Community Tree Nurseries in the UK: Promise, Potential and Pitfalls

Abstract

Forest restoration and tree-planting projects initiated as a response to climate change and biodiversity loss are increasingly important around the globe. Small-scale and community-based tree nurseries have been promoted as a potential route to meeting some local or regional supply-side bottlenecks. A study in the UK used a mixed methods approach to assess the potential contribution of community tree nurseries (CTNs) to tree material supply. Semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were undertaken with 16 CTNs across the UK to generate a sector-wide characterisation of CTNs. A UK-wide online survey assessed the total number of CTNs, production methods and volumes, biosecurity practices and benefits of community involvement. Another 13 CTNs receiving support to establish and extend their operations took part in SSIs assessing their development. The results indicate that there are four broad types of CTN (Organisation- and project-based, Community-based, Enterprise and Network CTNs). A significant number of CTNs in Britain are new and establishing. The sustainability of CTNs relies in large part on grant support rather than income from tree sales. Production is almost exclusively native broadleaves and local provenances. There are policy implications concerning: i. the suitability of species being produced to future climatic and market conditions and ii. the tension around financial viability, grant dependence and CTN sustainability for those CTNs focused on social and environmental benefits rather than income generation. Identifying gaps in the provision of trees by commercial nurseries, e.g., uncommon or recalcitrant species, could be a feasible financial strategy. It is likely that financial support and skills development are likely to be required as social innovation in the community-supported tree nursery sector establishes and develops. Judging the success and impact of some types of CTNs in terms of production and finance measures may be unfair, as other social and environmental benefits may be as important and valuable. It is clear that more evaluative research is needed to quantify and better understand these kinds of outcomes and the added value they accrue.