Draft
VI farmer and biodiversity and environment surveys 2011
Background
In 2011, the VI Biodiversity Sub-Group organised two farmer surveys in order to gain a
better understanding farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and environmental issues and to
explore reasons why some agri-measures were more popular than others. The first survey
was conducted on a number of stands at the 2011 Cereals event with additional interviews
being conducted at some events hosted by FWAG. The second survey was an on line
survey of farmers organised by the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Questions differed
slightly between surveys reflecting national differences.
1. Result of face to face interviews at Cereals and FWAG events
130 respondents: average farm size 420 ha, 83% in agri-environment scheme (AES) , 67%
undertake voluntary management, 39% use an agent to complete AES applications.
Percentages are only given below where sample sizes were at least 25.
88% agree that environmental management and wildlife conservation are important parts of
their farm management, 3% disagreed.
Reasons for participating in agri-environment scheme
Asked the main reason why they were in an agri-environment scheme, 50% said to benefit
wildlife or the environment, 37% said money and 8% said it suited the business (usually to
make use of unproductive land). Some specified a personal interest in wildlife (12%) and
others felt a responsibility to help the environment (8%). Reasons given for not being in an
agri-environment scheme were: does not suit farm, do not like schemes, not gotten around
to it yet and money, in that order. High crop prices, paperwork, loss of productive land, few
natural features, tenancy issues and inflexibility were all specifically listed as barriers.
Perceptions of changes in bird populations
Only 7% believed birds such as lapwings and skylarks had declined in their area, whereas
52% thought they had increased. 53% of farmers who gave a reason why they thought birds
had increased believed this was because of their environmental management, 25% because
of their farming system and 11% because of predator control. Specific reasons given were
wild bird seed mixes, game cover, skylark plots, spring cropping, an old-fashioned grain
store, sugar beet, wild bird seed mix, rotational grazing, grass margins, a new wetland,
fallows, a beetle bank and small fields. Of the few who thought these species had declined,
reasons given were split between changes in agriculture (fewer spring crops and more
pesticides) and other factors (predation, disturbance and housing development). In total,
only 3% believed birds such as lapwings and skylarks had declined, and that the cause was
due to changes in farming.
Perception of changes in bird populations
53% believed insects such as butterflies and bumblebees have increased and 8% thought
they had declined. A massive 86% of farmers who gave a reason why they thought insects
had increased thought it was because of their environmental management, especially citing
nectar flower mixtures and wild flower margins. Other specific mentions were set-aside,
margins, bird cover crops, tall hedges, beetle banks and ICM. Very few thought insects had
declined, and less than half of those who gave a reason gave one relating to changes in
farming. Insecticides and neonicotinoids got a specific mention, and one thought that
rotational hedgerow management had been detrimental.
Perception of changes in pesticide levels in water
48% believed that pesticide levels in watercourses had gone down, and only one respondent
thought they had gone up (citing more use of glyphoste). Of those who gave a reason for
pesticide levels going down, 51% put it down to buffer strips, and 45% put it down to other
forms of farm or environmental management, including fewer sprays and more careful
spraying operations. Low-drift nozzles got one mention.
Perception of changes in soil compaction
40% believed that levels of soil compaction had gone down, whilst 9% believed it had gone
up. Half of the very small sample size who gave a reason for increased soil compaction said
it was due to changes in cultivations or heavier machinery. Flat-lifting, direct-drilling and
horse paddocks got specific mentions. 87% who gave a reason for declines in soil
compaction said it was due to changes in management, the remainder stating it was weather
conditions. Floatation tyres, sub-soiling, working when ground dry, uncropped headlands,
organic management and direct-drilling all got specific mentions.
Most popular environmental measures
When asked whether they are doing, or would consider doing a list of the most
environmentally-beneficial measures, the percentage saying yes were, in declining order,
buffer strips next to watercourses (93%), wild bird seed mixtures (81%), wildflower margins
(71%), over-wintered stubble (56%), winter cover crops (42%)*, nectar flower mixtures
(41%), lapwing plots (37%), skylark plots (37%) in-field grass areas to prevent erosion (28%)
and uncropped cultivated margins for rare arable plants (25%). *However, it is clear from the
reasons given, that many mistook ‘winter cover crops’ for game cover, so popularity of this
measure was probably over-estimated.
Reasons for adopting/not adopting AES measures
The main reasons given for considering wild bird seed mixtures were shooting interest
(40%), wildlife benefits (34%) and payment (15%). Putting them in unproductive areas was
mentioned. The main reasons for not creating them were that they do not need points, weed
problems and difficulty of establishment. Thistles, volunteers, canary grass and
contamination of seed crops got specific mentions. Fewer gave reasons for selection or not
of nectar flower mixtures, but exactly the same reasons topped the lists, except that
wildlife benefits outscored game interest as a reason for adopting them. One specifically
mentioned benefits to pollinators, and another mentioned the benefit of clover for partridges.
The lower popularity of this option might reflect lower benefits for shooting. However, wild
flower margins were more popular, yet wildlife benefit was cited as the main incentive
(48%), followed by payment (16%) and ‘easy to do’ (12%). Benefits to the landscape and
public image of farming were also mentioned. The main reasons given for not creating these
were cost and management difficulty, respectively. Ingress into the crop got a specific
mention, and one believed that they were costly to establish on fertile soils. Existence of
grass margins were cited as barriers to establishing both nectar flower mixtures and wild
flower margins.
The very few who said why they might consider uncropped cultivated margins for rare
arable plants cited payment, wildlife and game benefits. The main reasons for not
considering them were unsuitable land (generally heavy soil) and lack of awareness of any
rare plants that would benefit, with the barriers cited for other measures above getting fewer
mentions. Problems with wild oats and brome got a specific mention. One stated that they
must be away from public footpaths, implying that easy access to field margins by members
of the public would be a disincentive.
Main incentives for leaving over-wintered stubbles unsprayed until mid-February were
suitability to rotation i.e. because they have spring crops (27%), wildlife benefits (25%) and
payment (24%), with the remainder made up of various agronomic and management
benefits, notably weed control, with blackgrass control getting several mentions. The main
barriers to adopting this measure were unsuitability to rotation e.g. heavy soil and winter
cropping (75%) and timing of cultivations i.e. inability to delay spring cultivations until
February to successfully establish spring crops (19%). Economics and the need to spray
were other reasons given.
The very few who said they might consider skylark plots cited payment, wildlife benefits
and ‘easy to do’ as their reasons. The variety of reasons given for not considering skylark
plots was the most diverse of any measure. ‘Already having lots of skylarks’ was the most
popular (20%), followed by hassle (15%), not believing they work (11%), not suited to
rotation (11%), fields too small (9%), weed problems (8%), low payment (7%) and skylarks
have alternative nesting habitats (7%). Specific examples cited were problems for the sprayman, concerns about blackgrass, wheat bulb fly, and incompatible with crops grown for
seed. The fact that 38% stated that they would not do them because they do not believe the
evidence that either skylarks are declining, that the plots will help or that they have
alternative nesting habitat is a stark example of the management consequences of disbelief
in the evidence concerning farmland bird declines and their causes.
The few who said they might consider fallow plots for lapwings cited payments and wildlife
benefits, but a few said to use unproductive areas and corners, which would be unsuitable
locations and therefore illustrates a lack of understanding from a small sample of the
audience. A wide range of reasons were given for not adopting this measure. The main one
was that there was no need to benefit the lapwings on their farm, either because lapwings
nest elsewhere on the farm, they have plenty of lapwings or they have few or no lapwings.
Interesting that both ‘plenty’ and ‘too few’ lapwings were both given as reasons not to adopt
this measure! Other reasons given included hassle and fields being too small for them.
Buffer strips next to watercourses were the most popular of the measures listed. The only
reasons given for not considering them were lack of watercourses and not using pesticides.
The main incentives given were helping meet regulation requirements (43%, with 30%
specifically mentioning LERAPs, 7% mentioning cross compliance and 3% mentioning NVZ),
reducing diffuse pollution (30%, which might be partly synonymous with meeting regulatory
requirements?) and AES payment (11%).
Very few gave reasons for adopting in-field grass areas, and these were evenly split
between AES payment and to stop soil erosion. The reasons for not adopting this measure
were lack of erosion problems (77%, including 16% who specifically said land was flat or
lacked steep enough slopes and 3% said sloping land was on heavy soils) causing
operational complications (10%) and use of grass margins instead (7%). One used a beetle
bank instead, and one was unwilling to take land out of root crop production.
The fact that 8 out of 13 reasons given for adopting winter cover crops was as game cover,
suggests that this term is misunderstood. Other positive reasons given were green manure
(5), grazing (3), improving soil structure (1) and AES payment (1). There were also few
reasons given for not adopting winter cover crops of which all winter cropping (6/13) and ‘no
issues’ (3) were main ones. Heavy soil, management difficulty, compromising spring crops
and cost each got one mention.
2. Results of online survey conducted in Scotland
The online survey was organised by NFUS who sent it to those members (c.2000) with an
email address. A total of 91 responses were received. Arable farming was the predominant
activity for 41% of respondents, followed by mixed farming. Farm size was over 200 ha for
most farms with 71% owning their own land.
A large majority (81%) agreed that environment management and wildlife conservation are
important parts of their farm management.
Perception of changes in bird and insect populations
The majority of respondents thought that the numbers of birds on the farm had increased
(55%) or remained the same (25%). Perceptions about the number of insects such
bumblebees or butterflies was less optimistic with 33% thinking their numbers had increased
against 20% who thought insects had decreased (and 33% unchanged).
Perception of changes in pesticide use
Asked on the level of pesticide use on the farm [note: different question from England
survey], respondents said it had not changed (46%) or had decreased (37%). A majority
(57%) did not think that problems of soil compaction had increased.
Agri-environment scheme participation
A majority (59%) were not in an agri-environment scheme, while 64% said they had created
environmental measures outside of any schemes. Amongst those in an agri-environment
scheme, 78% used an agent or an agronomist to complete their agri-environment
application.
The reasons for being part of an agri-environment scheme included predominantly the
income/financial viability, a desire to protect wildlife and the environment, the optimisation of
land use and the benefits agri-environment measures can provide to the productive side of
the farm. Some also mentioned the positive image it gives of farmers.
The administrative burden seemed to be the main reason for not being part of an agrienvironment scheme. The other reason was that measures were not readily applicable to
their farm operation.
Reasons for adopting/not adopting AES measures
Respondents could choose from a drop down menu the reasons for adopting/not adopting
individual measures. The list of agri-environment measures which respondents already
implement or would like to implement were per order of preference and out of all
respondents: management of water margins (65%), grass margins and beetlebanks (54%),
creation/management of species-rich grassland (49%), wild bird seed mix (45%), retention of
winter stubbles (33%), conservation headlands (23%), natural regeneration after cereals
(12%), arable reversion to grassland (12%) and biodiversity cropping on in-bye (11%).
Overall, the presence of the measure on the farm or its applicability was the main reason for
wanting or not wanting to adopt a measure across all measures.
There were differences between measures for some of the reasons selected for adopting or
not adopting a measure, beyond applicability or presence of the measure:







Water margins were also considered easy to manage/implement. Those who
considered them also did it for the environment. Among the comparatively few who did
not like the measure, complexity was mentioned as a reason for no adoption.
Beetlebanks were also valued for the practical benefits they could bring to the farm
and their role in supporting wildlife and the environment. The secondary reason for not
adopting was that it takes land out of production.
Creation/management of species rich grassland was highlighted as easy to manage
while taking land of production was considered the main secondary obstacle.
Enjoying the wildlife and shooting benefits were highlighted as main other reasons to
implement wild bird seed mix, whilst again taking land out of production was the
secondary reason for no adoption
The main other reason for adopting/not adopting retention of winter stubbles related to
ease of management, though views on this issue seem to be mixed.
Enjoying wildlife was another reason cited for adopting conservation headlands,
though it is minor compared with applicability. There were concerns about threats to
crop quality from having conservation headlands, management was considered too
complicated and the measure not cost effective.
Natural regeneration after cereals, arable reversion to grassland and biodiversity
cropping on in bye were not popular. Reasons for no adoption were predominantly lack
of applicability followed by a reluctance to take land out production. These are similar
reasons as for some other more popular measures, so it is not clear from the survey
results what the motivations are.
The complexity of schemes or a dislike of schemes in general was only selected by few as a
reason for no adoption. A few more mentioned that the rewards did not reflect the costs.
None had to implement measures as part of a quality assurance protocol except water
margins. The image of farming was not identified as an important reason to adopt agrienvironment measures and few seemed concerned about public access and people using
these features for recreation.
General comments
Respondents also offered more general comments. A number of respondents expressed
their pleasure in seeing wildlife around the farm and valued protecting wildlife and the
environment. Several mentioned that they or others create measures outside schemes. It
was suggested to have more measures for wildlife under Land Management Options (LMOs)
to encourage uptake.
The lack of flexibility in the way measures can be implemented was also mentioned as an
issue by several respondents, in reference to the applicability to the farm and the measure’s
potential. It was felt that farmers should be given more autonomy to manage agrienvironment measures. Several mentioned the role of mixed farming systems in
encouraging wildlife. There were some concerns that agri-environment measures resulted in
the development and spread of weeds and diseases.