Academic Advisory Panel - greening scheme: measure options for permanent pasture - advisory note

This advisory note has been prepared by the Academic Advisory Panel (AAP) in response to a request from ARIOB to establish the current value of greening, including options for permanent pasture and the policy need to evaluate potential changes to existing rules for permanent pastures. This note summarises discussion held during the AAP meeting on the 5 August 2024. The Scottish Government officials presented options for permanent pastures to the Panel. The discussion focussed on general payment requirements, and the possible impacts of proposed changes on climate and environment. The Panel also provided suggestions of options for permanent pastures that should be considered in the future.

Key summary of the discussion

Key considerations for implementing greening options for permanent pastures include specificity of measures, outcome uncertainty, practical feasibility and permanence of benefits. Potential measures should be land-specific, with distinct rules for grassland, arable land, and (potentially in the future) rough grazing to avoid unintended consequences such as the loss of ecological benefits on existing Ecological Focus Area (EFA) arable land. It is difficult to predict and quantify the potential outcomes of changes to greening measures due to varying impacts at different scales e.g., farm-level or national-level. Any proposed changes must consider practical challenges to the adoption of new measures. The sustainability of environmental benefits from land-use changes is crucial. Frequent changes between grassland and arable land use are unlikely to yield benefits. To achieve positive outcomes, greening measures must include long-term commitments in the guidelines (e.g., 5-10 years). Regularly alternating between grassland and arable land use could result in the loss of soil carbon, nutrients, deterioration in soil structure, and a reduction in biodiversity, both above and below ground.

The ‘species-rich pastures’ option has potential to bring a wider range of environmental and livestock benefits than the ‘low-input grassland’ option. The guidance provided for the low-input grassland option should reconsider inclusion of several crucial elements, such as adoption of restrictions to herbicide use or permitting regenerative principles such as the use of high quality manures to enhance soil health. Additionally, this option would benefit from revising the current guidelines on field margins, sward height and diversity, and/or considering guidelines for grazing stocking density guidelines.

Options that should be considered for future implementation are wader-grazed grassland, water margins, in-field trees and hedgerow management, rushes control, enhancing species diversity through wildflower establishment, invasive species control, and inclusion of plant species that may potentially reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants. A tiered funding approach could be considered for measures that fit within the tiered framework. Moving some existing Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS) type measures into EFA / Tier 2-Enhanced would help normalise these actions and provide improved outcomes across a greater area of land than the current scheme offers.

Key discussion points:

1. Greening payments

The Agriculture Reform Programme aims to deliver accessible payments to farmers who engage in activities that benefit nature and climate. Legacy IT systems mean that these payments probably must be delivered through existing EFA delivery infrastructure, meaning implementation of new options will be subjected to some operational and technical constraints.

The following points should be considered when introducing changes to greening options for permanent pastures, whether now or in the future:

• permanence of potential benefits resulting from proposed changes should be taken under consideration. Evidence from the scientific literature shows that changes from semi-natural land to improved grassland, and from pasture to arable in general lead to a loss of soil organic carbon. Alternating land use on regular bases may result in loss of soil carbon, nutrients and structure, and reduction in biodiversity benefits created by the new management practice. For that reason, greening measures must include long-term commitments in the guidelines (e.g., 5-10 years). Additionally, given the uncertainties around the amount of additional carbon that can be sequestered in the future, and the ease with which carbon gains can be lost, it is essential that the carbon stores in existing permanent grasslands, moorlands, peatlands, wetlands, and woodlands are protected – see Science Note on Soil Carbon
• relevance and targeting of measures would benefit from re-defining of the current three regions within the Basic Payments Scheme into distinct arable, grassland and rough grazing regions. Enabling the mixing of arable and pasture greening options for EFA may lead some producers to opt to comply with their full greening requirements through grazing options that could result in the removal of some existing in-field or arable margins and decline in soil health. This has potential to lose some benefits from arable land EFAs and bring unintended consequences. For example, allowing overall % EFA area obligations for a farm to be met entirely by enrolling only grassland rather than a % of arable risks forgoing existing benefits of arable-only EFA enrolment. Further, such an option could also lead to renting in of grassland to simply meet EFA options (similar to ‘naked acres’)
• it is not possible to definitively quantify the potential outcomes of proposed changes to greening measures. Assessment of options are subjective professional judgements drawing on various sources of information and limited quantitative data. Outcomes are subject to multiple interactions, and will differ if considered at different scales, such as the land parcel scale, the business scale, regional scale, or Scotland scale. That is, choice of system boundary matters since subsequent adjustments at the farm-level and national-level (or beyond) may amplify or dampen impacts
• practicality of proposed changes to hedge cutting should be sense-checked. Whilst cutting hedges in the autumn or winter may have benefits for causing less damage to birds, etc., allowing for cutting only in January and February, might not be possible due to waterlogging of the ground, risk of compaction when the soil would be at or above field capacity, or potential damage to hedges when cut and exposed to temperatures below -5oC. There may be benefits from changing cutting eligibility to once every 2 or 3 years, thereby embedding some current AECS principles into Tier 2 options
• new options that are less labour intensive may be of interest to farmers who are planning for semi-retirement. Undertaking more environmentally friendly actions may be an attractive option if it aligns with reducing the labour-intensive nature of the work if it has no detrimental effect on the farm’s income

2. Proposed changes to greening options for permanent pasture and their potential impacts on climate and environment

Low-input grassland option – comments on proposed changes:

• application of high-quality bulky organic manures, which is not currently allowed within this option, could be beneficial from the soil health and biodiversity perspective (and support regenerative farming principles). Fertilisers that contain animal or plant-based material can help prevent loss of organic matter and sustain soil fertility and soil structure. Soil organic matter is good for soil health as it can increase soil stability, drainage, and nutrient retention. Fertile, well structured soils are helpful in promoting soil biodiversity, with benefits for nutrient cycling and resistance to pathogens and disease. However, it remains important to know the nutrient value of bulky organic manures that are applied and consider potential negative effects of introducing pollution by heavy metals, plastics, antibiotics or pathogens. Manure quality is more important to soil biodiversity than manure quantity and therefore, agricultural practices that protect and promote soil biodiversity with the application of appropriate, high-quality manure or biostimulant preparations based on manure, could accelerate the move towards more sustainable food production systems
• a blanket ban of liming permanent pastures should be revised. Liming, as a soil conditioner, should be situational and particular to each soil environment and context, to maintain an optimal pH for sustained function. The need for liming should be considered in the context of nutrient supply, grass productivity, enhancing biodiversity and structure, and with recognition that resulting changes in carbon may differ across soil types and contexts
• restrictions for use of herbicides on low input grassland should be considered. Rather than a blanket ban on pesticide use, some specificity may be helpful. Herbicides should be used only to prevent spread of pernicious weeds or invasive non-native species. Good grazing and mechanical or manual methods can help to manage weeds in most grassland. Incorrect spraying practice of herbicides can result in damage to wildflowers, and consequently, having negative impact on above-and below-ground biodiversity
• field margins should be at least 2-4 meters, and ideally over 10 meters wide. Research conducted in Dumfries & Galloway and Ayrshire in the 1990s and 2000s inferred that Grassland Conservation Headlands (field margins left uncut or ungrazed in intensively managed grassland fields) perform better when established next to an existing hedge, woodland, ditch or water margin rather than a post and wire fence as this allows existing vegetation and invertebrates in the boundary feature to colonise into the headland. The degree of biodiversity benefit provided by a diverse field margin depends largely on the species pool in the surrounding landscape. Low diversity/heterogeneity in the region often means that adding new habitat has less of an effect than where margins are established in areas of high existing biodiversity, so it is important to consider the existing species pool in a landscape when choosing field margins. Options to provide higher EFA weighting for contiguous ‘stacked’ EFA measures (e.g., EFA Hedges plus EFA Margins) should be assessed for future adoption
• trying to establish optimal grazing stock densities and grazing intensity, whilst beneficial to prevent damage to the grass sward or soil compaction, is extremely difficult. Livestock units are out of date and should be revised. Different livestock densities would be required for different seasons of the year, and over multiple years. Management guidance would have to consider underlying soil types, grassland species composition, duration of grazing and rest periods
• the additional best practice guidance for sward height should be revised. To make the best use of grass for environmental gains and long-term productivity it should not be overgrazed. The appropriate levels of grass height vary across the year. Guidance should align with guidance issued by the QMS: QMS | QMS Launches New Version of Popular Sward Stick

Herb- and legume-rich pastures option – comments on proposed changes:

• species-rich pastures are expected to have some biodiversity benefits. They can support healthy populations of insects, birds, amphibians, and many other species as well as enhancing below-ground biodiversity and soil carbon. Multi-species sward grassland can cope with different water levels providing resistance to drought. It can also increase water infiltration and uptake, decreasing the likelihood of flooding
• animal health benefits can be also obtained by maintaining species-rich pastures. More varied herbage in a grass sward can be beneficial to grazing livestock as it provides them with a greater variety of vitamins, minerals, and nutrients. It can also improve ruminant weight gains contributing to reduced GHG emissions intensity. However, realizing such benefits requires appropriate grazing management

3. Other greening options for permanent pasture for future consideration.

• wader grazed grassland. Wader grazed grassland can be introduced as per AECS guidance
• water margins in grassland and management practices that allow wet areas to remain wet could bring quick and easy benefits for biodiversity. This can be achieved by ensuring that ditches have water courses throughout the year. Ditches should also have a shallow slope for ease of access to wildlife. Another option is to fence off water margins, excluding stock, to improve water quality and improve soil structure. Fenced water margins can be also beneficial to cattle health preventing animals from becoming infected with water borne diseases from infected animals upstream. Option can be introduced as per AECS guidance
• presence of in-field trees in grassland areas can contribute to the ecological focus areas commitment. Trees can contribute to improvement of livestock welfare, soil structure, water quality, and wildlife habitats. In-field trees should be maintained as long as they pose no risk to people, livestock, or wildlife
• management and restoration of hedgerows. This option has potential to provide biodiversity benefits. It can be introduced as per AECS guidance
• control of rushes in permanent pasture. Well managed rushes can maintain the grazing value of the fields, improve hay yield, provide breeding sites and shelter for wading birds, and can help improve soil and water management.
• establish wildflowers, unharvested crops, or long-rooted species. This can be carried out on white land, farm road and track verges (provided they do not cause a visibility issue to traffic) and along old railways etc. Wildflower-rich grassland can take many forms depending on soil type and geographical location. It can support a wide range of native plants and provide valuable food for many species of birds, invertebrates, and mammals
• invasive species control, including Bracken. Some native species such as ragwort, broad-leaved dock, or field thistle can become over-abundant in some areas and have negative effect on livestock. Control of those species should not target total elimination but should achieve levels which have no detrimental effect on farming management. This option can be added as the recommended management practice for herb and legume rich pastures option
• habitat-rich ‘ineligible features’ - Consideration may need to be given to the extent of current ineligible features in the cropped / grassland area that may be considered beneficial for the environment. Currently these habitats are excluded from consideration, yet some farms / crofts will have higher densities of such features than others, with no recognition of the ecosystem services they deliver
• promote the cultivation of extensive grassland, which is allowed to develop into a multispecies vegetation. These grasslands enhance biodiversity by supporting various plant species, field birds, soil organisms, and improving living conditions for insects. They also help reduce erosion and minimise leaching of nitrogen and phosphorus particles into water courses, thereby improving soil quality. Compared to the cultivation of commodity crops, these grasslands require less use of plant protection products. Additionally, grass cover binds carbon to the soil, contributing to carbon storage
• some existing AECS type measures should be moved to future EFA / Tier 2 – Enhanced or Tier 3 – Elective Payments. This would help to normalise these actions and provide improve outcomes across greater area of land than the current scheme offers

Tier 2 funding should be allowed to establish greening measures such as:

• small scale tree planting and wildflowers where there is a capital spend
• fencing of water margins in grassland
• wildlife friendly mowing and topping

Tier 3 funding can be used in Corncrake and Wader areas for additional payments when grass cutting is done at later dates.