Agri-environment management measures for Aspen woodlands

The Biodiversity and Management of Aspen woodlands: Proceedings of a one-day conference held in Kingussie, Scotland, on 25th May 2001

Alison McKnight
Cairngorms Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, Morlich House, Grantown on Spey, Morayshire, PH26 3HG. Email: alison.mcknight@fwag.org.uk

Background to agri-environment schemes in Scotland

Opportunities for the management of farm woodlands through agri-environment measures have been available in parts of Scotland for more than 10 years. For example, in the Badenoch and Strathspey area under the Cairngorm Straths Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Scheme. The ESA was the first, and until this year, the only agri-environment scheme to address farm woodland management. ESAs were introduced to Scotland in two phases between 1987 and 1994 to 10 designated areas, selected for their conservation importance. The Cairngorms Straths ESA was introduced in 1994 and came to a close (for new applications) at the end of 2000. In these six years, we have seen almost 85% farmer uptake into the scheme, which equates to nearly 300 farm plans.

Under the Habitat Scheme, a short-lived programme introduced in the early 90s to Scotland, targeting limited farm habitats, no woodland management options existed. Similarly, under the Countryside Premium Scheme (CPS), a competitive scheme which ran from 1994-1997, and was available to farmers outwith ESAs, farm woodlands were not addressed, but were encouraged to be managed under Forestry Commission (FC) schemes in all cases.

In 2001 we have seen the arrival of the Rural Stewardship Scheme (RSS), which now replaces all previous schemes (for new applications) across the length of Scotland. The RSS contains some limited measures for farm woodland management, but only where a current FC woodland grant cannot be applied. Like the CPS, the scheme is again competitive amongst farmers, who have to reach a particular points 'score' on selected priorities before they can enter. Existing ESAs which are managing woodland well will continue to operate for their full 10-year term, then their owners will be encouraged to apply for RSS.

Management measures and their effectiveness

The ESA has been a very effective way of protecting and enhancing small to medium sized native and semi-natural farm woodlands where an area (usually less than 15ha and often below 5ha) is managed for biodiversity and regeneration.

For an ESA application, a farm is assessed for habitat quality and importance, including an assessment of regeneration, floral diversity, bird life etc. within farm woodlands. Management requirements are then proposed for the general protection and enhancement of the feature and applied under the scheme. This will usually involve restricting the grazing pressure to a level that meets the objectives, installing stock and rabbit fencing where necessary. Stock access will then be controlled for the duration of the plan (five years) introducing limited grazing, (preferably cattle, at no more than 1 stock/ha in the late summer/autumn). One sheep is treated as the equivalent to one cow (in grazing density calculations) since sheep are more selective grazers, and can damage seedlings quickly.

Dead wood must remain in the woodland, and no felling is permitted unless to benefit the regeneration process. In return the farmer receives a management payment of £100/ha/yr plus a 'tier one' general incentive/good environmental practice payment of £15/ha/yr (in-bye ground) or £1.50/ha/yr (rough grazing).

The greatest advantage of the ESA was guarantee of acceptance of a plan, provided a well balanced and effective application was made. There are approximately 2,800 participants in ESA schemes across Scotland, covering around 780,000ha. Of the 1,500 participants in the CPS (approx. figure), it is unknown how many were advised to enter into WGS at the same time.

While only a small proportion of the overall agri-environment expenditure is likely to be channelled into woodland management, the combined expenditure under the ESAs and CPS in Scotland has risen from £7.93m in 1997/98 to £13.76m in 1999/2000. More recent figures are as yet unknown; however, this is proving grossly inadequate to offer all farms the opportunity to enter environmental plans where desired. This we know from the poor success rate of CPS annual applications, which has hovered between 30% and 40% due to the limited budget and not the quality of applications.

The new RSS has yet to be fully explored for woodland management potential. It is hoped that this will prove flexible enough to realistically manage farm woodlands, particularly on tenant farms. Similarly, a conservation audit is undertaken to assess existing habitats, and proposals are made to enhance and create a range of habitats and features.

For the wider farm habitats, the RSS offers many improved management options and prescriptions, but generally has greater conditions for a reduced payment. This has been the net effect of the European Rural Development Regulation, which has introduced as standard, both General Environmental Conditions and a Standard of Good Farming Practice within the agri-environment programme. Previously (under ESA) this had been encouraged through the small incentive payment of 'tier one'.

Grazing is rather more limited under RSS than ESA, with a low-level allowance being given only once every three years, to aid ground conditions for regeneration, (special cases can however be proposed). Additional management requirements include the removal of rhododendron where present, the removal of exotics if threatening to the woodland interest, and the non-removal of dead wood, which includes leaving standing dead wood.

Unfortunately, due to the RSS being competitive across Scotland, applications must qualify with a high-ranking score, where the 'pass figure' will be wholly dependent upon the annual number of applications and the Scottish Executive agri-environment budget. This of course gives little guarantee for many valuable habitats, including Aspen woodland to be managed.

Management for Aspen in agri-environment

Often Aspen will be found on farms in small clumps within birch woodland, or indeed as a few isolated trees, and as we know the saplings appear to attract grazing quickly. Having heard the requirements of the many Aspen-related species, it is important that we try to apply the scheme prescription appropriately to the needs of Aspen and these associated species.

For example, limited grazing may be less appropriate in the first stages of Aspen regeneration, where saplings are particularly palatable to stock, but could be an important tool once initial growth has occurred to thin regeneration, or indeed meet the habitat conditions required by, for example, the Dark-bordered beauty moth.

We have also heard that the nationally rare Aspen hoverfly depends on dead wood of a particular age, and often where a limb is dying/dead but is attached to the root plate, this can potentially introduce detrimental fungus to the tree. This is where a variation on the RSS prescription 'standing dead wood must not be felled' may be required. Fortunately, agri-environment schemes will permit such variations where particular conservation importance exists.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while FC grants undoubtedly play the greatest role in the management of Scottish woodlands, I believe that small farm woodlands, particularly on tenant farms, still require an avenue to encourage management to improve woodland structures for biodiversity and future shelter, as has been shown through the ESA. This requires compensation for loss of use, and importantly the ability to retain these woods within the agricultural unit.

Agri-environment schemes run for 10 years, with a five-year break clause, thus can be easily accommodated within a tenancy or farming partnership and in the general short to mid-term planning of a farm. This term can also contribute significantly to the longevity and condition of our farm woodlands.

In this first year of RSS applications, I have been delighted to find that in working closely with the FC's Northern Conservancy, we have found a reasonably meaningful understanding where a farm woodland would not be 'appropriate' for WGS. This however needs greater clarifications on a national scale for advisers.

Finally, I hope that for tenant farmers in particular, we will also see the continued inclusion of woodland management within the RSS, and a significantly increased budget in future for the benefit of Aspen and other flora and fauna of all farm woodlands in Scotland.

Return to The Biodiversity and Management of Aspen Woodlands

For further information about aspen, please go to the Aspen Information Resource