Tree Generation final report:Layout 1

F inal repor t

TreegenerationFinal report

A review of the urban forestry pilot project for North East Wales

Spring 2009

Tree Generation final report:Layout 1 27/8/09 23:51 Page 1

Treegeneration was a partnership initiative jointly funded by the following organisations:

For general enquiries:Grants & Regulations Department

Forestry Commission WalesNorth Wales Area Office

Clawdd NewyddRuthin

LL15 2NL

Tel: 0845 6040845Fax: 01824 750492

email: [email protected]


Contents

Treegeneration Final Report | 3

SUMMARY Page

1. INTRODUCTION 8The importance of urban green space 8Why an urban tree planting project for Wales? 8

2. AIMS OF THE TREEGENERATION PILOT 9The aim of Treegeneration 9The range of aims for Treegeneration grant-aided schemes 9

3. METHODOLOGY: HOW THE TREEGENERATION PILOT PROJECT WAS SET UP 11PartnershipThe Treegeneration Project OfficerGrant aid for local schemes

4. IMPLEMENTATION AND DELIVERY: HOW THE TREEGENERATION PILOT WAS DONE 12Phase One 12Phase Two 12

Awareness raising and networking 12Delivery 13

5. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES: WHAT WAS ACHIEVED 16Outputs 16Outcomes 16

Improved adaption to climate change 17Improved education and more learning opportunities 17Improved community cohesion and social well being 17More physical regeneration of the urban environment 17Improved access to trees and woodlands 17Creation of more native habitat 17

6. REFLECTION AND ASSESSMENT: WHAT WAS LEARNT 18Aims 18Partnership between the steering group / funding partners 18Lack of a project plan 18Treegeneration Project Officer 18

Working arrangements 18Competencies 20

Grant aid and delivery of schemes 20Awareness raising 20The range of schemes delivered 21Grant aid and match funding 21Relationships with grant recipients 21Practicalities of delivering grant-aid 21Responses of different types of grant recipient, and how they benefitted 22Delivery of advice and non-monetary assistance 22


4 | Treegeneration Final Report

Contents

PageFollow-on from the Treegeneration pilot 22

Lack of monitoring and evaluation 22Conducting research for this review 22Continued contact with grant-aided schemes 23Treegeneration’s place in FCW 23

General conclusions about the Treegeneration pilot project 23

7. TREEGENERATION AND WAG’S POLICY CONTEXT 24

8. RECOMMENDATIONS 26

9. FURTHER READING 27

TABLE 1 The Range of Treegeneration’s Aims for Grant-aided Schemes 10TABLE 2 Summary of the Cost of Grant aided Schemes in the Treegeneration

Pilot Project 14TABLE 3 Total Treegeneration Pilot Project Outputs 16TABLE 4 Treegeneration Pilot Project’s Expected Outcomes 16TABLE 5 Treegeneration’s fit with Woodlands for Wales 25

FIGURE 1 Number of Grant-aided Treegeneration Schemes and Types of Sites 14FIGURE 2 Number and Types of Organisations Grant-aided by the

Treegeneration Pilot Project 14

APPENDIX 1 Treegeneration Schemes 28APPENDIX 2 Essential Competencies 35APPENDIX 3 Forestry Commission Wales’ internal structural arrangements 36APPENDIX 4 Treegeneration Application Forms 38APPENDIX 5 Treegeneration Maintenance Agreement 46APPENDIX 6 Treegeneration Partnership Agreement 47


Executive summary


The Treegeneration pilot project ran from 2003to 2008. It was started by Grants and LicencesDepartment of Forestry Commission Wales(FCW). The area covered was north-eastWales: the counties of Flintshire and Wrexham.The project was steered and jointly funded bya partnership of interested organisations.

The overarching aim of the Treegenerationpilot project was to find out what would beneeded for successful urban tree plantingthroughout Wales. The main aims, in practicalterms, were:

• to promote the environmental benefits, theversatility and the cost effectiveness of treesand woodlands

• to make it easier to use trees andwoodlands in urban areas.

The mechanisms for achieving these aimswere:

• employing a project officer for four years• raising awareness of the project and its

benefits• offering grant aid of up to 75 per cent of the

cost of community tree planting schemes(50 per cent for businesses) and associatedcommunity development

• securing match funding from grantbeneficiaries for the remainder of the costof planting schemes

• offering advice and practical help with treeplanting, establishment and communitydevelopment associated with tree planting.

The project had a wide brief, with no settargets. Sites considered appropriate forplanting were:

• at any urban or urban fringe or gatewaylocation

• any size of site• on private or public land• for temporary or permanent planting.

The project supported 27 planting schemesover a range of urban sites. The total cost ofgrant aid to these was £115,342. This is 70 percent of the total cost of schemes, which was£164,205.



Treegeneration worked with environmentalgroups, schools, community groups,businesses and individuals to deliver treeplanting schemes. Their involvement wasimportant to get the message across aboutthe importance of trees in urban areas.Treegeneration delivered schemes in:

• 9 schools• 4 community spaces• 4 business sites• 1 town centre scheme• 1 industrial reclamation scheme• 2 transport corridor.

It also gave advice and/or facilitation to 6additional schemes that were notTreegeneration grant recipients.

The key outputs from the Treegeneration pilotproject were:

• 30 hectares of urban woodland created• 59,300 native trees planted• 308 non-native trees planted • 2,200 people involved in tree planting.

The main outcomes from the project were:

• improved adaption to climate change• improved education and more learning

opportunities• improved community cohesion and social

well being• more physical regeneration of the urban

environment• improved access to trees and woodlands• creation of more native habitat.

The key findings from the Treegeneration pilotproject were:

• The project delivered across a diverserange of schemes, partners andenvironments.

• The partnership approach ofTreegeneration, both in terms of its structureand its delivery, was seen as a strength. Itencouraged the formation of importantnetworks and communication channels.

• There is an evident need for both monetaryand advisory support for urban treeplanting. This needs to be available to awide variety of groups and individuals.

• Having a single point of contact forexpertise on urban greening was seen tobe extremely important.

• The lack of awareness of the value of treesand woodlands in urban areas was seenas a major barrier to delivering urban treeplanting schemes.

Following a review of the Treegeneration pilotproject, nine recommendations are made.These are given in full, with their rationales, inSection 8 of this report. In summary they arethat:

1. FCW should consider implementing aprogramme of communication with private,voluntary and public organisations, and tothe general public, throughout Wales aboutthe value of trees and other green space inurban areas.

2. FCW and potential partners should considerthe opportunities presented by the need forboth monetary and advisory support. Theyshould develop an advisory service for thepublic and private sectors that wouldcomplement future programmes of grantaid.

Executive summary


Executive summary


3. Future grant aid programmes or projectsshould use the strengths of theTreegeneration grant aid model to developa sliding scale of grant aid that isdependent upon the type of scheme to befunded and the type of applicant.

4. More explicit links to the benefits of urbangreening should be made across all theWelsh Assembly Government’s strategicthemes.

5. In the future, project officers should remainthe point of contact for schemes, andshould have expertise in at least onerelevant field. We also recommend thatother experts should be used to supportproject officers when needed.

6. A partnership approach is strengthenedfurther by FCW. We also recommend thatapproach includes the practice ofembedding staff in other organisations.

We further recommend that the partnershipapproach used in Treegeneration beamalgamated with those of projects suchas Cydcoed.

7. Serious consideration should be given to apan-Wales programme to build on theTreegeneration pilot. This should have anadditional focus on highly deprived areas.

8. We suggest that the decision-making boardof any grant-giving project should getrepresentation from at least twodisinterested organisations, to avoidconflicts of interest.

9. Future projects should have a project plan,baseline data, indicators, and a monitoringand evaluation programme in place beforethey start.


1. Introduction


Treegeneration is the name of a pilot projectthat delivered urban tree planting schemes.The pilot ran from 2003 until 2008 and wasinitiated by the Forestry Commission Wales(FCW) Grants and Licences Department. Thepilot was carried out in Flintshire andWrexham in north-east Wales.

The Treegeneration Project Officer and ForestResearch have produced this report, followinga review of Treegeneration. Forest Research isthe research agency of the ForestryCommission.

The importance of urban green space Public urban green space plays a vital role inthe social life of communities. Trees have animportant place in public urban green space.A predominant purpose of urban tree plantingis both to connect people with nature, and tohelp towards achieving environmental goals.An example of an environmental goal that ishelped by urban tree planting is that trees helpabsorb airborne pollution.

Evidence from all parts of the world shows thattrees in urban areas benefit people byproviding places for recreation and learning.These, in turn, can result in better health andwell being, and better neighbourliness.

However, studies have shown that, evenwhere there is green space in urban areas,people do not always use it or have access toit. Where green space is accessible, it is oftenin a neglected state. The studies found thatthe quality of green space is more important topeople than how near it is from their homes orworkplaces.

Why an urban tree planting project forWales?The Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) iscommitted to urban regeneration, but in pastpolicies it does not often mention theimportance of providing good quality urbangreen space. Providing good quality urbangreen space can contribute to many of theAssembly’s social and environmental aims.

However, most of the WAG policies wereproduced between 2000 and 2005. Sincethen there have been changes, and newerpolicies are being formed. These are likely toplace more emphasis on urban green space.The most relevant policy review was of theAssembly’s Woodlands for Wales strategy.


2. Aims of the treegeneration pilot


The aim of TreegenerationThe overarching aim of the Treegenerationpilot project was to find out what would beneeded for successful urban tree plantingthroughout Wales. The main aims, in practicalterms, were:

• to promote the environmental benefits, theversatility and the cost effectiveness of treesand woodlands

• to make it easier and more attractive toplant and establish trees and woodlands inurban areas.

Success was presumed to be an increase inboth tree planting and the use of urbanwoodland.

The range of aims for Treegeneration grant-aided schemesThe scoping documents for the pilot project didnot include objectives, or target numbers oflocal schemes to deliver. The scope of theproject was to work with partners by providinggrants for tree planting that met any one of theaims in Table 1, below. The grants were for upto 75 per cent of an environmental orcommunity scheme’s costs. In the case ofbusinesses, the highest proportion that couldbe grant aided was 50 per cent.

Treegeneration was designed to take a flexibleapproach to urban forestry. This allowed fordynamic variation at the very local level. Thisflexibility was also applied to the types of siteconsidered to be eligible for grant aid. Sitesconsidered had to be physically suitable forgrowing trees. Other than that they could be:

• at any urban, urban fringe or gateway location• any size • on private or public land• for temporary or permanent planting.



Table 1: The Range of Treegeneration’s Aims for Grant-aided Schemes

2. Aims of the treegeneration pilot

Environmental Economic Social

Create or improve habitatsthat bring wildlife intotowns.

Link up small areas ofsimilar habitats.

Provide wildlife corridorsinto the surroundingcountryside.

Create an attractive urbanlandscape.

Soften harsh lines ofbuildings.

Improve air quality byfiltering and trappingpollution.

Provide land restoration.

Reduce energyconsumption in nearbybuildings by providingshade in summer andshelter in winter.

Absorb noise.

Reduce the risk of flooding

Reduce water run-off fromreclaimed sites.

Screen eye-sores.

Create attractive settingsfor business activity.

Improve the image oftowns to attract inwardinvestment.

Transform run-down areas.

Reverse urban decay.

Improve the corporateimage of businesses.

Add value to property.

Increase site security withboundary planting.

Create a pleasantenvironment in which to liveand work.

Allow contact with nature.

Provide leafy ‘islands’ intown centres.

Promote health byproviding a relaxing,refreshing and therapeuticenvironment.

Offer recreationalopportunities.

Impart a sense ofbelonging to residentsthrough taking part in treeplanting in their owncommunities.

Create more distinctive andscenic neighbourhoods.


3. Methodologyhow the treegeneration pilot project was set up


PartnershipThe Treegeneration pilot project was apartnership between:

• FCW• the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW)• Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC) • Flintshire County Council (FCC) • Groundwork Wrexham and Flintshire (GWF)• the Welsh Development Agency (WDA).

(WDA is now part of the WAG’s Department forEnterprise and Innovation.)

In 2003 a funding partnership and steeringgroup was set up to run the Treegenerationpilot project, which included employing aProject Officer. The organisations that madeup this were FCW, CCW, FCC, WCBC and GWF.FCW met 50 per cent of the project runningcosts. CCW, WCBC and FCC provide the other50 per cent in equal parts.

The Treegeneration Project OfficerThe Treegeneration Project Officer wasemployed by FCW. He was expected to splithis time and expertise between FCW, WCBCand FCC. In theory, the officer was to spend50 per cent of his time based at the FCW’soffice at Clawdd Newydd, near Ruthin, and 25per cent of his time with each of the localauthorities. He had office space allocated inboth councils’ offices so that he could be‘embedded’ in both organisations. Thecouncils’ offices are in Mold (FCC) andWrexham (WCBC).

The Treegeneration Project Officer offeredadvice and practical assistance on urbanplanting schemes, in addition to administeringthe grant aid.

Grant aid for local schemesThe cost of providing Treegeneration grant aidto schemes was met by FCW alone. It camedirectly from the core budget of the FCW’sGrants and Licences department. The granthad to be match funded by applicants.Treegeneration could contribute grant aidtowards the cost of a scheme at the rate of:

• up to 75 per cent for community and/orenvironmental schemes

• up to 50 per cent for business schemes.

Costs that could be included in a grantapplication were:

• planning, including consultation exerciseswith people who had an interest in theproposed scheme

• events, such as volunteer planting days• buying the trees • buying associated equipment, such as

stakes or guards • tasks associated with the initial establishment

of the trees, such as weed or pest control.

The steering group decided on grantapplications. The successful applicant andFCW signed a partnership agreement whenthe grant aid was approved. The standardwording of the partnership agreement isincluded as Appendix 4. Payment of 70 percent of the approved Treegeneration grant aidwas paid on the successful completion of thetree planting, with the remaining 30 per centpaid once the trees were established.


4. Implementation and delivery how the treegeneration pilot was carried out


Phase OneTreegeneration was implemented in twophases. The first phase was to interest otherbodies in the idea of Treegeneration, form asteering group and agree a proposal.

The steering group then agreed the aims ofthe project. The aim – finding out what wouldbe needed for successful urban tree plantingthroughout Wales – was deliberately broad.The reason for such a wide remit was so thatthe urban agenda of each partnerorganisation was embraced.

The proposal for the pilot project was changedseveral times before a final agreement wasreached. The initial proposal called for a teamof project officers with a far more targetedapproach to implementation. The version ofpilot proposal that was actually run wasagreed in 2003.

Phase TwoThe second phase of the pilot project wasdelivery. This ran from 2004 to 2008, and theTreegeneration Project Officer was appointedin 2004. His brief was to promote urbanwoodland and to initiate and manage urbantree planting schemes across Wrexham andFlintshire.

Treegeneration was devised to be more thanjust a grant-giving mechanism. One of its mainservices was to offer advice and practicalassistance on urban tree planting matters.These did not necessarily have to be grant-aided by Treegeneration.

The Treegeneration Project Officer was a singlepoint of contact for the project. He did all theadministration, communication and mediawork. In addition to this he gave the expertadvice and help to individuals and groups.

Within Phase Two of the project, theTreegeneration Project Officer saw the need fora two-stage approach to implementing thepilot project. Firstly, a programme ofawareness raising and networking wasneeded. A delivery and assessment stagewould follow.

Awareness raising and networkingThe Treegeneration Project Officer had the jobof raising awareness about Treegenerationand its possibilities for communities andbusinesses in Wrexham and Flintshire.

He did this in the first instance by:

• informal meetings arranged byTreegeneration

• attendance at community meetings, at theinvitation of others

• formal presentations at the invitation ofstakeholders and partners.

These formal presentations were aimed at avariety of audiences, including local authoritydepartments, business forums and otherorganisations.

The Officer also sent an information leafletmailshot to all known businesses within thetwo counties. The mailshot also includedschools, community groups and otherpotentially interested organisations.

In addition, a Treegeneration project web sitewas created and ‘populated’ by theTreegeneration Project Officer.




DeliveryThe range of work done by the TreegenerationProject Officer to deliver Treegeneration can besummarised as either:

• Financial assistance onlyHelping applicants to make a bid for grantaid for tree or woodland planting schemesthat met the criteria.

Or:

• Practical assistance and/or advice onlyGiving practical and technical advice on allaspects of urban forestry. This includedplanting and maintenance specificationsand community consultation exercises.

Or a combination of the two:

• Financial plus practical assistance This is where Treegeneration provided thegrant and its Project Officer and a partnerorganisation (e.g. a school, environmentalorganisation or business) did the plantingand maintenance. The Project Officer alsoprovided specialist support and expertisethroughout the process.

Where did proposals for grant-aidedplanting schemes come from?

Proposals for local Treegeneration schemescame from the public, private and voluntarysectors. The Treegeneration Project Officerdeveloped and maintained workingpartnerships with these people.

Schemes to consider for grant aid were oftenidentified by the tree officer of one of thecouncils, or by the environmentalorganisations BTCV or GWF. Occasionally theTreegeneration Project Officer wasapproached directly by schools, communitygroups or businesses for support.

Which bodies applied for grant aid?

Most of the grant applications werechannelled through BTCV, GWF or one of thetwo local authorities. In these cases BTCV,GWF or the council would commit the matchfunding to complement the grant aid.

Match funding was also provided by localbusinesses through their corporateenvironmental or social funds. A few schemesmade up their match funding from a mix ofsources.

How was an application for grant aid madeand assessed?

The way of making an application for grant aidwas as follows. After making sure thatapplications met one or more of the criterialisted in Table 1, above, each application wasscored for eligibility. The application had to bea full proposal. This included a planting andestablishment plan and a full estimate of costs.An application form and scoring levels areincluded in Appendix 2.

If eligible for funding, an on-site meeting washeld between the Treegeneration ProjectOfficer and the applicant. The suitability of thesite for growing trees was assessed.

How much money was awarded in grant aid?

Most of the grant-aided schemes relied onTreegeneration being able to provide themaximum percentage of funding. Over the lifeof the pilot project the average proportion ofscheme costs given in Treegeneration grantaid was about 71 per cent. The largest sumgranted was £13,655 and the smallest was£550. The total grant aid is illustrated below inTable 2. A full list of grant-aided schemesappears as Appendix 1.



Where did grant-aided planting take place?

A breakdown of the types of scheme isillustrated in Figure 1, below.

As shown in Figure 1, the majority of schemestook place at schools. Many of these schoolswanted to improve their grounds. In particular,several wanted to make a shaded outdoorteaching area. The Treegeneration ProjectOfficer remained active in these schemes, buthe also encouraged the involvement of thelocal Forest Education Initiative (FEI) and/or theFCW’s Woodlands for Learning Officer.

Which organisations were awarded grants?

Each of the grant-aided schemes had apartnership agreement with FCW. Figure 2,below, illustrates the range of organisationsthat had partnership agreements. In additionto these 21, over 35 other organisations wereengaged in Treegeneration projects. This 35includes the organisations that received adviceand support but no grant aid.

Num

ber o

f sch

emes

Scheme type

10987

6543210

Communityspaces

Schoolsites

Businesssites

Industrialreclamation

site

Towncentre

Transportcorridor

Advicefacilitation

Figure 1: Number of Grant-aided Treegeneration Schemesand Types of Sites

Number ofprojects grantaided

Amount ofTreegenerationgrant aidawarded

Amount of matchfunding

Total costs ofschemes

Average cost pergrant aidedscheme

21 £115, 342 £48,863 £164,205 £7,819

Table 2: Summary of the Cost of Grant aided Schemes in the Treegeneration Pilot Project

Partner organisation

Num

ber o

f agr

eem

ents

5

4

3

2

1

0North East

Wales WildlifeGWF BTCV Schools Business Local

authority

Figure 2: Number and Types of Organisations Grant-aided bythe Treegeneration Pilot Project




How were the grant-aided schemesmanaged?

Each scheme needed to have a named projectmanager to deliver and support the scheme.Because the applicants and schemes werevaried, the Treegeneration steering group tooka flexible approach on this. In cases whereenvironmental groups such as GWF or BTCVproposed schemes, then they would beproject managed by officers from thoseorganisations. Where the local authority wasawarded a grant, the project management felleither to the council’s tree officer or to theTreegeneration Project Officer. In some othercases, such as schemes from communitygroups, the Officer project-managed schemes.

In all cases the project manager was expectedto consult with local stakeholders before thescheme started. Stakeholders included localresidents, schools, employees, localbusinesses and organisations. Thesestakeholders were also encouraged tobecome involved in their scheme. Thisinvolvement could include design, plantingand maintenance.

The successful delivery of each scheme wasthe responsibility of its named projectmanager. Their work included the day to dayrunning of the scheme and keeping to timeand budget, making sure that the overall aimsof the scheme were achieved.

How were grant-aided schemes monitored?

The Treegeneration Project Officer remainedresponsible for monitoring all the schemes.This was done by visual inspections and on-site meetings. In general, monitoring was

limited to the planting schemes. The trees’progress was noted after planting, in latespring and at the end of each growingseason.

Treegeneration schemes that were not grant-aided

The additional important remit ofTreegeneration was to provide practical – nonmonetary – support for urban tree plantingschemes. Six schemes sought advice only.Some needed technical expertise in plantingtrees, and others wanted advice oncommunity consultation or supervisingplanting days.



5. Outputs and outcomes what was achieved


OutputsThere were no targets for expected outputsfrom the Treegeneration pilot project. This isbecause it had been set up with a wide brief.By the end of the delivery of the pilot project, in2008, Treegeneration had given grant aid to 21projects across north-east Wales. Non-monetary support was given to a further six.

Outputs from these projects were measured in:

• numbers of trees planted• hectares planted • number of people involved in the tree

planting.

The Treegeneration Project Officer collectedtogether these data. Where schemes weremanaged by BTCV this information has beencross-referenced with its records. It has notbeen possible to cross-reference with otherscheme managers.

The total outputs from grant-aidedTreegeneration projects are as follows:

OutcomesThe applications for Treegeneration fundingshow a range of expected outcomes fromschemes. These are presented in Table 4,below.

No baseline data were gathered before theproject started, and no indicators were set upfor monitoring and evaluating outcomes. Withthis situation, we can only assume thatschemes’ expected outcomes have beenachieved. We are unaware of any unexpectedoutcomes. Assuming the expected outcomeshave happened, Treegeneration has benefitedpeople and the environment. However, wecannot quantify or qualify those outcomes orbenefits at this time.

Output Quantity

Hectares of urban woodlandcreated 30

Native trees planted 53,500

Non-native trees planted 880

People involved in tree planting 2,200

Table 3 : Total Treegeneration Pilot Project Outputs

Expected outcome Number ofschemes*

Increase in biodiversity valueof green space 10

Improvement in amenity valueof green space 4

Increased social capital 4

Involvement of socially excludedgroups (young offenders,excluded children etc.)

5

Improved educationalopportunities 6

Reduction in anti-socialbehaviour 1

Improved aesthetic value ofsite 21

Table 4: Treegeneration Pilot Project’s Expected Outcomes

* The total of this column is greater than the total number ofschemes because applicants may have cited more than oneexpected outcome on their application.


5. Outputs and outcomes what was achieved


Informal research with Treegenerationpartners highlighted the main expectedoutcomes from the project. These can begrouped under six themes:

Improved adaption to climate change

The ability of some communities within thepilot area to adapt to climate change hasimproved as a result of planting more treesand woodlands for shade. This is a particularfeature of the schools’ schemes. There is alsoan increased awareness of the importance oftree planting for carbon sequestration.

Improved education and increased learningopportunities

School children planting and maintaining treesin school grounds will have increased theirunderstanding and appreciation of theenvironment. Many schemes created schooloutdoor learning areas. The involvement ofthe FEI and the FCW’s Woodlands for LearningTeam will have enabled children to benefitfurther. Volunteers taking part in plantingschemes will also have benefited frominformal learning.

Borras Park Infants School in Wrexhamcreated an outdoor teaching area with theirTreegeneration grant. Following this, theschool has employed a full-time Forest SchoolLeader. The Leader delivers a dailyprogramme of related educational activitieswithin the planted area. Anecdotal evidencefrom a number of teachers indicates that sincethis, many of the pupils’ attitudes towards theenvironment, in particular to invertebrates,have improved.

Improved adaption to climate Improvedcommunity cohesion and social well being

Bringing people together through new activitieshelps create a sense of belonging. It can alsocreate new networks and friendships andencourages people to interact with each other.Involvement in Treegeneration schemes hasbrought people together and involved them inteam activities. This will have helped to foster asense of community and belonging, as well asbuilding self-confidence.

The Central Park Community Woodlandscheme, in Connah’s Quay, was grant-aided byTreegeneration. It brought together over 500local people to improve their local environment.As a result a Friends of Central Park group wasformed. The group continues to improve thepark by developing further projects.

More physical regeneration of the urbanenvironment

Treegeneration schemes planted 30 hectares ofmostly native woodland. This made asignificant contribution to the regeneration ofurban environments.

Improved access to trees and woodlands

All the planting took place close to businesses,communities or schools, and so increasedopportunities to access quality green space. Mostof the schemes are accessible for recreation.

Creation of more native woodland habitat

Anecdotal evidence suggests that there arealready improvements in the biodiversity of sitesplanted because of Treegeneration.


6. Reflection and assessment what was learnt


There was no formal or agreed way ofevaluating the Treegeneration pilot project.Nevertheless, by reflecting on what workedwell in the pilot and what did not, we candraw out some key findings.

This section is a digest of interviews with theTreegeneration Project Officer and withpartners on the steering group. Theyconsidered their experiences and highlightedthe pilot’s strengths and weaknesses. Lookingforward to what would be needed forsuccessful urban tree planting throughoutWales, they have made recommendations forfuture improvement.

Aims

The overall aim of the Treegeneration pilotproject was to assess the scope for a nationalurban forestry project in Wales. The mainfocus of the pilot was promoting how treesimprove the urban environment. Improvementwas done mainly through grant-aided treeplanting. Although there was no explicit socialjustice aim for the project, the pilot also madea positive contribution towards the WAG’ssocial justice agenda. Based on anassessment of the pilot, this report makesrecommendations for the scope of a nationalurban forestry project in Wales (in Section 7).

Partnership between the steering group /funding partners

The partnership between the steering groupmembers meant the pilot project becameembedded in the two local authorities, as wellas FCW. This encouraged important networksand communication channels. They otherwisewould have taken far longer to form, or wouldnot have existed. It also meant easy access toexisting expertise, both for the TreegenerationProject Officer and the local authority officers.

The partnership approach was felt by all to bea strength of the project. Partnerships in futurecould be strengthened by a more focused andtargeted approach from the outset.

Lack of a project plan

The Treegeneration pilot project had anoverarching aim and guiding principles. It didnot have a project plan with specific targetsand outputs. Without being constrained by settargets, the Treegeneration Project Officercould take a flexible and dynamic approach toschemes. This meant that a variety of projectsacross a variety of sites have been with arange of partners and stakeholders.

However, having no project plan often left theTreegeneration Project Officer to guess whatwas needed. No plan also resulted in anachievement – wide communication andawareness raising – being perceived as anegative. This was because the first plantingseason was lost during this time.

Interviews with the Treegeneration ProjectOfficer suggest that having a project plan inplace would have helped him prioritise actionsin a more structured way, and planaccordingly.

Treegeneration Project Officer

Working arrangementsA working relationship where an officer isjointly employed (or employed by oneorganisation but sits within another) is quitecommon in local authorities in Wales and inCCW. This type of partnership working has notbeen common within FCW. Both CCW and thelocal authorities involved in Treegenerationwere keen to see the relationships built duringthe pilot continue and develop. They feel it




would be important to have similar sorts ofrelationships in a Wales-wide urban treeplanting programme.

However, having the Treegeneration ProjectOfficer located with three different partners didcreated some tensions. Limitations in relationto his time, as well as the allocation of time,was seen as a difficulty – not least by theOfficer himself. A geographically large projectarea made the problem worse because of thewide distribution of grant-aided schemes.

In theory, the Treegeneration Project Officershould have spent 50 per cent of his timebased at the FCW and 25 per cent with eachof the local authorities. If there had been settargets for each partner organisation reflectingthis split, it would have been workable.However, Treegeneration was reliant ongroups, businesses or organisations applyingfor grants to do schemes. The reality was thatthe Officer spent more of his time where themajority of grant-aided schemes were.

This situation was compounded by the existingorganisational structures within the localauthorities. WCBC had two officers responsiblefor trees and woodlands on council-ownedland, and a further officer to deal with treeprotection on private land. FCC had twoofficers focusing in the main on protecting thecurrent trees and woodlands in the county.WCBC officers held a significant budgetenabling them to manage, maintain andincrease tree cover. FCC officers had nocomparable resource, and so made more useof the opportunities provided byTreegeneration funding.

It also became clear that there were tensionsabout the project within, and between, local

authority departments. These problems canbe summarised as:

• A lack of support staff for communicationand administration. This resulted in the firstfive months of Officer time being spent inpublic awareness raising. His activitiesincluded branding the project, promotionalcampaigning, designing a web site andleaflets and writing copy for the web siteand leaflet. The first tree-planting seasonwas subsequently lost.

• So-called ‘initiative fatigue’ from localauthorities.

• A perceived lack of understanding aboutthe point of Treegeneration from somecouncil departments.

• The local authorities were wary of thepotential cost of maintenance andreplacement of trees for additionalschemes on their own land.

• Some council departments were critical ofTreegeneration. They failed to recognise itspotential and were indifferent toopportunities it presented.

• The way in which Treegeneration workedwithin each authority depended on theirexisting organisational and fundingarrangements.

Many of these obstacles could have beenovercome in the design and developmentstages of Treegeneration. In particular, thefollowing would help reduce such tensions inthe future:

• setting appropriate geographic targets• employing one officer per local authority

area• employing, or dedicating, support staff for

administration and communications.



Competencies The very flexibility and wide range ofTreegeneration schemes meant that the skillsneeded by the Treegeneration Project Officerwere equally wide ranging and flexible. It israre that a member of FCW’s staff is both anexpert at growing trees in urban areas and incommunity development. Both of these skillswere needed for the Treegeneration ProjectOfficer post. He was also called on to developand maintain a project web site. This wastime consuming and it required specifictechnical and communication skills. TheOfficer felt ill equipped to tackle this.

We recognise that training and developmentcan help staff to acquire skills. However,many of the required skills already exist withinFCW – communication, finance, legal,administrative. We recommend that futureproject officers are the point of contact forschemes, and that they should have expertisein at least one relevant field. Other expertsshould support their work, and Treegenerationshould have central support servicesallocated, e.g. for communications.

The table in Appendix 2 details staffcompetencies for a Treegeneration ProjectOfficer. It also suggests core competencies forsimilar posts in urban tree planting projectsthat involve community support/development.We recommend that future TreegenerationProject Officers understand:

• monitoring and evaluating project outputsand outcomes

• how and where to get specialist advice andinput

• how to communicate with differentaudiences.

Grant aid and delivery of schemes

Awareness raisingIt became clear early in the life of the pilotproject that raising awareness was morenecessary than had first been thought. It wasalso more time consuming. The reason it tookso long was that existing negative attitudestowards trees had to be overcome. There wasa lack of understanding about potentialbenefits of good quality green space.

Particular resistance was experienced frombusinesses. Businesses were fearful that treecover would be a security problem. Theythought that trees would increase crime andantisocial behaviour. Indeed, local police hadadvised businesses on the Wrexham IndustrialEstate not to plant trees or shrubs on theirsites.

All partners agreed that the TreegenerationProject Officer could not have done any more,given the limitations of the project, to raiseawareness. However, resistance remainedfrom some quarters.

Overcoming the negative view of urban treeplanting is not something that can be achievedquickly. Neither can a small project such asTreegeneration change the general attitude. Itwill take a significant shift in the politicalagenda to begin to tackle such attitudes. Thisneeds to be coupled with a more focusedapproach to urban tree planting within somelocal authorities. Sufficient resources for treeplanting and their maintenance also need tobe allocated. There needs to be morecommunication, advice and ‘hand holding’ tohelp people understand why urban areimportant. Such communication needsconsiderable time commitment and specificskills from officers.





The range of schemes deliveredIt was important that Treegeneration was asflexible as possible in terms of what it coulddeliver. The project had a wide remit foreligible scheme types, eligible land and thoseeligible for grant support. Steering grouppartners saw this flexibility and width as botha strength and a weakness.

The wide remit allowed for engagement with adiverse range of interested people, and thedevelopment of a diverse range of projects.This meant that Treegeneration demonstratedthe benefits of trees in urban areas in a varietyof situations: from shopping precincts toschool grounds to industrial estates.Conversely, this wide remit resulted in a lack offocus and direction. It also placed anunrealistic expectation to deliver upon a singleproject officer.

Grant aid and match fundingTreegeneration was able to grant-aid, intheory, any organisation or body that coulddeliver urban tree planting. (Appendix 1 is afull list of grant-aided projects and sources ofmatch funding for each.) In committing tomatch fund a grant, recipients signed up tothe ethos of the project. This strengthened theTreegeneration message about the benefits ofurban trees. Steering group partners felt it tobe an important strength of the project. Matchfunding also meant grant recipients had aninterest in the sustainability of their schemes.

Treegeneration attracted the type of applicantthat was able to find match funding relativelyeasily. The match came either from theapplicant’s own funds or from other externalfunding. Notwithstanding this, manyapplicants applied for the full proportionallowed of their scheme’s cost, or close to it. Infuture FCW needs to operate a sliding scale of

grant aid. This could then be tailored to theboth the type of scheme and the type ofapplicant.

Relationships with grant recipientsThe relationship between FCW and the grantrecipients was formalised by signing apartnership agreement. The TreegenerationProject Officer then had a finite and fairlyshort-lived partnership with the recipient body.This short-lived nature was a result both ofconstraints the Officer’s time andorganisational structures within recipients ofgrant aid, such as BTCV and GWF. Despitetheir short duration, these relationships wereacknowledged as valuable.

Practicalities of delivering grant-aidOne difficulty was that there was no singlepoint of contact for all the Treegenerationschemes managed by a single organisation.For example, for five of the schemes whereGWF was the grant beneficiary, five differentproject managers were named. TheTreegeneration Project Officer felt over-stretched by this situation. It also exacerbatedthe difficulties of being based in threeseparate offices within three organisations(see the Treegeneration WorkingArrangements paragraph, above).

Given the set-up of the Treegeneration pilot,these tensions would have been difficult toovercome in any case. However, futureprojects on the Treegeneration model shouldplan how to manage effectively partnershipswith outside organisations. Having additionalTreegeneration staff may be enough. Inaddition, the project agreement could ask fora single point of contact with beneficiaries ofmore than one Treegeneration grant.



Responses of different types of grantrecipient, and how they benefitted

SchoolsInterviews with both the Treegeneration ProjectOfficer and two of the schools involvedshowed that links established byTreegeneration were valued, but short lived.The additional involvement of FEI or of FCW’sWoodlands for Learning Officer worked well.Their contributions resulted in children gainingmore benefit from the schemes than hadoriginally been envisaged.

BusinessesMost schemes undertaken by businesseswere on industrial sites. Business schemeshave proved harder to review than others.Anecdotal evidence suggests that they wereundertaken for visual amenity only. Thebusiness did not have a wider social agenda.

The planting around businesses or industrialunits appears to have been undertakenbecause the grant was available. Whilst thisdoes not negate the actual benefits of treeplanting, it does not necessarily result in anincreased understanding of the benefits oftrees. Business partners proved to be thehardest to engage in the project. They oftenremained unconvinced that the benefits of treeplanting outweighed the perceived risk ofincreasing the potential for antisocialbehaviour and vandalism around their sites.

Local Authorities The way the two local authorities used theTreegeneration pilot project was influenced byorganisational differences. The number of treeofficers and the budgets available to themaffected the availability of match funding.

In Wrexham the authority’s ArboriculturalManager submitted sites owned by the councilas schemes. This made sure that these sites

were then included in the annual plantingprogramme for the county. This has securedlong-term management for these schemes.

In Flintshire little or no budget existed withinthe authority for urban planting. Wherecouncil-owned sites were submitted forschemes, Treegeneration became the meansof achieving urban planting. This meantproviding both financial and practical support.

Delivery of advice and non-monetaryassistance

Advice and practical help from theTreegeneration Project Officer was valued. Itwas an important aspect of the pilot project.

Follow-on from the Treegeneration pilot

Lack of monitoring and evaluationSimple outputs only were monitored duringthe pilot project. It has therefore been difficultfor this review to see what were the outcomesof the pilot project and of individual schemes.We have heard general comments from thoseinvolved saying that there had been‘educational benefits’ and that ‘it brings peopletogether’. We do not know how much theadditional planting of trees and woodlandhas, or will, encourage more use of greenspace. It seems likely that Treegenerationschemes will have helped to overcome socialbarriers, encourage community cohesion andbenefit health and wellbeing, but we cannotbe sure.

Conducting research for this reviewUnfortunately, we found it difficult to contactthe relevant officers in GWF and BTCV to addqualitative depth to this review. Staff involved





in Treegeneration schemes are no longerinvolved, or have left the organisations. Atelephone discussion was held with BTCVabout Treegeneration. We looked at BTCV’sdocuments on their Treegeneration schemesto establish quantitative information.Telephone discussions with staff at GWFestablished that, even if quantitative dataabout the schemes have been kept, they wereno longer accessible to current members ofstaff.

Continued contact with grant-aidedschemesThe nature of the pilot project meant thatneither the Treegeneration Project Officer norlocal authority officers had the remit, time orresources to continue in engagement withindividuals or groups involved in tree plantingschemes. There was initial engagement,planting and advice and, in some cases, alaunch. Once these had happened, grantrecipients were unlikely to have any contactfrom officers other than a biannual inspectionof the trees.

One of a few exceptions to this has been theCentral Park scheme in Connah’s Quay. Herethe Treegeneration Project Officer hascontinued to engage with the Friends ofCentral Park. The group has developed furtheraspects of this scheme. The TreegenerationProject Officer’s ongoing support has resultedmore people in that community gettinginvolved in further tree planting. This hashelped to strengthen community cohesion.

There seems to have been poor ongoingconnections between and the communitiesinvolved in schemes led by BTCV and GWF andthese organisations. Once the initial treeplanting was done, and some maintenancecarried out, contact appears to have stoppedwhen staff move on.

Although staff cannot be expected to stay inpost forever, contact and continuity isimportant, particularly with schemes that dealdirectly with communities. It is difficult enoughto establish links with communities in the firstplace. It is even easier to lose those links andto create further barriers to future work oncethe links are lost.

Treegeneration’s place in FCWAppendix 3 details the internal FCW structuresof the Treegeneration project and highlightspotential benefits. It is clear that certainaspects worked well, whilst others did not. It isimportant that similar projects in the futuredraw on the lessons of this review ofTreegeneration; FCW should develop aninternal structure that uses the successfulaspects of the project.

General conclusions about theTreegeneration pilot project

Those involved in Treegeneration consideredthat the diverse range of support offered toapplicants was appropriate and valuable.More importantly, they felt that this level ofsupport was not available elsewhere. Theyalso thought that a single point of contact forexpertise on urban tree planting is extremelyimportant.

Treegeneration used partnerships to createnetworks and working relationships withstatutory bodies and other organisations. Thiswas useful in furthering the acceptance anduse of trees and woodlands in urbanenvironments. Partnerships betweencommunity groups and others, such as BTCVand GWF, were also formed. However, thesewere more as a means for them to accessfunding and expertise for the duration ofTreegeneration.


7. Treegeneration and WAG’s policy context


Table 5, below, illustrates the good fit between Treegeneration and WAG’s previous Woodlandsfor Wales strategy. The themes, aims and objectives in the table are taken from the version ofthe strategy recently reviewed. They have now changed as a result of the review.

Woodlandsfor Walestheme

Aim Objective Contribution byTreegeneration

Woodlandsfor People

We will develop a series ofcommunity woodlandsthroughout Wales, usingexisting woods or creating newwoods, with local peopleinvolved in their managementfor the benefit of theircommunities.

✔

We will encourage the plantingof woodland as an interim usefor vacant industrial sitesbefore redevelopment,providing beneficialenvironmental use and someadvance landscaping.

✔

We will promote the use ofwoodland for further educationand lifelong learning.

2.2.2: to maximisethe use ofwoodland forlearning.

✔

Mechanisms will be created toinvolve local people and buildconsensus amongstcommunities.

2.2.3 to provideopportunities tohave their say inthe managementof woods close towhere they live.

✔

The understanding ofwoodland issues in Wales willbe promoted throughpartnerships with professionalbodies, private owners andmanagers, voluntary groupsand the education sector.

✔


7. Treegeneration and WAG’s policy context


A newemphasis onwoodlandmanagement

We will develop ways ofencouraging the use of bestpractice in managingwoodland and of extendinglong term planning.

2.3.1 to promotebest practice inwoodlandmanagement.

✔

A newemphasis onwoodlandmanagement

We will encourage landownersand managers to takeopportunities for appropriatewoodland expansion, seekingto maximise the value tosociety of new woodlands.

2.3.3: to findappropriate sitesfor new trees andwoodlands.

✔

We will work with communitygroups and landowners,encouraging the use of treesand woodlands to improve airquality and urban landscapes.

✔

A diverseand healthyenvironment

We will increase the area ofnative woodland, targetingextension and connection ofexisting woods andincorporating the concept ofincreasing the core area ofnative woodland habitats.

2.5.1:To conserveand enhancementthe biodiversity ofour woodlands.

✔

We will use woodlands to restorethe landscapes of areas affectedby past mineral extraction andother industrial activities.

2.5.2:To conserveand enhance thelandscapes ofWales.

✔

We will extend access towoodland particularly fordisadvantaged communities,using good design andcommunity involvement, to helpovercome some people’sperceptions of risk when usingwoodland on the urban fringes.

2.6.2:To promotehealth throughaccess towoodlands for allcommunities.

✔

We will look for opportunities touse trees and woodlands inurban settings to maximiseemotional and physicalwellbeing.

✔

Table 5: Treegeneration’s fit with Woodlands for Wales


8. Recommendations


1. The Treegeneration pilot project hasdemonstrated an obvious need to raiseawareness and communicate the benefitsof urban green space, and in particular oftrees and woodlands. As the WAG bodyresponsible for Wales’ woodland estate,FCW should consider implementing aprogramme of such communication withprivate, voluntary and public organisations,and to the general public, throughoutWales.

2. The types of support offered by theTreegeneration pilot were valued, and notavailable elsewhere. There is an evidentneed for both monetary and advisorysupport to be available to a wide range oforganisations, groups and individuals. Werecommend that FCW and potentialpartners consider the opportunitiespresented by this need and develop anadvisory service for the public and privatesectors that would complement futureprogrammes of grant aid.

3. The Treegeneration pilot demonstrated keystrengths in its grant-aid model. Werecommend that future grant aidprogrammes or projects use thesestrengths to develop a sliding scale of grantaid that is dependent upon the type ofscheme to be funded and, perhaps moreimportantly, the type of applicant.

4. We recommend including more explicit linksto the benefits of urban greening across allWelsh Assembly Government strategicthemes.

5. Whilst we recognise that training anddevelopment can help staff to acquire skillswhile in post, it is not common to find FCWstaff with both the silvicultural andcommunity development expertise requiredfor a Treegeneration-type programme. We

recommend that, in the future, projectofficers remain the point of contact forschemes, and have expertise in at least onerelevant field. We also recommend thatother experts are used to support projectofficers when needed. Recommended staffcompetencies are detailed in Appendix 2.

6. Partnership is essential to the delivery ofprojects such as Treegeneration. Werecommend that this approach isstrengthened further by FCW. We furtherrecommend that the partnership approachused in Treegeneration be amalgamatedwith those of similar future projects. Anapproach like this could provide improvedinter-organisational working. It wouldincrease opportunities for communities andindividuals to take part in local governance.

7. Treegeneration, as a pilot project, waslimited to two counties in north-east Wales.It is apparent that the types of support anddevelopment offered by the project wouldbe valued across the whole of Wales.Serious consideration should be given to apan-Wales programme to build on the pilot.This should have an additional focus onhighly deprived areas.

8. Potential conflicts of interest whenawarding grants could be avoided byincluding representation from outside theproject on the assessing panel. We suggestthat any grant-giving project should getrepresentation from at least twodisinterested organisations.

9. The lack of a project plan, baseline data,indicators, and a monitoring and evaluationprogramme for the Treegeneration pilotmade it problematic to assess the trueimpact of the pilot project. We recommendthat future projects have these in placebefore they start.


9. Further reading


CABE Space (no date) Is the Grass Greener…?Learning from international innovations inurban green space management. CABE,London

CABE Space (2004) The Value of Public Space.CABE, London

Centre for Urban and Regional Ecology (CURE)2002, Developing standards for accessiblenatural greenspace in towns and cities, Areport for CCW.

CCW (2006) Providing Accessible NaturalGreenspace in Towns and Cities: a practicalguide to assessing the resource andimplementing local standards for provision inWales.

Edwards, P. and McPhillimy, D. (2003), Woodsin and Around Towns. A report for ScottishNational Heritage (F01AA112)

English Nature (2003) Accessible natural greenspace standards in towns and cities: a reviewand tool kit for their implementation. Report526

FCW (2002) Woodlands for WalesFCW (no date) TreeGeneration: Welsh UrbanForest Initiative

Greater London Authority (2003) Valuinggreenness: greenspaces, house prices andLondoners’ priorities. GLA Economics

Green Space (2007) The Park Life Report

Kuo, F.E., and Sullivan, W.C., (2001)Environment and Crime in the Inner City, inEnvironment and Behaviour 33:3, pp 343-367

Lucas, K., Walker, G., Eames, M., Fay, H andPoustie M. (2004) Environment and Social

Justice: Rapid Research and Evidence Review.Report for the Sustainable DevelopmentResearch Network www.sd_research.org

O’Brien, E., (2006) Social Housing and GreenSpace: a case study in inner city London, inForestry pp1-17

Rishbeth, C., (2002) The Landscape of theGlobal Village, in Landscape Design, 310, pp27-31

WAG (2007) One Wales, WAG Cardiff

WAG, 2005 A Fair Future for our Children

WAG, 2005, Climbing Higher: sport and activerecreation

WAG, 2005, Designed for Life, a world classhealth service for Wales

WAG, 2006, Starting to live differently: Thesustainable development scheme of theNational Assembly for Wales’ (updated 2006)

WAG (2006) Environment Strategy Wales

WAG (2006) Environment Strategy WalesAction Plan

WAG, date unknown, Creating SustainablePlaces (Welsh Development Agency)

All WAG accessed 7th August 2007:

http://new.wales.gov.uk/about/strategy/strategypublications/?lang=en

Warwick District Council (2003), The Benefits ofUrban Trees, Warwick


Appendix 1 – Treegeneration Schemes


Project Name/Description

FCW fundingamount/otherpartners/totalscheme value

Outputs and Outcomes

COMMUNITY SPACES

River Gwenfro, Caia Park,WrexhamProvision of financial support toBTCV towards the costs ofplanning and implementing ariverside corridor plantingscheme to enhance thebiodiversity and amenity valueof an urban green space in aCommunities First residentialarea of Wrexham.

£3,190BTCV, CaiaParkEnvironmental Group,WCBC£8,200

• 36 native trees planted• Involvement of young people and youth

groups in planting activities• Regeneration of neglected and

underused green space in housing estatein Communities First area

• Enhancement of river corridor habitat• 250 local people involved in planting

activities• Involvement of youth offending team

Central Park, Connah’s Quay,FlintshireProvision of direct practicalsupport and financial supportto North East Wales WildlifeGroup (NEWW) in planning,implementing and establishinga planting scheme on thelargest urban green space inFlintshire’s largest urbansettlement. Ongoing supportgiven to NEWW, communitygroup, Connah’s Quay TownCouncil and FCC in continuingto improve the site.

£13,665North EastWales WildlifeGroup,Connah’sQuay TownCouncil,Connah’sQuay HighSchool,Airbus£20,500

• 1000 native trees planted• 20 non native trees planted• Regeneration of neglected green space in

housing estate in largest settlement in county• 500 local people engaged in project• Involvement of youth offending team• Involvement of excluded school children• Significant increase in biodiversity value of

green space• Green space amenity value improvement• Provision of shade and shelter on

previously exposed site• Creation of a ‘Friends of’ group• Catalyst to further improvements to green

space

St. Matthew’s Play Area,Buckley, FlintshireProvision of practical andfinancial support to FCC LeisureServices Department inpartnership with BTCV forplanting scheme in urbanresidential estate to improveamenity value and screen playequipment and noise fromsurrounding houses.

£1,440BTCV,FCC£2,565

• 30 standard native/no-native treesplanted

• Screening of play equipment fromsurrounding housing

• Community involvement in plantingactivities

• Improved biodiversity value• Improved amenity value




Connah’s Quay Nomads,FlintshireProvision of financial support toGWF for the planting of nativetrees around boundary ofurban football club ground toimprove visual value andscreen surrounding industrialsites.

£5,200GWF, Connah’sQuayNomads£8,000

• 1000 native trees planted• Industrial area surrounding site screened

for better amenity value• Improved biodiversity value• Environmental education opportunities for

local children

SCHOOLS

Ysgol Morgan Llwyd, CaiaPark, Wrexham Provision of direct practicalsupport to school, and financialsupport to GWF to plan,implement and maintain aschool planting scheme tocreate an outdoor teachingarea and provide shade forpupils.

£6,078GWF£6,078

• 2000 native trees planted• 500 non-native trees planted• Improved amenity value• Environmental educational benefits• Involvement of socially excluded children

in planting activities• Provision of shade in school grounds• Improved biodiversity value

Ysgol Maes Glas, Greenfields,FlintshireProvision of direct practical andfinancial support for schoolgrounds boundary plantingscheme. Species choice andplanting and maintenancespecification produced.

£1,665North WalesTree Services,Treegeneration£1,665

• 100 standard native/non-native/ornamental trees planted

• Improved amenity value• Provision of long-term shelter for exposed

site• Environmental regeneration within a run-

down residential estate area

Connah’s Quay High School,FlintshireProvision of direct practical andfinancial support for schoolground planting scheme.Planting plan, species choiceand planting and maintenancespecification produced.Facilitation of planting days withpupils.

£1,095Crimebeat,Connah’sQuay HighSchool,Airbus£4,595

• 500 native trees planted• 350 pupils involved in tree planting,

including socially excluded pupils• Derelict, underused area of school

enhanced• Provision of future environmental

educational opportunities• Increased biodiversity in an urban setting• Provision of shade in school grounds• Improved educational and amenity value

of school grounds




St Winefride’s School,Holywell, FlintshireProvision of financial support toGWF to plan, implement andmaintain a school plantingscheme to create an outdoorteaching area and provideshade for pupils.

£2,840Honda,CCW,WAG,Home SchoolAssociation£5,600

• 90 standard native/non-native treesplanted

• Part of a 3 year regeneration plan• New woodland planting in urban location• Improved amenity value• Improved biodiversity value• Pupils involved in planting activities

Hawarden High School,FlintshireProvision of direct practical andfinancial support for schoolground boundary plantingscheme. Species choice andplanting and maintenancespecification produced.Facilitation of planting days withpupils.

£2,300

• 500 native trees planted• 30 native and non-native heavy

standards planted• 200 pupils engaged in planting activities• Involvement of socially excluded pupils• Improved amenity value• Improved biodiversity value

Southdown County PrimarySchool, Buckley, FlintshireProvision of direct practical andfinancial support for treeplanting within school groundsto provide additional biodiversehabitat, enhance outdoorlearning opportunities andprovide shade for pupils.

£550

• 14 standard native trees planted• All pupils engaged in planting activities• Provision of shade in school grounds• Improved biodiversity value

Ysgol Borras Park Infants,WrexhamProvision of direct practicalsupport to school and financialsupport to GWF to plan,implement and maintain aschool planting scheme tocreate an outdoor teachingarea linked to Forest Schoolinitiative and provide shade forpupils.

£5,305GWF£6,655

• 2000 native trees planted• 22 standard native/non-native trees

planted• Improved biodiversity value of site• Provision of shade in school grounds• Environmental education benefits from

planting and future site use• Strengthened link to Forest School

programme




St. Christopher’s, MillenniumEco Centre, Borras, WrexhamProvision of direct practical andfinancial support towards thecosts of tree planting andestablishment to create outdoorteaching area and provideshade for pupils.

£812GWF,OnyxEnvironmental Trust£1,500

• 500 native trees planted on previousquarry site adjacent to school and withinschool grounds

• Pupils with special needs engaged inplanting activities

• Improved biodiversity value of site• Provision of shade in school grounds

Watt’s Dyke School, WrexhamProvision of financial support toGWF towards the costs of treeplanting within school groundsto provide outdoor teachingopportunities and shade forpupils.

£3,200GWF,Parent-TeacherAssociation£4,300

• 750 native trees planted• 28 standard non-native trees planted• Provision of shade in school grounds• Improved biodiversity value within an

urban setting• Educational benefits linked to planting

days at school

BUSINESS SITES

RAM Leisure, WhitegateIndustrial Estate, WrexhamProvision of direct practical andfinancial support to smallbusiness in Communities Firstarea towards groundpreparation, tree planting andestablishment costs as part of awider environmentalenhancement scheme.

£1,260RAM Leisure,Specialist TreeCare£3,300

• 10 non-native heavy nursery standardsplanted in formal scheme

• Improved business image • Improved amenity value of site for staff

Cytec Engineered MaterialsLtd, Wrexham Industrial EstateProvision of financial support toGWF towards groundpreparation, tree planting andas part of a wider physicalenvironmental enhancementscheme on business premises.

£12,500GWF£12,500

• 200 non native light standards planted informal scheme

• Aesthetic value of site significantlyimproved

• Exemplar planting scheme in a heavilyindustrial area

Pann Krisp Ltd, WrexhamIndustrial EstateProvision of financial support toGWF towards tree planting aspart of a wider physicalenvironmental enhancementscheme on business premises.

£6,727GWF,WDA(total valueunknown)

• Aesthetic value of site significantlyimproved

• Improved business image



Tetrapak, Wrexham IndustrialEstateProvision of financial support toGWF towards tree planting aspart of a wider environmentalenhancement scheme onbusiness premises.

£3,760GWF£3,760

• Improved amenity value of site for staff• Improved biodiversity value of site• Better integration of site into surrounding

countryside

INDUSTRIAL RECLAMATIONSITE

Brymbo SteelworksFacilitation of Woodland GrantScheme planning andapplication for 26 hectarenative woodland planting andmanagement scheme adjacentto new development onprevious steelworks site.

£36,000ParkhillEstates£48,000

• 45000 native trees planted• Section of previous industrial slag heap

reclaimed to native woodland• Improved recreational opportunities• Improved biodiversity habitat• Improved landscape value

TOWN CENTRE

Tower Gardens, Holywell,FlintshireProvision of direct financial andpractical support to FCC towncentre regeneration officer onplanting specifications,community consultation andmaintenance andestablishment techniques in anarea previously suffering fromvandalism. Vandalised Sorbus(rowan) standards replacedwith 6 Pyrus calleryana‘Chanticleer’ (ornamental pear)semi-mature standards.

£5,835FCC£11,670

• 6 semi-mature non-native ornamentaltrees planted

• Vandalised scheme replaced andformalised

• Improved town centre image• Involvement of local community in

planning and maintenance of scheme





TRANSPORT CORRIDORS

North East Wales Health Trust,WrexhamProvision of direct financial andpractical support to alleviateproblems with anti-socialbehaviour within a denselyvegetated area adjacent toA5152 in Wrexham town centre.Removal of laurel hedge andreplacement with 8 semimature Zelkova standards.

£1,100North EastWales HealthTrust£4,100

• 8 semi mature non-native standardsplanted

• Alleviation of anti-social behaviour• Improved amenity value

Oak Avenue, Holt, WrexhamProvision of financial supporttowards the planting andmaintenance of 56 Quercusrobur (pedunculate, or English,oak) nursery standards to forma formal avenue along B5102approach to Holt village.

£820Bellis Brothers£1,640

• 56 standard native trees planted• Increased biodiversity value of transport

corridor• Improved landscape• Improved image of village

ADVICE / FACILITATION

Flint Town Hall, FlintshireProvision of practical support(advice and specifications) toFlintshire Highways Departmentto alleviate long-term problemsassociated with waterloggedtree pits. Replacement of 4dead/damaged trees adjacentto town hall.

FCCHighways Dept

• 4 non-native semi mature standardsplanted

• Long lasting problem caused by poorprevious specifications overcome

• Rejuvenation of town centre location

Castle Park regenerationproject, FlintProvision of practical support(advice) to FCC Regenerationdepartment in relation tocommunity engagementtechniques and species choicefor proposed street treeplanting scheme inCommunities First area.

FCCRegenerationDept

Expected outcomes:

• Engagement of local residents in physicalenvironmental improvement scheme

• Improved visual and amenity value ofCommunity First area




Ysgol Rhosddu Primary, WrexhamProvision of practical support(advice) to school on species choiceand establishment andmaintenance specifications forproposed school ground plantingscheme to create biodiversityhabitat and outdoor teaching area.Specification on species choice andplanting pits/guards for proposedconcrete school yard plantingscheme to provide shade for pupils.

• Provision of shade for pupils• Improved amenity value of play

ground• Increased biodiversity value of

playing fields• Improved school image

Areton International Plastics,Wrexham Industrial EstateProvision of practical support tobusiness on screening industrialbuildings from neighbouringhousing, including suitable specieslist and planting specifications.

• Industrial site screened fromresidential housing

• Improved biodiversity value

Mountain Lane Primary, Buckley,FlintshireProvision of practical support(advice) to school on species choiceand establishment andmaintenance specifications forproposed school ground plantingscheme to create biodiversityhabitat and outdoor teaching area.

• Improved biodiversity value of schoolgrounds

• Outdoor learning opportunitiesenhanced

St. Etherworld’s Primary School,Higher Shotton, FlintshireProvision of practical support(advice) on species choice forformal and informal proposedplanting scheme on schoolgrounds, including detailed plantingplan and establishment andmaintenance specifications.

• Provision of shade for pupils• Improved biodiversity value of site


Appendix 2 – Essential Competencies


Essential staff competenciesfor Treegeneration Recommendation for similar future initiatives

Specific silviculturalknowledge

Staff should be able to liaise with experts within FCW for thisknowledge.

Project management Staff should have basic project management skills but shouldbe able to seek expert advice from within FCW.

Understanding of externalfunding

Basic understanding is required; officers should be able toseek expert advice from other FCW staff.

Team player Essential both in terms of within the delivery team and thewider FCW context.

Ability to work alone Essential

Understand FCW proceduresand protocol

Essential in order to integrate delivery fully with other FCWinitiatives and departments.

Ability to communicateeffectively across private,public and voluntary sectors

Essential

Administration skills Project staff should not undertake the majority of projectadministration. Dedicated support should be provided.

Media skills (including pressand web development)

Project officers should not undertake webdevelopment/content provision or communication with thepress. All communication of this type should be routedthrough FCW Communications team or dedicated supportstaff.

Ability to be flexible andcreative

The ability to be flexible and adjust to local situations is key tothe success of Treegeneration.

Awareness of local andnational politics and policies

It is important that projects fit with both communityaspirations and the local and national political agenda.

Facilitation and mediationskills. Conflict resolution.

It should be recognised there will always be a degree ofconflict when working with communities and/or otherorganisations. The ability to cope with and defuse thesesituations is key.

Plan and prioritise work Essential

Understanding diversityissues Essential



Appendix 3 – Forestry Commission Wales’internal structural arrangements

Structuralaspect Treegeneration Recommended

future scenario Benefits

Situation inrelation toFCW

Embeddedwithin Grantsand Licences

Embedded

Embedding projects and programmes within theparent organisation enhances the sense ofbelonging and loyalty developed by staff. It helpsestablish associations between the parentorganisation and those with whom the projectmay be working.

Officer base Within FCW andpartner offices

Within FCW andpartner offices

Staff based within the offices of the parentorganisation are more likely to quickly developnetworks and knowledge. Staff based alone canoften feel isolated from the organisation andcolleagues.

Organisational support None

Administrative,communicationand mediasupport

Effective project administration, communicationsand media support require specific skill sets andexpertise. They are aspects of project work thatare time consuming but essential to success.Support in these areas should be provided bythe parent organisation.

Officer workload

20 projects plusadvisorysupport 2004-2008

Average of 20projects perofficer

A reasonable number of projects or schemes todevelop and maintain allows staff to give ampletime and support to those projects that mayneed it. The number of schemes per officer isalso dependent on the geographic spread of theoverall project.

Funding Internal pluspartner funding

Core internalfunding plusexternal orpartnershipfunding whereappropriate

Core internal funding, supplemented withexternal funding where applicable, would allowfor flexibility of approach and the removal of animperative to spend to specific externaldeadlines.

Employmentstatus

Fixed termappointment

Permanent fulltime

Linked to staff morale, sense of belonging andloyalty to the organisation. Also providescontinuity of a single point of contact and abilityto build up a strong network of relationshipsboth internal and external to the parentorganisation.


Appendix 3 – Forestry Commission Wales’internal structural arrangements


Projectmanagement

Steering groupand projectofficer

Steering groupand projectofficers

It is always beneficial for projects to beoverseen by a Steering Group withrepresentation from other stakeholders. Itallows for transparency and an assurancethat projects will continue to meet aims andobjectives.

Grant bidassessment Steering group

Panelcomprisingindividualsexternal toproject plusrepresentationfrom withinproject

It is always beneficial that grantapplications are assessed by a panelincluding representation from stakeholdersoutside the project. It allows fortransparency and an assurance thatprojects and schemes are appropriate.

Grantallocation

Maximum 75%to communitygroups,businesses,local authoritiesand otherorganisations

A sliding scaleof matchfunding. Levelof fundingdetermined bystructure oforganisationapplying.

We recognise that the provision of 100%grant funding is unusual and unlikely to beavailable in the future. The maximumpercentage available could be provided forcommunities and similar groups, whilst asliding scale of match funding could berequired from other more established orstatutory organisations.

Projectmonitoring

Limited tobiannual visualinspections ofplanting. Noprerequisite forschemes tomonitor outputsor outcomes

Ongoingprogramme ofmonitoringandevaluation,including theestablishmentof baselinedata andrelevantindicators

The establishment of baseline data, thedevelopment of indicators and aprogramme of ongoing monitoring andevaluation allows the effectiveness ofprojects to be demonstrated over time.Quantitative monitoring will establishoutputs whilst a more qualitative approachwill demonstrate the effects of thoseoutputs. The gathering of baseline datahelps demonstrate change and effect overtime applicable to specific projects.



Appendix 4 – Treegeneration Application Forms

Project Officer’s Scheme Checklist

The following checklist has been produced to assess a project’s ability to qualify forTreegeneration Phase 1 funding. Those projects that tick all or the majority of boxes will be mostlikely to be successful in securing funding.

Site / project name: ………………………..County: ………………………...

1. Urban Urban fringe

(Points………)

2. No conflicts of interest

Services Planning Biodiversity Archaeology

(Points………)

3. Landowner’s permission granted

(Points………)

4. Public Access

Full Partial Visual Other

(Points………)

Benefits

Environmental social Economic Other ……

(Points………)




5. Match funding available

Cash In Kind Other

(Points………)

6. Local Community involvement

Consultation Delivery Maintenance

(Points………)

7. Provisions for maintenance

Short-term (Years 1-5) Long-term (Year 5+)

(Points………)

Total = ……….. points

Additional comments

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………




Business Orientated Scheme

Date: ……………………. Contact……………………….


8. Geographical location

Urban Urban fringe

(Points………)

9. Strategic location of proposed scheme

Gateway Prominent Other

10.Area enhanced by proposed scheme

< 0.25ha 0.25 – 1ha >1ha

11. Maintenance agreement

Written Verbal

(Points………)

12.Access

Full - employee Visual - employee Visual - public

(Points………)

Benefits

Environmental Social Economic Other ……

(Points………)




13.Employee involvement


(Points………)

14.Match funding secured

Cash In Kind Other

Details………………………………………………………….

(Points………)

Total Score = ……….. points

Additional information relevant to application

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………




Geographic locationUrban 2 Urban fringe 1

Strategic locationGateway 10Prominent 6Other 0

Area enhanced<0.25ha 00.25 – 1ha 3>1ha 6

Maintenance agreementWritten 3 Verbal 1

AccessFull - employee 5Visual – employee 3Visual - public 3

6. BenefitsEnv 1Social 1Economic 1Other 1

7. Employee involvement2 points for each

8. Match FundingCash 2In Kind 1Other 1

Checklist- Points scores

Below are the points ‘scores’ assigned to each of the available answers within theTreegeneration Project Checklist form. Some have been weighted to reflect their importance interms of helping to meet the objectives of phase 1 of Treegeneration.




Community Orientated Schemes

Checklist

The following checklist has been produced to assess a project’s suitability for TreegenerationPhase 1 funding. Those projects with the most points will be most likely to be successful insecuring funding.


15.Urban Urban fringe

(Points………)

16.No conflicts of interest

Services Planning Biodiversity Archaeology

(Points………)

17.Landowner’s permission granted

(Points………)

18.Land manager / grounds maintenance acceptance of proposal

Written Verbal

19.Public Access

Full Partial Visual Other

(Points………)

Benefits




Environmental Social Economic Other ……

(Points………)

20. Match funding available

Cash In Kind Other

(Points………)

21.Local Community involvement


(Points………)

22. Provisions for maintenance

Short-term (Years 1-5) Long-term (Year 5+)

Details

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………

(Points………)Total Score = ……….. points




LocationUrban 2 Urban fringe 1

Service checks1 for each

Landowner permission1 point

Land manager /grounds maintenanceacceptanceWritten 3Verbal 1

AccessFull 2Partial 1Visual 1Other 1

6. BenefitsEnv 1Social 1Economic 1Other 1

Match FundingCash 2In Kind 1Other 1

Community involvement2 points for each

MaintenanceShort-term 2Long-term 4

Additional comments

Checklist- Points scores

Below are the points ‘scores’ assigned to each of the available answers within theTreegeneration Project Checklist form. Some have been weighted to reflect their importance interms of sustainability.


A


Appendix 5 – Treegeneration Maintenance Agreement

Maintenance Agreement

On behalf of……………………………………………………., I agree to carry out the

maintenance of the Treegeneration tree planting scheme at

…………………………………………………………………………………….

to at least the minimum specification and duration stipulated in the Treegeneration MaintenanceSpecification sheet.

Signed:

Print Name:

Organisation:

Date:


Appendix 6 – Treegeneration Partnership Agreement


Partnership Agreement (Sample)

(Insert name of organisation or group)

Forestry Commission Partnership Agreement(Insert site/scheme name)

Introduction(Briefly describe the site and background to the scheme)

The Proposer

The partnership is being proposed and submitted by (Insert name of organisation or group) on………… (insert date).

The Partners

This Partnership Agreement is made between Forestry Commission in Wales through its NorthWales office, and (Insert name of organisation or group)

Other partners in the project include:

Project Description(Describe the context and aims of the scheme)

Project Objectives(List them)

The ProjectOutline & Costs

Total (exc VAT)VATTotal (inc VAT)

nt




Inputs

Forestry Commission Funding:

£…..– Financial Year (70% of total agreed amount, paid on completion of planting works)

£….– Financial Year (30% of total agreed amount, paid on completion of maintenance works)

Other Funding Secured:

Other Funding Applied For But Not Secured:

Contribution in Kind:

Outputs(List them)

Outcomes & Benefits(List them)

Management

(Insert name of organisation or group) will:Nominate a Project Manager and take responsibility for day to day and overall projectmanagement.

Manage the project at all times in the best interests of the project.Subject to the above, manage the project in the best interests of the Partnership and componentpartner organisations.

Provide Forestry Commission with any information relating to the project as may be required toprogress the objectives of the project.

When subcontracting any part of the project or placing orders in connection with the project,ensure that best value for money is obtained bearing in mind the project objectives.

Forestry Commission as a project partner undertakes to:

Contribute to the project in the spirit of partnership.

Recognise the authority of (Insert name of organisation or group) to manage the project.




Finances

Forestry Commission will pay (Insert name of organisation or group) the agreed funds in theLetter of Acceptance at the agreed times stated above.

(Insert name of organisation or group) will manage project funds in accordance with its ownfinance codes.

Terms & Conditions of the Grant

1. The Commissioners representative shall be entitled to review the progress of the project fromtime to time and specifically soon after project completion when there will be a site visit toreview how Forestry Commission funds have been spent.

2. The Commissioners may terminate the Agreement should the project be affected by any ofthe following: bankruptcy, insolvency, imprisonment, receivership, administration, compoundingwith creditors, absence for 3 months by illness or incapacity, winding up, amalgamation or takeover. Provided that in the case of illness the Commissioners may instead of termination,suspend the project until further notice.

3. (Insert name of organisation or group) shall, in agreement with the Commissionersrepresentative, acknowledge the Commissioners contribution (in this case the Treegenerationurban forestry initiative) in literature and press releases etc published about the project. In allcases, the Treegeneration shall be the lead organisation in all publicity related to the project.Any articles for release are to be agreed with the Commissioners’ representative prior to theirrelease.

4. The offer of grant is made on the understanding that, in the course of making application,(Insert name of organisation or group) will have disclosed to the Commissioners any financialcontributions received or expected for the same purpose from any other body financed frompublic funds, for example, Sports Council, Countryside Council for Wales, Welsh Tourist Board,Welsh Development Agency, CADW and local authorities, or from the EEC. Insofar as any suchcontribution's offer, the Commissioners may vary or cancel their offer or take account of them.

5. (Insert name of organisation or group) shall be responsible for meeting any claims againstthem, or against the Commissioners arising out of the grant-aided facilities or services as aresult of negligence or public liability.

6 (Insert name of organisation or group) shall not materially alter, or change the use of, or sell,or dispose of all or part of the grant-aided facilities, except with the prior written permission ofthe Commissioners for 5 years from the opening date. Following such consent and in the event

nt




of sale or change of use or disposal of all or part of the grant-aided facilities, the Commissionersshall be entitled to receive a proportion of the proceeds of sale, or current value of the asset ifnot sold, equivalent to the proportion which the financial assistance given by the Commissionersbears to the aggregate cost of the acquisition, creation, improvement or adaptation of thewhole, or the part affected by the consent.

7. In the event of a breach of these conditions, the Commissioners may declare the offer to bevoid, or may vary the amount of grant to be paid, or, where the grant or a portion of it has beenpaid, may require the amount paid to be repaid in full or in part with interest at the rate thencurrently specified by the Treasury for debts owing to Government Departments.

8. Any dispute about the interpretation of these conditions shall be referred to the arbitration ofa person to be agreed between the parties or, failing agreement within 28 days after eitherparty has given to the other a written request to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator, aperson to be nominated at the request of either party by the President of the Institute ofChartered Foresters.

9. The offer must be accepted by (Insert name of organisation or group) in writing within onemonth from the date on which it is made. If the acceptance is not received within that time theoffer will lapse.

Signed on behalf of (Insert name of organisation or group):

Name:

Date:

Signed on behalf of Forestry Commission in Wales:

Name:

Date:


Date post:	26-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Tree Generation final report:Layout 1

Documents