AGF1Maintain very low density in-field agroforestry on less sensitive land

What it actually is

You have trees growing in a worked field, an average of 30 to 50 per hectare, in rows or a grid, with crops or grass between them, and this action pays you to keep the system in order. The upkeep GOV.UK names: replace dead trees where necessary so the average stays at least 30 per hectare, protect the trees from grazing livestock and pests, manage the weeds around the base of establishing trees, and prune and shape the trees once established. Canopy cover stays under 20 per cent. GOV.UK's stated aim is a combination of trees and farmed land that reduces soil erosion and flooding, improves water and air quality, shelters crops and livestock, and contributes to carbon capture and storage.

Source: GOV.UK, AGF1 action page, checked 23/08/2026.

What it pays, and what that comes to

The rate is in the panel at the top of this page, paid on the whole system area, the ground under the trees and the cropped or grazed ground between them alike. Multiplied out:

Source: arithmetic on the payment rate shown at the top of this page, which comes from Tilth's copy of the GOV.UK action catalogue and carries its own last-checked date. The 4 hectares is an illustration.

Is it worth it on your ground?

Step one: what it costs to keep. Replacement trees with guards and stakes as losses happen, the pruning hours, and the weeding around anything young. On an established system in a quiet year that is close to nothing; in a year the deer find it, it is real money, and both years pay the same rate.

Step two: what the ground keeps doing. The alleys between the rows keep cropping or grazing, and the same-area compatibility list on this action is the longest on the site: most of the arable and grassland actions can sit between the trees, from stubbles to cover crops to legume fallow. The payment is on top of whatever the ground between the trees is earning, not instead of it.

Step three: where that leaves it. For a farm with the system already stood, this is payment for husbandry it was doing anyway, stacked over a field that keeps working. The real cost of in-field agroforestry, the planting, the years of establishment, the cropping pattern bent around the rows, was paid before this action arrived, by whoever planted it. This is upkeep money, and judged as upkeep money it is respectable.

Source: the payment rate at the top of this page; requirements and compatibility from GOV.UK, AGF1 action page, checked 23/08/2026. The judgements are Tilth's own reading rather than scheme guidance.

Does it work, and what makes it work better

This section is what we have found in published sources about the practice this action pays for. It is not scheme guidance, it is not Defra's or the RPA's view, and it adds no requirement beyond what the GOV.UK action page sets out. We have named every source and given the date we checked it. What it means for your ground is your decision.

The honest answer here is short: the evidence base we lean on across this site has looked for studies on in-field trees three times and found none. Conservation Evidence record no studies for retaining existing in-field trees and none for planting in-field trees, both assessed for bats, and no evidence for protecting in-field trees, assessed for birds. Their own wording is that they have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. That is a statement about what has been measured, not a verdict on the practice.

Source: Conservation Evidence, actions 1945 and 1946, Bat Conservation synopsis, and action 184, Bird Conservation synopsis, all checked 23/08/2026.

Two limits on even that. The empty assessments looked at bats and birds specifically, and this action's stated aim is mostly elsewhere: erosion, flooding, water and air quality, shelter, carbon. We have not found a graded assessment of those outcomes for in-field tree systems in the sources this site uses, so the aim rests on the physical reasoning GOV.UK gives for it rather than on scored field evidence either way. Where that leaves a farmer weighing the action: the trees are already stood, the payment is for keeping them, and the evidence question, interesting as it is, is not really the decision.

Source: the aim, GOV.UK, AGF1 action page, checked 23/08/2026. The reading is Tilth's own.

What you actually have to do

Maintain the system in a way that can reasonably be expected to achieve the aim: replace dead trees where necessary to keep the average at or above 30 trees per hectare, protect the trees from grazing livestock and pests, manage weeds around the base of establishing trees, and prune and shape the trees once they are established. The action is static and runs on the same area for all three years.

Source: GOV.UK, AGF1 action page, checked 23/08/2026.

Where it can go

Arable cropland, temporary grassland (TG01), fallow (FA01), improved permanent grassland (PG01) or horticultural permanent crops (TC01), below the moorland line, on land shown as low sensitivity to agroforestry, the blue areas, on the Forestry Commission's sensitivity map. Not eligible: SSSIs, the map's white higher-sensitivity areas, priority habitats such as species-rich grassland, and areas with historic or archaeological features. Density between 30 and 50 trees per hectare on average, canopy under 20 per cent; a denser system belongs in AGF2.

Source: GOV.UK, AGF1 action page, checked 23/08/2026.

What you can stack it with

The same-area list is the longest of any action on this site: most SFI26 arable and grassland actions can run between the trees, including the stubbles, cover crops, legume fallow, grass strips and no-till, plus the usual four boundary actions. The GOV.UK page carries the full list, and it is worth reading in full precisely because it is so much longer than usual.

Source: combinations, GOV.UK AGF1 action page, checked 23/08/2026.

Things worth watching

This section is Tilth's own reading of where this action is easy to get wrong. It is not scheme guidance, it is not sourced from Defra or the RPA, and none of it adds a requirement beyond what the GOV.UK action page sets out.

Check the map before anything else. Eligibility turns on the Forestry Commission's agroforestry sensitivity map, and only the blue, low-sensitivity land qualifies. That is a lookup that takes minutes and rules fields in or out absolutely, so it comes first.

The density is an average with a floor. 30 to 50 trees per hectare on average, and the replacement requirement holds the average at 30 or better. A hard winter or a deer problem that drops the count is not a compliance failure in itself; not replacing is. Budget for losses.

Protection is a requirement, not a hope. Protecting trees from livestock and pests is on the must-do list. In a grazed system that means guards or fencing that actually work, and the state of them is the likeliest thing to be looked at.

The 20 per cent canopy line moves as trees grow. A system near the top of the density band with maturing crowns can grow its way over the canopy threshold. Pruning and shaping is in the requirements partly for this reason, and it is easier annually than remedially.

Count before you claim. The band is 30 to 50; at 51 the system is AGF2 at a higher rate, and below 30 it is neither. An actual count per parcel, not an estimate, is the number the whole entry rests on.

Keeping the evidence

Also Tilth's own reading. GOV.UK sets the requirements; what follows is a practical suggestion about record keeping.

GOV.UK asks for field operations at parcel level with invoices, photographs and documentation. The useful ledger here is a tree log: the count per parcel at entry, losses and replacements as they happen with the nursery invoices, and a few dated photographs a year showing guards standing and alleys cropped. The replacement invoice is the record that the density floor held.

Source: evidence requirements, GOV.UK, AGF1 action page, checked 23/08/2026. The suggestion is Tilth's own.

The part only your own ground can answer

Whether the system pays its way is mostly a question you answered when it was planted. What this action asks is smaller: whether the upkeep the trees need anyway is being written down, tree counts, losses, replacements, the pruning passes, in a form that collects the payment for it. Tilth keeps the tree log beside the field records the alleys are already generating. Request an invite.