CTN Chapter Evaluation Report

Boosting Community Tree Nurseries – Phase One A Trees Outside Woodland project report

Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4 Why was this project necessary? ........................................................................................ 4 Aims of the project ............................................................................................................. 4 Project Methods..................................................................................................................... 6 Research overview ............................................................................................................. 6 Step 1: Scoping study ............................................................................................................ 8 1.1 Findings of the scoping study and survey ....................................................................... 8 1.2 Summary: the existing shape of CTNs in the UK ............................................................ 13 Step 2: Action Research ....................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Pilot CTN grant scheme ............................................................................................... 15 2.2 Additional Support ...................................................................................................... 20 2.3 Peer to Peer collaboration network .............................................................................. 20 2.4 Improving Biosecurity .................................................................................................. 22 2.5 Action research conclusions – what have we learned about supporting CTNs? .............. 32 Step 3: Knowledge sharing and tool creation ......................................................................... 34 3.1 A CTN demonstration hub ........................................................................................... 34 3.2 Knowledge sharing toolkit ........................................................................................... 35 3.3 Summary .................................................................................................................... 36 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 37 References .......................................................................................................................... 38 Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 39 1.

CTN development grants issued at phase one ............................................................ 42

2.

Types of CTN supported by grant funding .................................................................... 47

3.

Tree species grown by community tree nurseries .............. Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.

Example CTN grant application form .......................................................................... 48

5.

Example biosecurity grant application form ................................................................ 52

6.

Plant Healthy Group Scheme Documentation................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 56

Executive Summary The research programme ‘Trees Outside Woodlands’ (TOW) has undertaken an exploratory project which set out to gather new information about ‘unknowns’ relating to the community tree nursery sector, a potentially valuable source of native, local and biosecure tree stock.

Community tree nurseries (CTNs) in the UK can be described as “an enterprise, social enterprise, community-based group, charitable or public sector endeavour or network where volunteer community members and groups take part in growing trees, including seed/wilding collection, nursery management and sales/distribution, and also in some cases planting out’.”

(Ambrose-Oji, et al., 2023).

Phase one of the project identified a diverse network of 80 CTNs in the UK, collectively growing about 250,000 trees per year to plant in local communities. Trees, the vast majority of which are broadleaved and of local provenance, are either given away or sold at minimal cost. Mainly run by dedicated volunteers, CTNs operate at multiple scales but are often small, newly developed (normally less than five years old) and are heavily dependent on grants for their existence, even if they receive some money from selling trees.

Successful establishment of a CTN appears to rely on a combination of factors including: • • • • • •

Grant funding Access to land Volunteer time The correct skills base (tree growing, management, admin etc) People management A clear vision for the CTN

Several of these factors can be developed through effective peer-to-peer collaboration, which itself requires a degree of financial support or grant funding.

Knowledge and skills around biosecurity have been a challenge for CTNs, whose volunteers find it difficult to engage with the rules and regulations. National level support for peer-to-peer collaboration, along with bespoke tools and training may be of use here, although further research is needed to clarify the baseline level of biosecurity risk at CTNs. Biosecurity certification, such as Plant Healthy, has been a challenge for CTNs to achieve. A trial group scheme proved very challenging to get off the ground, and whilst it has enabled two CTNs to achieve certification, it is not yet a model that seems to provide the required support for CTNs outside this trial. Further investigations are needed to understand how to effectively support CTNs to engage with biosecurity certification.

CTNs, by their nature and purpose, provide additional multiple social benefits to society which future research should aim to quantify.

This report has been developed by the partnership as research evidence from phase one of the project and any related policy recommendations should consider this research in its wider context.

Introduction Why was this project necessary?

The research programme ‘Trees Outside Woodlands’ (TOW) has undertaken an exploratory project which set out to gather information about ‘unknowns’ relating to the community tree nursery sector, a potentially valuable source of native, local and biosecure tree stock.

It is crucial that the recent rapid increase in demand for tree planting is met with a supply of high quality, biosecure trees. Lack of sufficient supply could result in planting schemes: • • • •

not going ahead inappropriate species being planted a loss of local diversity exotic pests and diseases being imported with stock from abroad or spread within the UK.

Local community tree nurseries (CTNs) could help meet this demand, retaining regional genetic identity and providing regionally appropriate species. CTNs also offer wider benefits for health, wellbeing and education through engagement with local communities and volunteers.

However, there has been a lack of knowledge about CTNs: how they work, how many there are and at what scale they operate (e.g. how many trees do they grow). This knowledge gap currently prevents us from recognising and maximising the potential of their contribution to tree supply as well as the wider benefits they can provide to communities. It also limits our understanding of how biosecure CTNs are, what improvements are needed in their current practice, and the impact that measures to improve biosecurity across the nursery sector, such as the introduction of the Plant Healthy accreditation scheme, might have on CTNs. As with other nurseries, CTNs with poor biosecurity may pose a risk in spreading pests and diseases but we do not yet know to what extent. However, policy measures primarily designed to influence commercial nurseries, such as the requirement to achieve ‘Plant Healthy’ or ‘Ready to Plant’ accreditation (in order to supply trees for many government-funded projects), could exclude CTNs due to the financial cost, time commitment, motivation and skill set required to achieve accreditation. CTNs also often, by their nature, fall outside the scope of regulations like plant passporting and forest reproductive material.

Therefore, this project represents a first step on a pathway to realising a thriving network of CTNs across England which contribute to the supply of diverse, sustainable, biosecure and resilient tree planting stock. It has sought to describe, understand and develop the sector via: • • • •

new research trialling a variety of grant and other support options trialling a group scheme for Plant Healthy accreditation and through production of user-friendly guidance materials.

Aims of the project The project has been running continuously since 2020 and has developed iteratively, as a piece of action research.

The project set out to describe and understand the sector by: • • • • • • • •

identifying “baseline” information about CTNs in the UK identifying the unique selling points of CTNs identifying what constitutes a successful and sustainable CTN, and describing these as case studies identifying factors affecting the stability / sustainability (challenges and barriers) of CTNs and possible options for addressing these collecting data on the tree species and quantity of trees grown by CTNs and understand how they are used in planting projects investigating current levels of awareness and practice of biosecurity at CTNs understanding what barriers CTNs face in becoming Plant Healthy certified identify the benefits of CTNs beyond the trees they produce. For example, education, health, and wellbeing benefits to local communities.

The project set out to understand how to support the sector by: • •

finding out, through pilot schemes, how capital grants could be used to support tree production and biosecurity at CTNs assessing how trialled biosecurity support options were received and applied, including: the level of interest in grants to improve biosecurity the level of interest amongst CTNs in training about biosecurity how much grant funding is required to improve biosecurity at CTNs and what it is primarily used for assessing what actual or perceived impacts were felt/realised as a result of trial grant schemes finding out what other factors may have contributed to changes and developments to CTNs assessing the effect of funding a peer-to-peer collaboration network understanding, through action research, how a CTN Plant Healthy group accreditation scheme might operate and whether this could alleviate barriers / challenges. o o o

• • • •

Project Methods Research overview An ‘action research’ approach was taken for this project, which developed iteratively, with portions of work running concurrently and informing each other throughout. Norfolk County Council led the project and were supported by the four other partner local authorities in the ‘Trees Outside Woodlands’ research programme and other members of the programme management team as appropriate during the project (e.g. in supporting questionnaire development).

Local authority officers gathered data as requested and recorded these into Excel spreadsheets on a shared drive. These were analysed by Forest Research and Fera Science Ltd.

Step 2: Action Research Step 1: Scoping • •

• • • •

Information gathering Research

Support options Trials and testing Peer-to-peer network Plant Healthy group scheme

Step 3: Knowledge and tool creation • • •

Demonstration hub Toolkit Upskilling/training

Figure 1. Elements of the Boosting Community Tree Nurseries project.

The project comprised three main elements described here as steps, for clarity: Step 1: Scoping -

The initial scoping study informed a set of interventions, such as up front grants, which were then tested in five local authority areas.

In parallel a national survey was also undertaken to gather baseline information about the CTN sector and a CTN was set up by Norfolk County Council to gather direct insight and act as a demonstration hub, facilitating knowledge sharing and providing inspiration and support.

Step 2: Action Research -

The findings from Step 1 were assessed to determine their effectiveness at helping CTNs to operate successfully and sustainably.

Towards the later stages of the project, specific biosecurity grants, training and support for a peer-to-peer collaboration network were also trialled.

Finally, in response to the need to understand more about how requirements for Plant Healthy accreditation affect CTNs, a pilot Plant Healthy group certification scheme was established.

Step 3: Knowledge sharing and tool development

•

Knowledge gained through these trial support options, research, and the set-up of the CTN demonstration hub, was used to publish The Tree Growers Guide – a practical ‘toolkit’ designed to help set up and run a CTN.

Step 1: Scoping study In 2021, Norfolk County Council commissioned Forest Research (FR) to undertake a social science study with the following objectives: • • • •

Understand different community tree nursery (CTN) models, and detail the range of benefits, costs, challenges, and unique selling points associated with each.

Synthesise and assess the evidence to identify potential interventions for CTNs. Develop an evaluation framework to monitor and assess the initial support options (interventions) with CTNs. Evaluate differences between different TOW supported CTNs and assess sustainability, benefits and any potential support needs associated with different CTN models.

FR undertook a rapid evidence review of 54 published studies and toolkits, followed by case study research in 2021 with 16 CTNs across the UK. An interim report was produced in February 2022 which informed the subsequent support options trialled. This was followed by the first national CTN survey in autumn 2022, which gathered baseline information about CTNs in the UK. Full details of the study methodology can be found in the study report (Ambrose-Oji, et al., 2023).

1.1 Findings of the scoping study and survey What are CTNs and how they currently operate The rapid evidence review found there was no agreed definition of a CTN, internationally.

Features common to CTNs were observed to be: •

• •

That size matters to CTNs for their success and sustainability. Middle sized CTNs, able to produce about 10,000 trees per year, seemed to manage challenges of the economics of production better than smaller or larger CTNs. That markets for their trees are uncertain and unstable and can be disrupted by other programmes.

That CTNs have financial challenges.

Analysis of 16 case study CTNs suggested categories of difference which the researchers thought would likely have influence over the relative success of intervention strategies. These were around: • • • •

The organisation and governance model of the CTN The objectives of the CTN The type of community engagement The size and type of production.

Considering these four broad categories of difference the researchers were further able to discern four broad typologies (called” CTN governance models” in the report) of CTN in the UK.

➢ Organisation and project based CTNs (O & PB CTN) - Are managed by an organisation (e.g. a local authority, Wildlife Trust or partnership project).

- Are associated with a particular site.

- Have paid staff to manage the nursery and volunteers.

- Have additional people (e.g. project officers) involved in decisions and management. ➢

Enterprises (commercial and social) (E CTN) - Are set up to achieve tree production and other benefits through business methods.

- Trees are sold at cost or for profit with financial stability in mind.

- Have paid staff to manage the nursery and volunteers.

- Tended to produce the larger numbers of trees.

➢ Community based CTNs (CB CTN) - Are run by established community groups who grow trees as a communitybased initiative.

- May or may not have links to other organisations.

- Are wholly managed by volunteers. ➢ Networks (N CTN) - Are a collective of individual growers, using different locations (i.e. are not at a single site) and growing techniques.

- May or may not have links to other organisations and undertake seed collecting and growing for them.

The extent to which different types of CTN used strategic planning tools to guide their development, tree production, and resourcing (e.g. focus on accessing grants) was related to how they balanced their social engagement and community objectives with financial sustainability. O & PB CTNs and E CTNs used more strategic planning documents (things like a business plan and a vision statement) than CB CTNs and N CTNs. Only one CTN amongst the case studies had any kind of biosecurity plan in place (this was a biosecurity risk assessment).

CTNs had a range of aims and objectives including profit, improving communities, conservation and other social objectives related to their volunteers (e.g. working with adults with substance abuse problems).

Community engagement, at all CTN types, was found to be usually in the form of volunteering sessions. Volunteers participated in: • • • • • • •

Seed collection (this was the most common activity) Collecting wildings (seedlings occurring naturally in the wild, without being sown by humans) Growing seedlings at the CTN Planting the trees produced (this was mostly associated with O PB CTNs) Maintaining planted trees Taking part of courses and learning events Contributing to CTN management and maintenance.

The study noted a broad range of additional benefits (additional to tree production) provided by all types of CTNs. These included: • • • • • • •

Social capital and community cohesion Health and wellbeing Learning and skills development Employability Volunteers developing a sense of feeling useful and contributing to something important Environmental improvement in the local area Changing community attitudes towards trees and nature.

Tree production at CTNs Analysis of 16 UK based case study CTNs observed wide variability in the number of trees produced per year. Smaller CTNs typically produced less than 1,000 trees and larger CTNs more than 150,000. All CTNs produced native trees and around a third produced non-native and fruit trees as well. All CTNs grew trees from seed and a few collected self-sown trees for potting on.

The majority of CTNs focused on growing trees of local provenance.

The national survey undertaken in 2022 suggested that there were then: • • • •

around 80 CTNs operating in the UK. 67 completed the survey. most CTNs were found to be CB CTNs (30) and O & PB CTNs (20). most were between 1-5 years old (36) or even younger (17). they were based in all areas of the UK.

During the growing season October 2021-March 2022, UK CTNs produced about a quarter of a million trees (239,428 reported in the national survey). This was mostly native broadleaved trees (survey data suggests 99.8%), rather than conifers, and was mostly in the form of bareroot whips (if they produced in only one format), although many cell grown trees were also produced.

Most CTNs produced a small number of trees (22 CTNs produced less than 500 trees), but two produced more than 50,000 trees. Trees were mostly grown from seeds collected within 20 miles of the nursery.

There were some differences in seed/cutting source according to CTN type. CB CTNs mostly grew from locally collected seed. E CTNs demonstrated a diversity of production sources (although were mainly growing from seeds and cuttings).

71 different tree species were grown, including some rarer or little grown species. A full list can be found in appendix 1.

Trees were distributed in a number of ways, to a wide range of organisations including private individuals, local authorities, environmental NGOs and others, via: • • •

On site ad hoc sales Giving/gifting trees away Growing to order

CTN Finances The national survey observed that most money coming to CTNs was in the form of grants, with CB CTNs slightly more dependent on these than other CTN types, but grants were important to all. The second most important income was achieved through tree sales.

Consumables were the most important cost for CTNs, on average. This was followed by infrastructure, equipment, staff, then land and buildings.

Volunteers and staff at CTNs The national survey demonstrated that CTNs rely on volunteers. The majority of CTNs did not have paid staff. The average number of staff of those that did was 1.22 FTE (Full time equivalent). In contrast a total of 1,233 volunteers contributed at the CTNs who responded to the survey, an average of 18 per CTN. Survey respondents estimated this translated into 34,995 volunteer hours, an average of 522 per CTN, which translates to 22.5 FTEs. There were some differences by type of CTN which can be seen in the study report here.

All CTNs reported a range of main reasons for engaging volunteers: • • • • • •

Health and wellbeing benefits Learning and development Social capital and community cohesion Changing community attitudes to trees and nature Volunteers contributing to the work of the CTN Seed collection

CTN biosecurity The national survey found that 45% of CTNs had no policy or plan for managing biosecurity.

While 37% had some kind of informal procedures representing shared understanding of principles and practice, only 10% had formalised this into a written policy. CB CTNs were the type most likely to not have a written plan (17 of the 30 CB CTNs in the sample responded ‘no’).

More than half of CTNs were, however, able to track their trees from seed source to sale point.

About a third reported checking incoming materials for pests and diseases and had procedures for sterilising items. Only 12 had quarantine areas and these were mostly O&PB CTNs. 85% of CTNs wanted to have further biosecurity training, although ‘no’ responses to this question did highlight some lack of understanding of biosecurity generally (e.g. “we only stock plants that we have grown from seed so biosecurity isn’t so relevant”).

43% of CTNs did have an interest in Plant Healthy certification (14% ‘no’ and 40% ‘maybe’).

Sustainability The main ways in which CTNs could be supported to remain viable in the long term were identified by both the case studies and national survey: • • • •

Support for peer-to-peer learning and knowledge exchange Training on regulations and biosecurity Support for finding and applying for grants “How to” technical sheets

• •

Help with record keeping Training on business planning and management.

All the case study CTNs had relied on financial support when they started up. This was considered essential and was used for high capital costs of basic items (infrastructure like fences and irrigation, staffing for setting up and costs related to the first production cycle), before revenue could be generated.

Clear vision and aims for a CTN were considered important to focus work and guide decisions.

Similarly, a person or people to lead the CTN was considered important. The researchers also noted that CTNs supported by other organisations (for admin and management) enabled CTNs to focus on tree production and other social benefits (nursery operations). It was thought to be challenging for CTNs to develop without this.

CTNs highly valued being part of a network of practise and taking part in peer-to-peer learning: “It was evident that the social contact and sense of encouragement from these encounters had a profound positive impact” (Ambrose-Oji, et al., 2023).

Understanding the local demand for trees was also noted as important for CTNs. Forecasting the demand for trees can be difficult for CTNs and therefore good working relationships with key stakeholders were seen as beneficial to operations. There is also a need for CTNs to understand tree markets because they can be impacted (or even eliminated) by competition from larger businesses.

The challenges and barriers to CTN success Managing biosecurity was reported as a challenge due to lack of appropriate knowledge by people working in CTNs and financial resource to pay for assessments and certifications. For example, “a common perception and important narrative were that ‘local varieties’ and provenances, locally collected seed and ‘small-scale’ operations pose no, or very minimal, biosecurity risk” and “in a couple of instances, the administration associated with plant passports had contributed to a decision to not sell produce.”

Access to land for growing and infrastructure, such as irrigation, are a challenge for CTNs to both operate and expand production. Peppercorn rents are often a feature of tenancy agreements, where landowners are in support of the CTN objectives. Access to appropriate land and space (e.g. for quarantine areas) and clean water also have an impact on biosecurity.

Reliance on grant funding, usually over an annual cycle, creates financial instability and contributes to high staff turnover, loss of skills and knowledge, and greatly limits the ability of CTNs to plan for the long term (and potentially expand).

Similarly, CTNs experience challenges relating to their volunteer base (e.g. age demographics, and covid-19 restrictions which were in place at the beginning of the project), which can be challenging to maintain.

Succession planning, for staff, volunteers and operations, is a challenge for the reasons above.

Smaller CB CTNs rely heavily on key individuals. E CTNs and O & PB CTNs have greater opportunity to plan for change, and some have ‘key man’ insurance, for example.

The 16 case study CTNs identified the following knowledge gaps:

• • • • •

Peer-to-peer learning and knowledge exchange, including mentoring support from experienced practitioners.

How to find grant funding.

How to find other useful resources, e.g. seed collection guides, and technical information sheets.

Business planning and management.

Record keeping e.g. plant movements and origins of materials.

The project sought to enhance CTN success, remove challenge and barriers, and address knowledge gaps as it progressed.

Published work The national survey work has been peer reviewed and published in forests here. We believe it to be the first of its kind.

1.2 Summary: the existing shape of CTNs in the UK This CTN project supported a first of its kind national survey which identified baseline information about a mainly voluntary sector of about 80 nurseries producing about a quarter of a million trees per year, typically broadleaved and of local provenance (i.e. from seed gathered less than 20 miles away). These are either given away or sold at cost or for a minimal profit (e.g. to cover operations). CTNs also have a major focus on community/social engagement in addition to tree production. Four different governance models exist in the UK, which broadly align with CTNs’ wider objectives and reasons for operation: ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢

Organisation and project based CTNs (O & PB CTN) B. Enterprises (commercial and social) (E CTN) Community based CTNs (CB CTN) Networks (N CTN)

Community Tree Nurseries in the UK can therefore broadly defined as “an enterprise, social enterprise, community-based group, charitable or public sector endeavour or network where volunteer community members and groups take part in growing trees, including seed/wilding collection, nursery management and sales/distribution, and also in some cases planting out’.”

(Ambrose-Oji, et al., 2023).

CTNs are often small and produce less than 500 trees per year, although as a collective they produce about a quarter of a million trees. A small number produce specialist or niche trees which may not be available elsewhere.

The UK’s CTNs provide a range of important additional benefits to local communities. These social values are core to the work of CTNs and have not been quantified as part of this project. It would be useful to know more about these benefits.

Biosecurity is potentially an issue for CTNs. There was a sense among some that being small and operating on a local basis means biosecurity isn’t that relevant or important to CTNs. Further research is required to establish if there is a biosecurity risk posed by CTNs, this is a research aim of phase 2 of the TOW project. Defined knowledge and skills around biosecurity are lacking in the sector generally with many not having a formal biosecurity policy. Although the

later stages of this project and other work have started to address this gap, further training about biosecurity issues is important for CTNs. Volunteers do the lion’s share of tasks at CTNs, which often rely heavily on one or two dedicated individuals to keep going. CTNs are also heavily reliant on grant funding. Most CTNs appear to be less than five years old which suggests they experience significant challenges in maintaining operations for longer periods of time, or that it is an emerging sector. It is a diverse sector and there are a mixture of challenges and barriers at play in influencing the sustainability of CTNs which, whilst coalescing around several themes (access to land, funding, volunteers and knowledge gaps) suggests a blended/flexible offer or ‘suite of solutions’ of support would be best suited to develop the sector in the future. This might include peer-to-peer knowledge exchange, skills training and advice.

Operational costs are relatively high and CTNs often rely heavily on grant funding to establish and sustain activities in the medium and long term (limited evidence suggested this was essential in the initial 2-3 years). This remains the case even with income from tree sales, which tends to be seasonal, and brings additional administrative burden. Suggested areas for support were centred around the following areas, and it seems these work best in a blended combination (i.e. only providing support for one of these will be unlikely to achieve the desired stability): • • • • • •

Grant support over longer time periods Help with staffing costs Help with volunteer recruitment and retention Support for networking and peer-to-peer learning (field visits, webinars, a mentor network, a suite of exemplar case studies) Skills training for business planning and management “How to” technical advice materials.

Regularly repeating a national survey of the CTN sector will enable valuable assessment of the ‘health’ of the sector generally and provide some evidence of the value of supportive grant funding (NB – this is taking place during phase two of the ‘Trees Outside Woodlands’ programme).

Step 2: Action Research The scoping study made recommendations for supporting CTN development, including grants, training, guidance from local authority officers and an opportunity to join a peer-to peer network. All five partner local authorities took part in a trial of support options, mainly grants, provided to local CTNs (Chichester District Council were not initially involved - but decided to join after experiencing demand from CTNs in their locality). Local authority officers were each responsible for administering grants in their area.

2.1 Pilot CTN grant scheme One element identified in the scoping study was that CTN’s needed capital funding to help to start or expand their operations. Grants were therefore developed for physical infrastructure items including fencing, water tanks, irrigation equipment, polytunnels and pots.

2.1.1 Scheme development and delivery To qualify for a grant CTNs needed to be: • •

Already propagating or planning to propagate trees with volunteers Community focussed (i.e. not a commercial nursery with volunteers helping occasionally). This was judged on a case-by-case basis by local authority officers according to definitions identified in the scoping study, for example being a constituted or organised voluntary group.

Grants were designed to be enabling so that applicants could apply for what they needed rather than select from a predefined list. This often included elements such as physical infrastructure (e.g. fencing and water storage), staff training and materials (like soil cells). Successful applicants were also offered an opportunity to join a community of practice (via a Facebook group and monthly webinars organised by a Community Tree Nursery Collaborative (CTNC) which itself was funded through the CTN project.

Local authority officers promoted the grant offer via their usual channels, and through direct approach to local CTNs. Grant applicants completed an application form (

Example CTN grant application form) detailing what funding they were requesting and what it would be used for. Local authority officers assessed these and suggested amendments if needed, by way of facilitation, and to ensure appropriate use of funding. Once applications were approved, grant agreements were prepared and funds issued to CTNs in advance of spend (i.e. not in arrears). Funds were issued in this way to be as ‘enabling’ as possible for CTNs, who often have extremely limited cash reserves and who could not, therefore, access funding with an arrears requirement in place.

Grants were issued in the five local authority areas. These ranged from £263 for a small community-based CTN for fencing costs to help them to grow 80 trees, to larger projects such as £10,000 for a community interest company to set up a large CTN and grow up to 2000 trees per year. Given the diverse nature of CTNs, and the additional benefits they provide, it is not possible to calculate an average ‘cost per tree’ yet, but this may be developed if appropriate in the future.

The first grants were issued to 24 CTNs in five local authority areas. A total of £148,000 was issued over the duration of phase one (until March 2023). Appendix 2 details the grants distributed. The figures below show infrastructure paid for by the pilot CTN grants.

Figure 2. Seedlings in containers growing outdoors.

Figure 4. Seed trays on tables and other tree growing infrastructure

Figure 5. New fencing around a community tree nursery.

Figure 6. Infrastructure required for growing trees.

2.1.2 Pilot CTN grant scheme evaluation Forest Research undertook an evaluation of the support options (interventions), with the following research questions: 1. How were project interventions received and applied?

2. What were the impacts (actual and perceived) of the support received?

3. What, if any, other reasons may have contributed to CTN establishment/development?

4. What are challenges and barriers to CTN sustainability (rather than development) and where might additional support make a difference?

In late 2022, a sample of 13 of the 24 CTNs supported by the project was assessed via a monitoring survey and subsequent semi-structured interviews (mostly via virtual meetings and telephone). All had been running for less than three years, and they covered the range of defined ‘types’ of CTN (see section 1.1) A full methodology can be found in the Forest Research report (Ambrose-Oji, et al., 2023).

What were the grants used for and did they achieve the intended outcomes?

Of the 13 CTNs evaluated, plus the Community Tree Nursery Collaborative (CTNC - which was awarded £2,000 grant funding for providing peer-to-peer support – see section 2.3), the amount of grant funding received ranged from £281 (for root trainers and netting) to £19,350 (to install a drip irrigation system and other supporting materials). Capital items (e.g. polytunnels and fencing) and consumables (e.g. compost and pots) were the most common items requested.

This was the case for both new CTNs and those who had been operating for less than 5 years.

The nursery would never have happened without the funding – it’s been fantastic!

(Organisation/project-based CTN) Funding made it possible really. We wouldn’t have gone ahead without fencing.

(Community-based CTN) The community of practice (CTNC) was reported as important to CTNs who used it. However some were unable to access it due to time constraints.

The peer-to-peer support of the online community has been invaluable as has our trip away [to visit another CTN]. (Organisation/project-based CTN) It [the CTN] takes up so much time… we have barely any spare time so might not be able to… it would be nice to be connected to others but it’s too much.

(Organisation/project-based CTN) Grant recipients also had advice from local authority officers during the process. Support and advice, in combination with grant funding enabled CTNs to achieve their own outcomes (as reported in interviews) which, owing to the young age of the CTNs studied, were mainly around getting established and growing more trees (if already established as a CTN), as well as increasing community engagement.

It was not just the financial award, but the combination of support the Pilot Project was able to extend, including the advice and hand-holding of Project Officers that made the difference to a number of CTNs. All quotes cited in Social Research for Community Tree Nurseries (Ambrose-Oji, et al., 2023) Challenges and barriers for CTNs Cash flow and day-to-day running/management of CTNs were the two broad categories of challenge identified for CTNs using grant funding to develop their nursery. These comprised: •

• •

• •

•

Difficulties and delays in using funding. For example, CTNs experienced difficulty with procurement processes, supply-side challenges getting hold of building materials, tree and seeds availability, delays in contractor availability and lack of personnel time to undertake necessary tasks needed to progress things.

Needing to find additional funding to cover shortfalls, and self-funding some activities e.g. not claiming reimbursement for mileage related to CTN activities.

Volunteer recruitment (both numbers of people and amount of time offered) to enable nursery progress. This included difficulty with access to site when, for example, volunteers could only access the CTN when lead volunteers and staff were also present.

Volunteer development and maintenance (skillset, wellbeing, commitment and availability, for example).

Staff recruitment challenges resulting from skills shortages, short funding timelines and not being able to offer sufficient paid hours to be an attractive/viable proposition for applicants.

Coping with seasonal stresses, particularly frost and drought. 2022 was a particularly challenging year and CTNs reported concerns this would only increase as climate change progresses.

The most important factors relating to the establishment of CTNs, where they might require additional support, were identified in no particular order, as:

• •

• • • •

Grant funding for establishment costs - This was crucial for new CTNs to establish and for existing CTNs to develop.

Access to land (ownership, availability and cost) - This was critical in determining the location and size of a CTNs. CTN establishment can be varied and heavily contingent on this factor.

Time - All types of CTN rely on the time of staff and volunteers to undertake the work required to establish and run a CTN. The correct skills base - A small number of people with necessary skills (tree growing, management, administration etc) were critical for CTN establishment.

People management and developing a volunteer base - To meet other social objectives for the CTN. A clear vision and aims for the CTN, aligned with volunteer interests - The interests of lead people in the CTN influenced the governance model of the CTN, the social objectives of the CTN (i.e. what kinds of community groups it engaged with) as well as the tree species grown.

2.2 Additional Support The FR pilot grant scheme evaluation also identified other support options that CTNs felt were needed to develop further and become sustainable: •

• • • •

Training on nursery skills and general business management, for both staff and volunteers. This might include things like access to a resource hub and horticultural knowledge and legal aspects of business management.

Biosecurity training and succinct advice/resources aimed at CTNs. Developing business and governance models, particularly at smaller CB CTNs who don’t often have resource for strategic development planning.

Maintaining a volunteer base and succession planning, Ensuring continuing funding for consumables, staff, bills and infrastructure like fencing.

Options to address some of these needs were trialled during the project.

Could CTNs be supported, during the project, to upscale their tree production?

All CTNs need to balance prioritising their existence (medium and long-term sustainability) and purpose (e.g. social engagement activities) with upscaling tree production. In this research, the challenges associated with setting up and continuing operations in the early years (short-term establishment) allowed little scope for producing more trees although there was an aspiration to do so, amongst some, when they were more firmly established. Refer to the report here (forest research.community-tree-nurseries) for more detail.

2.3 Peer to Peer collaboration network Introduction After a trial collaboration webinar and discussion with the project team the Fellowship of the Trees (a Community Interest Company) set up and ran a national Community Tree Nursery Collaborative (CTNC). They were provided with funding for this in phase one of the project. The agreed purposes of the CTNC were to:

• •

Create a peer-to-peer learning network to enable community tree nurseries to share good practice and consider common issues, challenges and opportunities.

Nurture the successful growth of new and emerging community tree nurseries.

Launched in November 2021, the CTNC was initially formed by a core of four experienced and long standing CTNs. Funding was provided to run a mixture of online events (at least four), networking opportunities, site visits and a Facebook members group. The CTNC was awarded additional funding via the National Lottery Together for our Planet Fund to employ part-time staff.

The CTNC produced a written engagement report after one year of operation and updated this after their second year (see peer-to-peer collaboration network).

The Fellowship of the Trees were contracted to administer the trial of biosecurity grants for CTNs (see 2.4 Improving Biosecurity ).

The impact of supporting this peer-to-peer collaboration network In their first year of operation the CTNC initially identified 24 CTNs in the UK, a number which then grew to 62 after the inception of the CTNC. 38 operational CTNs registered with the CTNC (and the CTNC maintains this list with details about each registered CTN) and they became aware of a further 10 being set up with advice and support via the CTNC. First year activities included: •

• •

•

Five webinars with a total 263 attendees. These are recorded as a permanent resource on the CTNC YouTube channel here. o “How to set up a Community Tree Nursery” o “From Seed to Sapling” o “Getting Down to Bare Roots” o “Engaging Volunteers: grow a diverse and inclusive volunteer team” o “Safe and Sound in the Ground: Tree health and biosecurity” Six “Open Space” sessions with 107 attendees. These were also online and were more informal, to encourage open discussion.

Three site visits with 37 participants. o A comment from one attendee “The tree growing methods we learnt were much more applicable to our site than we had originally thought, and we are planning to grow trees at a much larger scale thanks to what we learnt during our visit” A private Facebook group was launched in November 2021 and had 250 members (over 100 active members) as of October 2022.

The year one engagement report discusses a case study of a new CTN, whose set up was inspired by a watching a CTNC webinar. This CTN grew 1,200 trees at five sites in its first year with plans for 5,000 trees in their second year. Both engagement reports can be found here: https://fellowshipofthetrees.org/blog/.

In their second year of operation, the CTNC registered list of CTNs expanded from 38 to 42.

Second year activities included: •

Four webinars delivered during the seed collection and planting season, with 327 attendees.

• •

o “We’re going on a seed hunt!” o “The Plot Thickens – from empty space to tree nursery” o “Growing Wild – which trees are best for nature” o “Making Money grow from trees!”

A continuation of the “Open Space” sessions. These usually had smaller attendance than webinars (c. 14 each).

Expansion of the core CTNC group from four members to six.

Administering the trial of national biosecurity grants for CTNs (see 2.4 Improving Biosecurity • •

).

The private Facebook group expanded to contain 298 members (210 active members).

Interagency collaboration has been a feature with multiple organisations participating in and promoting CTNC events. This includes Groundwork, St Werburghs City Farm, The Tree Council, the Woodland Trust, Transition Town groups and the Tree Warden Network.

Conclusions This evidence suggests a peer-to-peer network is valuable for CTNs. Securing ongoing funding to continue operations appears to be a recurring theme for the CTNC and its existence may not have been possible without the support of this project. The growing numbers of event participants, Facebook group membership, and testimonials suggests this kind of peer-to-peer support is popular with CTNs, although it requires resource input to manage effectively. Even well-established CTNs reported that the activities of the CTNC had been useful to them. It would be useful to track these activities for a longer period to ascertain whether the initial funding had a ‘pump priming’ effect – i.e. the usefulness of resources, such as the recorded webinars, which now exist may continue to be useful for a long time. The growth in active users of the CTNC is promising and suggests that this is a simple and cost-effective way to support CTNs. “The CTNC has helped to empower tree growers in communities across the country develop their community tree nurseries in a bio-secure, future focused, resilient manner. The sharing sessions have saved hundreds of hours of individual trial-and-error through peer-to-peer best practice sharing. The collaborative has inspired greater confidence in our delivery capability and production capacity.”

(Organisation/Project-based CTN)

2.4 Improving Biosecurity 2.4.1 Biosecurity grants In year two of the project the project team commissioned the Fellowship of the Trees (who also ran the CTNC – see 2.3 Peer to Peer collaboration network Introduction to administer and promote a biosecurity grant scheme with the intention to answer additional questions about biosecurity at CTNs: •

What is the level of interest amongst CTNs in grants to improve biosecurity, and are both new and existing CTNs interested?

• •

How much does it cost for CTNs to improve their biosecurity? (how much do CTNs apply for?)

What measures do CTNs need to improve biosecurity (what did they apply for?)

Grants were offered, to both new and existing CTNs, in England (i.e. not limited to the TOW local authority areas) to provide a better sample size to test their effectiveness (TOW local authorities already had access to some grant funding during the early stages of the project and may have used this for biosecurity improvements). Grants were designed so that applicants could apply for what they needed rather than select from a predefined list. CTNs could apply for anything from £1 to £5000 to cover capital costs such as testing kits, biosecurity signage, sanitising equipment and Plant Healthy certification costs. Grants did not cover regular costs such as purchasing compost or regular waste disposal.

A total of £20,895.43 of grant funding was issued to 12 CTNs (31 direct enquiries resulted in 13 applications, 12 were successful). 80% of applications were from new CTNs (those operating for less than two years). The smallest grant awarded was for £933, the largest was for £4,035 and the average was £1,741.

18 people who enquired did not subsequently make an application. This was attributed to the time of year grants were on offer, October – December, which is typically a busy time for CTNs, as well as the requirements to use the funds quickly, before the end of the financial year. Many newer CTNs were not in a position to be able to do this.

Grants were spent on a wide range of equipment and other resources such as cleaning equipment, tubs and brushes, and labelling equipment for tracing trees.

Testimonial “Thanks to this Biosecurity funding, it has been really useful to establish a proper, weatherproof labelling system for the saplings that are currently being grown by 115 volunteers. Each grower has a unique ID so that when the trees come back into the nursery, and the Plant Health Advisor/Inspector visits, we will be able to identify where each sapling was grown, and therefore if there are any issues of bio-security (pests/diseases) we will be able to immediately identify and separate those trees. Also when planted, each planting site will have all the unique IDs of growers that supplied trees for that site, and therefore in the initial establishment of a new woodland, we will be able to trace back any disease issues – and see if it is related to the initial germination and growing site. Having a robust label printing machine will make this so much easier, and will tie in with a computer database we operate for our tree growers.”

Conclusions This evidence suggests that where grants are offered to CTNs for biosecurity, they will be taken up, but only if they have enough capacity to make an application and use the funding in the time available. It seems that a relatively small amount of money (£1,700 on average) for simple capital resources is needed by CTNs to make improvements.

It is challenging to ascertain the effect of these interventions without a base level comparison, especially given the identified knowledge gaps at CTNs. As a result, it is only assumed at this stage, that these interventions will have had some level of positive effect on the management of pests and diseases at CTNs. The implementation of measures like boot washes, if used, will have improved nursery biosecurity. Similarly, some nurseries received grants for improved water management, to reduce standing water and ensure that water storage is covered, which will

have reduced the risk of fungi and oomycetes. Phase two of the project is investigating the level of biosecurity risk at a sample of CTNs in the England.

2.4.2 Biosecurity training It was also tested if there was an appetite for training in biosecurity at CTNs. Specifically: • • • •

Could useful training in plant health/biosecurity be offered to CTNs? Are CTNs interested in this?

What is the best method for delivery?

What do CTNs want to learn?

Three types of training were offered to CTNs during phase one: 1. In-person training lead by a representative from Plant Healthy, which included a visit to a CTN. 2. An on-line webinar hosted as part of the webinar programme run by the CTNC “safe and sound and in the ground” (see CTNC webpage) 3. An on-line webinar from the Tree Health centre at the Yorkshire Arboretum.

All three sessions, those on-line and in person, were well attended: 1. Multiple people from five different CTNs attended the in-person session.

2. 37 attended the CTNC webinar (88 registered) and there had been 96 views of the recorded webinar within five months.

3. 44 people attended the Yorkshire Arboretum session.

A general introduction to biosecurity was well received but it appears CTNs most valued the opportunity to ask questions specific to their individual cases. It was not always possible to answer these due to a combination of Plant Healthy being relatively new (and therefore so called “edge cases” had not yet been tested) and lack of expertise at CTNs. For example, small CTNs operating with volunteers did not have the expertise required to carry out an informed biosecurity risk assessment before seeking advice and needed a lot of guidance on their individual cases. The Norfolk County Council project officer perceived that CTN volunteers need tailored guidance and templates to help them make appropriate judgements about the biosecurity risk at their nursery.

CTNs are interested in attending training about biosecurity but there appears to be a need for CTN specific materials to accommodate their needs. The volunteer knowledge and skill set is varied and there can be a wide gap between what biosecurity experts discuss versus what CTN needs are.

Both webinars and in-person events appeared to work well for this audience, but opportunities for questions and advice about specific circumstances may be particularly valued. Simple ‘how to’ guides and templates tailored to CTNs may be appropriate.

2.4.3 Pilot Plant Healthy CTN group scheme This work was started during phase one of the Shared Outcomes Fund Trees Outside Woodland programme. The work has continued during phase 2 of the TOW programme and as such is ongoing at time of writing. Full evaluation of the scheme will be possible after phase 2 of the

TOW programme has completed, in March 2025. Interim information is included here for information and to illustrate the significant challenge and time required in creating such a scheme.

Plant Healthy is a voluntary certification scheme which demonstrates that nurseries have met the biosecurity requirements of the UK Plant Health Management Standard (PHMS).

Certification of meeting the PHMS enables nurseries to show they are committed to safeguarding biosecurity and is increasingly required by tree buyers, either through Plant Healthy or Ready to Plant. Certification is awarded by an independent assessor after an audit.

There is a charge for organisations applying for Plant Healthy certification which covers scheme membership fees, admin fees and assessor fees and expenses. This cost was identified, through the other project modules (FR research and direct insight work, for example), as a barrier for many community and small nurseries to gain Plant Healthy certification. These organisations often, by design, operate with no or very little profit margin and therefore costs for certification can be prohibitive. This piece of work explored the feasibility and practicality of a group certification scheme, whereby members of the group benefit from the certification applying to the group as a whole, therefore reducing the costs for individual nurseries.

2.4.3.1 Development of the pilot Plant Healthy CTN group certification scheme After initial conversations between Plant Healthy, Defra, Norfolk County Council and Grown in Britain (one of the schemes certifying bodies) it was established there was no scope for a CTN specific Plant Health Management Standard (PHMS). This is because the existing standard was designed to ensure adequate biosecurity and it was therefore not possible to lower the standard without associated risks. Visits to two CTNs were undertaken, by the local authority officer leading the pilot and the Plant Healthy scheme manager, to more fully understand how CTNs operate and how they might meet the existing standard. A group scheme option was suggested for trial in May 2021. It was not known if CTNs would be willing to participate in a group certification scheme. It was also not known how much resource would be required. The pilot group scheme therefore set out to answer these questions and to find out whether a group certification scheme would reduce the barriers felt by CTNs. Stage one – drafting and development of a group scheme Grown in Britain, as one of the two certifying bodies for the Plant Healthy Certification Scheme, were commissioned from autumn 2021 to June 2022 to: • • • • •

Write & peer review a Group Scheme Operating System document Develop and deliver a training module for a group scheme leader Create an application form for group scheme members & group scheme Leader Create a fees document Carry out training audits for the group scheme

They became the certifying body for the pilot Plant Healthy group scheme.

Stage two – recruitment and training of scheme participants A lead CTN to become group leader was identified early in the process. A cluster of four CTNs to become group members was also identified at this time (one subsequently withdrew to achieve individual certification more quickly).

The group leader undertook the necessary training and passed the relevant test1. They subsequently developed biosecurity practices at their own nursery and created webinars and training resources to help group members develop their practices to a certifiable standard.

Stage three – achieving certification Application templates for group members were developed by the Norfolk County Council officer and Plant Healthy during phase two of the TOW programme.

The certifying body audited the group leader in December 2023. All scheme members were successfully certified by early 2024 (phase 2 of the TOW project).

Stage four – midpoint reflections The group scheme leader and auditor reflected on their experience of set up and early operation of the scheme and produced a written report.

Stage five - continued operation and evaluation Continuation of the existing scheme until close of the programme.

An output of this pilot is a Error! Reference source not found.. This generic template could be adapted for use by another group, but an adapted version must be approved by the certification body before it could be recognised by Plant Healthy. It can be shared but is not included in this report due to its length, an outline of the scheme is provided below.

1

During this process (Autumn 2023, phase two TOW programme) there was a change of Group Leader personnel which meant a

new person had to complete relevant training and pass the test, which they did .

2.4.3.2 Outline of the pilot group accreditation scheme Group leader (GL) role and responsibilities: •

• • • •

•

Undertake administration of the group scheme, including registering nurseries with the certification body, managing fees to be paid, developing group scheme operating procedures and records keeping.

Be the main point of contact for the certifying body (Grown in Britain).

Communicate on behalf of the group in an impartial way.

Undertake an assessment (internal audit) of group members. This compliance monitoring will take place when a CTN joins a groups scheme, and then annually.

Have responsibility for ensuring certification numbers and Plant Healthy logo are issued to group scheme members (and are also removed when members leave the groups scheme).

Requires relevant previous experience/expertise and relevant training for the role (Plant Healthy training and group scheme management training modules).

Group members (GM) / nurseries roles and responsibilities: • •

• •

•

•

Be a small operation with turnover of less than £100,000.

Be responsible for their own site biosecurity and compliance with the Plant Health Management Standard and for making and keeping appropriate risk registers, controls and monitoring up to date.

Sign a Group Members Agreement.

Be registered with the certification body and have a unique certification number issued to them by the Group Leader. Nurseries may be registered individually (Figure 7) or as part of a group or cluster (Figure Error! Reference source not found.8).

Understand, if they are a member of a cluster, that all cluster members would share a certification number and if a single cluster member fails an audit, then all members of the cluster would have certification withdrawn.

Be evaluated by the Group Leader on an annual basis

The certification body role and responsibilities: • •

Undertake an independent audit (external audit) of the group against the Plant Health Management Standard.

Issue certification numbers to the group scheme leader.

Figure 7. Hypothetical group scheme models from the PH group scheme guidance document – showing the model with individual certified nurseries.

Figure 8. Hypothetical group scheme models from the PH group scheme guidance document – showing the model with clusters of nurseries.

Costs There were some fixed administration fees and annual membership and auditing fees and expenses to be paid to the certification body by the group. These are detailed in the Guidance and Operating Procedure Manual, with worked examples. These costs represent the ‘normal’ costs associated with Plant Healthy Certification.

There were additional costs for a group scheme, as there were also administration fees to be paid by the group to the group leader. These were agreed by the group, independently of the certification body. There were also training costs for the group scheme leader. t was expected

that being a member of a group scheme as a cluster member would represent a cost saving for an individual CTN compared to them achieving Plant Healthy certification by themselves.

2.4.3.3 Participants’ reflections on the scheme to date Project officer After phase 1, the lead local authority officer reported significant challenges in getting a group certification scheme off the ground. Some challenges were due to Plant Healthy itself being relatively new and that some aspects of the certification scheme were still being developed.

Challenges also included those arising from the busy schedules of multiple stakeholders including group scheme managers and Grown in Britain auditors.

Group scheme leader The following is a summary of a report written by the group scheme leader (Moor Trees) in May 2024.

•

Staff resource

Administration was cited as a significant challenge. Performance of the role took time away from their regular CTN management duties. The paperwork required was perceived as significant for all the CTNs involved in the group/cluster. The group scheme leader experienced a change of personnel during group scheme development.

The geographic spread of the group/cluster represented a challenge because travel time and costs were significant. Time away from the ‘home’ CTN could not be back filled. A more local group would be more practical.

It was a certification requirement that the group scheme leader (internal auditor) could not also be the same person who gave advice to group/cluster members. This represented a significant practical problem for even the large, well-established lead CTN (with only 4 FTE staff members).

External audits (to the lead CTN) coincided with the busiest time of the year for CTNs: tree planting season. The requirement for the lead CTN to then audit (internal audit) the cluster members within 28 days was therefore extremely challenging, even for this large and experienced CTN. The 28-day period for remedying biosecurity failings was also a challenge for CTNs (who generally have extremely limited resource).

•

Financial resource

While some of the staffing costs described above were covered by fees, there was no financial advantage for the lead CTN to be involved in the group scheme (to achieve Plant Healthy Certification for themselves).

It was suggested a minimum group size of five is required, under the current model, to make the scheme more cost effective than an individual audit. A cluster model, with a minimum of 10-12 CTNs was considered more cost effective, however this would then also bring additional administrative burden and travel time for the group leader. The group scheme leader did not see this as an attractive option for them.

•

Risks of low biosecurity knowledge among CTNs

The group scheme leader discovered a lot of their time was spent on mentoring and guiding CTNs through basic biosecurity to get them ready to be audited, rather than in managing the administration of a certification scheme (i.e. it would have been easier if people were already on a pathway to certification).

30

The risk of one group member failing an audit, combined with the inability of the group scheme leader to provide advice at the same time as being the internal auditor, represented a significant additional risk for the group scheme leader, who’s ability to trade may have been damaged. They felt there was no incentive to compensate for this (which extended to recognition of time spent aiding those who may subsequently drop out of a group scheme to allow the group to pass) and that the model trialled was not therefore sustainable.

•

Recommendations

The group scheme leader concluded a scaled or tiered or ‘entry level’ certification scheme would be more appropriate for most CTNs. A nationally administered scheme was also suggested, as was the potential for a group scheme to be focused on development mentoring rather than achieving certification. There was also recognition that the commercial nursery sector may have a role to play.

Group scheme auditor Reflections from the group scheme external auditor suggested additional resource for group scheme management was required. This extended to a ‘set up’ phase where the capacity and training needs of the group scheme leader could be supported. Specific training needs identified included: training on legal requirements such as notifiable pests, the SOPRA (Site and Operations Pest Risk Analysis), plant passporting, traceability, and training on how to conduct an internal audit. Given the importance of specific people at these nurseries, the external auditor suggested having a planned contingency to ensure staff changes did not affect operation of the scheme.

Document templates, suitable for use by small nurseries and CTNs, were suggested, as was the creation a business plan for the group scheme.

The auditor also noted that it was not yet clear that the group scheme could be cost effective for either the group scheme members and the lead CTN, when they operate with very little or even no profit. They did, however, note that group schemes like this do offer a potential way forward to reduce costs for small nurseries and CTNs. Group Members A workshop will be held during phase two to seek the views of scheme participants.

Grown in Britain and Plant Healthy Detailed feedback will be sought during phase two of the programme.

2.4.3.4 Summary - pilot Plant Healthy group scheme The model trialled during this pilot was not considered viable by the group scheme leader, at least during the early stages, and may have represented an additional risk to their business operations. This may only be a significant risk for those CTNs selling their trees, but this should not be assumed. As a trial it also appears to have been quite challenging to get started, but this may be the case for any such new schemes.

That one scheme member withdrew, to achieve Plant Healthy certification faster as an individual suggests some problems with the scheme, or perhaps just recognition of the challenge. It may have also demonstrated something about the diversity of biosecurity knowledge in the sector (some being more developed than others). This idea was reinforced by feedback from the external auditor which suggests up front training needs may have been 31

underestimated. The level of development mentoring required corroborated findings from the national survey that there is limited biosecurity knowledge and practise at CTNs currently.

The relative complexity of the scheme seems to be problematic and not fit for purpose. It may well require further adaptation to be useful to the CTN sector. Group scheme documentation is lengthy and complicated, for example: “Group schemes use a model of auditing where the group leader internally audits all the group members and then an independent auditor comes and audits the square root of the members.

So, each year the square root of the total number of members in the group, including the group leader, will be independently audited at a cost of £285 per site.”

Currently it seems that there are too many barriers for this group scheme to be a viable option, however the external auditor suggested adaptations which may help to reduce the burden on the group scheme leader and increase the scheme’s viability. The group scheme leader concluded a scaled or tiered or ‘entry level’ certification scheme would be more appropriate for most CTNs. A nationally administered scheme was also suggested, as was the potential for a group scheme to be focused on development mentoring rather than achieving certification.

There was also recognition that the commercial nursery sector may have a role to play in supporting the development of biosecurity certification at CTNs. Whilst CTNs involved in the pilot group scheme have achieved Plant Healthy certification (at TOW programme phase two), this required significant time investment from all stakeholders.

The process has highlighted the need for basic biosecurity mentoring and simple processes and templates. The significant amount of work highlights the need for early exploration of needs before investment in processes. For example, the biosecurity development needs at CTNs were not well understood before a group certification scheme was proposed (albeit with well meaning). At present this lack of knowledge represents a barrier to CTN Plant Healthy certification, more so than the financial aspects of pooling resources to achieve a group accreditation. A group or other scheme would be worth exploring again, when there is a more developed understanding of biosecurity risk at CTNs.

2.5 Action research conclusions – what have we learned about supporting CTNs? It seems clear that grant funding was essential for the individual CTNs in this study to establish and operate successfully in the short term, but this wasn’t the only factor. Grant funding supported a variety of capital items at CTNs; however, it does appear that, even when available, it can be challenging for CTNs to use funds in a timely fashion and maximise their impact. Site availability, staff and volunteer time and availability, as well as an appropriate skills base were important factors in utilising grant funding, as was the reliability of the grant funding to enable longer-term planning.

Findings demonstrated scope to accommodate several training needs via the production of audience appropriate resources, particularly for biosecurity and business operation, and through supporting a community of practice (peer-to-peer learning). The Tree Grower’s Guide and CTN Collaborative have been particularly well received.

In terms of tree production, findings indicated a likely lead in time of several years to accommodate CTN establishment before any realistic upscaling of production can take place.

32

The impact of supporting CTNs to improve biosecurity through grants will be assessed more fully at phase two, but it is promising that there was demand for the biosecurity grants among CTNs. Evidence in this report suggests some bespoke training and tools/templates are required for CTNs to understand how biosecurity applies to their nursery. Similarly, CTNs have struggled to achieve Plant Healthy certification, and further research is needed to understand how they can best be supported to comply with the Plant Health Management Standard.

33

Step 3: Knowledge sharing and tool creation 3.1 A CTN demonstration hub To generate the direct insight needed to identify and prepare the appropriate resources as part of the project, and to support peer-to-peer learning and provide inspiration, a CTN ‘demonstration hub’ was created from scratch.

Several sites were considered for the CTN demonstration hub, and Gressenhall Farm and Workhouse, owned and run by Norfolk County Council, was selected based on: Practicalities including: • • • • •

Existing access to mains water and electricity Vehicular access via hard standing Existing toilet facilities Facility for rainwater harvesting on site Location. The site is in the centre of county and close to the market town of Dereham.

A significant potential audience and existing networks: • • • •

The museum attracts approximately 70,000 visitors per year with an additional 10,000 school children making group visits, annually A pre-existing training programme including relevant skills e.g. pruning A network of volunteers and on-site staff The site was also intended to become a public gateway for Norfolk County Council Environmental policy via a planned Environmental Hub.

The Gressenhall CTN was developed to demonstrate multiple tree growing techniques including bare root whips (both in the ground and in low raised beds), cell grown trees, and pot grown trees. Trees were mainly grown from seed, on site.

Figure 9. Gressenhall CTN site before construction

34

Volunteers were recruited via a short application form and were given an induction. Weekly volunteer sessions started in October 2021 and continue to take place (at time of writing). At the end of phase 1 (March 2023) 18 people had provided at least 100 volunteer days at the nursery.

Exemplary biosecurity standards are demonstrated by the use of boot washes on site, appropriate water management and relevant biosecurity signage. Tree stock is traced from source to sale, including the seed collection location and date. The site does not have a quarantine area but does not accept donations of trees (wildings or other) to manage any associated risk. Pots and root trainers are washed regularly.

This practical experience informed the knowledge sharing toolkit and has influenced engagement in tree growing. Three events at Gressenhall engaged an average of 200 people each time. One school, who had visited the hub, has set up their own CTN and will continue to visit to learn more as they develop. A higher education college has done the same. The nursery also hosted multiple visits from local community networks, including the Suffolk tree wardens and The East of England Apples and Orchard project. Insights gained through hands-on experience have been invaluable to multiple stakeholders.

The CTN demonstration hub (at time of writing) aspired to produce c.10,000 trees per year and continue to host training events and visits and have a dedicated team of volunteers. It is led and run by Norfolk County Council.

Figure 10. Gressenhall CTN gates and infrastructure including a secure storage facility.

3.2 Knowledge sharing toolkit A key output of the project was the development of a toolkit for setting up and running a successful CTN. This comprised a book and a range of supporting materials. This toolkit was 35

developed by Norfolk County Council, working closely with partners The Tree Council, Moor Trees (an established CTN in Devon), and Forest for Cornwall.

Launched in December 2022, the toolkit includes: • Guidance on identification of trees and how to grow seed from each.

• Information on all aspects of setting up a tree nursery from design to growing trees, managing volunteers, finance and important biosecurity measures.

• Case studies of different models of CTN with a specific biosecurity case study.

• Poster-style information covering “how to design a community tree nursery”, “biosecurity”, “identifying pathways for pests” and “what is a plant passport?”

• Eight how-to videos on tree growing and planting; from woodland and nursery design to seed collecting, tree growing, planting, and aftercare.

The toolkit is hosted on the Tree Growers Guide website Tree Grower's Guide (treegrowersguide.org.uk) which is managed and maintained by The Tree Council, and is also available as a physical book.

Between September 2023 and May 2024, the Tree Growers Guide had been downloaded 854 times. Each subsection is available as a separate unit and these have been downloaded in differing quantities: ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Trees from seed - 122 downloads Tree seed ID - 89 downloads CTN set up - 75 downloads Case studies - 68 downloads

Approximately 500 hard copies have been distributed to Tree Wardens, across the UK and hard copies of the guide continue to be shared at appropriate regional events.

3.3 Summary The project identified a need for user friendly resources to support CTNs to contribute to national biosecure tree supply. Both the establishment of a CTN demonstration hub and the production of a user-friendly toolkit have played a role in spreading expertise and practical guidance to volunteers in the sector. These resources have a profile which could be expanded upon to further influence grassroots tree growing activities, if momentum can be maintained or accelerated.

36

Conclusion This project has identified and described a network of about 80 community tree nurseries across the UK which are providing approximately 250,000 trees a year, often free of charge, to the tree planting community. They are doing this at the same time as contributing myriad other benefits to their local communities. They are varied groups and organisations but are all largely staffed by volunteers and rely heavily on grant support to operate. This suggests plans to upscale tree production, which isn’t always the primary purpose of a CTN, depend upon longer term and reliable funding streams. Training and peer-to-peer support can be valuable for this enthusiastic sector but also relies on some external inputs and bespoke/tailored materials and templates. The provision of these resources through this project has been well received.

Relatively small amounts of grant funding were able to contribute to CTN development. It is not yet clear if this will continue to support their operations and further study will be required to understand if the CTNs that received grant funding will be sustainable. It does, however, appear that a relatively small amount of funding has the potential to kick start a form of peer-to-peer collaboration and resource production, particularly through the CTN Collaborative, which supports the sector to produce at least a quarter of a million, native, local broadleaved trees, per year. This relatively modest cost will have also enabled the CTNs to provide a myriad of social benefits to local communities which have not been quantified here. This applies both to those with direct involvement in CTNs and those in communities who will benefit from the trees generated.

The issue of biosecurity at CTNs has been a mixed picture with the sector requiring upskilling.

The level of biosecurity risk at CTNs has not yet been quantified (research is ongoing) but it is possible to mitigate potential biosecurity risks through an offer of funding, training and bespoke tools. CTNs struggle to achieve certification of biosecurity. The group scheme, piloted through this project, in its current format does not appear to be an adequate solution. However, as it has resulted in several CTNs gaining certification, it has shown that there is potential for CTNs to achieve this with the right support. Further investigation is needed to find a way for CTNs to be able to access biosecurity certification. In the meantime, the facilitation of peer-to-peer collaboration in this sector is an important way to encourage and enable CTNs to improve their biosecurity.

The body of knowledge gained from the scoping study, action research, and guidance materials produced represents a spectrum of valuable information and tools to both describe and influence the CTN sector in the UK at both policy and grass roots level.

37

References Ambrose-Oji, B., Pearson, M., Pohlschneider, S., Hattersley, R., Archer, L., Fitzgerald, O., & Bursnell, M. (2023, January). Social Research for Community Tree Nurseries (CTN).

Forest Research. Retrieved from https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/community-tree-nurseries/

38

Appendices 1. Tree species grown by community tree nurseries Table 1. Species grown by CTNs (from surveys conducted by Forest Research) and the percentage they make up of the total number of trees grown

by CTNs. Tree Species

Percentage grown Tree Species

Percentage grown

Alder

14.47%

Fruit trees

0.08%

Birch

11.13%

Dog Rose

0.07%

Rowan

9.51%

Small leaved Lime

0.07%

Sessile oak

8.59%

bullace

0.05%

Downy Birch

6.65%

gingko

0.05%

Black alder

5.61%

Green Beech

0.05%

oak

5.59%

pear

0.05%

Hazel

4.74%

Walnut

0.04%

English oak

4.66%

Black walnut

0.04%

Black Poplar

4.60%

Plum

0.03%

Field Maple

2.96%

cherry

0.03%

Pedunculate oak

2.72%

whitebeam

0.03%

39

Blackthorn

2.54%

Rose dog

0.03%

Hawthorn

2.53%

Devon Whitebeam

0.03%

Wych elm

1.52%

Wild Privet

0.03%

Crab Apple

1.08%

Grey Willow

0.03%

Midland Hawthorn

0.93%

maple

0.02%

Sweet Chestnut

0.84%

Field Rose

0.02%

Alder buckthorn

0.81%

Copper Beech

0.02%

Dogwood

0.77%

Cherry Plum

0.01%

Hornbeam

0.74%

Crack Willow

0.01%

Silver Birch

0.68%

Wild Service

0.01%

Elder

0.54%

balsam poplar

0.01%

European Hornbeam 0.54%

privet

0.01%

Wild cherry

0.41%

Sea Buckthorn

0.01%

Sycamore

0.36%

Sweet Briar

0.01%

Goat Willow

0.34%

Damson

0.01%

Beech

0.34%

Osier Willow

0.00%

Guelder Rose

0.31%

grand fir

0.00%

Spindle

0.27%

Medlar

0.00%

European Spindle

0.27%

Quince

0.00%

40

Ash

0.26%

Kentish Cobnut

0.00%

Apple

0.25%

Yew

0.00%

Holm oak

0.24%

Grafted pear

0.00%

willow

0.18%

Osier

0.00%

Aspen

0.17%

Shepherds Bullace

0.00%

Horse Chestnut

0.17%

Swedish Whitebeam 0.00%

Bird Cherry

0.14%

White Willow

0.00%

Eared willow

0.14%

Box

0.00%

Holly

0.13%

Butchers Broom

0.00%

Scots Pine

0.11%

Gorse

0.00%

Wayfaring

0.10%

Chestnut

0.00%

Purging Buckthorn

0.09%

White Poplar

0.00%

Western Red Cedar

0.09%

41

2. CTN development grants issued at phase one Table 2. List of support grants issued to CTNs during phase one of the CTN project. A total of 28 grants were issued to 24 individual CTNs. CTN Location

CTN Established

CTN type

CTN description

Norfolk

2020

Communitybased2

A village CTN at a local allotment

Norfolk

2021

Organisation / Projectbased3

Norfolk

2021

Organisation / Project- based

Norfolk

2021

Organisation / Project based

Norfolk

2021

Network4

Norfolk

2019

Communitybased

Norfolk

2019

Communitybased

Funding provided

Main categories funding was awarded for

£263

Fencing materials

£12,000

Infrastructure, equipment, mileage, promotion

£1,280

Infrastructure

Allow the nursery to set up on the allotment.

Establish the nursery and carry out DNA 4500 expected. testing of black poplar across Norfolk so clone types are known. Promote planting of black poplar. Parent trees are sourced, grown and donated to sites.

150 expected.

Establish the nursery.

£4,264

Fencing, tools, water tank, whips

Establish the nursery and grow trees for planting at district council sites.

£1,155

Infrastructure

Establish the nurseries.

£782

Compost, equipment, kit for events

Expand tree growing and outreach.

£281

Root trainers, netting protection

Continue to operate the CTN.

Conservation charity establishing a Black Poplar and Elm CTN.

Primary school CTN

District council nursery, led by ranger team and a conservation volunteer group in a country park.

A group of individuals growing in back gardens for distribution to local projects Established community plant nursery beginning to grow more trees.

Established CTN with 2 locations.

2

Community based CTNs are wholly run by volunteers and may or may not have links to other organisations.

3

Organisation or Project Based CTNs are managed by an organisation (e.g. local authority or charity).

4

Network CTNs are a collective of individual growers.

What will the funding allow them to do?

Trees produced per year after funding 80 expected.

2000 expected.

100 expected.

1250 expected.

42

Wildlife Trust growing trees for planting on their sites.

Norfolk

2023

Organisation / Project based

Norfolk

2023

Organisation / Project based

Norfolk

2021

Norfolk

2022

Norfolk

2022

Cornwall

2021

Community – based Organisation / Project based Community – based

Enterprise5

New CTN in a college – working with students with additional needs.

Nursery run by local Tree Warden group.

Nursery in secondary school grounds.

CTN in a village growing for local planting.

CTN run by a community interest company, who work with their local community, individuals, and vulnerable adults dealing with addiction issues6.

£ 1,080

Infrastructure

£4,980

Infrastructure and equipment

£810

Infrastructure

£4,510

Infrastructure

£621

Infrastructure

£10,000

A second grant awarded to the same nursery as the previous line.

Cornwall

5

2021

Enterprise

£10,000

Set up the CTN to focus on growing rarer species (Midland hawthorn, wild service, and small leaved lime) by collecting seed from nature reserves.

Trees are grown for the expansion of an existing woodland and other wildlife reserves.

Set up the CTN and regularly visit the CTN demonstration hub at Gressenhall.

Expansion of the nursery with new beds.

Set up the CTN, with support from the CTN demonstration hub.

Set up the CTN following a model used by another Norfolk village CTN.

Seed sowing & 2000 expected. collection materials, Set up of main CTN growing areas and polytunnel, shed, basic site layout, which required the signage, tools & purchase of materials and equipment equipment, nursery and contributions to nursery/ volunteer advisory support (from manager costs (to provide temporary experienced nursery welfare facilities on site). staff from nearby nurseries).

Biosecurity materials, Continuation of the CTN set up: label printer, laptop, infrastructure works to ensure the printer, plant healthy nursery has a secure workspace and certification, mobile can maintain trees throughout the phone internet growing seasons. tethering, growing

Enterprise CTNs are set up to achieve tree production and other benefits through business methods.

6

Since 2021, this CTN have also worked with volunteers from a homeless charity, individuals referred by the probation service, people who are long term un-employed. They established a seasonal autumn walking group’ to collect seed from specific areas (with permission from the landowners) to help promote participation by the local community.

43

mediums and materials, & nursery staff support costs for training and development, construction materials for hot composting bed.

Cornwall

Cornwall

2021

2022

Cornwall

2021

Cornwall

2021

Enterprise

Enterprise

A CTN run by people who work developing sustainable enterprises that support their work with homeless individuals in the community.

As above - A second grant awarded to the same nursery as the previous line.7

The CTN has been set up within the existing horticultural operation run by the Kehelland Trust. The trust works with adults with learning and physical disabilities helping provide social and practical skills and Organisation / experience in the horticultural / Project- based rural sector.8

As above. A second grant awarded Organisation / to the same nursery as the previous Project- based line.

1000 expected. £10,000

£10,752

£9,600

Deer fencing, sowing materials, and site storage.

Setting up of the CTN – erecting deer fencing and polytunnels to allow for successful tree growing.

Continuation of the CTN set up – Gates, access tracks, infrastructure works to ensure nursery water pipe, and rabbit has secure workspace and can maintain netting. trees throughout the growing seasons.

Materials, fencing 5000 expected. (growing enclosure), polytunnel, compost area, growing mediums, pots, seed trays, irrigation equipment, The establishment of a new nursery hoses, hand tools area fenced and with new polytunnels, (trowels, rake, spades, planting beds and work areas. dibbers, gloves, wheelbarrow, soil sifter, secateurs), signage, maintenance equipment and landscape fabric.

£460

7

Since 2022 they have been working with local long term unemployed individuals, Work parties from local businesses and occasional volunteer groups from Cornwall Council.

8

The nursery area has been part of the charities work to broaden the activity base to their clients and provide alternative growing activities at different times of year.

44

2021

Organisation / Project- based

Kent

2023

Communitybased

Shropshire

2020

Communitybased

Shropshire

2020

Shropshire

2021

Kent

Nursery managed by Shrewsbury Organisation / Town Council to provide free trees Project based for county residents.

Nursery managed by the town Organisation / council to provide free trees for Project based county residents.

Shropshire

2021

Organisation / project based

Shropshire

2022

Community based

Shropshire

2022

Community based

Chichester

2021

Community based

Chichester

2022

9

A prison providing rehabilitation, education, qualifications, and therapy for residents – supported

by Seeding Hope CEC CTN at a school and Scouts Group run by Tree Wardens and producing trees for local planting projects.

Nursery managed and run by a tree planting group

Community based

Grant managed by Shropshire Wildlife Trust CTN collecting and growing on nearby wildings for planting locally.

A small locally run CTN. An existing CTN managed by a local charity). Run by local volunteers.

A new CTN managed by the same charity as the row above and run by local volunteers.

£22,492

Set up. Infrastructure, Establish nursery, purchase materials materials, support, and equipment, and contribute to development costs Seeding Hope development budget 9.

c. 18,000 expected.

Realised c. 800.

C 1000 expected

£3,940

£2,896

£15,630

Materials

Establish the nursery.

Watering system, compost, storage, pots, Expand the capacity of the nursery. training Infrastructure, drip line irrigation, printer, Establish the nursery. canes, compost, ties

£3162

Compost and materials

Consolidate and develop nursery activities.

£7,341

Laboratory and micropropagation costs

Propagate disease resistant elm trees using micropropagation to provide to local CTNs and community groups for dissemination and community planting.

£2,509 £1,211

£706

£4,000

Infrastructure, Expand production capacity and polytunnel, fencing, efficiency. compost and pots Infrastructure, water & Consolidate establishment. electricity supply Expand the existing CTN to create capacity to grow on an increased Raised beds number of seedlings and donations, and to meet demand.

Storage shed, volunteer Establish the CTN. Part of the cost of shelter, compost, tools, establishment was provided by other shade netting, root organisations.

200 expected.

32 realised.

170 realised.

500 realised.

125 realised.

£5,000 to enable Seeding Hope to project manage the CTN set up, business planning, provision of seeds and cutting for the nursery, education and therapy sessions for the inmates.

45

trainers, signage, education materials

TOTAL

£146,725

46

3. Types of CTN supported by grant funding Table 3. The number and type of CTNs supported with grant funding.

Local Authority

Communitybased

Enterprise Network

Organisation / projectbased 6 1 1 4

TOTAL

Norfolk CC 5 1 12 Cornwall C 4 5 Kent CC 1 2 Shropshire C 3 7 Chichester 2 2 DC TOTAL 11 4 1 12 28 NB – Some CTNs had more than one grant under the project. 24 individual CTNs were funded in total.

47

4. Example CTN grant application form

Community Tree Nursery Grant Offer Form

Please discuss your project idea with the NCC before starting an application; call 01603 306539 or email tree.project@norfolk.gov.uk

The scheme is funded by DEFRA as part of the government’s commitment to increase tree cover in the UK.

On submission of this form you, the applicant, are agreeing that you are responsible for ensuring that you meet the following conditions: • • • • •

Written consent/licence(s) from statutory agencies if this is required Written consent from a landowner if this is required Information demonstrating that you are a suitable recipient for the fund You agree to take part in research being undertaken by Forest Research looking at the impact of this funding on Community Tree Nurseries You will take reasonable steps to ensure biosecurity Project title: Applicant Organisation (if applicable): Name of person applying: Role or job title: Contact details Address: Postcode: Daytime telephone No: Email address:

Please provide the following information (check all the boxes that apply). Are you a: 48

Voluntary Organisation or Community Group Parish Council Registered charity Private individual Other (please state)

About your project 1. Location of the tree nursery (e.g. address or Ordnance Survey Grid Reference if appropriate) 2. Who owns the land?

If the land is not owned by you/your group do you have any agreements in place for the use of the land?

3. Please briefly describe the Community Tree Nursery • • •

Who will be involved?

How many trees do you hope to grow?

How will trees be distributed; do you have ideas for where trees could be planted?

Additional information, such as plans, may be attached to this form 4. Please briefly describe how funding would be used and the difference this would make to the nursery

Please indicate the planned programme and timetable of your project, including start and end dates and stages of the project: (details can be provided in a plan and attached to your application) Stages

Start Date

Finish Date

49

Project budget Please show the breakdown of the cost of the project and attach any quotations received (only include VAT if you are unable to reclaim it and show where it is included).

Item or works

Value £

Total cost:

£

All information will be securely held and our privacy notice tells you what to expect when Norfolk County Council (the County Council) collects personal information.

Please enclose any supporting information with your application.

Please read and sign the following statement:

“I certify that that all the information provided in this application is true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any misleading statements whether deliberate or accidental could make the application invalid and therefore lead to payment of the Signature grant being withheld or make the applicant liable for the return of any money.”

50

Name Position Date

Please return the completed application form to: tree.project@norfolk.gov.uk

Contact Details Email: tree.project@norfolk.gov.uk Tel: 01603 306539

51

5. Example biosecurity grant application form Community Tree Nursery Small Biosecurity Grants – Application Form

Please read the FAQs before applying.

If you have any queries please contact The Fellowship of The Trees (email)

This grant scheme is funded by DEFRA as part of the Trees Outside Woodlands research project.

On submission of this form you, the applicant, are agreeing that you are responsible for ensuring that you meet the following conditions: • • • •

Written consent/licence(s) from statutory agencies if this is required Written consent from a landowner if this is required Information demonstrating that you are a suitable recipient for the fund You agree to take part in research being follow up surveys and monitoring being undertaken by Forest Research looking at the impact of this funding on Community Tree Nurseries. This will be a maximum of 2 surveys and 1 online interview Project title: Applicant Organisation (if applicable): Name of person applying: Role or job title: Contact details Address: Postcode: Daytime telephone No: Email address:

Please provide the following information (check all the boxes that apply). Are you a: Voluntary Organisation or Community Group 52

Parish Council Registered charity Private individual Other (please state)

About your project 5. Location of the tree nursery (e.g. address or Ordnance Survey Grid Reference if appropriate) 6. Who owns the land?

If the land is not owned by you/your group do you have any agreements in place for the use of the land?

7. Please briefly describe the Community Tree Nursery •

How long have you been operating:

•

How many trees do you grow annually (or hope to grow if you are currently setting up)?

•

How are trees distributed?

•

How are volunteers involved in the nursery

•

Please confirm this is not a profit making enterprise

Additional information, such as plans, may be attached to this form 8. Please briefly describe how funding would be used and the difference this would make to the nursery biosecurity/Plant Health

53

Please indicate the planned programme and timetable of your project, including start and end dates and stages of the project: (details can be provided in a plan and attached to your application) Stages

Start Date

Finish Date

Project budget Please show the breakdown of the cost of the project and attach any quotations received (only include VAT if you are unable to reclaim it and show where it is included).

Item or works

Total £

Total cost:

VAT £

£

GDPR statement

For example All information will be securely held and our privacy notice (link) tells you what to expect when The Fellowship of The Trees collects personal information.

Please enclose any supporting information with your application.

Please read and sign the following statement:

54

“I certify that that all the information provided in this application is true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any misleading statements whether deliberate or accidental could make the application invalid and therefore lead to payment of the grant being withheld or make the applicant liable for the return of any money.”

Signature

Name Position Date

Please return the completed application form to: email

Contact Details Email: Tel:

55

Acknowledgements This report has been developed by a partnership of The Tree Council, Defra, Natural England, and Norfolk County Council as part of the Trees Outside Woodlands research programme. It has been prepared with assistance from Chichester District Council, Cornwall Council, Fera Science, Forest Research, Kent County Council, and Shropshire Council.

The Trees Outside Woodland programme is developing innovative and sustainable new ways to increase tree cover to address both climate and ecological emergencies. The £4.8m, five-year programme is funded by HM Government and delivered in partnership by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Natural England, The Tree Council, with five local councils.

This publication is available at treecouncil.org.uk and is published under the Open Government Licence v3.0 Project code: Shared Outcomes Fund 30238 Citation: The Tree Council, Defra, Natural England, Norfolk County Council, 2025. Boosting Community Tree Nurseries: A Trees Outside Woodlands project report. Tree Council, London.

56

57