Consultation on ecological mowing:
a reality check that moved our ideas forward
Ecological mowing is often presented as a straightforward technical decision: choose a more nature-friendly machine and biodiversity will follow. In practice, it is rarely that simple. Mowing choices sit at the intersection of ecology, cost, efficiency, safety and reliability. If one of these elements is ignored, good intentions risk staying on paper.
That is exactly why I visited Hugo Clarysse, a contractor with a wide range of mowing equipment and many years of hands-on experience. The goal was clear: to test whether our ideas within PolliConnect are feasible in real working conditions, and to understand where the limits and opportunities truly are. It turned into an improvised stakeholder consultation and a very useful reality check.
The ecological ideal, and why it makes sense
From an ecological point of view, the direction is well known: Machines that cut cleanly, without suction and without shredding vegetation, are generally better for insects and small animals. Systems based on a mowing bar, followed by raking and removing the cut material, are widely considered among the best options for biodiversity.
The logic is straightforward. A clean cut reduces direct mortality. Less suction gives insects and other small animals a chance to escape. Removing the cuttings also helps keep soils poorer in nutrients, which supports flower-rich vegetation over time. On paper, this is exactly what pollinators “want”.
What happens when theory meets the field
The conversation with Hugo quickly showed how strongly everyday constraints shape what is actually used in the field.
Contractors need machines that can work at speed, handle uneven terrain, and keep operating when conditions are less than perfect. Breakdowns are not just a technical inconvenience; they are lost time, delayed schedules, extra costs, and sometimes safety risks. Investments only make business sense if there is stable demand. If ecological mowing is not explicitly requested, contractors will usually choose equipment that is cheaper, more robust and more versatile.
This is one reason the flail mower remains so common. It is strong, widely available, relatively affordable, and it performs reliably in challenging conditions. Ecologically, it has clear disadvantages, but operationally it is hard to beat. This gap between ecological ambition and operational reality is not caused by a lack of goodwill. It is caused by the way procurement, planning and risk work in practice.
The “middle ground” is where change can scale
One of the most useful outcomes of the visit was a clearer view of where realistic progress can be made at scale.
Between the ecological ideal and the operational default, there is a broad middle ground. Disc, drum or rotary mowers, especially when combined with raking and collecting cut grass, can offer a workable balance. They do not match the ecological performance of a mowing bar system, but they are clearly better than flail mowing and they remain practical for many contractors.
Even when flail mowers are used, Hugo emphasised that practices matter. Mowing height, timing, patterns, and the way edges and refuges are handled can significantly influence ecological impact. In other words, “ecological mowing” is not only about the machine; it is also about how the machine is used.
The most ecological machine is not always the most effective solution
A key lesson from the visit was a reminder that “best” and “most ecological” are not always the same thing in terms of impact.
If a machine is too expensive, too slow, too fragile, or too specialised, it will not be adopted widely. If it is not adopted widely, its overall contribution to biodiversity remains limited. A perfect solution that stays confined to small pilots or niche sites will not create the landscape-scale change that pollinators need.
Real impact requires solutions that contractors are willing to invest in, operators can use without constant technical issues, and landscape managers can organise and finance within standard maintenance systems. The question is therefore not only “What is the best machine?” but also “What is the most effective pathway to shift practice across many sites?”
What this means for PolliConnect
For PolliConnect, this visit was more than an interesting technical exchange. It sharpened our understanding of what it takes to move from ambition to implementation.
It confirmed that ecological goals need to be translated into clear and operational requirements. If clients and public authorities want more nature-friendly mowing, they need to specify it. Without explicit expectations in contracts and tenders, the market will continue to deliver what is safest, cheapest and fastest.
It also highlighted that a smart strategy is rarely “one machine everywhere”. Highly ecological systems can be prioritised where they matter most, for example in sensitive areas, high-value habitats, or places where pollinator corridors are being strengthened. In other locations, step-by-step improvements and realistic compromises can deliver substantial gains simply because they are scalable.
Most importantly, it reinforced that stakeholder knowledge is not optional. Contractors are not just service providers; they are carriers of practical expertise. If we want ecological mowing to work in real landscapes, we need these conversations early, and we need them often.
A valuable lesson: from ideal to impact
I left the visit with more than technical insights into mowing equipment. I left with a clearer picture of the conditions that make ecological change possible.
Ecological mowing is a technical topic, but it is just as much a management and policy topic. The equipment exists, the know-how exists, and improvements are possible. The real challenge is creating the right combination of ambition, feasibility and demand, so that better mowing practices become normal practice.
This stakeholder consultation was a valuable lesson within the project: reality checks do not weaken ideas. They make them stronger, more precise, and far more likely to deliver impact for pollinators in the places that matter.