Assessing the Effectiveness and Cultural Value of Countryside Stewardship of England

This final report assesses the effectiveness and cultural value of Countryside Stewardship options HS1 (The maintenance of weatherproof TFBs) and HS8 (The maintenance of weatherproof TFBs in remote areas). It covers the programming period from the launch of Countryside Stewardship in 2016, replacing the Environmental Stewardship (ES) that was launched in 2005, to its transition to Environmental Land Management in 2024. The evaluation period spans from 2005 to 2022, with a particular focus on data collected through fieldwork conducted between January and April 2022.

The aim of the project is to assess the effectiveness of Countryside Stewardship (CS) and Environmental Stewardship (ES) weatherproof Traditional Farm Building (TFB) maintenance options. The emphasis is on agreement holder engagement with the CS scheme, the most recent Agri-Environment Scheme (AES). To achieve this aim, eight objectives have been identified:

1. To map and analyse the uptake of CS and ES maintenance options.
2. Consider the potential of the options to deliver health and well-being benefits, including access to cultural and recreational opportunities rooted in community.
3. Determine the accessibility of maintained buildings as part of understanding the wider benefits of the options.
4. Determine if the most appropriate buildings have been selected.
5. Assess the impacts of the wildlife and maintenance protocols on agreement holder actions and behaviour.
6. Investigate farmer attitudes to determine whether better maintenance has enhanced views on and appreciation of the buildings, their position and role in the local landscape, and the craft skills required to repair them.
7. Consider the ‘value for money’ of the options for the farmer and in relation to the wider natural and cultural capital benefits delivered.
8. Outputs will be used to adapt the options and promote them within an ELM outcome framework to ensure they deliver across the beauty, heritage and engagement (BHE) agenda of the 25YEP.

The methodological framework was designed to meet the eight project objectives, structured around seven key tasks. Task 1 involved a desk-based assessment of the uptake of Countryside Stewardship (CS) and Environmental Stewardship (ES) options.

Task 2 focused on selecting a sample of 150 live CS and ES agreements for fieldwork, aimed at understanding the effectiveness of CS TFB maintenance options.

In Task 3, eight fieldworkers conducted surveys that involved interviewing agreement holders and inspecting buildings covered by the TFB maintenance options.

Task 4 continued the building surveys, defining a TFB as a pre-1940 structure used in agriculture and built with traditional materials.

Task 5 produced five in-depth and five lighter-touch case studies, showcasing key processes and outcomes from the project.

Task 6 synthesised the findings from the previous tasks to evaluate the overall effectiveness and value for money of the TFB maintenance options.

Finally, Task 7 focused on producing the project's outputs, including a comprehensive final report, data provision to Natural England, a webinar, a project summary, and an infographic. These outputs aim to communicate the project's findings and support future work.

The findings of the report were influenced by several limitations and challenges.

The absence of a unique identifying number for each record and varying accuracy in the geospatial coordinates for each building range made it impractical to monitor the transition of TFB ranges from ES to CS.

In addition, the farm visit sample over-represented agreements with more than one TFB maintenance option record, potentially skewing results. The COVID-19 pandemic also disrupted fieldwork, leading to cancelled interviews and visits.

Other factors included lower uptake of ES agreements, which limited comparative analysis. The timing of the evaluation may have been premature to assess long-term impacts, especially on wildlife and building maintenance.

The project revealed several key findings regarding Traditional Farm Buildings (TFBs). These structures are the most numerous historic features in the countryside, and the Countryside Stewardship (CS) and Environmental Stewardship (ES) maintenance options proved popular among agreement holders. The spatial distribution of uptake mirrored the nature of the national TFB stock, and the options contributed positively to the preservation and enhancement of these buildings, supporting various ecosystem services.

Interviews and surveys demonstrated that the TFB maintenance options delivered benefits to both the public and agreement holders. The buildings were highly visible and accessible, but trade-offs between use intensity and wildlife capacity were noted.

Agreement holders valued their buildings for personal, instrumental, and intrinsic reasons, influencing their decisions to engage in the schemes. While they were generally aware of the ecosystem services provided by their TFBs, there was some confusion regarding the concept of 'public goods'.

The introduction of tools such as the Building Wildlife Assessment Form (BWAF) and Building Maintenance Plan and Log (BMPL) had mixed success. The wildlife assessment increased awareness of TFBs' benefits for wildlife, but the BMPL was only partially successful, with less than half of agreement holders keeping it up to date.

Despite most buildings being in good condition, some had long-term structural issues requiring substantial repairs. Payment levels were often insufficient to cover maintenance costs, and there was strong support for reintroducing capital options for restoration. Additionally, inconsistencies in the organisation of TFB-related documentation and datasets hindered effective monitoring and evaluation of the schemes' impacts.