AGF2Maintain low density in-field agroforestry on less sensitive land

What it actually is

The denser sibling of AGF1. You have an in-field agroforestry system averaging 51 to 130 trees per hectare, trees and shrubs with crops or grass worked between them, canopy cover still under 20 per cent, and this action pays you to keep it in order: replace dead trees so the average stays at least 51 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 established. GOV.UK's stated aim is the same as its sibling's: reduced soil erosion and flooding, improved water and air quality, shelter for crops and livestock, and a contribution to carbon capture and storage.

Source: GOV.UK, AGF2 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, trees and the worked 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?

The shape of the sum is AGF1's, scaled up on both sides. More trees per hectare means more replacements, more guards, more pruning hours, and a bigger share of the field under influence of the rows; the rate is a little over half as much again as the sibling's. The alleys keep cropping or grazing, and the same-area list remains long, so the payment continues to stack over a working field. As with AGF1, the establishment cost of the system was paid before this action existed; judged as upkeep money on a system already stood, the rate is the best per-hectare maintenance payment on this site's agroforestry pair, for the ground that carries the most work.

Source: the payment rate at the top of this page; requirements from GOV.UK, AGF2 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.

The same short honest answer as AGF1, because the evidence file is the same file: Conservation Evidence record no studies for retaining existing in-field trees or planting in-field trees, both assessed for bats, and no evidence for protecting in-field trees, assessed for birds. Their wording: unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. And the same two limits: those empty assessments looked at bats and birds, while this action's aim is mostly erosion, water, shelter and carbon, where we have not found a graded assessment for in-field tree systems in the sources this site uses. The aim rests on GOV.UK's physical reasoning rather than on scored field evidence either way.

Source: Conservation Evidence, actions 1945 and 1946, Bat Conservation synopsis, and action 184, Bird Conservation synopsis, all checked 23/08/2026. The aim, GOV.UK, AGF2 action page, checked 23/08/2026.

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 51 trees per hectare, protect the trees from grazing livestock and pests, manage weeds around the base of establishing trees, and prune and shape established trees. Static, same area, all three years.

Source: GOV.UK, AGF2 action page, checked 23/08/2026.

Where it can go

Arable cropland, temporary grassland, fallow, improved permanent grassland or horticultural permanent crops, below the moorland line, on the Forestry Commission map's blue low-sensitivity land. Not eligible: SSSIs, the map's white higher-sensitivity areas, and areas with historic or archaeological features. Density between 51 and 130 trees per hectare on average, canopy under 20 per cent; a sparser system belongs in AGF1.

Source: GOV.UK, AGF2 action page, checked 23/08/2026.

What you can stack it with

A long same-area list, close to its sibling's: the arable wildlife actions including the stubbles, the buffer and margin actions, cover crops, legume fallow, no-till, the precision actions and several organic actions, with the usual four boundary actions. The GOV.UK page carries the full list and is worth reading in full.

Source: combinations, GOV.UK AGF2 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.

The map first, as ever. Only the Forestry Commission map's blue land qualifies, and it is a minutes-long lookup that settles eligibility outright.

Two floors, one ceiling. The average must hold at 51 or better, the band tops out at 130, and canopy must stay under 20 per cent. A maturing system near the top of the band presses the canopy ceiling hardest, and the pruning requirement is the tool that holds it.

At 50 trees it is a different action. Fall below the floor and the system is AGF1's band at a lower rate, or out of both bands entirely. The count per parcel is the number everything rests on, so count rather than estimate, and recount after losses.

Replacement is a season-bound job. Dead trees are replaced where necessary to hold the average, and bare-root planting has its window. A summer loss waits for autumn; the log that shows the loss and the ordered replacement is what fills the gap in between.

Shrubs count, guards matter. The system is trees including shrubs, and the protection requirement covers them all. In a grazed alley system, the guard line is the compliance line.

Keeping the evidence

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

The same tree log as AGF1, worked harder: the count per parcel at entry, losses and replacements with their invoices, pruning passes as diary entries, and dated photographs showing guards standing and alleys worked. At this density the count is not a glance job, which is exactly why the written log earns its keep.

Source: evidence requirements, GOV.UK, AGF2 action page, checked 23/08/2026. The suggestion is Tilth's own.

The part only your own ground can answer

A system this dense was planted with intent, and the question this action asks is only whether its upkeep is recorded in a form that collects the payment: counts, losses, replacements, pruning, guard checks. Tilth keeps the tree log beside the field records from the alleys. Request an invite.