Management Impacts on Ecosystem Service Provision of

Landscape Elements: TWECOM Partner Perspectives

Sally Westaway

The Organic Research Centre

Management Impacts on Ecosystem Service Provision of Landscape

Elements: TWECOM Partner Perspectives

Landscape elements (LE) are individual components which make up the landscape including for

example, hills, trees and hedges. They have many functions and benefits including supporting

biodiversity, controlling erosion, buffering natural habitats from agricultural impacts and enhancing

aesthetic appeal. Both under and over-management pose a threat to LE and the delivery of their

environmental services. For LEs and their associated services to be maintained a certain level of

management is therefore required. As part of the Towards Eco-energetic Communities (TWECOM)

project partners were asked to feedback on the perceived impacts of LE management for biofuel on

different ecosystem services. For most TWECOM partners the main LE being considered are hedgerows

or lines of trees. Differences in the origins of these LEs and the management techniques used have

produced variation in the appearance and function of LEs between European countries and regions. Due

to this heterogeneous nature of LEs, before any consideration of impacts, it is important to identify

similarities and differences between the partner areas.

A Common History

In northern Europe woody landscape elements, such as hedgerows, share a common history.

Historically, hedgerows were primarily used as stock-proof features, marking boundaries between

properties, fields or agricultural units whilst also providing a source of food, fuel and shelter. Following

the First World War barbed wire was introduced to Europe from America and used as a fencing material,

replacing some European hedgerows as a boundary feature. Over a similar period traditional practices

such as coppicing and pollarding declined as oil and coal replaced wood as the primary source of energy

production in Western Europe. Rates of hedgerow removal were then further increased by agricultural

intensification during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Hedgerows were abandoned, removed or

neglected. With the exception of France, Britain and Ireland, many European countries were left with

few remaining hedgerow networks. In most TWECOM partner areas only fragmented hedgerow

networks remain with most in poor condition due to under or over management.

TWECOM Partners Overview

TWECOM is co-ordinated by RLLK, a regional landscape organisation in Belgium, and involves partners in

Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and the UK (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Location of partner areas in Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and the UK.

Inagro (Belgium): Inagro has more than 50 years work experience in the province of West-Flanders as

a centre for research and consultancy in agriculture. Inagro has been partner in several Interreg projects

and the latest is the Interreg IVb NWE project ARBOR, where pilots for multifunctional use of SRC were

installed. Based on the knowledge gathered in the ARBOR project farmers will be given advice on how to

implement these woody elements on their farm. Exchange of this knowledge will be also very useful in

other partner regions were similar goals are put forward. They are working with local farmers, land

owners and other stakeholders to build partnerships and develop the local biomass production chain

and improve the knowledge by demonstrations, advising and guiding. The development of a centre of

excellence for woody biomass at Inagro (where the whole chain is demonstrated from planting till

combustion) will be a very important tool in this. Also the pilots of SRC set up in ARBOR will be useful for

demonstration and further practical research.

BB Projects (Belgium): BB Projects is the organisation through which 'Boerenbond & Landelijke Gilden'

permanently delivers about 40 EU-funded projects. With a history of 150 years, Boerenbond is the

largest farmers organisation in Flanders. With its 17,000 agricultural and 70,000 rural residents as

members, it is continuously striving for economically, socially and ecologically sustainable agriculture in

Flanders and has broad community support. They have considerable experience in consultancy towards

farmers on the use of biomass heating systems and their network will be used to inform rural people of

the use of a local energy source.

ORC

Inagro

RLLK/ BB Projects

ZLTO

PUM

RLLK (Belgium): RLLK is an organization preserving landscape quality and biodiversity outside nature

reserves in Limburg, Belgium. They support municipalities, landowners, farmers and industries in

realizing landscape projects. RLLK has experience with ecological, social and cultural aspects of

landscape elements. With experience in leading European projects and connections with many relevant

stakeholder groups, RLLK have taken the role as lead partners in the TWECOM project along with BB

Projects.

ORC (UK): The Organic Research Centre is a registered charity whose business is to develop and

support sustainable land-use, agriculture and food systems, primarily within local economies. The

organisation is based on Elm Farm, a 85 hectare organic farm in Berkshire, and works through a

participatory network of established organic farms and other businesses. Having expertise in evaluating

both national and European policy frameworks and the impacts of land management on ecosystem

services, the ORCs role in TWECOM is focused on assessing, monitoring and evaluating the impacts of

the energetic use of landscape elements. Working with farmers, landowners and the local community,

the ORC is also developing a pilot energy co-operative at Elm Farm which uses woody biomass from local

landscape elements such as hedgerows.

PUM (Germany): The Department of Geography of the Philipps-Universitt Marburg focuses on

environmental, social & economic issues to understand & solve problems from a spatial perspective. The

Working Group Regional Studies and Policy has a special focus on rural development, including the role

of renewable energy. In the field of bioenergy the Working Group is involved the implementation

process of bioenergy villages within the County of Marburg-Biedenkopf, Germany. Based on social-

science research methods the Working Group analysed different actions and actors involved in the

implementation process. PUM will bring in the named knowledge and expertise from the bioenergy

villages projects and academic skills in socio-economic research methods. Together with ORC, PUM will

focus on the assessment, monitoring and evaluation of the project.

ZLTO (Netherlands): ZLTO accomplish projects concerning different themes and sectors, related to

agriculture focusing on energy, agrarian management of nature and agro-biodiversity. In TWECOM,

ZLTO contribute to the screening of existing biomass organizational structures and business models and

analyse possible transformations into more efficient and successful structures and models, adapted to

the needs of the pilot regions. They contribute to the investigation of other possibilities for biomass use

(e.g. bio filtration, pyrolyse), the integration of woody biomass in existing production chains, the logistics

of the supply chain (sustainable production, transport, processing of woody biomass) and the

evaluation of existing technologies for harvest, storage and drying.

Partner Landscape Elements

Inagro (Belgium): In West Flanders remnants of original woody landscape elements are scarce and

scattered throughout the landscape. The main LEs suitable for wood production are hedgerows (defined

as margins of at least one row of trees, with a maximum width of 10m), rows of trees along small

watercourses from land consolidation plans and newly planted short rotation coppice (SRC) systems.

The LEs being considered for mechanical harvesting are hedgerows, optimized for biodiversity as well as

producing wood. They contain mostly hazel (Corylus avellana), ash (Fraxnus excelsior), willow (Salix

caprea, Salix alba, Salix viminalis) and black alder (Alnus glutinosa). Older hedgerows have not been well

managed and are now in poor condition. Similarly, newly planted hedgerows are in need of

management to prevent natural degradation. Optimally hedgerows are coppiced on an 8 to 12 year

rotation. However, management is often seen as a cost by public authorities and farmers who are

unaware of the potential to harvest wood from the hedgerows. A distinction is made between a hedge

and a hedgerow; a hedge is defined as a single or double row of shrubs or trees cut annually or every 5

years. There is a government administered compensation scheme for the planting and management of

new hedges and hedgerows, with planting and management specifications associated with the contracts

and higher payments awarded for the planting of native species.

Figure 2. Mixed hedgerows: typical Landscape elements in West Flanders

Figure 3. Aerial photo of an

area representative of West

Flanders dominated by

scattered small landscape

elements

RLLK/BB Projects (Belgium): The area of focus for RLLK and BB Projects is the municipality of Bocholt

in the north of the province of Limburg. Although historically hedgerows (typically one row of

trees/shrubs on a bank with a ditch on both sides) were widespread in northern Limburg, most of

todays hedgerows have been established relatively recently (since 1850 or later) having developed

spontaneously along road sides. Due to neglect, older remaining hedgerows consist mainly of large trees

with large diameters as a result of a lack of management for 50 years or more. Most of the 75 km of

hedgerows present in Bocholt are owned by the municipality and predominantly consist of oak (Quercus

robur) with hazel, black alder, ash, hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa),

common rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) and alder buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula).

Figure 4. An aerial view

of a section of the

municipality of Bocholt

showing the LE network

ORC (UK): The main LEs being considered at ORC are hedgerows and related structures such as rows of

trees and small in-field copses. A hedgerow is defined by the UK biodiversity Action Plan as any

boundary of trees or shrubs over 20m long and less than 5m wide between major woody stems at the

base. UK hedgerows were largely established between the 13th and 19th centuries and are the most

widespread semi-natural habitat in England. The dominant hedgerow species within the Hamstead

Marshall pilot project on Elm Farm is Blackthorn with other commonly recorded species being

hawthorn, hazel, pussy willow (Salix caprea/cinerea) and oak. The UK pilot is based on Elm Farm where

the main function of the hedgerows is to mark field and property boundaries. The farm is an organic

livestock farm and all hedges are supplemented with fencing in order to be stock proof. Throughout the

UK there has been a decline in traditional management practices. Many hedgerows are in poor

condition, being either neglected or heavily flailed to prevent encroachment into productive land. Most

of the hedgerows on Elm Farm have not been managed for many years, asides from occasional side

flailing to maintain field sizes. The total length of hedgerows on Elm Farm is approximately 9.5km, over

an 85 ha area. Hedgerow management activities and hedge planting are supported in the UK under

various government administered agri-environment schemes (AES). The primary focus of these schemes

is currently landscape and biodiversity, and hedgerow options under AES have resulted in considerable

behavioural change amongst farmers, with half of applicants making positive changes to their

management.

Figure 5. Aerial photograph of ORC pilot project area

showing network of hedgerows and woodland.

Figure 6: Elm Farm hedges in summer and winter

PUM (Germany): The LEs in the County of Marburg-Biedenkopf consist of hedgerows: linear structural

elements of anthropogenic origin which are predominantly covered with wood, rows of trees: linearly

arranged, non-agricultural trees and copses, and areas of coppice not used for agricultural production.

The most common shrub species are blackthorn, hazel and elder and the most common tree species are

oak, common aspen, willow, black alder and common hornbeam. Most structures are not managed,

with a few hedges, including roadside hedges, pruned laterally. Geographically the hedges are widely

distributed without a dense network of hedges. A hedgerow with a length of 300m is considered

relatively long. Over the past 70 years these LEs have served no purpose other than as nesting sites and

animal shelter. Material from hedges were considered as waste and burned without any use. Today

nesting and shelter (e.g. animal crossing) are still important functions, but the landscape value is also

recognised (nice to view, shadow for walking tours). Some hedges are also cross compliance relevant

and provide income for framers.

Figure 7: Mixed farm hedge in Marburg-

Biedenkopf

Figure 8: Aerial Photograph showing the typical LE network in the Province of Marburg- Biedenkopf

ZLTO (Netherlands): The provinces of Noord Brabant and Zeeland are characterized by a wide range of

LEs caused by variations in soil type. The western part has clay soils where the main LEs are rows of

trees, mainly willows (Salix) with hawthorn, poplar (Populus) and elder (Sambucus nigra), and shrubs

planted on dikes with few hedgerows or woodlands. In the east there are mainly sandy soils with a

diversification of woods, streams and valleys. LEs here consist of rows of trees, hedges and shrubs,

found around agricultural land and nature conservation areas. Types of woody species found on the

sandy soils are oak, poplar, alder, birch (Betula), hazel, beech (Fagus sylvatica), elm (Ulmus) and field

Maple (Acer campestre). Previously managed for fuel and building materials, management efforts now

focus on restoring the ecological values of LEs and more functions are added such as local energy

production. Plantation (reintroduction of landscape elements) is also carried out to compensate for the

agricultural intensification and the removal of natural habitats in the past. Planting of new LEs has

become a necessity in order to receive spatial and environmental permits for up scaling farms, especially

livestock farms. In most municipalities farmers can receive subsidies for the planting, restoration and/or

management of LEs on land they own. Farmers can sign management and performance contracts for a

maximum period of 6 years.

Figure 9. Landscape

elements in the sand

landscape (mostly parts of

Noord-Brabant)

Figure 10: Aerial photograph showing the typical LE network on sandy soil near Nuenen

Figure 12: Aerial photograph showing the typical LE network on clay soil near Nieuwdorp

Management Impacts on Ecosystem services

TWECOM partners were asked to feedback on the perceived impacts of LEs on ecosystem service

provision (or the ways in which hedges benefit people) and the impact of the introduction of

management activities for biofuel production on this provision. The management technique considered

was coppicing. Coppicing involves cutting and removing all woody material at ground level on a 10-20

year rotation. A questionnaire was sent round to project partners and a transnational masterclass and

workshop was held at the Partner meeting in Marburg in September 2013.

Regulatory services

Hedgerows provide an important regulatory function within the landscape, including improving water

quality by buffering waterways from agricultural pollutants, controlling soil erosion from fields and

providing shelter for crops and livestock.

At the workshop the large amount of conflicting evidence and views on the regulatory function of

hedgerows was discussed. Do they improve soil moisture or cause drying? Do the positive effects on

agricultural production compensate for the negative? Such topics are often confusing and a need for

more conclusive evidence and clearer information for farmers, stakeholders and policy makers was

acknowledged.

Of the different regulatory services all partners recognized the function of hedgerows in controlling soil

erosion. The Flemish partners Inagro, RLLK and BB Projects mentioned that the Flemish government

provides compensation through agri-environmental schemes for farmers who take measures to prevent

soil erosion. However, RLLK and BB Projects also mentioned some farmers have little time to manage

hedgerows even when agri-environment payments are available. Provision of shade was also highlighted

as an important function.

Inagro: Hedgerows have been recently planted by the province of West Flanders and the Flemish Land

Agency to restore and improve the landscape through preventing erosion and improving soil and water

quality. Erosion is mostly an issue in the South-west of West Flanders where hedgerows are seen to

have the potential to help prevent soil erosion. Concerns regarding the introduction of new

Proposed Common Definition of a Hedgerow:

As demonstrated in the descriptions and photographs above within the five different partner areas there is a reasonably wide definition of what a landscape element and specifically what a hedgerow is. From these descriptions we have tried to pull together a common definition of a hedgerow that can broadly be applied across all partner areas, this is:

Any boundary feature consisting predominantly of native trees or shrubs with a width of at least 1 row of trees/shrubs but not more than 5-10m; generally of anthropogenic origin and dependant on management for long term maintenance.

management of LEs for fuel included that coppicing may have a negative impact on both the wind break

function and erosion control. Also in order to harvest woody biomass in a profitable way it is necessary

to harvest a certain minimum volume. LEs are not very abundant or widely dispersed in West Flanders

so from economical point of view it is logical to harvest as much biomass from an area as possible in one

go. This could have a detrimental impact on the regulatory functions of hedgerow, the landscape and

biodiversity.

RLLK/BB Projects: Hedgerows can have an important function in preventing soil erosion in regions

with cropland on slopes such as Southern Limburg. Increased hedge height is thought to have a negative

impact on agriculture due to increased shade. Hedgerows in Belgium are often over 15 metres in height;

it is often cited within literature that regulatory functions (such as shade and shelter) improve with

hedgerow height. However, most studies only consider hedges up to 8 metres. Increase in height

beyond a certain threshold may even have diminishing returns or negative effects on some ecosystem

services. Reduced hedge height through management might therefore improve regulatory functions,

although more research is required. It was also noted that hedgerow roots at the border of fields may

take up and trap nutrients, benefiting agricultural production. However, hedgerows may also harbour

pests such as oak processionary moth (Thaumetopoea processione), a moth caterpillar that produces a

human irritant and lives on oak trees. In carbon storage studies in Limburg, landscape elements such as

hedgerows are recognized as being marginal compared to the forest areas.

ORC: UK hedgerows have mainly been considered for their function in regulating runoff, reducing soil

erosion and maintaining water quality. With hedgerow location, orientation and network density cited

as important factors in the regulation of water quality, microclimate, erosion and hydrology, regulatory

functions could be enhanced through improved hedge network design. Hedgerow management is likely

to affect functions such as microclimate regulation where characteristics, such as height, influence wind

velocity, rates of evapotranspiration and shading. Management to support one ecosystem service can

either lead to co-benefits to other services or result in trade-offs. For instance, redesign and replanting

of hedgerow networks to promote regulatory functions may require the removal of historical or

culturally important hedgerows.

PUM: An important regulatory function of LE in the County of Marburg-Biedenkopf identified in the

initial questionnaire is protection against erosion. During several field visits and meetings PUM have also

consulted a working group on the impacts of managing LEs in Marburg-Biedenkopf for woodfuel. The

group consists of: a local environmental group Momberg, a farmers spokesman, special service for

renewable energy (department for rural areas) of Marburg-Biedenkopf, lower nature conservation

authority, Universities Marburg and Gieen, local NABU group, IFLS institute of rural structure science

and municipality of Neustadt. The group were concerned that increases in tree height may result in

shading of crops, especially in the context of a meadow with scattered fruit trees, no concerns about the

impact of changes in management on shelter, erosion control or buffering of agricultural impacts were

mentioned.

ZLTO: Landscape elements in the provinces of Noord Brabant and Zeeland are important in providing

shade which prevents overheating of barns and buildings and reducing nutrient leaching. Cutting of

certain hedgerows might therefore negatively affect these functions. Any increases in tree height as a

result of changes in management will be an issue to farmers if this results in production losses, however

there are not many existing LEs around arable fields so the impact should be minimal tree height and

the potential for crop shading should be considered with any new planting. Erosion is not such an issue

in this part of the Netherlands, the land is flat and dikes have generally been planted with trees so

reducing the impacts of wind erosion. An additional function of trees and hedges near motorways is to

reduce fine particulates out of the air. Coppicing could have a negative impact on the air quality around

motorways.

Provisioning and Cultural services

Historically European hedgerows were an important source of food, fuel and fibre for rural

communities. Today, the economic values of such products are often small, difficult to quantify and

culturally determined with many traditional usages now in decline. Changes in the functions of

hedgerows and related cultural practices have contributed to their decline.

Initial discussions in the group were around the need for a common understanding of what defines a

cultural value. BB Projects suggested that something has a cultural value if it is made by human hands

and PUM that a landscape element has a cultural value if rooted in human activities (e.g. hunting). There

was general agreement across all partners that managing hedges for wood fuel would have a positive

effect of the provisioning services of the hedgerows by providing a source of fuel. However,

management may also have a negative impact in particular where hedgerows currently have a screening

function (e.g. near motorways). As part of any management plan it is therefore necessary to look at the

benefits of changing management or not managing hedges at the same time as considering the

economics of any management prescriptions.

Inagro: With increasing fuel prices, the use of LEs a renewable fuel source is gaining interest. There is

currently no organized or professional wood harvesting, with only small amounts of fuel wood harvested

from LE by volunteers. Once there is renewed interest in wood as an energy source, farmers and local

authorities may rethink the management of such resources and encourage planting.

Although few historical LEs are still in place, remaining/ existing hedgerows and woody elements are

recognized as important and are protected by the Nature decree. Traditional management practices

such as coppicing are no longer common and mostly seen as a cost and not a benefit. There is also

maybe a threat that valuable trees (monumental) would be cut for biomass or would be harvested more

often than desired which could have a negative impact on the longevity.

RLLK/BB: Today the provisioning functions of LEs are very limited and probably one of the main reasons

for their neglect and removal. Some wood is used for heating (firewood), but this is not organized.

Coppicing is a historical method of hedge management. In Belgium 90% of fuel from hedgerows

(managed by coppicing) was traditionally used in ovens for baking bread. However coppicing is no longer

seen as an acceptable land management technique due to lack of awareness, concern about hedgerows

being removed and coppicing being seen as destruction. Education is therefore needed for the public

to once again accept coppicing as a management technique

Hedgerows have become an important part of cultural heritage with ancient hedgerows containing

coppice stools or ancient pollards recognized as valuable. This asks the question whether it is culturally

acceptable to cut these stools to renovate hedgerows. The Flemish government foresees a budget to

restore valuable ancient elements, although this budget is limited. Tourism organizations have started to

promote some regions through promoting LEs as an attractive character of a region.

ORC: There is a strong connection between British hedgerows and national identity. Farmers,

professionals and the public consider hedgerows to be a unique and important part of their national

heritage, hedgerow flora is often used in traditional British food and drink and often appears within

English folklore. Hedgerows contribute aesthetically to the character of a region and provide value for

rural activities such as game shooting. Isolated hedgerow trees have potential to produce timber

supplying farmers with low-cost materials and additional income through timber sales. Hedgerows can

also provide a source of livestock fodder and craft materials, such as willow for basketry. Food products

derived from hedgerows are predominantly sourced from fruiting trees such as blackthorn and shrubs

such as bramble (Rubus fruticosus).

Traditional hedgerow management techniques, such as hedge-laying and coppicing, produce regionally

distinct hedgerows. Pollarded willows, for example, are a hedgerow feature typical to Somerset in

South-West England. Re-introduction of traditional techniques in the restoration of hedgerows would

not only help preserve historical practices but re-establish the economic value of hedgerows by

increasing their productivity. The Pontbren Project in Wales for example coppiced gapped up and

restored old hedgerows as stock-proof boundaries on a number of livestock farms. However,

management such as coppicing may be perceived negatively by the public.

PUM: The provision of an additional source of income for farmers from managing LEs for fuel was

considered potentially important, if the logistics of harvesting in a dispersed network can be overcome.

LE management also has the potential to provide a new source of biomass for bioenergy villages.

Concerns were raised in the group about potential negative impact of coppicing on the screening

function of hedgerows especially along railways. The group also mentioned that shade for walkers is

currently an important function of some LEs which coppicing may negatively impact upon.

ZLTO: Landscape elements are important in the maintenance of landscape values and improve visual

heritage structures. Historically the woody LEs in the provinces of Noord Brabant and Zeeland have

provided a source of fuel, shelter, building materials and wooden shoes (poplar trees). Landscape

elements do not have a direct economic function anymore, but are important for cultural purposes such

as leisure and tourism. They are also are important in preventing visual pollution this function would be

affected by coppice management. Harvesting LE for biomass has the potential to create a circular

economy and increase the economic benefits of landscape elements. Coppicing LEs used to concern

nature conservation agencies, nowadays their attitude is changing as the value of LEs for the production

of green energy is realised. ZLTO also noted that in the Netherlands there not much concern about LEs

being managed or coppiced; there are a lot more concerns when LEs are not being managed.

Biodiversity services

Hedgerows and other LEs are often the only semi-natural habitat to be found in many agricultural

landscapes and are universally recognised as being of great importance for biodiversity.

There was a general consensus amongst partners on the value of hedgerows to biodiversity and

recognition of the functional diversity (for example, in terms of pollinators and pest predators)

associated with hedgerows. Common concerns included a loss of connectivity following coppicing.

Inagro made the point that the woody species composition of some thorn dominated hedges may need

adjusting in order to get a good fuel crop and this would have knock on effects on species associated

with these hedgerows. There is also concern in the UK that realising the financial value of hedges could

change the hedge habitat dramatically favouring taller less bushy single species hedgerows with

negative implications for biodiversity.

Inagro: Conflicts in management interests may occur between biomass production and biodiversity. For

example, to receive agri-environment payments farmers are unable to harvest a large proportion of

their LEs. In areas where LEs are scarce, farmers may choose to not take agri-environment payments so

they can harvest all the LEs in their area for firewood. This may then result in unfavourable LE

management for wildlife.

Rows of trees or mixed hedgerows are important for farmland birds e.g. Yellowhammer (Emberiza

citronella), for providing shelter, nesting sites and food sources. Flowering shrubs (such as Frangula

alnus, Cornus sanguinea, Prunus spinosa, Ligustrum vulgare, Crataegus monogyna and Viburnum opulus)

are important sources of pollen and nectar for pollinators and natural predators of pest species. New

LEs of indigenous species planted in a SRC system are often less diverse and have a lower conservation

value than mixed hedgerows. However, it is proven that they can strengthen biodiversity in agricultural

areas as they also provide food and shelter for insects and birds.

The value of current LEs depends on their connectivity to existing semi-natural habitats (e.g. they are of

less value if isolated in a field). Following coppicing, it is expected that there would be a change in

species composition (e.g. currently roe deer are found in these LE, and would probably be lost if proper

hedgerow management was implemented). Elsewhere in Belgium, current thorn dominated hedges may

need to be modified with species more suitable for woodfuel planted, this will also change the

associated species. There is also concern that removing wood from hedgerows for fuel will reduce soil

organic matter and degrade soil structure especially in sandy soils.

ZLTO: Hedgerows are believed to harbour beneficial organisms for pest control. Landscape elements,

although no longer having a direct economic function, are important for ecological reasons. Loss of

habitat connectivity is less of an issue in the Netherlands as nature areas and habitats are already

fragmented. Policies have now been set up to establish new connections between nature areas and

efforts are made to restore the ecological value of LEs. Reintroduction of LEs is also carried out to

compensate the up scaling effects by agriculture and the removal of natural habitats in the past. LEs can

also act as ecological corridors, improving migration of birds, insects and mammals between nature

conservation areas. ZLTO also consider biodiversity is higher in hedges that are managed, with some

species negatively affected and others positively affected by coppicing. So to obtain the highest

biodiversity, management needs to be rotational in order to establish different habitats at different

phases in the rotation.

ORC: Introduction of coppice management cycles will make hedgerow systems more dynamic and will

increase the heterogeneity of habitats within a landscape. This should increase overall biodiversity

within an area, with different species and communities associated with different ages of re-growth. The

trade-off may be reduced connectivity between patches of semi-natural habitats for species that use the

hedgerows as corridors, and also a reduction in species associated with old growth/dead wood,

although management plans could ensure some dead wood is left. There is also a concern in the UK that

management focused on maximizing biomass production may result in biological simplification.

RLLK/BB Projects: Landscape elements such as hedgerows are recognized to have an important

ecological function. Hedgerows provide habitats for target bird species such as the Yellowhammer, Red-

backed shrike (Lanius collurio) and Common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos). Hedgerows act as

important corridors for wildlife. Hedgerows with indigenous species are recognized as having a positive

effect on pest control, although it isnt yet established among most of the farmers. Some species in

hedgerows can have important value for pollinators. Mainly Alder Buckthorn is mentioned in this

context, not only by nature conservation organizations, but also by bee keepers. On one hand, coppicing

may lead to issues of habitat fragmentation. Maintaining habitat connectivity and a closed network of

hedgerows is therefore important. However, on the other hand a lack of management can cause

hedgerows to evolve into completely different structures compared to an originally coppiced hedgerow.

PUM: Hedges are important part of habitat connectivity and are a refuge for local wildlife both

functions that may be negatively impacted by coppice management. The working group also identified

concerns that increased economic value may result in unfavourable management for wildlife and that

some species (especially birds) may be negatively affected by management for woodfuel.

Key conclusions and recommendations

A common concern amongst partners in areas where the LE network is scarce and dispersed is the feasibility of management for woodfuel and the impact that coppice management of such a dispersed network would have on the wildlife and other values of the hedges. A related concern is the potential impact on biodiversity of the temporary loss of habitat connectivity associated with coppicing.

Encourage cooperation between farmers and landowners in woodfuel planning and management activities and in execution of the harvest chain, especially where the LE network is dispersed.

Manage only a proportion of hedges in an area for fuel to ensure that some of the existing hedgerows/ LEs are maintained and hence the species associated with them. As a guideline coppice no more than 5% of the hedges in any one year and keep 25 - 50% out of the coppice rotation, managed (or not) in the traditional way.

When designing management plans for woodfuel where possible maintain habitat connectivity for example, by only coppicing one side of a hedge or by only coppicing hedges where an existing link can be maintained.

New planting should focus on increasing landscape connectivity and filling in gaps

All partners identified the importance of LEs as providing shelter and shade for livestock, barns/ buildings and walkers as well as fulfilling and important screening function reducing the impact of agricultural, visual and air pollutants. There was concern that changes in management may impact on these functions and on LEs important function in erosion control.

The management plan for LEs needs to take in to careful consideration existing functions of the LEs and chose hedges for management with least impact on these functions. Or manage the LEs to minimise impacts (e.g. coppicing only one side of the hedge or leaving hedges trees in place to provide shade).

New planting should focus on reducing soil erosion (with hedges planted in line with contours on slopes and alongside waterways). Consideration should be taken of the shade, shelter and screening functions that LEs can provide when planting new hedges.

There is a concern in some partner areas that farmers will lose their AES payments if they manage their hedges for fuel, management for woodfuel is also prohibited in some protected areas. In most partner areas there also exists a public opposition to coppicing hedgerows and concerns around the protection of ancient and monumental trees in hedges.

The availability of more detailed facts and figures along with case studies outlining the costs of managing hedges for fuel along with the potential energy savings would help in making the case to farmers and landowners.

Coppice management of hedges and other LEs needs to be recognised in country specific AE Schemes with appropriate prescriptions that recognise the values associated of active management and restrict insensitive management.

A public education programme re. coppice management of LEs and consultation prior to any large scale changes in management would help to get public support.