ES options not always those that benefit the environment the best

ENVIRONMENTAL stewardship management options favoured by farmers are not necessarily those that offer the greatest benefits for the environment, a review of the first two years has revealed.

The review, conducted by the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), involved almost 500 farmers and sought to evaluate their opinion of the scheme, its impact on their farms and the reasoning behind the choice of management option.

Commenting specifically on the effects of environmental stewardship on arable weeds, Nigel Boatman, of CSL, said the key options in terms of the conservation of rare arable plants were EF9/HF9 (conservation headlands in cereal fields); EH10/HF10 (conservation headlands in cereal fields with no fertiliser or manure applied; EF11/HF11 (6m uncropped margins on arable land); HF14 (unharvested, fertiliser-free conservation headlands); HF19 (unharvested, fertiliser-free conservation headlands preceding set-aside) and HF20 (cultivated fallow plots or margins for arable flora).