CIPM2Flower-rich grass margins, blocks or in-field strips

What it actually is

You take margins, blocks or strips through the field, and establish a multi-annual mix of grasses and wildflowers on them. The mix must contain at least 4 grass species, ryegrass excluded, making up no more than 90 per cent of the mix by weight, and at least 10 wildflower species, with no single wildflower over 25 per cent of the wildflower element by weight. You sow by early autumn within 12 months of the action's start, and the mix is expected to be established from around the second spring after sowing. Once established, you manage it to keep it flowering, you do not use it for regular vehicle access, turning or storage, you do not apply fertilisers or manures by machine, and pesticides are out apart from herbicide spot treatment of injurious weeds, invasive species, nettles and bracken.

GOV.UK's stated aim is an established multi-annual flower-rich grass mix growing in margins, blocks or in-field strips, producing flowering plants during spring, summer and early autumn, supporting integrated pest management, providing habitat for invertebrates including pollinators, and benefiting farmland birds.

Source: GOV.UK, CIPM2 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. 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 2 hectares is an illustration; a 6 metre margin down both long sides of a 500 metre field is 0.6 of a hectare, so 2 hectares of margins is well within reach of an ordinary arable farm without touching a block.

Is it worth it on your ground?

Step one: what the ground gives up. Unlike the cover crop actions, this is ground out of production for the full agreement. The Farm Business Survey's figures for 2023/24 put typical combinable rotation gross margins in the band of £764 to £836 a hectare, and the rate at the top of this page sits inside that band before seed, and a little under it after, so against an average hectare it is close to a wash and slightly the wrong side of it. The case is made on the hectares that are not average, the outside metres of the field, the awkward corners, the shaded headland along the wood, the ground your yield map already shows earning least. Those are also exactly the places a margin naturally goes.

Source: Farm Business Survey, Crop Production in England 2023/24, Rural Business Research, checked 02/08/2026. Your own margins are the ones that count, and this comparison is Tilth's arithmetic, not scheme guidance.

Step two: the seed, once rather than yearly. This is a multi-annual mix, so unlike the annual seed bill on the winter bird food or cover crop actions, establishment is in principle a one-off. Listed prices for mixes sold for this action:

Source: Boston Seeds, own listed prices and stated sowing rates, looked up 23/08/2026. Price your own mix, and check it against the action's rules yourself, at least 4 grass species with no ryegrass and grasses no more than 90 per cent by weight, at least 10 wildflower species, none over 25 per cent of the wildflower element, because component counts on a label are not the same thing as the action's species counts.

Spread over the three years, the seed is £41.67 a hectare a year on the margin mix or £75 on the meadow mix, and taking it off the payment closes the sum the band comparison opens:

Source: arithmetic on the payment rate less the seed cost in step two, set against three-year rotation averages worked from the Farm Business Survey, Crop Production in England 2023/24, checked 02/08/2026.

Step three: the work. A fine, firm, weed-free seedbed, shallow sowing at no more than a centimetre, rolling, and then the part that decides whether the money was well spent: regular cutting through the first 12 months to keep annual weeds off the establishing mix, and a cutting or grazing routine after establishment. Those passes are your own cost at your own rates, and they recur; the seed does not, unless establishment fails and GOV.UK's advice to monitor first-year germination and re-sow where needed comes into play.

Source: GOV.UK, CIPM2 action page, advice sections, checked 23/08/2026.

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.

Two Conservation Evidence assessments bracket this action, and both already anchor other pages on this site. Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips covers the flower half and anchors our CAHL1 page. Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields covers the grass half, explicitly including floristically enhanced margins, and anchors our CAHL3 page. A flower-rich grass margin is both at once, so the fit here is close, with the usual caveat that neither assessment tested this action's particular recipe of four grasses and ten wildflowers. What this page adds to those two is the pest control findings, because that is the aim this action is named for.

The graded assessments. Conservation Evidence, based at the Department of Zoology at the University of Cambridge, summarises the published studies behind individual conservation actions and has independent subject experts score each one. Effectiveness scores only the size and direction of the reported effects, and they say themselves it does not consider the quantity or quality of the studies. Certainty is the separate score for how many studies there are, how well built they are and how much ground they cover.

Planting nectar flower mixtures and wildflower strips comes out as Beneficial, their top category, on 104 studies, with 100 per cent for effectiveness, 75 per cent for certainty, and harms not assessed. Those are the highest scores attached to any action we have written up. Planting grass buffer strips and margins is also Beneficial, on 69 studies, with 90 per cent for effectiveness, 65 per cent for certainty, and harms not assessed. Between them sit 173 studies, which makes this the best-evidenced ground on this site.

Source: Conservation Evidence, action 442, Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips, and action 246, Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields, both Farmland Conservation synopsis, checked 23/08/2026. Cite both as Dicks et al. (2020), Farmland Conservation, pages 283 to 321, in What Works in Conservation 2020, Open Book Publishers.

What the studies found on wildlife. In brief, because the CAHL1 and CAHL3 pages carry the full accounts. For the flower strips, 80 individual studies investigated effects on biodiversity and 64 showed benefit to one or more groups, with 50 of 65 invertebrate studies positive, and 15 mixed or negative. For the grass margins, nineteen studies found increased arthropod abundance, richness or diversity, nine found benefits to birds, seven to plants and five to small mammals, against six finding no clear effect on insects, birds or invertebrate pests.

What the studies found on pest control, which is this page's business. In Hampshire, Holland and Thomas found phacelia strips along winter wheat held far more cereal parasitoids than the adjacent crop in one study year, an average of 33 against 5 per half square metre, with gamebird chick food insects at 25 against 2. In south Wiltshire, Holland and others found a higher proportion of grain aphids parasitised in wheat fields with wide margins of 5 to 6 metres than with standard margins under a metre, and measured flying predators reducing aphid numbers by 90 and 93 per cent a month after aphids were introduced. Near Bern, a sown weed strip beside winter rape had fewer pest species nearby, mainly pollen beetles and cabbage weevils, at least early in the season. In a German study, spiders reached a peak of 435 individuals per square metre in sown wildflower strips, and aphid numbers on wheat rose with distance from the strips. In Hampshire again, MacLeod recorded 39 marmalade hoverflies per field boundary against 4 on a control field where a coriander strip was sown, with more aphids on marked wheat ears in the control field. And in Oxfordshire, the ground beetle Bembidion lampros, named in the study as an important aphid predator, sat at 8 per square metre in recently sown grass margins against 2 to 5 in mature margins and young hedges.

Both ways, as always. The earliest study in the set, in north Germany, could not detect consistent differences in arthropod numbers between flower strips, wheat strips and the control field, and found no difference in crop yield. And a Dutch project that sowed 15 kilometres of perennial margins and flower strips across five arable fields found no clear effects on invertebrate pest populations.

Conservation Evidence say themselves that studies are not directly comparable or of equal value, and that study size, design, reported metrics and relevance to your own situation matter more than "simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation".

Source: Conservation Evidence, actions 442 and 246, key messages and supporting evidence from individual studies, both checked 23/08/2026.

What we have not found. Nothing measuring CIPM2 itself or its four-grasses-and-ten-wildflowers recipe. And no published figure for what the pest control is worth in the crop, in yield or in sprays not bought, which is the number that would close the loop on this action's IPM purpose. Predators and parasitism have been measured; pounds an acre have not.

What the sources say makes it work better. All of the following comes from the studies listed on those Conservation Evidence pages, and it is a description of what was found rather than advice from us.

Width: the Wiltshire aphid study's contrast was margins of 5 to 6 metres against margins under a metre, and the wide ones carried the parasitism result.

Distance: in the German spider study, aphids on the wheat increased with distance from the strips, and the Wiltshire study measured its parasitism effect 20 metres into the crop, which sits alongside GOV.UK's own siting advice here, strips near cropped areas and spaced evenly across the farm.

What is in the mix: the hoverfly and parasitoid results came from flowering species with accessible nectar and pollen, phacelia and coriander among them, and MacLeod's hoverflies preferred small, open flowers. On the grass side, an early UK study found grass-only mixes carried lower plant diversity than grass and wildflower mixes, which is in effect the case for this action over a plain grass strip.

Management: a Dutch study found mowing pushed different invertebrate groups in different directions, some populations more than doubling after a cut while others fell, which is the evidence behind GOV.UK's advice here to stagger cutting across margins and leave a tenth uncut each year.

Source: Conservation Evidence, actions 442 and 246, supporting evidence from individual studies, checked 23/08/2026, and GOV.UK, CIPM2 action page, advice sections, checked 23/08/2026.

What follows is Tilth's own reading of how those findings sit against this action, and it adds no requirement beyond what the GOV.UK action page sets out.

The pest control case is real but it is a case about distances. Nothing in these strips sprays anything; what the studies describe is predators and parasitoids living in the margin and working the crop nearest to it, with the measured effects strongest close in and fading with distance. That is why the strongest version of this action on paper is not a single fat margin along the road but width where it counts and strips placed so the farm's cropped ground is never far from one, which is what GOV.UK's spacing advice amounts to. It is also the argument for in-field strips on big fields, which is the option farmers use least readily because of the nuisance, and the one the distance findings most favour.

The honest gap is the same one the money section names: nobody has published what this is worth in pounds. Two well-built studies found no clear pest effect at all, so the mechanism is not automatic, and a farm entering this action should expect habitat with a real chance of useful pest suppression near the strips, not a guaranteed reduction in the spray bill. If the strips let you hold your nerve on a marginal aphicide decision even occasionally, they are earning; our CIPM4 page, on managing without insecticides, is the natural companion read, because these strips are the infrastructure that approach leans on.

And the establishment year is where this action is won or lost, on the evidence and on the agronomy alike. The assessed successes are established, flowering strips; a sown margin that fails into annual weeds delivers neither the habitat nor the payment's purpose. The seedbed, the shallow sowing and the unglamorous first-year cutting are the whole game, and they are also the phase your records need to show happened.

What you actually have to do

Within 12 months of the action's start date, and by early autumn, sow a mix containing at least 4 grass species, excluding ryegrass, making up no more than 90 per cent of the mix by weight, and at least 10 wildflower species, with no single species over 25 per cent of the wildflower element by weight, on margins, blocks or in-field strips. GOV.UK's requirements set no minimum block size; its advice section suggests large blocks, giving around at least 0.5 hectares as an example. Existing margins can come into the action, oversown where needed within the same 12 months. Establishment is expected from around the second spring after sowing, and from then you maintain the area by management that can reasonably be expected to achieve the action's aim, flowering through spring, summer and early autumn.

On the established area, do not cut or graze in a way that stops the aim being achieved, do not use it for regular vehicular access, turning or storage, do not apply fertilisers or manures by mechanical means, and do not apply pesticides, except herbicides to spot treat injurious weeds, invasive non-native species, nettles or bracken. Maintain it in the same location until the action's end date.

Source: GOV.UK, CIPM2 action page, checked 23/08/2026.

The advice, as advice rather than requirement: sow between March and mid September into a fine, firm, weed-free seedbed, broadcast or shallow-drill no deeper than 1 centimetre with a minimum of 2 kilograms of flower seed per hectare, roll after sowing, and cut regularly through the first 12 months to keep annual weeds down while the mix establishes. After establishment, the suggested routine is a spring cut before April to check the grasses, cutting or grazing between mid August and October to pull fertility down, staggered timings across different margins, a tenth of each margin left uncut each year as winter refuge, checking for nesting birds before any cut, and removing cuttings where practical or chopping them finely so they do not smother the flowers. Site with sunlight and low fertility in mind, near cropped areas and spaced across the farm.

Source: GOV.UK, CIPM2 action page, advice sections, checked 23/08/2026.

Where it can go, and what rules it out

Agricultural land below the moorland line: arable land used to grow crops, temporary grassland, fallow arable land, and permanent crops both horticultural and non-horticultural, registered with eligible land cover and compatible land use codes. SSSIs need Natural England's consent first, and land with historic or archaeological features needs its HEFER. The legal 2 metre no-cultivation zone from the centre of hedgerows applies as it does everywhere.

CIPM2 is one of the ten limited area actions under SFI26, sharing the 25 per cent ceiling on your farm's total agricultural area with CAHL1, CAHL2, CAHL3, CIGL1, CIGL2, WBD3, AHW7, AHW9 and AHW11, so the plan for this action belongs in the same sum as the plan for those. How the 25 per cent limit works.

Source: GOV.UK, CIPM2 action page, checked 23/08/2026, and GOV.UK, SFI26 scheme rules and guidance, section 4.5, 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.

Count the species on the invoice, not the label. At least 4 grasses, no ryegrass, and at least 10 wildflowers is a stricter recipe than plenty of mixes sold as flower-rich actually meet, and the percentages matter twice, grasses under 90 per cent of the whole and no wildflower over a quarter of the flower element. The invoice with the full species list and percentages is both your check and your evidence.

The margin is not a track. No regular vehicular access, turning or storage is the requirement most likely to be broken by habit rather than decision, because the outside metres of a field are where everything turns and everything gets parked at harvest. If a margin doubles as the way to the water trough or the sprayer's turning ground, choose different ground for the action.

Two years to establishment means one year of looking wrong. A first-summer margin under a regular topping regime looks nothing like the photograph on the seed catalogue, and that is what it is meant to look like. The mistake is skipping the first-year cuts to let it flower early, which hands the ground to annual weeds for the rest of the agreement.

Spot treatment means spot treatment. The herbicide allowance is for individual injurious weeds, invasives, nettles and bracken, not a blanket pass when the margin gets thistly. A margin that needs blanket spraying is telling you the establishment failed, which is a re-sowing conversation, not a chemical one.

It counts against the 25 per cent. Farms stacking CAHL1, CAHL2, CAHL3 and the other limited area actions need this one in the same arithmetic before anything is promised to an agreement.

The block size is an example, not a floor. GOV.UK's advice illustrates blocks of around at least 0.5 hectares and five of them across 100 hectares. The requirements name no minimum. For margins and strips, the evidence above is worth a thought when choosing width, since the one study that compared found its effects behind margins of 5 to 6 metres, not behind a single mower's width.

Keeping the evidence

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

GOV.UK's examples are field operations records with the seed mix invoices, and photographs or other documentation, with more if what you did is unclear.

This action's evidence has two phases. Establishment: the sowing date inside the window, the seed invoice with its species and percentages, and the first-year cutting dates, which are the record that the awkward-looking first summer was management rather than neglect. Established: the yearly cutting or grazing dates with their staggering, and a photograph each summer in full flower, which is the single most persuasive piece of evidence this action can have. Dated from the same spot each year, the photographs also show the mix maturing, which is what a multi-annual action is supposed to do.

Tilth records operations against the parcel with dates, holds invoices against jobs, and lets you attach photographs, so both phases sit together against the mapped margin itself.

The part only your own ground can answer

Where the strips should go. The evidence says the pest control works close to the strip and fades with distance, the scheme says space them evenly near cropped ground, and the money says put them where the yield map is weakest. All three of those answers live on your map: the field shapes, the headlands that underperform, and the distances from every part of the cropped area to the nearest strip. Tilth holds your boundaries and your yields together, and lets you draw the margins on the field before you commit a metre of them to an agreement. Request an invite.