• Summary & Conclusion
• part 1
• part 2
• part 3
• part 4
• sitemap

THE STATE OF SCOTLAND'S FARMED ENVIRONMENT 2005

21. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA SCHEME AND COUNTRYSIDE PREMIUM SCHEME

Uptake

A major factor in determining whether or not a farmer entered the scheme was how well the scheme and its prescriptions fitted in with the current farm activities and management (Crabtree et al, 1999). When the scheme closed to new applicants in December 1999, two-thirds of the potential 4069 eligible holdings had entered the scheme (Table 21.3) and payments in that year totaled £10.4 million. Nearly 40% of participants applied in the final two years of the scheme but this figure was 61% in Shetland where informal discussions with landholders indicated that many people applied for the ESA scheme because they considered they would have a low chance of success in the competition for RSS funding.

Table 21.3 : ESA agreements in force in Scotland by 2000, numerically and as a proportion (%) of the number of eligible participants in each ESA. (Written answer to Parliamentary question SIW-21884, 29/01/02 )

ESA	No. of agreements	% of eligible participants
Breadalbane	166	86
Loch Lomond	51	51
Stewartry	203	53
Central Borders	143	84
Machairs of the Uists etc	407	85
Central Southern Uplands	297	77
Western Southern Uplands	183	46
Cairngorms Straths	158	84
Argyll Islands	367	82
Shetland Islands	724	54
Total	2703	66

Results of the monitoring carried out by the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology suggest that the land cover of farms that were entered into the scheme differed from non-entrants, perhaps reflecting differences in farm types. This is indicated by the different proportions of features in an ESA that were covered by at least the Tier 1 whole-farm prescriptions. For example, as shown in Table 21.4 below, in-scheme farms in the Argyll Islands contained 52% of the area of eligible herb-rich grasslands in the ESA but less than one-third the area of eligible wetlands, while in the Cairngorms Straths the situation was reversed with the percentage of wetlands being nearly three times that of herb-rich grasslands. The Breadalbane and Loch Lomond ESAs had the same measures and prescriptions but very different percentages of the woodland regeneration resource present on in-scheme farms.

The reasons for these differences are not clear. The assessment of the monitoring data did not identify a particular reason for these regional differences. It could be argued that in an ESA where a particular feature was scarce that there is stronger case for ensuring that higher percentage of that feature was entered into the scheme, but this pattern is generally not evident from the data in Table 21.4.

Table 21.4 : Regional variations in the percentage of the area of different key vegetation types that were covered by at least Tier 1 of the ESA scheme in 1997

ESA	Herb-rich grassland	Heather	Wetland	Woodland regeneration present
Argyll Is.	52	35	28	24
Breadalbane	34	33	39	67
Central Borders	51	0	50	None found
Cairngorm Straths	13	10	33	32
Loch Lomond	65	38	48	32
Machairs	Most*	no data	Most*	None found
Shetland Is.	6	5	39	None found
Southern Uplands	**	46	**	28
Stewartry	18	29	28	25
* exact proportions not calculable due to difficulty in identifying in/out land in complicated crofting areas ** included in broad moorland categories

Evaluation

The ESA concept enabled the targeting of areas where certain habitats and features were considered to be particularly at risk but, as stated in DEFRA (2002b), area targeting of ESAs was perceived as too narrow in the Scottish context and a scheme which procured environmental gain throughout the farmland of Scotland was seen as highly desirable. The special area concept underlying ESAs was never as credible in Scotland , where valued (or at risk) habitats and landscapes are not concentrated in specific localities, compared with England . However the ESA scheme provided a focus for the conservation of some nationally and internationally important sites which are more regionally concentrated (e.g. native pinewoods in Cairngorms Straths, machairs) and mandatory Tier 2 measures focused funding on what were perceived to be the habitats and features most at risk in each ESA.Tier 2 prescriptions did improve some habitats in some places, although this was not consistent throughout the ESAs.

The data provided by monitoring of the ESA scheme suggest that monitoring blanket prescriptions for Tier 2 sites were not appropriate to all of the wide range of vegetation types that constituted each key vegetation type in the different ESAs e.g. zero summer grazing was almost always prescribed for grasslands and wetlands but could be detrimental where species-richness was due to a history of continuous grazing. There was also a lack of flexibility and ‘tuning’ of Tier 2 prescriptions to local conditions e.g. dates for cutting/cultivation could have been more flexible to cater for annual and regional variations in weather which affect not only plant growth but also the timing of breeding of farmland wading birds. However experience suggests that such fine tuning would require relatively frequent site assessment, by individuals with the necessary expertise so that prescriptions could be adjusted as necessary. Few ESA sites were assessed by SEERAD staff more than once before the 5-year breakpoint in the agreements. Moreover, lack of ecological expertise local SEERAD staff to assess the value of Tier 2 sites and to sanction variations to prescribed management procedures are a commonly stated problem for site assessment and monitoring of site management.

In terms of socio-economic impacts, local employment should have increased, particularly for fencing and dyking contractors (although information is not readily available on how local the contractors were and whether the money remained within the ESA boundaries). Farmers regularly commented that the best part of the scheme was that they got their fencing paid for. The restoration of dykes also had benefits for controlling stock but had additional benefits for the landscape because dykes are characteristic of some ESAs. The scheme increased farm income and in several cases farmers/crofters stated that they could not have continued farming without that extra income.

On the other hand, the definitions of habitats were often stretched to their limits so that the maximum amount of land was entered into the scheme until the financial ceiling on an agreement was reached, and sites were commonly selected for the convenience or lack of value to the farmer, rather than for conservation reasons. Moreover, sites were often selected that had little or no potential for improvement, either because (a) they were extremely poor e.g. some heather regeneration areas with little heather that they could probably never be regenerated, (b) because they were already as good as they could be (e.g. some herb-rich grasslands). Adhering to Tier 1 prescriptions, worth up to £2000, required little or no change to management practices (Crabtree et al., 1999). Farmers were also adept at selecting from the prescription menu those activities that minimised changes to their farming practices (DEFRA, 2002a) which meant that the most appropriate sites for conservation were not always selected. Moreover, monitoring data suggest that larger estates tended not to enter the scheme: it seems likely that the income from Tier 1 payments did not adequately compensate for the obligations that would be applied across the whole estate.

Finally, sense of ownership is an important criterion for farmers to fully participate in voluntary schemes. Discussion with farmers during monitoring indicated that they could have received better information about the aims for individual sites entered into Tier 2. Similarly, farmers commonly said that they were unaware about possible variations to the prescriptions. As a result they often felt that they had no control over some land and this reduced their sense of ownership of the scheme.

SOURCES

• Crabtree, J.R ., Thorburn, A., Chalmers, N., Roberts, D. Wynn, G., Barron, N., Barraclough, F. and Macmillan, D. (1999). Socio-economic and agricultural impacts of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme in Scotland . Economic and Policies Series 6, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen .
• DEFRA (2002a). Farm incomes in the United Kingdom 2001-02. DEFRA: London
• DEFRA (2002b). Economic evaluation of agri-environment schemes. Report to DEFRA by Centre for Rural Economics Research, University of Cambridge & CJC Consulting, Oxford .
• SEERAD (2005a). The Administration of Common Agricultural Policy Schemes in Scotland Annual Report 2004. External Website
• SEERAD (2005b). Key Scottish Environment Statistics 2005: Land External Website.

Rural Stewardship Scheme >>

Updated: 23 January 2024

© The James Hutton Institute. All rights reserved.

Staff services