The role of English agri-environment schemes in managing geological SSSIs

• The impact of CS, through capital item FM1 (management of geodiversity features and other broader vegetation management options) which might have positive impacts on managing and conserving geological features on SSSIs.
• Whether there have been any negative impacts of CS on managing and conserving geological features on SSSIs.
• Whether certain options have had positive or negative impacts on geological features.
• Why uptake of capital item FM1 has been low.

The evaluation used a mixed methodology, including before-and-after comparisons, interviews with land managers and surveys to assess the effectiveness of the ES and CS schemes in managing geological SSSIs. Aerial imagery was used to monitor changes in vegetation and site conditions over time, particularly in how well these interventions contributed to the conservation of geological features, while spatial analysis helped map the uptake of AES options and assess their impact, whether positive, negative or mixed.

The main data sources used included aerial and satellite imagery, which provided visual data on changes in site conditions. Surveys and interviews with land managers offered insights into the management decisions and their awareness of geological SSSIs. GIS datasets and official CS documents also supported the evaluation by mapping the location of geological sites and the relevant conservation efforts.

The evaluation focused on analysing AES options and their effectiveness in meeting conservation goals.

Imprecision in the mapping of option uptake makesit difficult to determine whether identified options applied to the geological interest in question.

The main findings of the evaluation indicate that AES generally have limited success in improving the management of geological SSSIs. Based on aerial imagery and surveys, a significant number of sites showed no change, with many sites experiencing a deterioration in condition, especially concerning vegetation growth, rather than improvements. This suggests that AES schemes, particularly CS and ES, are not sufficiently contributing to the positive management of these nationally important sites.

The study found a weak correlation between the type of AES options implemented and the actual observed outcomes. For example, options such as the cattle grazing supplement (SP6) produced mixed results, with both positive and negative impacts observed. Similar findings were reported for bracken control and hedgerow management options, further illustrating the inconsistency in outcomes across different intervention types.

Several factors contributed to these results, including low uptake of certain AES options specifically designed for managing geological features, such as FM1. Additionally, land manager awareness of the unique needs of geological sites was often low, and the imprecision in mapping option uptake made it difficult to confirm the effectiveness of certain options in managing these sites.

In summary, the evaluation concluded that AES schemes are generally not making a positive impact on the management of geological SSSIs, with many sites showing signs of decline. The analysis highlighted the need for improved targeting of these schemes and better awareness and training for land managers.