*THE DEADLINE FOR THIS HAS NOW PASSED*

 

10th September 2023

Protecting hedgerows on agricultural land: our views on Defra’s consultation

 

NWG has become aware of this DEFRA consultation through https://wildjustice.org.uk.

In their views of, and response to, the consultation (available: https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/rspb-england/posts/hedgeconsult) the RSPB inform us that:

“In a fragmented agricultural landscape, hedgerows provide essential habitat, food and connectivity for nature, and a vital carbon store with benefits for farm businesses and people alike. In the context of the nature and climate crises and stagnant agricultural emissions, planting and protecting hedgerows are some of the best tools available to mitigate these crises. However, from 1st January 2024, hedgerows on agricultural land will lose key protections and become vulnerable to removal and damage, with potentially dire consequences for species that depend upon them.

Currently, hedgerows are protected by The Hedgerows Regulations 1997, but only if they meet a narrow definition of an ‘important’ hedge. On agricultural land, GAEC 7a has protected hedgerows since 2003 but will end from January, leaving many important hedgerows vulnerable. Defra is consulting on what should replace this regulation, calling into question the no cutting period which protects nesting birds and the two-meter buffer around hedgerows. With resources for wildlife on most farmland already scarce, it is vital these protections are at least retained.”

The Nature Watch Group has considered RSPB’s published views, and we also have our own views on hedgerows, stemming from member expertise and close proximity to the many hedgerows which are a prominent feature in our rural landscape, and vital to local biodiversity. We have submitted our considered response to DEFRA, but it is important that others who care about hedgerows also respond to the consultation. Our thoughts on some of the consultation questions are set out below, which we hope you find helpful in writing your own response. Feel free to copy and paste, and alter as you wish.

You can read the consultation document and answer the questions on the Defra website. The consultation closes on Wednesday 20 September, so please ensure you have made your submission by then.

9) Should we maintain the requirement for buffer strips that are 2m from the centre of the hedgerow?

Yes, 2m buffer strips must be maintained, and DEFRA should consider the evidence for extending them to 4m. Buffers safeguard and enhance the structure of hedgerows in short and long term, by protecting them from disturbance from ploughing and spraying of pesticides and herbicides. These wildlife-rich buffer strips are also an important habitat in their own right for many species, and along with hedges, create habitat connectivity across agricultural landscapes.

Hedgerows are a significant feature of the area where our CIO is active and many show a poor state under current protection, as do many buffer strips. There appears to be inadequate protection currently, resulting in a detrimental affect on biodiversity within this area.

We strongly advocate the strengthening of existing protections in order to align with DEFRA's stated intent to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity. Nature is in crisis - swift and robust increase of protection is desperately required.

As some hedgerow planting and maintenance is paid for under government’s Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes, protecting the quality of hedgerows also protects the value of the public’s investment in them.

 

10) If we maintain the 2m buffer strip requirement, should we also replicate an exemption for field sizes under 2 hectares?

No, in the context of the current nature and climate crises, no hedgerows should be jeopardised. Field size has no necessary correlation to the natural capital and importance of a hedgerow. Smaller fields will still gain the benefits of pollinators, natural pest control and shade for livestock from healthy hedgerows, helping to save money on inputs and boosting crop yields.

With a view to reversing the decline of biodiversity, and in order to mitigate against agricultural run-off, soil erosion, and to aid the prevention of flooding, Nature Watch Group advocate reinstalling hedgerows where they have previously been removed: The woodland trust estimates that 118,000 miles of hedgerows have disappeared since 1950, due largely to the intensification of agriculture. (1)

(1): Available: https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/habitats/hedgerows/#:~:text=Around%20118%2C000%20miles%20of%20hedgerows,largely%20to%20[Accessed 10/9/23]

 

11) If we maintain the 2m buffer strip requirement, should we also replicate an exemption for hedgerows under 5 years old?

No, we do not support this exemption as the impacts of herbicide and pesticide spraying and root disturbance will detrimentally affect the establishment, growth and future structure of new hedgerows. This could reduce their future value for wildlife.

Within the area of our CIO we have seen a sharp decline of biodiversity, including ground nesting birds and amphibians, apparently due to the lack of area not disturbed by agriculture, and the cocktail of chemicals which are applied. The amount and area of enforced and protected hedgerows and buffer strips desperately need to be increased if we are to have any chance of halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity.

 

12) Should we maintain a no cutting period to ensure hedgerows are managed in a way which protects important bird species?

Yes, we welcome DEFRA’s commitment to ensure hedge management safeguards wildlife and supports biodiversity. Between 1970 and 2018, most farmland birds that use hedges declined in numbers. 40 million birds have vanished from the UK’s skies in the last half-century (2) and the loss of hedges and woodland, loss of undisturbed buffer strips and changes to hedgerow maintenance techniques have had had a significant effect on this loss.

It is critical that the no cutting period remains, to allow threatened farmland bird populations to stabilise and increase, and to protect other threatened wildlife, including threatened mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects and other invertebrates.

There should be no gap in regulation after January, as this would jeopardise the 2024 nesting season; DEFRA must work quickly to bring in replacement safeguards from January.

Nature Watch Group advocates protections being increased, as large swaths of our parish are currently given derogation for early annual cutting - directly impacting the ability for hedgerow birds, and the other creatures which would utilise buffer strips and hedgerows, to successfully breed - especially important to preserve a long no-cutting season, as breeding seasons are increasingly impacted by climate change. We are witnessing an alarming loss of biodiversity due to this practice.

Further to this, traditional rotational cutting in this area has decreased, leading to a loss of the hedgerow fruits and berries which offer vital food supplies to wildlife, as most hedgerow plants only grow fruits and nuts on shoots older than one year. Further to this, summer time and annual flailing leads to low density hedges, with many gaps where disease has entered the mechanically stressed plants, which impacts the protection traditionally offered to breeding birds from predators, as well as leading to hedgerows which offer less protection form severe weather conditions - again more important to preserve to mitigate some of the inevitable effects of climate change.

DEFRA should incentivise wildlife-friendly hedgerow management through ELM, such as funding for three-year rotational cutting, hedge laying, double fencing and the creation of flower-rich, scrub-like habitat next to hedgerows.

(2) Available: https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/rspb-news-original/news/stories/revive-our-world-launch2/#:~:text=40%20million%20birds%20have%20vanished,habitat%20los[accessed 10/9/23)

 

13) Should the no cutting period remain as 1 March to 31 August, or be amended to an alternative?

 

End date extended beyond 31 August: We recommend that the no cutting period should be extended, from 1 March to 21 September. There is clear, longstanding evidence that farmland birds nest from March into September (ref. RSPB), and members of the Nature Watch Group have become aware that birds are extending their nesting season during summers of intense heat.

Our members have witnessed hedge cutting in September which has resulted in many young birds, not yet ready to fully fledge, being forced from safe habitat by flailing of hedges. Most nests are in the outer layers of hedges which are most vulnerable to cutting. Bringing forward the end date of the no cutting period would have a disproportionately negative impact on breeding success.

For several red-listed species, evidence demonstrates that late broods are disproportionately important for producing enough young to support populations. It is vital that this is considered if DEFRA is committed to halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity. Nesting habits are fluctuating in response to climate change, particularly for threatened farmland birds.

In 2022, Wood Pigeons, Barn Owls and Bullfinches had delayed nesting seasons, whilst Turtle Dove, Cirl Bunting and Wood Pigeon are known to routinely nest into September. DEFRA should consider evidence for extending the no cutting period to include 1 March to 21 September, to make sure regulations continue to be fit for purpose in a rapidly changing climate.

 

14) If we maintain a no cutting period, should we also replicate exemptions to the regulations?

Whilst exemptions relating to health and safety considerations should be replicated, others should not be. In particular, exemptions for sowing oil seed rape or temporary grassland during the no cutting period endanger nesting birds.

By planning and managing hedges on a three-year rotational basis, these crops can be sowed outside the no cutting period. Large swaths of our parish are currently given derogation for early annual cutting - directly impacting the ability for hedgerow birds, and the other creatures which would utilise buffer strips and hedgerows, to successfully breed - current derogation practices are having a hugely negative effect on biodiversity in our rural parish, where there is much intensive agriculture. We are witnessing an alarming loss of biodiversity due to this practice.

The decrease of traditional rotational cutting has led to a marked loss of the hedgerow fruits and berries which offer vital food supplies to wildlife, as most hedgerow plants only grow fruits and nuts on shoots older than one year. Further to this, summer time and annual flailing leads to low density hedges, with many gaps where disease has entered the mechanically stressed plants, which impacts the protection traditionally offered to breeding birds from predators , as well as leading to hedgerows which offer less protection from severe weather conditions - again more important to preserve, in order to mitigate some of the inevitable effects of climate change.

 

15) If you answered yes to the previous question, should there be a requirement to apply to the relevant authority for an exemption?

Yes, removing the need to apply for an exemption risks mass breaching of the regulations. It does not represent good value to weaken the current standard, when this is already an established process for farmers. Sadly, we are already witnessing that some people in our area are not able to self regulate when it comes to care for the natural world, with some deliberate and incidental destruction of breeding birds nests, and other ground and hedge-nesting mammals.  We fear that removing the need to apply for any kind of exemption would be a green light for many to prioritise personal profit  and/ or human convenience over wildlife care at this crucial time of biodiversity emergency.

 

16) Should we introduce a new exemption to the hedgerow management requirements for farms under 5 hectares?

No, this would make significant lengths of hedgerow vulnerable, including those funded by the government under ELM. DEFRA should not weaken the current standard that is met by many farmers. RSPB analysis shows that even a 10% loss of hedgerow coverage in England would result in the release of nearly 0.5 million tonnes of CO2e (MtCO2e) currently stored above and below ground.

Nature Watch Group would go further and suggest that an increase of hedgerows should be prioritised as an important tool in carbon capture and biodiversity gain. Particularly as estimates consider that 118,000 miles of hedgerows have disappeared since 1950, due largely to the intensification of agriculture. (1)

(1): Available: https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/habitats/hedgerows/#:~:text=Around%20118%2C000%20miles%20of%20hedgerows,largely%20to%20[Accessed 10/9/23]

 

17) If we amend the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 to include additional management measures, we will require an additional definition of what constitutes an important hedgerow for the proposed measures. Do you agree with the below definition of an ‘important hedgerow’ for hedgerow management activities only?

Yes, the definition of a hedge for regulations, which measures a specified length, as suggested, is a good idea, but should be in addition to and not replacing the existing definition, as shorter hedges may contain important animal habitat and biodiversity which most be protected. The removal of current regulations will inevitably lead to the lack of care for some important existing wildlife habitats.

 

18) Where should we focus our ambitions for future hedgerows policy?

Hedgerow policy is a crucial area for meeting key environmental targets, particularly government’s species abundance target to halt the decline in species populations by 2030 and increase them by 10% by 2042, and to reach net zero by 2050.

DEFRA should consider stronger cross-compliance measures in order to reverse the current decline in hedgerow health. Robust protective policy is of particular relevance in rural areas where hedgerows are an important, widespread and historic part of our landscape, many of which have suffered form the intensification of agriculture.

It is vital that DEFRA develops a second stage of broader protections for hedgerows and incentives for advanced hedgerow management within ELM. DEFRA should also provide good advice for farmers on planning long-term hedge management, including laying and trimming, on a three-year rotational basis, and if cross-compliance is ended, robustly fill other regulation gaps left by the end of cross compliance.

 

19) If we develop further protections, should we consider extending them to hedgerows outside of agricultural land?

Yes, extending protections to hedgerows outside agricultural land is a ‘no regrets’ step towards meeting biodiversity and carbon targets. This would create habitat and connectivity for a range of threatened wildlife. This would also have significant benefits for people: urban hedges provide important climate change mitigation in vulnerable areas by providing shade, aiding the removal of airborne pollutants, capturing rainfall to mitigate flooding and improving health and wellbeing. It is also important that all areas of society are actively part of inhibiting the climate and biodiversity emergency ... this burden should not fall solely on the shoulders of farmers.

 

Delivery questions

20) Do you agree stop notices should be introduced, prohibiting a person from continuing a harmful activity? Stop notices can be used on their own or in conjunction with a monetary penalty.

Yes. Stop notices would be a crucial tool in the protection of biodiversity and are much needed. The Nature Watch Group are aware of incidents where harmful activities have been knowingly carried out and there has been no way of preventing them.

 

21) Do you agree compliance notices should be introduced, requiring a non-compliant person to undertake certain actions to bring themselves back into compliance?

Yes. Compliance notices would be a valuable tool in deterring people from considering ecological and biodiversity damage.

 

22) Do you agree restoration notices should be introduced to rectify any harms resulting from non-compliance?

Yes. Restoration notices would be a crucial part of dissuading people form causing environmental and biodiversity harm.

 

23) Do you agree variable monetary penalties should be introduced, increasing in value relative to the severity of actual harm?

Yes. Strict monetary penalties, with a stated minimum, and no upper limit, increasing in value relative to the severity of harm, would be a valuable tool in persuading people to prevent harmful activity.

 

24) Do you agree fixed monetary penalties should be introduced, and used at the discretion of the regulator?

No. Fixed monetary penalties may just be seen as an acceptable absorbable business cost.