Open Letter to Defra: The Cost of Herbal Leys

(Photo: Gail Caddy, Pasture for Life certified Hill Top Farm, Yorkshire)

On Wednesday 9th October we sent an open letter to Defra Director General for Strategy and Water David Hill and Farming and Countryside Programme Director Janet Hughes. In collaboration with 30 farming groups and organisations, we urge a review of the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) action for Herbal Leys. In raising broader awareness of the risks of the inappropriate application of herbal leys, we hope to incentivise action and recommend the creation of an additional action to mitigate any unintended consequences.

OUR LETTER

Dear Mr Hill and Ms Hughes,

SFI action Herbal Leys “CSAM3”

The SFI Herbal Leys option is welcomed for the many benefits these leys can bring to livestock production and health, soil health and biodiversity, as well as improving nutrient use efficiency. Herbal leys can help farmers produce high-yielding, high-quality forage which can improve feed conversion efficiency and livestock health, whilst reducing reliance on inorganic fertiliser usage, imported feeds, and improving drought resilience and improving/maintaining soil health.

Well-implemented and in the right context, herbal leys deliver significant benefits for the wider environment and food production.

However, the scale of uptake of the Herbal Leys option suggests strongly that it is being used far beyond the settings for which it was intended.

Herbal leys accounted for around a quarter of the funding applied for in SFI 2023 agreements NAO Farming & Countryside Programme report (June 2024). There are risks attached to its use in the wrong sites, in the wrong way or at the wrong scale. These include: damage to valuable habitats and species; lost opportunities for habitat restoration (for example, if semi-improved grassland suitable for restoration is converted); reduced regional diversity and variety of grasslands; opportunity costs of poor returns for farmers or nature; poor value for public money.

CSAM3 (Herbal leys) is currently available for PG01 (permanent grassland), in addition to arable and temporary grass. The eligibility of permanent grassland for this supplement carries the risk of incentivising the conversion and loss of existing high nature value grasslands, or grasslands with restoration potential.

The importance of species-rich grassland is well-evidenced, for example in this briefing by the National Landscape Association. Semi-improved grasslands “have the potential to be restored to more species-rich grassland and priority habitat and at low cost. Adding fertiliser or removing native grasses through re-seeding and ploughing, effectively removes this potential for restoration.”

Increasingly, many organisations are seeing examples of good quality semi-natural grasslands being ploughed or sprayed in order to enter into the herbal ley option.

In addition, ploughing and reseeding permanent improved grassland in some settings and conditions can have more negative impacts than positive benefits due to disruption of locally adapted species assemblages, and damage to soil structure and health. The cultivation of permanent pasture is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.

If implemented improperly or in the wrong context, herbal leys will not properly establish, flourish or persist. This represents a poor return on investment, potentially while delivering negative environmental outcomes.

Our recommendations are as follows:

Implement an additional SFI option for moderately species-rich, semi-improved permanent pasture to increase species diversity, and to provide an alternative funding pathway for those considering establishing herbal leys.
Establish a more streamlined ‘endorsement’ process from Natural England if entering PG01 grassland into CSAM3 to ensure it is not being implemented on good quality semi-improved grassland, which could be enhanced to enter into GRH6.
Improve the clarity and consistency of advice and guidance given to farmers via advisors and relevant organisations and bodies including; clarifying that they should seek advice for CSAM3 vs other profitable management options as they may be eligible for CSAM3 without needing to cultivate/reseed, or that (depending on farm context) increasing the productivity of their grassland may be forbidden under the 2017 EIA.
Similarly, prioritise supporting farmers through advice and knowledge exchange opportunities to maximise existing species diversity latent in the seedbank and locality through suitable mechanisms (e.g. scarifying, bale grazing) including ongoing grazing management (e.g. longer rest periods, adaptive grazing strategies).
Provide guidance and support to establish herbal leys in suitable areas; e.g., which mixes are appropriate per locality; guidance on timing, and long-term management including grazing management; access to local provenance seeds.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the above recommendations with you and to input in developing strategies to deliver positive outcomes through SFI.

Yours Sincerely,

Pasture for Life – National Sheep Association – Sustain – Food, Farming and Countryside Commission – RSPB – Plantlife – The Wildlife Trusts – Soil Association – Sustainable Food Trust – Sustainable Soils Alliance – Organic Research Centre – Wildlife and Countryside Link – Organic Farmers & Growers CIC – Buglife – Nature Friendly Farming Network – The Farmer Network – The Floodplain Meadows Partnership – National Landscapes Association – Bumblebee Conservation Trust – Butterfly Conservation – Habitat Aid Ltd. – High Weald National Landscape – Partnership – People’s Trust for Endangered Species – River Action – Lisa Norton UKCEH – Ellie Roberts, Forage Crop Specialist, NIAB – Campaign for National Parks – Herefordshire Meadows – Regenerate Outcomes – The Rivers Trusts – Innovation for Agriculture

HOW WE CAME TO THE 5 RECOMMENDATIONS

At Pasture for Life we celebrate diverse swards and the benefits they can deliver for biodiversity, the wider environment, and animal health. However, disproportionately high payment rates for establishing herbal leys, combined with low barriers to entry, and unclear communications have led to concerns among the farming community and conservation organisations about the potential for a well-intended funding action to lead to perverse outcomes.

The Herbal Leys action is only intended to be implemented on either arable land or improved permanent grassland. However several signatories to the letter have voiced concerns over the ability of Natural England to adequately distinguish between semi-improved and improved grasslands, with the concern being that farmers with good quality semi-improved grassland (which could be suitable for restoration into species-rich grassland and may be quite species-rich already) are being incentivised to fertilise or otherwise increase the productivity of their grassland to become eligible for the Herbal leys action. This completely undermines the potential of these sites for restoration.

Many farmers are considering or converting fields that may even already be eligible for the CSAM3 payment rate. Some tenant farmers have reported that their landlords are finding it more profitable to turn areas over to herbal leys entirely, rather than continue their grazing licences. Herbal leys require skills and knowledge to ensure that they establish and successfully thrive over their lifespan; we have concerns that some farmers may be investing in options that may not deliver the outcomes they are intended to, and may actually have more negative consequences than if the fields were left to permanent pasture.

As a collective, we discussed a range of potential recommendations to avert ecological harm. The first and most commonly suggested was to make permanent grasslands as a category ineligible for the action entirely. But after much discussion with a range of stakeholders, it was felt that this risked unfairly excluding farmers whose land may genuinely benefit and that with correct guidance and support, they may deliver positive outcomes from this action. Similarly, the age of pasture was not necessarily considered to always correlate with restoration potential or species richness, while area limits were thought to unfairly exclude farmers who may be good candidates but were slow to take up the action.

Our primary recommendation is to implement a new payment rate for moderately diverse grassland at a more comparable level to the Herbal Leys payment rate of £352/ha, to provide an alternative funding pathway for those who may be suitable candidates for restoration. We also ultimately agreed that implementing some barrier to entry for farmers looking to enter permanent grassland into the action was the best compromise; this would allow farmers who are prime candidates for the action to still engage with it while serving to limit the amount of unsuitable grassland entering the scheme. However, many farmers report difficulties accessing endorsement from Natural England, and so we encourage them to look at ways to streamline the process to enable efficient decision-making by land managers, such as allowing other bodies to provide this service.

Ultimately, outcomes are dictated by the quality of decision-making and management over the long term. This is why our further recommendations surround providing greater clarity and consistency in the advice and support given to farmers, with greater emphasis provided on alternative funding pathways, and low-input approaches to increasing diversity. We also strongly suggest better ongoing guidance regarding long-term grazing management strategies of grassland systems to ensure that they are best placed to deliver positive outcomes for productivity, biodiversity, and the wider environment.

We would welcome the opportunity to engage with DEFRA on this issue to help ensure excellent environmental and agricultural outcomes and return on public investment.