advice.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes % yes % yes RDS staff on telephone n = 126 n = 61 n = 64 Very useful 90 90 89 Neither 8 10 6 Not useful 2 0 5 Farm visits by RDS n = 120 n = 59 n = 61 Very useful 76 80 72 Neither 21 20 21 Not useful 3 0 7 Newsletter - by post n = 121 n = 59 n = 62 Very useful 53 51 55 Neither 37 39 35 Not useful 10 10 10 Newsletter - by email n = 102 n = 51 n = 51 Very useful 26 31 22 Neither 31 37 25 Not useful 42 31 53 Farm walks n = 118 n = 57 n = 60 Very useful 58 61 53 Neither 33 30 37 Not useful 9 9 10 Meetings by Defra staff n = 113 n = 55 n = 58 Very useful 45 42 48 Neither 35 42 28 Not useful 20 16 24 Meetings by other organisations n = 95 n = 49 n = 45 Very useful 37 35 38 Neither 33 39 27 Not useful 31 27 36 Demonstration farms n = 109 n = 55 n = 54 Very useful 53 55 52 Neither 30 33 28 Not useful 17 13 20

5.3.3 Agreement

5.3.3.1 Agreement Document (Q29) Respondents were asked if they were aware that some of the management conditions for their agreement were in the handbook whilst others were in the agreement document. Overall, 88% off 133 respondents were aware of this; the proportion was higher for those

33 will no previous agreement (91% of 66 respondents) compared to those with a previous agreement (85% of 67 respondents). The different locations of this information should be clearly highlighted in both the handbook and on the agreement document to ensue that all participants in HLS are aware of and refer to both sources of information Respondents were then asked to indicate their understanding of each of the seven parts of the agreement document, stating whether there were any particular problems and suggesting ways in which it could be improved. For all seven parts of the agreement document, approximately 50% of respondents understood all of each section, and at least 90% understood all or most of them (Table 5.40). Part 6: Grassland management and Part 7: Maps had the highest proportions of respondents understanding all of the section (63% and 64% respectively). No part had more than a single respondent stating that they understood none of it. Responses showed few differences between previous agreement status. However, in Part 2: Summary of options, points and payments and Part 4: HLS Capital Works Plan and payments, higher proportions of those with no previous agreement stated that they understood most of these sections (54% and 49% respectively) yet lower proportions understood all of them (40% and 48%) compared to previous agreement holders (most: 41% and 32% respectively; all: 41% and 32%).

34

Table 5.40 Understanding of different parts of the agreement document.

n All Most Some None N/A % % % % % Part 1: ELS/OELS annual payment All respondents 124 46 44 6 1 2 No previous agreement 63 49 41 10 0 0 Previous agreement 61 46 46 3 2 3 Part 2: Summary of (O)ELS/(O)HLS options, points payments and annual payment All respondents 134 44 48 7 0 1 No previous agreement 65 40 54 5 0 2 Previous agreement 68 49 41 9 0 1 Part 3: HLS Management of Environmental features All respondents 134 48 46 4 0 1 No previous agreement 65 51 45 3 0 2 Previous agreement 68 46 47 6 0 1 Part 4: HLS Capital Works Plan and payments All respondents 131 53 40 3 0 3 No previous agreement 67 48 49 3 0 0 Previous agreement 63 59 32 3 0 6 Part 5: Capital works specification All respondents 131 49 42 5 1 3 No previous agreement 64 45 52 3 0 0 Previous agreement 66 52 33 8 2 6 Part 6: Grassland Management All respondents 133 63 35 2 0 1 No previous agreement 64 64 36 0 0 0 Previous agreement 68 63 34 1 0 1 Part 7: Maps All respondents 131 64 33 3 0 0 No previous agreement 63 67 27 6 0 0 Previous agreement 67 61 39 0 0 0

Particular problems with Parts 2, 4 and 7 were each reported by 14% of respondents (Table 5.41). Part 5: Capital works specification received the lowest reports of problems (7%). Table 5.41 Proportion of respondents having a particular problem with their agreement document.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement

35 % yes n % yes n % yes n Part 1 9 110 11 55 7 55 Part 2 14 113 17 52 11 61 Part 3 11 114 11 53 11 61 Part 4 14 113 19 54 10 59 Part 5 7 111 8 53 7 58 Part 6 9 116 11 54 7 61 Part 7 14 113 15 52 13 61

Forty-two percent of respondents suggested that Part 2 of the agreement document could be improved; those with no previous experience of agri-environment schemes were more critical (Table 5.42). Part 5 had the lowest proportion of respondents feeling it could be improved (22%). Table 5.42 Proportion of respondents feeling improvements could be made to the agreement document.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes n % yes n % yes n Part 1 32 78 31 36 33 42 Part 2 42 73 50 34 36 39 Part 3 37 67 37 30 38 37 Part 4 33 72 35 34 32 38 Part 5 22 68 24 34 21 34 Part 6 28 76 31 39 22 36 Part 7 31 80 35 37 28 43

When asked to specify any problems and ways to improve things on specific parts of the agreement document some respondents appeared not to answer the question and mentioned problems that seemed to relate to the scheme as a whole. Also, answers were often too imprecise and difficult to relate to the agreement document. Part 1: ELS/OELS annual payment. Thirteen respondents gave details of problems but only four related to payments, with comments that payment dates were not specified or that their payments were late. Twenty-seven farmers suggested improvements, though only six related to payments: a hope that payments would be on time, the agreement should state clear payment times and a desire to have payments every six months. Part 2: Summary of (O)ELS/(O)HLS options and points payments and an annual Payment Schedule for HLS options excluding capital works. Sixteen respondents gave relevant problems. The majority stated that this part was too long, too complex and too confusing. Five made comments about payments, in particular, that it was unclear when payments were to be made and that Part 2a should have an annual payment total at the bottom. Improvements suggested included simplifying the tables, reducing the number of pages, and having each field with all its options on one page. Part 3: HLS Management of Environmental features – specific options, prescriptions and indicators of success. This part of the agreement document was seen as not being user-

36 friendly, being difficult to read and difficult to pick out the important information. Four respondents expressed concern over how targets were to be measured, the timescale for indicators of success and also what would happen if these were not met. When asked for ways to improve this part, some respondents reiterated that they found it too complicated with a bad layout without suggesting methods of improvement. Two respondents felt that the information should be on a field-by-field basis rather than by option. Another wanted the prescriptions for each option to be more detailed and for plant indicator species to be listed. Part 4: HLS Capital Works Plan and payments. Five of the 21 respondents reported concern over the complexity of the claims form, and uncertainty over how to claim and when payments would be made. Two said that there was not enough information on the timetable of the work to be done. A disjointed and bad layout was also highlighted. To improve this part of the agreement document, respondents suggested that the layout needed to be simplified, the location of the works needed to be specified, the claims procedure should be clearer and also costs needed to be adjusted each year Part 5: Capital works specification. Again, it was stated that there was no information on how and when payments would be made. One respondent said that the prescriptions did not take into account any local materials or historical elements. Another stated that capital works were not on the agreement map; capital works should always be marked on the map where relevant, so it is possible that because they are marked as thin black lines and points, they may have been difficult to see rather than missing. To improve this part, respondents suggested making it less complicated and giving more explanation of dates and times. Part 6: Grassland Management. Ten respondents gave comments on problems; the majority commented that the prescriptions were too inflexible. One stated that the stocking density could be confusing. Comments on possible improvements again concentrated on changing prescriptions, providing more options for weed control and removing the restriction on temporary grassland. One respondent wanted more details on the number of animals allowed in each field and for how long, and another wanted the table to be made easier to read by suggesting spaces in the parcel numbers. Part 7: Maps. Twelve of the 18 respondents stated that they had difficulty in obtaining maps and that they were often incorrect or incomplete. These comments however, probably relate to getting maps at the start of the application process, rather than the agreement maps. Two said the maps were too small, too cluttered with details and difficult to interpret. Suggestions for improvements included: using blocks of colour rather than stripes for areas, marking on boundaries/hedges, putting ELS options on the same map and using maps covering the whole farm where possible. Respondents were also asked to give comments on the document at a whole. Of the 29 farmers who answered this question 24% stated that the agreement was good and easy to understand (Table 5.43). Another 24% felt that it contained a lot of loose paper and so should be bound or in a folder, particularly if it was to cover a ten year agreement. ‘Other’ comments included the fact the document included a lot of information to digest and understand, ELS and HLS ought to be kept separate, and that more time was required before determining whether any changes needed to be made. Almost all these other comments were made by those with no previous agreement.

37

Table 5.43 Other comments made by respondents

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=29) n n Agreement is good/easy to understand 7 3 4 Should be bound/reduce loose paper 7 6 1 Too detailed/repetitive 5 3 2 Too much paper 4 3 1 Mapping problems 3 1 2 Need plain English 2 1 1 Other 13 12 1

Overall, changes to the Agreement document recommended by respondents included: clearly presenting payment times and clarifying the claims procedure, providing a clear timetable of work and timescale for indicators of success, providing more information on stocking levels on grassland under different options, and organising all information and options on a field-by-field basis.

5.3.3.2 Guidance on option management (Q30) Seventy-two percent (of 132 respondents) had referred to other guidance on managing the options other than the prescription in their agreement. If they had received other guidance, respondents were asked to select from a list the source of this guidance or specify any other guidance they may have used. Sixty-eight percent of those who answered this question indicated that they used the ELS/HLS handbooks, whilst an RDS adviser was used by 63% (Table 5.44). These two sources are likely to be used for a large range of options whereas agreed management plans were the least frequently used (27% of respondents), probably because not every agreement will contain a management plan. Apart from the illustrated guidance notes, all other suggested sources of guidance were used more by those with no previous agreement; it is possible that if many previous agreement holders feel that they are already carrying out the appropriate management required for an option they have no need to consult guidance. Table 5.44 Sources of guidance used by respondents.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=98) % (n=50) % (n=48) Guidance notes 31 30 31 RDS adviser 63 70 56 Other adviser/consultant 41 50 31 Agreed management plan 27 30 23 ELS/HLS handbook 68 74 63

38

Nineteen respondents specified other sources of guidance. Seven of these had talked to FWAG for advice, two had consulted other farmers and another two stated that they had worked it out for themselves. Other organisations mentioned by seven respondents included English Nature, National Park staff, BTO and the Bat Conservancy.

5.3.3.3 Indicators of success (Q31) Indicators of success for options can be used to monitor whether objectives are being met. Respondents were asked how useful they felt this idea of indicators of success was. Sixty-five percent of them felt they would be quite useful (Table 5.45). A higher proportion of previous agreement holders felt they would not be useful (11%) compared to those new to agri-environment schemes (2%). Table 5.45 Usefulness of indicators of success.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=129) % (n=64) % (n=65) Very useful 29 31 26 Quite useful 65 67 63 Not useful 6 2 11

When asked whether they thought they would achieve their indicators of success only 25% of respondents said that they would achieve all of them (Table 5.46). Sixty-seven percent felt that they would achieve some of them. Respondents had already expressed concern about the timetable for indicators of success (5.3.3.1); ensuring good communication with RDS and a clear explanation of exactly what was required to meet these targets, might help to allay fears. Table 5.46 Proportion of respondents who will achieve their indicators of success.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=129) % (n=64) % (n=65) All 25 25 25 Some 67 66 68 No 1 2 0 Don't know 8 8 8

5.3.3.4 Delivery of options (Q32) Forty-seven percent of respondents were completely sure that they could deliver what was required for their selected options (Table 5.47). Another fifty-two percent were fairly sure. Ensuring that respondents had good communications with an RDS adviser who could explain clearly what was required from the applicant could help to raise the proportion of those who were completely confident of delivering the requirements for their chosen options.

39 Table 5.47 Degree of confidence at being able to deliver requirements for selected options.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=133) % (n=65) % (n=68) Completely 47 49 44 Fairly 52 49 54 Not very 2 2 1

When asked if they were anticipating any particular problems 38% of respondents said that they were. This proportion was higher for previous agreement holders (41% of 56 respondents) than for those with no previous agreement (36% of 53). Fifty-one respondents specified the problems they anticipated would affect delivery of their selected options (Table 5.48). Twenty-two percent cited wildlife problems, including the predation of chicks and the unpredictability of wildlife returning to the farm, and weather problems such as flooding, drought and the delays to farm operations. Time limitations, particularly with respect to prescription dates and achieving capital works, were cited by a higher proportion of those with no previous agreement. This group also felt that financial considerations, particularly the rising costs of materials for capital items would be more of a problem than previous agreement holders. Those who have been involved with agri- environment schemes in the past may have more experience of working to financial limits within management prescriptions and so are more aware of what is achievable. Table 5.48 Problems that could affect delivery of options.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=51) % (n=23) % (n=28) Wildlife problems 22 22 21 Weather 22 17 25 Weed control 16 13 18 Time limitations 12 17 7 Financial problems 8 13 4 Grassland problems 6 4 7 Labour problems 6 4 7 Stocking problems 6 4 7 Other 22 26 18

When asked if they felt they needed more support, 29% (of 116 respondents) stated that they did. Respondents were asked to specify the particular options where more support was required. No respondents actually specified options but 37 respondents stated either the type of options where they needed support or from whom they would like support (Table 5.49). Nineteen percent of respondents either felt that they might need more support in the future or that it was to early to tell. Access and historic features were cited only by those with no previous agreement (both 5%). The RDS adviser was the most frequently mentioned source of support overall (38%) and was more commonly mentioned by previous agreement holders. ‘Other’ comments included gaining support from talking

40 to other farmers, more meetings with advisers, and stating that the system needed to be more flexible. Table 5.49 Areas where respondents needed more support and sources of this support.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=37) % (n=21) % (n=16) Not yet/later on 19 24 13 Capital works 8 5 13 Grassland 5 5 6 Weed control 5 5 6 Access 3 5 0 Historic features 3 5 0 RDS adviser 38 33 44 FWAG 5 10 0 Other 32 29 38

5.3.4 Impact of the scheme

5.3.4.1 Impact of the scheme on individual farms (Q33) Respondents were asked to indicate how important they felt their chosen options would be to achieving various objectives on their holdings. Options were perceived to have the greatest impact on farmland wildlife with 72% of 133 respondents stating that their options would be very important in meeting this (Table 5.50). Only one individual said that their options were of no use to farmland wildlife. Chosen options were also perceived as being very important for maintaining and enhancing landscape character by 62% of respondents but of no use for flood management by 80%. Those with no previous agreement were more likely to think that their options would be important for improving water quality and reducing soil erosion.

41

Table 5.50 Perceived importance of chosen options to environmental objectives

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes % yes % yes Water quality and soil erosion n = 124 n = 63 n = 61 Very important 23 32 15 Some use 36 33 39 Of no use 40 35 46 Farmland wildlife n = 133 n = 65 n = 68 Very important 72 77 68 Some use 27 23 31 Of no use 1 0 1 Landscape character n = 132 n = 66 n = 66 Very important 62 62 62 Some use 36 36 35 Of no use 2 2 3 Historic environment n = 126 n = 61 n = 65 Very important 40 38 42 Some use 49 52 46 Of no use 11 10 12 Access n = 119 n = 60 n = 59 Very important 19 20 19 Some use 29 33 25 Of no use 51 47 56 Flood management n = 117 n = 58 n = 59 Very important 6 5 7 Some use 14 14 14 Of no use 80 81 80 Genetic conservation n = 116 n = 59 n = 57 Very important 25 27 23 Some use 41 42 40 Of no use 34 31 37

5.3.4.2 Impact on the farming system (Q34) As well as assessing the perceived impact of chosen options to environmental objectives on the farm, respondents were also asked to state the significance of any impact of HLS to their farming system. Approximately 50% of respondents said that there would have to be minor changes to their farming system and a third mentioned major changes (Table 5.51). A higher proportion of previous agreement holders (21%) reported negligible changes compared to those with no previous agreement (8%). This result, along with the answers to Question 14 (Table 5.7), indicates that as previous agreement holders are undertaking management as a continuation of a previous scheme and that it fits in with existing farm practices, the impact of HLS on their farming system will be less than for those who have never had an agri-environment agreement.

42 Table 5.51 Impact of HLS on farming system.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=134) % (n=66) % (n=68) Major change 31 35 28 Minor change 54 58 51 Negligible 14 8 21

5.3.4.3 Payment rates (Q35) When asked if they thought that the cost of implementation of the scheme on the farm would be covered by the payment rates, 39% of respondents said ‘Yes’ (Table 5.52). However, previous agreement holders were more likely to feel that costs would be covered than those with no previous agreement. This may indicate that previous agreement holders have more experienced of the costs of this type of work. Thirty-seven percent of respondents did not know if payment rates would cover the cost of implementation. However, payment rates for HLS are not necessarily set to cover 100% of costs, especially if there will be some resulting economic benefit to the farmer, for example, fencing, so it is not surprising that many farmers feel that overall payments do not cover costs. As some respondents seem to believe be that all costs should be covered by the payment rates and this is not always the case, this situation should be clarified with applicants by RDS advisers. Table 5.52 Proportion of respondents who thought the cost of implementation would be covered by the payment rate.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=131) % (n=66) % (n=65) Yes 39 33 45 No 24 32 17 Don't know 37 35 38

Thirty-four respondents added extra comments to this question. Thirty-two percent stated that it was too early to say if costs were and would continue to be covered by payment rates (Table 5.53). Twenty-one percent felt that the costs for capital items, in particular fencing, would not be covered, especially with the rising costs of equipment. ‘Other’ comments included the request that payment rates be regularly reviewed, and statements that the FEP cost was not covered and that payments did not cover the loss of income from the change in farming practice.

43

Table 5.53 Comments given by respondents in relation to costs and payment rates.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=34) n n Too early to say 32 5 6 Capital works not covered 21 4 3 Costs not covered 15 4 1 Contractors not covered 9 1 2 Costs covered (mostly covered) 9 2 1 Other 29 5 5

5.3.4.4 Future choice of options (Q36) The majority of respondents (60%) said that there were no new options they would like to see which were not currently in the scheme (Table 5.54). Previous agreement holders were more likely to want additional options included in the scheme. This may reflect the fact that not all CSS and ESA prescriptions are included in the ES scheme. Table 5.54 Proportion of respondents who would like to see other options included in the scheme.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=101) % (n=54) % (n=47) Yes 39 33 45 No 60 65 55 Don't know 1 2 0

When asked to give further details and reasons for including a new option 14% of the 44 respondents stated that it was too soon to tell at present, but maybe options could be added in the future (Table 5.55). Eleven percent wanted more options to restore ponds, create wetlands and undertake unspecified ditching work. Access options (including the provision of farm shops and toilet blocks for visitor groups) and watercourse options (covering buffer strips and the watercourse itself), were only mentioned by those with no previous agreement (14% each). Upland options (including options for common land) and tree/hedge options (planting boundary trees and letting hedges grow up) were cited only by previous agreement holders (9% of respondents each). ‘Other’ options covered wild bird seed mix, farm habitats already having high levels of biodiversity, new walls and restricting vehicular access. Some of the options mentioned, such as a wild bird seed mix and the repair of traditional farm buildings have always been available or have recently been introduced. This suggests that some respondents are not fully aware of the options presented in the

44 handbook, and reinforces the impression that agents and RDS advisers are important influences on option choice. This also highlights the need for improved communication with RDS and agents, so that the scheme participant is fully aware of the options selected for his holding, and why other features have not been included in the application. Comments given by respondents were often brief and it was felt that not enough information was given in order to clarify exactly what respondents felt was missing and what needed to be added. Table 5.55 Options respondents would like to see included in the scheme.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=44) % (n=21) % (n=23) Added in the future 14 14 13 Ponds, ditches and wetlands 11 14 9 Rare breeds/native breeds options 9 10 9 Building options 9 5 13 Orchards and woodland 9 10 9 Access options 7 14 0 Watercourse options 7 14 0 Reversion of arable to grass 5 5 4 Upland options 5 0 9 Trees and hedgerows 5 0 9 Grassland options 5 5 4 Other 32 38 26

Finally, respondents were asked to state any options where they felt that the payment allocations were either too generous or too low. Overall, 66 options/capital works items were mentioned by 83 respondents as having incorrect payment allocations. The majority of respondents (87%) stated that payments were too low. This proportion is far higher than for those who though the payment rates would not cover the costs of scheme implementation (24%, Section 5.3.4.3; Table 5.52). It is possible that these respondents were considering the cost of implementation on a holding basis, with better paid options balancing out those perceived as being low paid, rather than considering specific options in isolation, thus resulting in a lower proportion of negative responses. Previous agreement holders were more likely to indicate that payment rates were too low than those with no previous agreement (Table 5.56). Table 5.56 Proportion of respondents who felt payments were either too low or too generous.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=83) % (n=55) % (n=28) Too low 87 82 96 Generous 13 18 4

45 However, only 11 options were mentioned by two or more respondents (total of 28 respondents) and in all cases, payment was considered to be too low (Table 5.57). Table 5.57 Options mentioned by more than one respondent as having incorrect payment allocations.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement n n n FSH 5 5 0 FSB 4 3 1 HC8 3 0 3 EC3 2 2 0 EK2 2 2 0 FDS 2 2 0 HB12 2 1 1 HF13 2 1 1 HL5 2 1 1 HN8 2 1 1 HN9 2 1 1

Overall, only 11 options were mentioned, where payments were felt to be too generous: EC2, EG2, EG3, EK1, EM1, EM2, EM3, EM4, HE1, HK7 and HN3. All these options were given by a total of only four respondents. Eight of these options had ELS codes, but it is unclear whether these were options entered into the ELS scheme or extra ELS options that had been added to the HLS applications.

5.3.5 Visit questionnaire – chosen and non-chosen options

One hundred HLS farmers were visited, 50 of whom had a previous agreement and 50 who had no previous agreement. Respondents were asked questions both about the options they had selected to do and also those that they had not adopted within their agreement.

5.3.5.1 Option choice and management (QC1) Seventy-seven different options were selected by respondents with an overall count of 511 option choices made by the 100 respondents, 275 by those with no previous agreement and 236 by previous agreement holders. Only five options were selected by 20 or more respondents: HF12 Enhanced wild bird seed mix plots (rotational or non- rotational); HF13 Fallow plots for ground-nesting (rotational or non-rotational); HK6 Maintenance of species-rich, semi-natural grassland; HK7 Restoration of species-rich, semi-natural grassland; HR6 Supplement for small fields. Fourteen options were selected by between 10 and 19 respondents. Due to the low number of respondents selecting each option, analysis of option choice questions (QC1a-f) is undertaken for all options selected by respondents and then concentrates only on those five options selected by 20 or more respondents. The results for these five options are in Appendix 5.1.

46 Respondents were asked why they had chosen their options and given a range of reasons from which to select (Table 5.58). For 39% of the 511 option choices, respondents stated that they had followed the suggestions made by an agent; this was the most frequently cited reason for both previous agreement holders (37%) and those with no previous agreement (40%). The second most cited reason was the positive benefits for the environment (36% of option choices); those with no previous agreement were more likely to feel that options were positive for the environment. However, these results do not necessarily mean that those with no previous agreement are more concerned with the environment; a higher proportion of previous agreement holders (18%) compared to those with no previous agreement (7%) stated that having management already in place was a reason for selecting an option. If they are or have been participants of another scheme the management they were undertaking resulting from this scheme could already be beneficial to the environment although it is not stated as such. Helping with LERAPs and having a management plan already in place were only mentioned for one option choice each; HE10 Floristically enhanced grass margin and HK6 respectively. Three reasons given in the list: the guidance note suggested it, features marked on EI map, and feature identified in target statement, were not selected for any option choices (thus, they have not been included in Table 5.58). Although JCA targeting statements were apparently not used by respondents for making option choices, results in Section 5.3.2.8; Table 5.27 indicated that for 61% of respondents used the JCA statement for this task. It is possible that this contradiction is a result of many of the option choices apparently being made either by an agent or RDS, who may indeed have used the JCA statements, rather than by the respondents themselves.

47

Table 5.58 Reasons for choosing HLS options. Due to the low number of respondents choosing options, few option percentages have been calculated.

Management Increased Improved Feature Fitted Helped Option Suggested Positive Suggested Identified already in Good Easy gross crop already with with Management code by agent for Env. by RDS in FEP place payment to do margins management in place CC LERAPs plan in place Other n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n HB12 19 10 7 5 7 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 HC5 3 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HC6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HC7 19 6 8 5 4 7 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 10 HC8 16 10 7 4 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 HC9 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 HC10 8 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 HC11 4 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 HC12 7 2 4 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 HC13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HC15 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 HC16 3 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HC18 5 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HC19 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HC20 7 3 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 HC21 4 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 HD7 10 5 2 4 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 HE10 16 4 3 10 3 1 2 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 4 HF12 24 9 8 16 3 5 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 14 HF13 21 13 3 9 5 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 HF14 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF15 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 HF17 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HF18 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF19 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF20 3 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 HG6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HG7 6 1 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

48 Management Increased Improved Feature Fitted Helped Option Suggested Positive Suggested Identified already in Good Easy gross crop already with with Management code by agent for Env. by RDS in FEP place payment to do margins management in place CC LERAPs plan in place Other n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n HJ3 8 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 HJ4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HJ5 6 3 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 HJ6 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 HJ8 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HK6 22 11 6 5 5 9 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 12 HK7 47 22 15 17 17 4 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 21 HK8 11 1 3 9 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 8 HK9 10 4 6 5 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 HK10 5 3 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 HK11 4 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HK12 4 3 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 HK13 5 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 HK14 4 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 HK15 15 4 6 4 5 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HK16 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HK17 11 7 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 HK18 12 3 4 3 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 HK19 5 2 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 HL7 7 2 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 HL9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 HL10 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 HL12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HL15 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HL16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HN1 16 4 5 3 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 HN2 5 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 HN3 14 4 3 4 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 HN4 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 HN5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HN6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HN7 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HN8 17 4 6 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13

49 Management Increased Improved Feature Fitted Helped Option Suggested Positive Suggested Identified already in Good Easy gross crop already with with Management code by agent for Env. by RDS in FEP place payment to do margins management in place CC LERAPs plan in place Other n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n HN9 15 3 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 HO1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HO2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HO3 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HQ1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HQ2 9 4 5 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 HQ4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HQ5 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HQ6 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HQ7 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HQ12 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HR4 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HR5 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 HR6 20 11 4 5 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HR7 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HR8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mean 7 3 2 2 2 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.01 4 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % All responses 511 39 36 33 27 12 6 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 56 Non- participants 275 40 41 32 25 7 8 5 3 2 3 1 1 0 54 Participants 236 37 29 34 28 18 3 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 59

50

Respondents were also given the opportunity to give other reasons for their choice of option and management, and this text box was completed for 56% of option choices. However, many respondents made comments that repeated answers they had given in the previous tick boxes (Table 5.59). For forty-five percent of previous agreement holders' option choices, a continuation of management undertaken in a previous scheme was a major reason for option selection. Again, positive environmental reasons were mentioned for a higher proportion of option choices of those with no previous agreement (23%). ‘Other’ reasons mentioned included financial reasons, in particular, getting paid to undertake management, improvement of the farm, option identified in the handbook, and the inclusion of an option improving the chances of an agreement being accepted. Table 5.59 Other reasons for option choice.

No previous Previous All responses agreement agreement % (n=288) % (n=148) % (n=140) Continuation of other scheme 22 0 45 Wanted to do it 17 20 13 Educational/access reasons 13 16 10 Previously done in the past 5 3 6 Feature suitable for inclusion 4 6 2 Improved management 3 5 1 Fitted in with farming practice 3 5 0 Other 19 23 16 Repeated reasons for option choice Positive for Environment/wildlife 16 23 8 Suggested by agent 10 13 6 Suggested by RDS 7 9 4 Feature already in place 5 9 0 Management already in place 5 4 6

5.3.5.2 Management undertaken in the past? (QC1b) Respondents were asked whether they had carried out the management required for their chosen options in the past. Overall, most management required for options was either being carried out now or had never been used; few options used management that had been carried out at some time in the past (Table 5.60). For sixty-four percent of option choices, respondents had never used the required management and the prescribed management was currently being used for 33% of options chosen. As expected, those with no previous agreement were more likely to be undertaking new management than previous agreement holders.

51

Table 5.60 Proportion of option choices where the management required has been or is currently being undertaken.

No previous Previous All responses agreement agreement % (n=510) % (n=274) % (n=236) Currently used 33 19 49 Within 5 years 2 1 2 5-15 years ago 1 2 1 15-30 years ago 1 1 0 Never used 64 77 49

5.3.5.3 Management if option not chosen (QC1c). Respondents were asked whether they would have still carried out the management required for an option even if they had not selected that option. Overall, the management for 34% of option choices would still have been undertaken (Table 5.61) reflecting the proportion that were already complying with management prescriptions (Table 5.60). Table 5.61 Proportion of option choices where management would still have been carried out despite not choosing the option.

% yes n All responses 34 510

No previous agreement 21 274 Previous agreement 50 236

5.3.5.4 Effects of option on the business (QC1d) For approximately 70% of option choices, respondents stated that choosing this option was not going to have any effect on the business (Table 5.62). Rather surprisingly, there was little difference between previous agreement status; as it appears that many previous agreement holders are already doing the management required for their options it might be expected that a higher proportion would have said there would be no effect on their business. Table 5.62 Effects of option on the farm business.

No previous Previous All responses agreement agreement % (n=340) % (n=183) % (n=157) None 69 67 71 Some 31 33 29

52 5.3.5.5 Payment rates (QC1e). For 65% of option choices, respondents felt that the payment rate was about right; the proportion was slightly higher for previous agreement holders (69%) than for those with no previous agreement (61%) (Table 5.63). Nine percent of option choices (26 options) were considered to have payments that were too generous; HD7 Arable reversion of natural regeneration, HF13 Fallow plots for ground-nesting birds (rotational or non-rotational) and HK6 Maintenance of species-rich, semi-natural grassland were each mentioned by four respondents. Twenty percent of option choices (55 options) were perceived as having payments that were too low; HN8 Educational access – base payment and HC7 Maintenance of woodland were each mentioned by seven respondents. For 5% of option choices, the payment rates were considered to be irrelevant. It could be that in these instances previous management is just being continued and would be undertaken even without entry into HLS, or possibly because they just wanted to do that option, a reason that was mentioned for 17% of option choices in Table 5.59. Table 5.63 Perceived level of payment rates for option choices.

No previous Previous All responses agreement agreement % (n=510) % (n=274) % (n=236) Generous 9 10 7 About right 65 61 69 Too low 20 22 19 Irrelevant 5 7 3 Not known 1 1 2

5.3.5.6 Continuation of management (QC1f) As a final question on their chosen options, respondents were asked whether they would continue with the management required under this option if they were to leave the scheme. Overall, for 52% of option choices, respondents stated that they would continue with their option management. Previous agreement holders were slightly more likely to suggest that they would continue with the management. Comparison with the results in Table 5.60 and Table 5.61 indicate that for many option choices, the required management, even if it was not being undertaken before entry to the scheme, would be continued if the respondent left HLS Table 5.64 Proportion of responses where management would be continued.

% not n % yes known All responses 488 52 2

No previous agreement 261 48 2 Previous agreement 227 56 3

53

5.3.5.7 FEP features not adopted – non-chosen options (QC1g). Participants were asked if there were any particular features identified in either the FEP or the targeting statements that were not adopted within the agreement. Respondents gave answers in terms of options recommended for their application rather than features identified in the FEP and so the results have been presented as non-chosen options. For thirty-five percent of responses there were features that were not included in the HLS agreement. A higher proportion of previous agreement holders (45%) reported features identified but not adopted compared to those new to agri-environment schemes (25%). Table 5.65 Proportion of responses where FEP features have not been adopted within the HLS agreement.

% yes n All responses 35 108

No previous agreement 25 53 Previous agreement 45 55

Twenty-five options and eight capital items were mentioned by respondents as being identified on the FEP but not included in their agreement (Table 5.95). Only six options were specified more than once. Grassland options were identified by six respondents of which HK8 Creation of species-rich, semi-natural grassland and HK9 Maintenance of wet grassland for breeding waders, were each mentioned by two respondents. Ten respondents highlighted capital items with HR Hedge restoration and HTB Restoration of historic buildings each being mentioned by two respondents. One respondent had stated that there were no features identified on the FEP which had not been included and then cited DR Ditch, dyke and rhine restoration and HR Hedgerow restoration as options that had been identified and recommended by the county archaeologist. His responses have been taken as a ‘No’ and so his options have not been included in the table above. Respondents were asked to given reasons for not entering these features into their agreement. Management considerations was the most frequently cited reason (Table 5.66). A higher proportion of those with no previous agreement had their option suggestions rejected by RDS. This is perhaps unsurprising since applications by previous agreement holders will be based on the previous agreement. A higher proportion of those with no previous agreement (23%) however, had identified features and options that they might want to consider entering in the future. ‘Other’ reasons included loss of production, too much commitment, alternative features and options being entered and a lack of consent from a landlord.

54

Table 5.66 Reasons for not including a feature in the HLS agreement.

No previous Previous All responses agreement agreement % (n=38) % (n=13) % (n=25) Management considerations 29 38 24 Rejected by RDS 16 23 12 Low payment 16 15 16 Consider in future 13 23 8 Too much work 8 0 12 Other 55 62 52

55

5.4 DISCUSSION

Conservation and protecting the environment were reported in the postal questionnaire as being the main aims and purpose of Environmental Stewardship (Table 5.6), and these were also the principle reasons for applying to join the Higher Level Scheme (Table 5.7). This view was re-enforced at the face-to-face interviews, with at least 36% of respondents stating that an option being positive for the environment was a reason for including it in their agreement (Table 5.58; Table 5.59). However, most of those with an HLS agreement had previously undertaken conservation work on their holding (81% of respondents (Table 5.4), and unsurprisingly, the proportion of previous agreement holders undertaking this work was higher than for those new to agri-environment schemes (96% compared to 65%). Previous agreement holders were more likely to state that joining the scheme and also their option choices were because management was already in place and that HLS was regarded as a continuation of their previous agri-environment scheme. In this respect, if Environmental Stewardship is aimed at encouraging a change and improvement in environmental management it appears that most of this change will come from those with no previous agreement. Approximately half of respondents became aware of the Environmental Stewardship Scheme through advisers and consultants (Table 5.5). Defra advisers appeared to be more important to those with a previous agreement (32%) compared to those with no previous agreement (21%); presumably those with a current or previous agreement have more contact with Defra and their advisers and so are more likely to gain information from this source. In future, it might be appropriate for Defra advisers to target those with no previous agreement, in order to raise further awareness of the scheme amongst this group of farmers. However, 42% of respondents stated that the farming press was a valuable source of information. Thus, greater exposure in this medium, through articles and regular updates about the scheme would improve general awareness of ES in the farming sector. When entering into HLS only about 60% of postal respondents had an agreement covering the whole holding. More previous agreement holders entered their whole farm (68%) compared to those new to agri-environment schemes (52%). A higher proportion of those with no previous agreement (47% compared to 17% for those with a previous agreement) stated that they did not want to enter the total holding into HLS (Table 5.2). This many be because previous agreement holders had their whole farm entered into a past scheme (e.g. whole farm ESA) of which many perceived HLS as a continuation, but also that those with no previous agreement were more cautious of committing all their land to a scheme without fully knowing how their farming practices or productivity might be affected; land management restrictions, finance and perceived inflexibility of the scheme were all potential difficulties resulting from participating in the scheme that were mentioned by higher proportions of respondents with no previous agreement (Table 5.11). Again, greater contact with RDS advisers who could more fully explain the scheme and its options, could help to allay some of these fears. More owners were also likely to enter into HLS compared to tenants or those with land under a combination of ownership/tenant/FBT, and a higher proportion of previous agreement holders were outright owners compared to those with no previous agreement (Table 5.3). Thus, it appears that farmers with total control of their land are more likely to have been part of a previous agreement scheme and would enter into an HLS agreement. The HLS agreement requires a commitment of ten years (with a break-point after five years) so many farmers who are tenants or have land rented out appear less likely to be able to commit for this length of time.

56 The most positive aspects of the scheme were reported as being the financial reward and the benefit to conservation (Table 5.9). On the other hand, the amount and complexity of the paperwork and bureaucracy involved was cited as the main negative aspect of HLS (26% of respondents) (Table 5.10). It is likely that these problems are partly a result of the early stages of the scheme, and that over time, as advisers, agents and farmers become more familiar with it, these problems will diminish. Also, a quarter of those with no previous agreement felt that the scheme was too inflexible and prescriptive compared to only 12% of previous agreement holders. Presumably those with a previous agri- environment agreement have more experience of working to set guidelines and prescriptions and so perceive this as less of a problem. For many respondents, application for HLS was not seen as an easy process, with almost half having difficulty obtaining an application form and a correct set of maps from RDS (Table 5.15). Mapping problems in particular, as well as delays in the start of the scheme and computer problems were actually perceived as a barrier to entering HLS, though more so for those with no previous agreement (Table 5.8). Hopefully, the majority of these problems are only ‘teething problems’ which will decrease as the scheme progresses, though these responses should be taken into account should the scheme be altered or a new one introduced in the future. When asked about the actual HLS application process, a quarter of respondents completed the application form and maps themselves, with about 40% finding the process difficult (Table 5.21). On average, the application form took 12 hours to complete and the options map 9 hours (Table 5.22). Previous agreement holders appeared to have less trouble filling in these parts and took less time; past experience of completing forms and a greater awareness of the environmental features present on their land resulting from participation in other agri-environment schemes could have aided the application and mapping processes. The Farm Environment Plan (FEP) forms the foundation of the HLS agreement and gives a detailed assessment of the environmental features on the farm. Few respondents (16%) completed their own FEP; many used a FWAG adviser (Table 5.16). On average, it took 29 hours to complete a FEP (Table 5.17), though, as with the application form and maps, less time was taken by previous agreement holders, probably for the same reasons mentioned above. The FEP was perceived by 70% of respondents to be easy to understand and was useful for giving a greater appreciation of farm features, identifying new features and highlighting which options to enter (Table 5.20). However, the FEP was found to be less useful by previous agreement holders (Table 5.19). As many previous agreement holders had indicated that HLS was a continuation of a previous scheme, they and their agents would already have a good idea of the features present on their holding and the options they were intending to enter. This concept is supported by Table 5.23 and Table 5.24, which show that a lower proportion of previous agreement holders used or found the FEP useful for making their option choices. However, conversely, responses from the visit interviewees showed that an equal proportion of previous and no previous agreement holders (25%) made their option choices because they were identified in the FEP (Table 5.58), indicating that it was equally useful to both groups of respondents. Overall, reactions to the FEP were positive, with only a few negative comments mentioning in particular, the complexity of the FEP process and the amount of detail it required. The main reasons for choosing options were to increase wildlife and that features were already in place (Table 5.27). Unsurprisingly, management already being in place was cited more by previous agreement holders, though this reason was given less frequently during the interviews (Table 5.58). For these respondents, suggestions made by RDS (33%) and agents (39%) were the main reasons given for option selection. Easier crop management was the least likely of the reasons given by postal respondents for choosing an option. More of those with no previous agreement decided to include additional

57 ELS/OELS options on their HLS application (Table 5.28), though for both agreement status groups the main reason given for doing this was that it provided the best management for a feature (Table 5.29). Visit interviews also asked about features/options not entered into their agreement; the proportion of features/options identified in either the FEP or the targeting statements but not adopted within the agreement, was higher for previous agreement holders (45%) than for those with no previous agreement (25%) (Table 5.65). This could be perceived as further confirmation that previous agreement holders are continuing with features managed previously, with lower uptake of new or previously unidentified options; certainly management considerations were given as the principle reason for not including a feature/option (Table 5.66). Possibly greater involvement by RDS and agents in highlighting these features/options and explaining their potential to the applicant would encourage greater uptake of these features. Both the FEP and the target statements were used to inform the choice of options by over 50% of postal respondents of which over 90% found them useful (Table 5.23; Table 5.24). However, the interview respondents reported that they did not use the target statements at all for their option selection. For these respondents, either an agent or RDS selected many of the chosen options, so it is likely that these people did use the target statements when choosing options. The Environmental Information Map (EIM) was reported as being least useful overall (23%) but more previous agreement holders found it to be very useful (28% compared to 16% of no previous agreement holders); it is possible that although previous agreement holders are more aware of features on their land, the EIM gives them extra information on how their holding fits into the surrounding area and landscape, for example the routes of public rights of way beyond their farm boundaries. Other sources of information, such as advisers, agents and websites were used more by those new to agri- environment schemes and were perceived to be very useful by over half of them. These sources of information should be developed and could be used to target those with no previous agreement in particular, to improve understanding of the available options and encourage applicants to select a wider range of options. Overall, all the sources of information suggested by the questionnaire were used by over 70% of respondents and less than 25% found any source to be of no use. Access options were more likely to be undertaken by those with no previous agreement (Table 5.30). The reason for this difference is unclear, though the presence of existing footpaths and public access was the most commonly cited reason for not choosing access options (Table 5.31). It is probable that many past agreement holders, are in areas of the country where the attractiveness of the countryside means that numerous footpaths are already provided e.g. ESAs and National Parks. The desire to pass on knowledge of farming and the countryside, was the most frequently cited reason for selecting educational access options (Table 5.32). Capital works were being undertaken by most respondents and were seen as being necessary for option management as well as benefiting farm management (Table 5.33). Postal respondents were asked whether they would like to see other options included in the HLS scheme; 39% said that they would and this proportion was higher for previous agreement holders (45% compared to 33% for those with no previous agreement) (Table 5.54). It is unclear whether this higher proportion is due to previous agreement holders wanting to try new feature management or whether features managed under their old scheme are not included in HLS. When asked to specify options to be added, answers covered a range of features, from ponds to access and upland options (Table 5.55). However, options for most of these features are already available and comments were usually too brief to determine precisely want was felt to be missing in the current scheme. Mentioning such features and options indicates that respondents are not fully aware of, or do not fully understand, the range of options available possibly because they had not read

58 the handbooks or their option selection had not been fully explained to them. Again, more direct contact with an adviser could help to clarify this situation. Only interview respondents were asked about the management required for their options. However, for only 33% of options chosen by respondents (i.e. multiple responses from individuals referring to different options on their holding) was the management required currently being undertaken; previous agreement holders were more likely to be using the prescribed management (49% compared to 19% for those with no previous agreement) (Table 5.60). Fifty percent of options chosen by previous agreement holders would still have had the same management undertaken without entering the scheme (21% for no previous agreement) (Table 5.61) and 56% of features would continue to be managed according to the option prescription even if the respondent left the scheme (48% for no previous agreement) (Table 5.64). These results appear to confirm that some options selected by previous agreement holders are as a continuation of a previous scheme and hence a continuation of management; others may simply be currently managed in this way outside of any agri-environment scheme. For no previous agreement holders, a greater change in management practices would need to be undertaken; for 77% of chosen options the management required had never been undertaken by this group of respondents (Table 5.60). Defra advisers were an important point of contact, not only as a source of information about the Environmental Stewardship scheme, but also during the HLS application process. In particular, meetings held by Defra staff and telephone contact with RDS staff were used by over 70% of postal respondents (Table 5.34), with the same proportion finding the advice helpful (Table 5.35). On the other hand, the Defra website was used by only 26% of respondents of which a third found it useful and another third stated it was poor. Maybe the advice was felt to be too generalised and difficult to apply to specific situations on the holding or the website was too difficult or time-consuming to navigate in order to find the required information. Discussions with the RDS adviser during the agreement visit were regarded as very useful, again by 70% of respondents (Table 5.36). After a discussion, some changes usually had to be made to the HLS agreement. Most changes usually required a change of option chosen or variation in the number and amount of options (80% of respondents), whereas for the location of options and the inclusion of capital works 40% had to make no changes at all. A higher proportion of previous agreement holders generally had to make no changes (Table 5.37). Thus it appears that those with no previous agreement might benefit from more advice and help at an earlier stage in the application process, in order to reduce the need to make changes later on in the process. Improving the environmental benefit of the scheme was the main reason given for making these changes (Table 5.38); the proportion of those with no previous agreement stating this (59%) was far higher than for previous agreement holders (6%). If those with previous agreements are entering the same features or areas of land into HLS as had been in their previous agri-environment scheme, features that had already been managed to benefit the environment, it is likely that this contributes to the lower levels of changed needed to their applications. RDS advisers were also regarded as an important source of support (Table 5.49) and advice about option management (63% of respondents, though by a higher proportion of those with no previous agreement) (Table 5.44). As a source of advice over the next ten years, the life of the agreement, access to RDS staff on the telephone was considered to be the most useful (90% of respondents), followed by farm visits made by RDS staff (76%) (Table 5.39). A newsletter sent by email was perceived as being the least useful source of advice by 42% of respondents; information received in this way may be perceived as too generalised or may be difficult to relate to actual situations on the holding. Comments made by respondents indicate that regular farm visits by advisers, and in particular, contact with a single named adviser would be desirable in the future; as RDS staff are regarded as useful sources of advice, information and support it appears to

59 be worth ensuring that all applicants deal only with one adviser who knows their holding well and could give the best level of personalised advice. It would be preferable to appoint this adviser at the start of the application process, in order to give a level of continuity and for a good working relationship to be established. The scheme handbooks were reported as being used by 36% of respondents as a source of information about the scheme (Table 5.5), though almost all respondents used all or part of the HLS handbook and found it useful during the application process (Table 5.12). It also proved to be a useful source of guidance when making option choices (Table 5.52) and for option management (Table 5.44). The HLS handbook appeared to be particularly useful for those with no prior experience of an agri-environment scheme; those with a previous agreement presumably felt that they knew more about the features on their land and needed less guidance on option management. Although it was not determined whether these handbooks were hard copies or downloaded from the Defra website, both formats should remain available in the future, especially as some farmers may not have computer access and also as such a large document may be difficult to download. As mentioned above, the Defra website was not found to be particularly useful as a source of information about the ES scheme (Table 5.5), and although used by 26% of respondents as a source of advice (Table 5.34) it was regarded as the least useful (Table 5.35). Possible re-structuring of the website, giving clearer links to information and advice could help to increase its use by HLS participants. Newsletters by e-mail were also regarded as the least useful source of future advice (Table 5.39). Thus, it appears that one-to-one contact and hard copies of guidance notes and information are the preferred methods of communication both at present and in the future. The overall HLS agreement document consists of seven different parts. At least 90% of respondents understood all or most of each part, and no part had more than a single respondent stating that they understood none of it (Table 5.40). For all parts, at least 20% of respondents thought that some improvements could be made; this proportion increased to 42% for Part 2 Summary of (O)ELS/(O)HLS options and points payments and annual Payments Schedule for HLS options excluding capital works (Table 5.42). Overall comments on the agreement document generally covered the need to improve the layout and make it less complicated, give clearer details on how to make claims and when payments would be expected, reduce the size of the agreement and to bind it together or put it in a folder, firstly to reduce the chances of loosing sheets but also because it is regarded as a reference document for the next ten years (Table 5.43). Respondents had a number of worries about the scheme. Just thirty-four percent of postal respondents felt that the Defra payment would cover the full cost of the FEP (Table 5.18), and only 39% stated that they thought that the cost of implementing the scheme would be covered by the payment rate (Table 5.52). Although many felt it was too early to say, meeting the costs of capital works, especially with regard to rising costs of materials and equipment, was of particular concern (Table 5.53). Eighty-seven percent of these postal respondents stated that the payment rates were too low for some options (66 options/capital works items were mentioned) (Table 5.56). Conversely however, when interviewees were asked how they perceived the payment rates for their chosen options, there appeared to be little cause for concern; for 74% of option choices, payments were considered to be either about right or even generous and for 5% the payment rates were irrelevant to the choice of the option (Table 5.63). Presumably these interviewees had chosen options they thought had good payment rates, hence the lower levels of concern. Most respondents felt that they would achieve some or all of their indicators of success (Table 5.46) and were fairly or completely certain of being able to deliver what was required for their selected options (Table 5.47); the unpredictability of wildlife and the weather were perceived as the main problems that could affect option delivery (Table 5.48). However, general comments made by some respondents reflect the uncertainty

60 they felt about what would happen if these targets were not met, especially if it was due to circumstances beyond their control. Frequent contact with an RDS adviser would allow these uncertainties to be addressed quickly. Thirty-one percent of postal respondents stated that HLS would mean a major change to their farming system, whereas 54% predicted only minor changes (Table 5.51). Unsurprisingly, more previous agreement holders (21%) felt that there would be negligible change compared to those with no previous agreement (8%). Again visit respondents were more optimistic about the effects of HLS, with only 31% of option choices being reported as having some effect on the farm business (Table 5.62). Although general comments made by respondents highlighted the feeling that the scheme was very complex and involved a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy, many felt that HLS and Environmental Stewardship in general would be good for the countryside, positive for the farm business and would project a positive image of farming to the general public.

5.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Land owners rather than tenants are more likely to enter into an HLS agreement and the 10 year agreement might discourage farmers who do not have complete control of their land. Consider making entry requirements more flexible for tenant farmers to encourage their entry into the scheme. • Encourage those with a previous agreement not just to continue with previous management and features, but also to undertake new opportunities to increase the benefits of the scheme on the holding. • The scheme is likely to have more of an impact on those with no previous agri- environment agreement. For them, the scheme will involve the introduction of new management practices. Thus, RDS advisers and agents may need to give them a higher level of support and personal contact. • Awareness of ES comes mainly from advisers/consultants, the farming press and Defra (scheme handbooks, leaflets and advisers). Awareness could be increased through the use of other organisations, the local press and radio, and improvements to the Defra website (keeping information up-to-date and giving clearer links to information). • Contact with RDS advisers is seen as very useful at all stages of the application process, and is regarded as an important source of advice over the ten years of the agreement. Contact should preferably be with a named adviser. Ideally this adviser would be appointed at the pre-application stage in order to ensure a good working relationship with the applicant. This contact would probably help to solve many of the problems mentioned by respondents, such as fears over the delivery of options and queries over option choice and management. • The scheme handbooks are important sources of advice and should remain available as both hard copies and on the Defra website. As many respondents appear not to have read the full handbook, a condensed version listing options and prescriptions as bulleted points might be preferable. • There are some concerns over the costs of implementing the scheme as well as payment rates for some options especially capital works. It should be clarified whether all costs will be met, and the claims process and payment dates clearly explained in Part 1 of the agreement document. • The majority of respondents understood most or all of their agreement documents, but about a third felt that improvements could be made by simplifying and condensing it, presenting options on a field-by-field basis, giving more details on

61 stocking rates for the different grassland options, using maps to cover the whole farm and presenting it as a bound reference document designed to last the ten years of the agreement without sheets being mislaid. • Although few respondents had difficulty finding an agent to undertake the FEP it might be preferable to send applicants a list of ‘qualified’ agents in the area or county available to undertake the FEP process. This would help to ensure that all FEPs are of a reasonable standard. • Involving specialists, such as County Archaeologists, Rights of Way Officers and staff from the National Rivers Authority, possibly on farm visits with RDS advisers, would not only improve publicity about ES, but also help to ensure that all features were correctly identified and the most appropriate and beneficial options selected. • When asked to suggest options that ought to be added to the scheme, many respondents mentioned features and options that were already included, indicating a lack of knowledge about options currently available. However possible suggestions included visitor facilities such as toilets and farm shops. • Overall, the HLS scheme was seen as a positive addition to agriculture, providing a means to benefit the environment, giving the opportunity to alter some management practices, continue with others as well as providing some financial support.

62 APPENDIX 5.1

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND GENERAL ATTITUDES

Background information on all farms (Q1 - 4) Respondents were asked to provide some background information about their holding: total holding size, area of a variety of crops, number and type of livestock and area of LFA land. The average area of holding was calculated using the total number of respondents (136) and the total area given on the questionnaire. Where respondents had not filled in the total area, this was calculated by summing all areas given for each crop type. The average proportion of each crop used areas given by respondents; three respondents gave no crop details and so have not been included in the calculations. Although calculations used the total number of respondents, not all holdings had every crop type, LFA land or livestock type. Thus the actual numbers of respondents recording each crop or livestock variety have also been noted in bold in the tables below (Table 5.67; Table 5.68). Very few farms recorded any vegetables, top fruit, soft fruit or other crops, so these have not been included in the cropping details. The average size of farm entered into HLS was 131 ha; the average size of previous agreement holdings (153 ha) was larger than where there was no previous agreement (107 ha). Overall, farms entered into HLS were 65% grass and 22% arable. Previous agreement farms had a higher proportion of grass and less arable than holdings without a previous agreement. Table 5.67 Average size of holding, and area of LFA land (hectares) and average proportion of each crop type on a holding. Average is calculated using the total number of respondents who answered the question. The number in bold refers to the actual number of respondents who had each crop and LFA land.

No previous Previous All respondents agreement agreement n = 136 n n = 66 n n = 70 n Total holding size (ha) 131 107 153

Less Favoured Areas (ha) 19 23 15 7 22 16

n = 133 n = 64 n = 69 Arable 22 67 27 40 16 27 Set-aside 3 53 4 32 3 21 Fodder 1 15 1 9 0.5 6 Grassland 65 131 60 64 70 67 Woodland 4 67 3 36 5 31

For dairy and beef cattle and pigs, there were no differences between agreement status in the average number of livestock on the holding. However, holdings with a previous agreement had a higher number of sheep (394) and fewer chickens (7) than those without (205 sheep and 54 chickens) (Table 5.68). This may reflect a higher frequency of upland farms, with large sheep populations, having had a previous agri-environment agreement under the ESA scheme.

63 Table 5.68 Average number of livestock on a holding. Numbers in bold are the actual number of respondents reporting each livestock type.

No previous Previous All respondents agreement agreement n = 136 n n = 66 n n = 70 n Dairy cattle 9 11 10 5 9 6 Beef cattle 42 82 43 39 41 43 Pigs 3 6 6 4 1 2 Sheep 302 71 205 29 394 42 Poultry 30 17 54 6 7 11

Area of land within HLS agreement (Q5) Respondents were asked to give any other reason for not entering all of their land into HLS. Thirty-two respondents gave a reason, of which 31% said that the land not under HLS agreement was either rented in or rented out; three of these farmers (all with no previous agreement) stated that their landlords did not want the land entered into the scheme (Table 5.69). Four reasons were each mentioned by 13% of respondents: the land had been entered or was appropriate for entry into ELS; the land was in another scheme, namely ESA or CSS; the land had only recently been acquired but it was hoped it could be added into HLS at a later stage, and the land was needed for other uses such as horse livery, development or amenity use. Table 5.69 Reasons for not entering all land on the holding into an HLS agreement.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=32) n n Land rented in/rented out 31 6 4 Not meet HLS criteria/target statements 16 2 3 Entered into/appropriate for ELS 13 1 3 In another scheme 13 0 4 Land recently bought 13 3 1 Needed for other uses 13 4 0 Land not suitable (yards/roads/waste areas) 6 1 1 Other 22 4 3

Organic registration (Q6) Only 9% of the 127 respondents who answered this question had some land registered with an approved organic inspection body. There were no differences between previous agreement status (No previous agreement = 10% of 61; Previous agreement = 8% of 66). Overall, the average area of registered organic land on the 11 farms that had given a positive answer to the previous question was 83 ha (Table 5.70). However, this average area was higher for those with a previous agreement (99 ha) than those without (70 ha).

64 Only nine respondents had registered organic land within an OHLS agreement. Of these, the average area of land under agreement was 91 ha; previous agreement holders had more of their organic land in OHLS (9 ha) than those with no previous agreement (8 ha). No respondents gave a reason for why only part of their registered organic land had been entered into OHLS. Table 5.70 Average area of land registered organic and entered into an OHLS agreement.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement n = 11 n = 6 n = 5 Average area of registered organic land (ha) 83 70 99 n = 9 n = 4 n = 5 Average area within OHLS agreement (ha) 91 81 98

Water pollution (Q8) Inorganic fertilisers were perceived by respondents without a previous agreement as being the main cause of agricultural pollution followed by slurry and agricultural pesticides (Table 5.71). However, responses from previous agreement holders showed the opposite, with agricultural pesticides being perceived as the main cause (49% compared to 26% for those with no previous agreement), followed by slurry (48%; 34%) and then inorganic fertilisers (43%; 40%). Soil erosion/run off was also cited by a higher proportion of those with a previous agreement compared to those without, indicating greater awareness of erosion issues amongst those who had been involved with agri-environment schemes in the past. Table 5.71 Main causes of agricultural pollution

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=129) % (n=62) % (n=67) Inorganic fertilisers 42 40 43 Slurry 41 34 48 Agricultural pesticides 38 26 49 Soil erosion/run off 36 4 31 Manure 5 6 3

Respondents were also asked to rank the main causes of water pollution. After an average ranking was calculated, industry, with a ranking of 1.7, was perceived as being the main cause of pollution. Local authorities and homes and gardens were seen as being the least important of the five sources listed, with an overall ranking of 4.2. There were no particular differences between previous agreement status, although previous agreement holders considered local authorities slightly more polluting and homes and gardens less polluting than those who had no previous agreement.

65 Table 5.72 Main causes of pollution of watercourses and waterbodies as perceived by respondents (answers ranked in order of importance, where 1 is the most important and 5 is the least important).

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement Agricultural pesticides 2.8 2.8 2.8 Industry 1.7 1.8 1.7 Sewage treatment 2.6 2.6 2.5 Local authorities 3.5 3.7 3.3 Homes and gardens 4.2 4.1 4.4

Fifteen respondents gave other causes of water pollution. Five of these mentioned vehicles and roads (gritting, runoff and oil leaks) as another source of water pollution, and three cited fly tipping. Other comments from single respondents included air pollution, litter and the general public.

Agri-environment schemes (Q10) Nearly half of respondents stated that they had, at present or in the past, an agri- environment scheme other than ELS/HLS on their land (Table 5.73). Three of those classed as having no previous agreement (5%) said that they had, at some stage, had an agri-environment scheme on their land; these were schemes not used to define previous agreement status in this study (see Table 5.74). Only 90% of those classed as previous agreement holders who answered this question stated that they were, or had been, part of a scheme, suggesting either that several respondents had not understood the question or that the information supplied by Defra was not entirely accurate. Table 5.73 Proportion of respondents who have, or have ever had, an agri- environment scheme, other than ELS/HLS, on their land.

% yes n All respondents 48 132

No previous agreement 5 65 Previous agreement 90 67

Sixty-five respondents specified the agri-environment agreements they had, either at present or in the past (Table 5.74). CSS was cited by 46% of overall respondents; all of these were previous agreement holders (49%). Thirty-six percent of previous agreement holders mentioned the ESA scheme. Four of those without a previous agreement gave answers to this question, two of which mentioned Farm Woodland schemes and two the Organic Farming Scheme.

66

Table 5.74 Other agri-environment schemes specified by respondents.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=65) % (n=4) % (n=61) CSS 46 0 49 ESA 34 0 36 WES 12 0 13 Farm woodland 6 50 3 SSSI 6 0 7 OFS 5 50 2 Arable stewardship 3 0 3

Awareness of Defra Environmental Stewardship Scheme (Q11) Twenty-one respondents had used leaflets produced by other organisations (Table 5.75). Of these, 43% used FWAG leaflets. ‘Other’ leaflets included those produced by AgriBip, National Parks and the CLA. Table 5.75 Other organisations information used by respondents.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=21) n n FWAG 43 6 3 English Nature 14 0 3 Wildlife Trusts 10 2 0 NFU 10 2 0 Agents 10 2 0 Other 24 4 1

Only 12 respondents (nine no previous agreement and three previous agreement holders) attended workshops held by organisations other than Defra. Seven of these respondents went to workshops run by FWAG. Consultants and advisers other than Defra advisers were used by 29 respondents (Table 5.76). Again, FWAG was the most commonly cited organisation, their advisers being used by 63% of respondents. ‘Other’ advisers included English Nature and ADAS.

67

Table 5.76 Other advisers and consultants used by respondents.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=29) n n FWAG 63 10 9 Agent 7 1 1 Friends and neighbours 7 1 1 Consultant 7 2 0 Other 20 3 3

Eighty-eight percent of respondents submitted a combined ELS/HLS or OELS/HLS application whereas 24% of those who responded already had an ELS/OELS agreement before applying for HLS (Table 5.77). Table 5.77 Proportions of respondents submitting a combined application or already having an ELS/OELS agreement before applying for HLS.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % yes % yes % yes Combined application n = 129 n = 62 n = 67 88 84 91 Existing ELS/OELS agreement n = 109 n = 52 n = 57 24 27 21

Impact of CAP reform including SPS and Cross Compliance (Q12) Forty-one percent of 134 respondents stated that the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme and Cross Compliance had influenced their decision regarding Environmental Stewardship. The proportion of respondents with no previous agreement confirming this was higher (52% of 66) than for previous agreement holders (31% of 68 respondents). When asked to specify how their decision was affected, 39% of respondents said that Environmental Stewardship procedures were compatible or ongoing with respect to the influence of Cross Compliance or SPS (Table 5.78). A similar proportion of respondents (38%) said that financial pressures as a result of CAP reform, in particular, getting paid to manage the land and the money being useful for the farm, had influenced their decision and a further 14% specifically mentioned the need to re-coup modulation money. Financial reasons were mentioned by a higher proportion of respondents with no previous agreement.

68

Table 5.78 Impact of Single Payment Scheme and Cross Compliance on the decision regarding Environmental Stewardship.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=56) % (n=35) % (n=21) Compatible/ongoing 39 40 38 Financial pressure encouraged decision 38 40 33 Modulation changes - needed to re-coup money 14 17 10 Environment benefits 14 14 14 HLS helps Cross Compliance 4 3 5 Other 16 17 14

Application

Completion of Application form and maps (Q20) Overall, 44% of respondents had problems filling in the form (Table 5.79). A slightly higher proportion of those with no previous agreement had problems than previous agreement holders. Twenty respondents specified problems; three mentioned changes occurring to the scheme, such as alterations to option codes and the form, whilst they were completing the form and another three stated that the form was over-complicated. Two had problems with Defra, particularly at the beginning of the scheme. Other comments included uncertainty over the level of detail required and where to put it on the form, and the lack of the Joint Character Assessments on the hard copy. Table 5.79 Proportion of respondents having trouble filling in the application form.

% yes n All respondents 44 45

No previous agreement 48 23 Previous agreement 41 22

For those respondents who did not complete the application form and maps themselves 90% stated that these were completed by the same person who had undertaken the FEP (Table 5.80). A lower proportion of previous agreement holders (85%) had forms and maps completed by the FEP surveyor compared to those with no previous agreement (96%). The majority of respondents (92%) were given a full explanation of their HLS requirements by the person who competed the application form and maps.

69

Table 5.80 Completion and understanding of the application form and maps.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=93) % (n=46) % (n=47) Form and maps completed by FEP surveyor 90 96 85 Fully explain HLS requirements 92 91 94

Choice of options (Q21) Other information was used more and regarded as very useful by a higher proportion of those with no previous agreement than previous agreement holders, although 54% of previous agreement holders found it fairly useful. When asked to specify other forms of information, 59% mentioned advice given to them by advisers, agents and consultants (Table 5.81). Sixteen percent had consulted websites (RSPB, BTO and English Nature). Table 5.81 Other information used.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=32) n n Adviser/agent/consultant 59 13 6 Websites 16 3 2 Surveys 13 1 3 Experience 9 2 1 Other 25 6 2

Capital Works (Q25) Other reasons for choosing capital items were given by 21 respondents (Table 5.82). The benefits to wildlife, financial considerations and improvements to boundary features were all mentioned by four respondents. ’Other’ reasons included the fact that the work needed doing and specific issues. Table 5.82 Other reasons for choosing capital items.

No previous Previous All respondents agreement agreement n n n Benefits wildlife 4 4 0 Financial 4 3 1 Improve boundary features 4 3 1 Benefits farm 3 2 1 Other 9 3 6

70 Respondents were then asked whether they expected to have a subsequent capital works plan once their existing plan had been completed. Eighty percent of 128 respondents stated that they would. The next question asked why respondents did not choose a capital works plan and should have been answered by those who responded ‘No’ to the first question in this section, (asking whether they has a capital works plan as part of their HLS agreement). However, it appears to have been answered primarily by those answering ‘No’ to the last question on subsequent capital works plans. Thirty-six percent of respondents stated that a capital works plan was not needed for the options they had selected (Table 5.83). Only 12% said that the payment rate was too low. Table 5.83 Reasons for not choosing a capital works plan/a subsequent works plan.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=25) n n No suitable features 16 0 4 Not needed for option 36 5 4 Payment rate too low 12 1 2 Already done 16 1 3

Other sources of advice (Q26) Respondents who used organisations and people other than RDS, Defra staff and CSFOs, were asked to specify these sources of advice. As the answers given for the different forms of advice were often the same, the details for meeting, telephone advice, websites and leaflets have been amalgamated together by source (Table 5.84). FWAG was the most frequently cited source of advice cited by half of all respondents; advice included talking to their advisers, attending workshops, farm walks, and looking at their website and leaflets (Table 5.84). The majority of respondents found the advice from FWAG helpful and in only one instance was the advice considered poor. ‘Other’ sources of advice included the NFU (farmers meeting), Environment Agency (telephone advice and website), BTO (leaflet), English Heritage (website) and LEAF (leaflet). Where an assessment of usefulness was given, the majority of advice (83% of respondents) was regarded as helpful with no other reports of poor advice. Seventeen percent of respondents felt the advice was neither helpful nor poor.

71

Table 5.84 Other sources of advice used by respondents.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=94) % (n=56) % (n=38) FWAG: meetings, telephone, website, leaflets 51 52 50 English Nature: website, leaflets, telephone 7 4 13 Agents: meetings, telephone 7 4 13 RSPB: website, leaflets, cd 5 9 0 Other farmers/friends: meetings, telephone 3 2 5 Consultant: telephone 3 4 3 CLA: meetings, leaflets 3 5 0 Wildlife Trusts: telephone 2 2 3 Other: meetings, telephone, website, leaflets 26 30 18

Respondents were also asked to specify any other alternative sources of advice they consulted (Table 5.85). Agents were most frequently cited (14% of respondents), followed by RDS, the farming press and other farmers (all 11% of respondents). ‘Other’ sources included Wildlife Trusts, National Park staff, consultants and English Nature. Table 5.85 Alternative sources of advice used by respondents.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=35) n n Agent 14 1 4 RDS 11 2 2 Farming press 11 2 2 Other farmers 11 1 3 Friends 9 3 0 FWAG 9 2 1 NFU 6 2 0 Other 40 7 7

Future sources of advice (Q28) Thirty-three respondents listed other organisations holding farmer meetings. Seventy- three percent cited FWAG (Table 5.86). ‘Other’ organisations to hold farmer meetings mentioned by single respondents included Rural Features, ADAS, English Nature and the National Sheep Association.

72

Table 5.86 Organisations to hold farmer meetings in the future.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=33) n n FWAG 73 14 10 NFU 6 2 0 RSPB 9 1 2 CLA 6 1 1 Wildlife Trusts 6 1 1 Other 27 2 7

Respondents were also asked to suggest other sources of advice they would like to see in the future. Of the 21 respondents who answered this question 24% mentioned regular farm visits from advisers, other farmers and expert advice from organisations and groups such as the BTO, RSPB and local bat groups (Table 5.87). Fourteen percent gave specific details of the subjects on which they would like advice: bats, field margins, wildlife counts and moths. Having one-to-one contact with a named adviser was suggested by 19% of respondents. Table 5.87 Other sources of advice in the future.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=21) n n Regular farm visits 24 3 2 Other farmers 24 4 1 Expert advice 24 2 3 Named/one-to- one contact 19 2 2 Specific details 14 2 1 Other 29 4 2

Agreement

Agreement Document (Q29) Some of the management conditions for an HLS agreement are printed in the handbook whilst others are contained in the agreement document. Respondents were asked whether they were aware of this, and 88% of the 133 who answered this question stated that they were (Table 5.88).

73

Table 5.88 Proportion of respondents aware of management conditions in both the handbook and agreement document.

% yes n All respondents 88 133

No previous agreement 91 66 Previous agreement 85 67

Delivery of options (Q32) Sixty-seven percent of 131 respondents were intending to use contractors to implement their HLS options. Those with no previous agreement were more likely to use contractors (74% of 65) than those with a previous agreement (61% of 66). Respondents were also asked to specify the type of contractor and the work to be conducted. Eighty-three people answered this question of which 26% just confirmed the use of a contractor (Table 5.89). Eight percent stated that they would hire machinery. Other help included agents, tree surgeons and neighbours. Table 5.89 Use of contractors to implement HLS options.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement % (n=83) % (n=47) % (n=36) Contractor 26 15 11 Machinery hire 8 5 3 Grazier 2 2 0 Friends 1 0 1 Other help 6 3 3 Work to be undertaken Fencing 43 43 44 Hedges 36 38 33 Planting/seeding/drilling 14 15 14 Ditches/Irrigation 10 6 14 Trees 10 9 11 Ponds/scrapes 8 13 3 Walling 7 6 8 Weed control 6 4 8 Harvesting 6 9 3 Building works 6 4 8 Other work 18 23 11

Farmers were most likely to get contractors to undertake fencing work (43% of respondents) followed by work on hedges, such as planting, laying and trimming (36%)

74 (Table 5.89). ‘Other’ work includes scrub clearance, the erection of gates and stiles and muck spreading.

Visit questionnaire – chosen and non-chosen options

Management undertaken in the past? (QC1b) Of the five options selected by 20 or more respondents, four had less than a third of respondents currently using the prescribed management (Table 5.90). For HK6 however, 91% of those selecting this option were currently complying with the prescription; this result would be expected, as the option is for the maintenance of species-rich semi- natural grassland. Only for HK7 had some appropriate management been undertaken in the past. Again this would be expected as this option is for the restoration of species-rich semi-natural grassland; if the grassland had been present in the past then presumably at least some of the desired farming practices had also been undertaken at that time. Table 5.90 Proportion of respondents using the management required for the five most popular options, in the past.

n Current <5 years 5-15 years Never HF12 24 33 0 0 67 HF13 21 19 0 0 81 HK6 22 91 0 0 9 HK7 47 28 2 2 68 HR6 20 20 0 0 80

Management if option not chosen (QC1c). Even if not selected, 86% of those choosing HK6 would still carry out the required management practices (Table 5.91). As this option is for the maintenance of grassland it is likely that many of the correct management practices are already being undertaken and would continue to be done even without entry into the HLS scheme. Only 19% of respondents (all previous agreement holders) selecting HF13 however, would undertake the required management without choosing this option. This option requires plots of at least 2 ha to be left uncropped and it is probable that few farmers would take land out of cultivation without wanting compensation for loss of production. Table 5.91 Proportion of respondents for the five most popular options who would have carried out the management despite not choosing the option.

% yes n HF12 33 24 HF13 19 21 HK6 86 22 HK7 32 47 HR6 20 20

Effects of option on the business (QC1d) Overall, 68 options were cited as having some effect on business. Nine respondents mentioned HK7 (Table 5.92). For this option, business might be affected by changes in

75 stocking levels and timings of field operations. However, another 22 respondents felt that this option would make no difference. For the other four most popular options, only low numbers of respondents perceived any effect on business, with some making comments about the loss of production but others mentioning financial benefits. Table 5.92 Number of respondents perceiving an effect on business.

None Some n n HF12 10 3 HF13 5 3 HK6 13 3 HK7 22 9 HR6 9 4

Payment rates (QC1e). For the five most popular options the majority of respondents felt that payments were about right (Table 5.93). Only HF12 had no respondents saying that they perceived payments as being too generous and also that the payments were irrelevant. For options HF13 and HK6, 5% of respondents said that the payments were too low, this rose to approximately 14% for the other three options. Table 5.93 Perceived levels of payment for the five most popular option choices.

Generous About Too low Irrelevant Not known right n % % % % % HF12 24 0 88 13 0 0 HF13 21 19 67 5 10 0 HK6 22 18 64 5 9 5 HK7 47 6 68 13 9 4 HR6 20 15 65 15 5 0

Continuation of management (QC1f) For HF12 and HK6, over two thirds of those doing these options would continue with the required management (Table 5.94). The high proportion of those who would continue the management required for HK6 corresponds with the results from QC1c, with farmers maintaining their semi-natural grassland. The reasons for continuing with the management for HF12 are less clear. Possibly farmers would continue to manage these bird seed plots having gone to the trouble to establish them, especially if they are situated on less valuable land, or if they were seen to be valuable to game birds. Option HF13 had less than a third of respondents stating that they would continue with the option management if they left the scheme. This option requires taking some land out of cultivation, with a potential loss of yield and profit, so it is more likely that the farmer would return the plots to cropping if he left the scheme. HR6 is a supplement for small fields and respondents would cease to receive this if they left the scheme. However the loss of this payment could influence how farmers managed these small fields, with them choosing to

76 carry out cheaper or easier but possibly less environmentally beneficial forms of management. Table 5.94 Proportion of respondents who would continue with option management even if they left HLS.

% not n % yes known HF12 24 67 4 HF13 21 29 5 HK6 22 68 0 HK7 47 47 4 HR6 8 38 0

FEP features not adopted – non-chosen options (QC1g).

Table 5.95 Features identified in the FEP of targeting statement that are not included in the HLS agreement.

All No previous Previous respondents agreement agreement n n n EB11 1 0 1 HB12 1 0 1 HC10 1 1 0 HC20 2 0 2 HD10 1 1 0 HD11 2 1 1 HD3 1 1 0 HD7 1 1 0 HE10 1 1 0 HF7 1 1 0 HF15 1 0 1 HK6 1 0 1 HK8 2 1 1 HK9 2 0 2 HK18 1 0 1 HL4 1 0 1 HL8 1 0 1 HL9 1 0 1 HN1 1 0 1 HN8 1 0 1 HN9 1 0 1 HQ1 1 0 1 HQ3 1 0 1 HR7 1 0 1 HR 2 1 1 HTB 2 0 2 PH 1 0 1 SCP 1 0 1 SCR 1 0 1 TN 1 1 0 W 1 0 1

77 WR 1 0 1

78

APPENDIX 5.2 HLS OPTION AND CAPITAL ITEM CODES AND PAYMENT RATES

Option Code Long Description Units Payment (£) HB12 Maintenance of hedgerows of very high environmental value 100m 27.00 HC05 Ancient trees in arable fields tree 25.00 HC06 Ancient trees in intensively-managed grass fields tree 25.00 HC07 Maintenance of woodland ha 100.00 HC08 Restoration of woodland ha 100.00 HC09 Creation of woodland in the LFA ha 200.00 HC10 Creation of woodland outside of the LFA ha 315.00 HC11 Woodland livestock exclusion supplement ha 100.00 HC12 Maintenance of wood pasture and parkland ha 180.00 HC13 Restoration of wood pasture and parkland ha 180.00 HC14 Creation of wood pasture ha 180.00 HC15 Maintenance of successional areas and scrub ha 100.00 HC16 Restoration of successional areas and scrub ha 100.00 HC17 Creation of successional areas and scrub ha 100.00 HC18 Maintenance of high value traditional orchards ha 250.00 HC19 Maintenance of traditional orchards in production ha 95.00 HC20 Restoration of traditional orchards ha 250.00 HC21 Creation of traditional orchards ha 190.00 HD01 Maintenance of weatherproof traditional farm buildings m2 2.00 HD06 Crop establishment by direct drilling (non-rotational) ha 70.00 HD07 Arable reversion by natural regeneration ha 500.00 HD08 Maintaining high water levels to protect archaeology ha 240.00 HD09 Maintenance of designed/engineered water bodies ha 295.00 HD10 Maintenance of traditional water meadows ha 350.00 HD11 Restoration of traditional water meadows ha 350.00 HE10 Floristically enhanced grass margin ha 485.00 Enhanced wild bird seed mix plots (rotational or non- HF12 rotational) ha 475.00 Fallow plots for ground-nesting birds (rotational or non- HF13 rotational) ha 360.00 Unharvested, fertiliser-free conservation headlands HF14 (rotational) ha 440.00 Reduced herbicide, cereal crop management preceding HF15 overwintered stubble and a spring crop (rotational) ha 195.00 Cultivated fallow plots or margins for arable flora as an HF16 enhanced set-aside option (rotational or non-rotational) ha 80.00

79 Fallow plots for ground-nesting birds as an enhanced set- HF17 aside option (rotational or non-rotational) ha 80.00 Reduced herbicide, cereal crop management preceding HF18 enhanced set-aside (rotational) ha 140.00 Unharvested, fertiliser-free conservation headlands HF19 preceding enhanced set-aside (rotational) ha 400.00 Cultivated fallow plots or margins for arable flora (rotational HF20 or non-rotational) ha 440.00 Fodder crop management to retain or re-create an arable HG06 mosaic (rotational) ha 150.00 Low input spring cereal to retain or re-create an arable HG07 mosaic ha 250.00 Arable reversion to unfertilised grassland to prevent erosion HJ03 or run-off ha 280.00 Arable reversion to grassland with low fertiliser input to HJ04 prevent erosion or run-off ha 210.00 HJ05 In field grass areas to prevent erosion or run-off ha 350.00 Preventing erosion or run-off from intensively managed HJ06 improved grassland ha 280.00 Seasonal livestock removal on grassland with no input HJ07 restriction ha 40.00 HJ08 Nil fertiliser supplement ha 55.00 HE11 Enhanced strips for target species on intensive grassland ha 590.00 HK06 Maintenance of species-rich, semi-natural grassland ha 200.00 HK05 Mixed stocking option (extended to LFAs) ha 8.00 HK07 Restoration of species-rich, semi-natural grassland ha 200.00 HK08 Creation of species-rich, semi-natural grassland ha 280.00 HK09 Maintenance of wet grassland for breeding waders ha 335.00 Maintenance of wet grassland for wintering waders and HK10 wildfowl ha 255.00 HK11 Restoration of wet grassland for breeding waders. ha 335.00 Restoration of wet grassland for wintering waders and HK12 wildfowl ha 255.00 HK13 Creation of wet grassland for breeding waders ha 355.00 HK14 Creation of wet grassland for wintering waders and wildfowl ha 285.00 Maintenance of semi-improved or rough grassland for target HK15 species. ha 130.00 Restoration of semi-improved or rough grassland for target HK16 species. ha 130.00 Creation of semi-improved or rough grassland for target HK17 species ha 210.00 HK18 Haymaking ha 75.00 HK19 Raised water levels ha 80.00 HQ13 Inundation grassland ha 85.00

80 HL07 Maintenance of rough grazing for birds ha 80.00 HL08 Restoration of rough grazing for birds ha 80.00 HL09 Maintenance of moorland ha 40.00 HL10 Restoration of moorland ha 40.00 HL11 Creation of upland heathland ha 60.00 Management of heather, gorse and grass by burning, cutting HL12 or swiping ha 7.00 HL13 Moorland re-wetting ha 10.00 HL15 Seasonal livestock exclusion ha 10.00 HL16 Shepherding ha 5.00 HN01 Linear and open access base payment agmt/year 350.00 HN02 Permissive open access ha 41.00 HN03 Permissive footpath access 100m 45.00 HN04 Permissive bridleway / cycle path access 100m 90.00 HN05 Access for people with reduced mobility 100m 100.00 HN06 Upgrading access for cyclists/horses 100m 90.00 HN07 Upgrading access for people with reduced mobility 100m 105.00 HN08 Educational access - base payment agmt. 500.00 HN09 Educational access - payment per visit visit 100.00 HO01 Maintenance of lowland heathland ha 200 HO02 Restoration of lowland heathland on neglected sites ha 200 HO03 Restoration of forestry areas to lowland heathland ha 200 Creation of lowland heathland from arable or improved HO04 grassland ha 450 HO05 Creation of lowland heathland on worked mineral sites ha 150 HP01 Maintenance of sand dunes ha 140.00 HP02 Restoration of sand dune systems ha 140.00 Creation of coastal vegetated shingle and sand dunes on HP03 arable land ha 320.00 Creation of coastal vegetated shingle and sand dune on HP04 grassland ha 200.00 HP05 Maintenance of coastal saltmarsh ha 30.00 HP06 Restoration of coastal saltmarsh ha 30.00 HP07 Creation of inter-tidal and saline habitat on arable land ha 700.00 HP08 Creation of inter-tidal and saline habitat on grassland ha 500.00 Creation of inter-tidal and saline habitats by unmanaged HP09 breach or regular inundation ha 150.00 HP10 Extensive grazing on saltmarsh ha 70.00 HP11 Saltmarsh livestock exclusion ha 40.00 HQ01 Maintenance of ponds of high wildlife value < 100 sq m pond 90.00

81 HQ02 Maintenance of ponds of high wildlife value > 100 sq m pond 180.00 HQ03 Maintenance of reedbeds ha 60.00 HQ04 Restoration of reedbeds ha 60.00 HQ05 Creation of reedbeds ha 380.00 HQ06 Maintenance of fen ha 60.00 HQ07 Restoration of fen ha 60.00 HQ08 Creation of fen ha 380.00 HQ09 Maintenance of lowland raised bog ha 150.00 HQ10 Restoration of lowland raised bog ha 150.00 HQ11 Wetland cutting ha 350.00 HQ12 Wetland grazing ha 200.00 HR01 Supplement for cattle grazing ha 35.00 HR02 Native breeds at risk supplement ha 70.00 HR04 Supplement for control of invasive plant species ha 60.00 HR05 Bracken control supplement ha 35.00 HR06 Supplement for small fields ha 35.00 HR07 Supplement for difficult sites ha 50.00 HR08 Supplement for group applications ha 10.00

CAPITAL ITEMS Payment (£ Code Long Description Unit or % of cost) Hedgerow restoration includes laying, coppicing and gapping HR up m 5.00 PH Hedgerow planting - new hedges m 5.00 HF Hedgerow supplement - removal of old fence lines m 0.60 HSC Hedgerow supplement - substantial pre- work m 2.40 HSL Hedgerow supplement - top binding and/or staking m 2.40 W New stone walls m 52.00 WR Stone wall restoration m 16.00 WRS Stone wall supplement - stone from holding m 6.00 WRQ Stone wall supplement - stone from quarry m 30.00 WRD Stone wall supplement - difficult sites m 7.00 TW Stone wall supplement - top wiring m 1.80 BR Stone-faced hedgebank repair m 16.00 BS Stone-faced hedgebank restoration m 34.00 ER Earth bank restoration m 3.00 ERC Casting up supplement - hedgebank options m 1.20 DR Ditch, dyke and rhine restoration m 2.90

82 FSB Sheep fencing - newly restored boundary m 1.80 FSH Sheep Fencing m 1.80 FW Post and wire fencing m 1.20 FWB Post and wire fencing - newly restored boundary m 1.20 FD Deer fencing m 4.00 FR Rabbit fencing supplement m 1.50 FRB Rabbit fencing supplement - newly restored hedges m 1.50 FPE Permanent electric fencing m 1.20 FDS Fencing supplement - difficult sites m 2.50 FHT High tensile fencing m 1.25 TR Spiral rabbit guards each 0.20 TSP Planting tree and shrub/ whips and transplants each 1.60 TT Tree tube and stake each 0.50 STT Planting standard parkland/hedgerow tree each 7.50 TP Parkland tree guard (post and rail/wire) each 64.00 TGS Parkland tree guard (welded steel) each 106.00 MT/SF Planting fruit trees each 17.00 TO Orchard tree guard (tube and mesh) each 3.30 TOF Orchard Tree Guard (post and rail) each 36.00 FP Orchard tree pruning each 17.00 CBT Coppicing bankside trees each 29.00 TS1 Tree surgery minor to include minor pollarding each 43.00 TS2 Tree surgery major to include major pollarding each 89.00 TRE Tree removal m3 25.00 GBC Grip blocking drainage channels m2 3.40 WDC Creation of ditches (rhines and dykes) m2 3.60 WGC Creation of gutters m2 1.90 S1 Soil bund each 149.00 C Culvert each 153.00 S2 Timber sluice each 314.00 S3 Brick, stone or concrete sluice each 960.00 SCR Scrape creation - first 100m sq m2 1.40 SCP Scrape creation > 100m sq m2 0.90 WST Silt trap provision 60% of costs WWP Wind pumps for water level measures 80% of costs WDI Drove improvement 50% of costs WLB Ligger and bridge provision each 46.00 WPS Construction of water penning structures 80% of costs

83 PC Pond creation - first 100 sq m m2 3.00 PCP Pond creation > 100 sq m m2 1.00 PR Pond restoration - first 100 sq m m2 2.10 PRP Pond restoration > 100 sq m m3 0.80 GS Native seed mix 100% of costs Major preparatory work for heathland re-creation or LHX restoration 100% of costs CDB Cattle drinking bay each 119.00 CCG Cattle grid each 538.00 WS Water supply m 2.00 WT Water trough each 85.00 CLH Livestock handling facilities 60% of costs SS Scrub management - Base Payment agmt. 76.00 SA Scrub management < 25% cover ha 228.00 SB Scrub management 25% - 75% cover ha 376.00 SC Scrub management > 75% cover ha 583.00 BMB Mechanical Bracken Control - Base Payment agmt. 106.00 BMA Mechanical Bracken Control - Area Payment ha 48.00 BCB Chemical Bracken Control - Base Payment agmt. 61.00 BCA Chemical Bracken Control - Area Payment ha 112.00 BDS Difficult site supplement for bracken & scrub control ha 7.00 GF Wooden field gate each 149.00 LSP Stone gate post each 96.00 E Removal of eyesore each 120.00 LWW Wooden wings for gates each 70.00 OH1 Otter holt - log construction each 108.00 OH2 Otter holt - concrete pipe & chamber construction each 203.00 SBB Bat/Bird box each 28.00 SBS Bird strike markers each 1.50 SSM Small mammal boxes each 10.00 SBG Badger gates each 27.00 RPD Cross drains under farm tracks each 139.00 RPG Relocation of gates each 136.00 Up to 100% HAP Historical & archaeological feature protection of costs Up to 80% of HTB Restoration of historic buildings costs No Set OES Special Projects Payment PAH Professional help with an Implementation Plan each 400.00

84 PPP Obtaining planning permission for new ponds, cattle grids each 180.00 CP Hard standing for car park m2 13.00 ADC Hard surface for disabled path m2 15.00 GB Bridle gate each 220.00 GK Kissing gate each 245.00 GD Kissing gate for disabled access each 290.00 ADG Dog gate each 35.00 ST Timber stile each 100.00 LS Ladder stile each 125.00 WSS Step-over stile in stone wall each 115.00 WST Step-through stile in stone wall each 85.00 FB Footbridge each 315.00 B Bench each 115.00 TN Help to prepare Teacher's Info Pack each 490.00

85