This report was commissioned by RBG Kew and written by ... Native Seed Hub 10 Year... · RBG Kew takes no liability for the use of the data, ... • Flora Locale operate a voluntary

This report was commissioned by RBG Kew and written by Chris Blandford Associates in 2011 to

assist RBG Kew in the planning of its UK Native Seed Hub project.

Some parts of the report have been redacted. These redactions have been made to:

protect the personal data of RBG Kew staff members;

protect the confidentiality of suppliers and growers who provided information to Chris

Blandford Associates in compiling this report;

protect RBG Kew’s and third parties’ commercial interests.

By publishing this summary, RBG Kew is not claiming its findings accurately represent the UK native

seed industry in terms of native seed value or volume, nor does it necessarily agree with its reflective

statements, recommendations and impressions of the UK native seed industry, which are based upon

feedback from UK native seed producers, collectors and wholesalers.

RBG Kew takes no liability for the use of the data, comments and reflective statements offered in this

report.

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

UK Native Seed Hub Initiative

10 Year Business Plan

November 2011


UK Native Seed Hub Initiative

10 Year Business Plan

Approved

Chris Blandford

Position Director

Date 7th November 2011

Revision Final

December 2013 1 UK Native Seed Hub 10 Year Business Plan

ExecSummary_FOI Request Chris Blandford Associates

ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW UK NATIVE SEED HUB INITIATIVE - 10 YEAR BUSINESS PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 STRATEGIC CONTEXT The 2010 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan set a new global vision and direction for biodiversity policy. In the UK, the first White Paper on the Natural Environment in England for over 20 years was issued by Defra in 2011 (The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature), building on the findings of the National Ecosystem Assessment and the Lawton Report (Making Space for Nature). In support of the White Paper, the Government recently published a new England Biodiversity Strategy (Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England’s Wildlife and Ecosystem Services). A new, compact set of biodiversity indicators will also be developed, and these will be finalised by spring 2012. There is at present limited regulation of UK native wildflower seeds unlike that of the agricultural seed sector. Regulation is much stronger in the tree and shrub sector. The Forest Reproductive Material (Great Britain) Regulations 2002 came into force on 1st January 2003. The Wildlife and Countryside Act implements the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) in Great Britain. The Act contains measures for preventing the establishment of non-native species and makes it an offence to pick, uproot, destroy or sell any wild plants listed in Schedule 8 (unless a license is granted). Key recent amendments to the Act include the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, which makes it an offence to plant or cause to grow in the wild any plant outwith its native range and the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which received Royal Assent on 29th March 2011, also makes it an offence to pick, uproot or destroy seeds and spores of protected wild plants as well as the wild plants themselves. 2.0 POTENTIAL MARKET SIZE AND GROWTH

Compared to, say, the agricultural seed market, the UK native seed market is relatively unsophisticated and immature. Current demand is limited in both quantitative and qualitative terms. However with present policy trends at all levels of Government (see above), it is predicted to grow. The overall UK native seed market is estimated to currently be worth 70-120t in weight, and £3m - £6m in value. The tree and shrub sector is estimated to comprise approximately 15-35% of the overall market. 75-90% is dominated by species rich grassland. Heathland and cornfield annuals are the next two largest segments, with heathland’s relatively high market price giving it a higher share of market value (2-25%) than of market weight (0-10%). Coastal habitats, wetland vegetation and woodland field layer comprise the remainder of the market, each contributing 0-5% share. Overall, the market is anticipated to grow to 120-240t by 2019/2020, and to be worth £6-17m in value.



3.0 MARKET STRUCTURE The UK native wildflower seed market comprises seven broad types of players: • Seed collectors/providers – who harvest seed from semi-natural populations, and sell it on to primary

producers or end customers without any bulking up or multiplication. • Primary producers – who harvest seed from semi-natural populations and then bulk up this founder

collection on their site. • Seed merchants – who purchase seed from primary producers and from other seed merchants, and sell it

to retail market outlets and end customers. • Retail market outlets – who sell seeds to the retail market subset of end customers. • End customers – who are the ultimate purchasers of the seed, whether through retail outlets (such as the

Garden Centre Group), seed merchants, primary producers or seed collectors/providers. • Specifiers – who develop seed specification for end users. • Conservation/restoration organisations - who exert influence on different parts of the market

depending on their area of expertise and network, including through legislation, publication of guidance, and grant schemes e.g. Flora Locale, the Grasslands Trust, Buglife and the Heritage Lottery Fund.

The UK native tree and shrub seed market has many similarities with the UK native wildflower seed market, but is slightly less complex. It comprises five broad types of players, and appears to be much more concentrated among a smaller number of players: • Seed collectors/providers – relatively speaking, there appears to be a number of players who operate as

seed collectors/providers; • Seed merchants – there do not appear to be many players in this part of the market; • End customers – these include tree nurseries, who buy in seed to grow into seedlings, saplings or trees

that they sell, although tree nurseries typically harvest seed from their own trees; • Specifiers – who also include the Forestry Commission and Woodland Trust; and • Conservation/restoration organisations. Overall, there are broadly 11 elements in the production and distribution chain for UK native seeds. The different players in the market engage in different elements of the chain depending in part on whether they are seed collectors/providers, primary producers or seed merchants. 4.0 KEY ISSUES AND GAPS IN THE MARKET Availability and supply of seeds: • There are a number of seed species that are very desirable in a mix and that contribute to overall

biodiversity aims, but that are not currently readily available in the market. • Seeds are collected from a relatively narrow geographic range of sites, resulting in a limited offer of local

origin seeds. • Supply is potentially not sufficient to meet latent demand in the market. Quality of available seeds: • There are concerns that some of the seeds being marketed as UK native are grown in the UK rather than

actually of UK native origin. • Concerns have also been raised about the quality of seeds available in the market, and their associated

emergence rates. • There are sub-optimal cleaning, drying and storage conditions among some players in the market, caused

by mixed awareness of best practice standards.



Regulation, standards of practice and monitoring: • There is currently limited formal regulation of UK native wildflower species, except when used as fodder

stock. • At present, the key players in the UK native seed market have limited influence on broad policy and

regulatory developments that impact the market. • Flora Locale operate a voluntary code of conduct for the commercial seed industry, but this does not

appear to be fully enforced at present. • For development and infrastructure projects in particular, there can sometimes be a disconnect between

the seeds specified and those actually planted, leading to substitution of imported seeds or lower specification/cheaper seeds.

Awareness and demand: • The provision of native seeds can often be seen as a relatively low priority in large scale and high value

development and infrastructure projects. • There are mixed levels of awareness among some contractors of the lead times and costs associated with

delivering the required seed specification and quantities. • There are mixed levels of awareness among some landowners or design professionals of the value and

importance of specifying native origin. • There are mixed levels of awareness among some market participants that native wildflower species are an

unregulated segment of the overall seed market. • There is growing, but still limited retail consumer demand around seeds that contribute to biodiversity. Understanding and research: • There is insufficient understanding of the impact of imported seeds on local habitats. • There is insufficient understanding of the impact of climate change. • Some stakeholders have identified issues around seed germination and establishment rather than seed

viability. These issues/gaps have been prioritised in two ways, the first being the relative importance of such opportunities to UK nature conservation and the second being their alignment with existing Royal Botanic Garden (RBG) Kew strengths and assets. 5.0 OVERALL LONG TERM VISION The UK Native Seed Hub initiative will use the seed collections, scientific facilities, seed technology, horticultural expertise, and authoritative brand of RBG Kew and its Millennium Seed Bank to actively contribute to developing coherent, resilient ecological networks and to enhancing biodiversity in the UK, in line with the aspirations set out in the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper (2011). The UK Native Seed Hub is ultimately a not for profit initiative, although it will seek to operate on a cost-recovery basis. In support of this, the initiative will charge for some of its services, and will also extend provision of its services to other related sectors (such as agrochemicals). 6.0 OFFER AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS/SERVICES The core offer of the UK Native Seed Hub is comprised of the provision of seed, provision of training and technical advice, and provision of other facilities/services. This is supported by tailored research activities, activities focused on regulation/standards of practice, and awareness and demand building.



Seed provision: • Production of founder for species currently missing from existing commercial mixes. • Production of founder stocks for rare species and Schedule 8 species. • Production of founder for local or multi origin seeds. • Production of high quality founder stocks for species that primary producers currently harvest from the

wild. • Provision of high quality seeds with tailored germination protocol for agrochemical sector (e.g. for

companies developing herbicides). • Provision of tailored seed offers for the retail market – where RBG Kew would design, brand and viability

test the offer, and primary producers would grow seeds in commercial quantities under contract or license.

Provision of training and technical advice: • Seed viability training and technical advice to primary producers, seed collectors/providers and seed

merchants. • Seed cleaning and storage needs training and technical advice to primary producers, seed

collectors/providers and seed merchants. • Horticultural training and technical advice (including protocols) on how to maximise conversion from

seedlings to plants, and how to achieve optimal plant performance.

Provision of other facilities/services: • Provision of seed viability testing service for primary producers, seed merchants and/or end users. RBG

Kew tested seeds to potentially be appropriately kite marked or branded. • Use of high quality MSB cleaning and storage facilities by primary producers, seed merchants and/or end

users. • Provision of consultancy advice (particularly for exemplar projects) on species currently growing in the

area, mix of species that should be planted, how best to ensure good planting rates, and where to source seeds.

Research: • Undertake research into seed establishment and techniques for habitat creation. • Undertake research into understanding the impact of climate change.

Regulation and standards of practice: • Government lobbying to increase formal regulation/monitoring of the UK native wildflower market. • Collaboration with Flora Locale and key market players to establish a better Code of Practice.

Collaboration could also involve the development of an informal trade association.

Awareness building and demand development: • Awareness building and demand development among end users and specifiers. • Awareness building and demand development among retail market/private individuals.

7.0 HABITAT TYPES Overall, greatest emphasis is proposed for seeds associated with species rich grassland. Some emphasis should also be given to seeds associated with woodland field layer. Seeds associated with trees/shrubs and with coastal habitats have been given the lowest priority ranking.



8.0 MARKETING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Three key marketing and business development objectives will be important to successfully develop the UK Native Seed Hub initiative: • Objective 1: Build demand for the UK Native Seed Hub offer. • Objective 2: Identify suitable high profile ‘exemplar projects’ early on. • Objective 3: Adopt a gradualist approach to developing the UK Native Seed Hub initiative.

Objective 1: Build Demand for the UK Native Seed Hub Offer

Tools that RBG Kew will need to employ to build awareness and therefore demand in the market include: • Participating in Flora Locale’s training programme. • Participating in conferences, trade fairs, seminars and collaborations. • Organising conferences/symposia. • Providing educational opportunities associated with land management courses. • Publishing articles and practical guidance notes in relevant trade journals and on the Flora locale website. • Publishing books and manuals. • General networking. • Developing a focused UK Native Seed Hub microsite (or dedicated web pages) within the RBG Kew

website, linked to Flora locale’s website. • Providing information for visitors about the value and importance of UK native species and integrating

seed production beds into the general visitor attraction at Wakehurst Place. Objective 2: Identify Suitable High Profile ‘Exemplar Projects’ Early On

Exemplar projects could include: • Nature Improvement Areas and Biodiversity Offset pilots identified in the Natural Environment White

Paper (2011). • Large scale infrastructure or development schemes – REDACTED TEXT. • Specific market leading projects REDACTED TEXT. • Projects focused on habitat creation/restoration or creation of public open space – e.g. associated with

conservation NGOs or funding bodies.

Objective 3: Adopt a Gradualist Approach to Developing the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative

This would allow RBG Kew to learn by doing, test the waters, and flexibly adapt in response to market reaction, without committing significant financial and human resources too early on. It would focus on providing some of the products and services at a relatively small scale initially, before ramping up once market demand and RBG Kew’s effectiveness at delivery had been confirmed. 9.0 OPERATIONAL RESOURCES This initiative will need to ensure that it has sufficient staff resources to develop demand and to deliver a quality service to its clients. All staff currently allocated to the 4 year Esmée Fairbairn Foundation funded pilot programme have their responsibilities divided between the UK Native Seed Hub and their ‘day job’. Developing a credible initiative with a track record of delivery in the market is likely to require significantly higher staff allocations, particularly in the later years. In the early years, the Business Development Manager in particular will need to devote significant time to awareness building and demand development. In terms of assets and facilities, requirements for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative include new dedicated seed production beds, and use of the MSB’s seed germination and seed processing laboratories. 10.0 COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS In addition to staff resources, building commercial relationships and partnerships will also be important to delivery of the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. It will be important to develop a partnership with Flora Locale



and greater collaboration with Defra. It will also be critical for RBG Kew to build relationships with end users and specifiers. 11.0 GOVERNANCE The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation funded four year pilot programme for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative is situated within the Seed Conservation (Millennium Seed Bank Partnership) section of the Conservation, Living Collections and Estates Directorate. This is also likely to be its most appropriate permanent location – Kew Enterprises is too commercial and the Kew Innovation Unit (KIU) is too internationally focused and too geographically distant. By being organisationally and physically situated at the Millennium Seed Bank, the UK Native Seed Hub initiative has immediate access to the assets, facilities, expertise and staff that it needs. The Steering Team for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative already includes representatives from the key disciplines that will contribute to, and be impacted by, the initiative. There may be value in including a representative from KIU on the Steering Team. The new Business Development Manager will also need to be included on the Steering Team. At present, leadership of the initiative is divided between three senior staff members (Head of Conservation and Technology Section, Head of Collecting and Network Support Section, and Head of Wakehurst Place). There would be value in retaining these three staff as senior sponsors/champions, but there would also be value in delegating day to day accountability to the proposed new Business Development Manager. 12.0 OVERALL FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Based on current income and cost assumptions, the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative could potentially generate a sizeable income (c.£350,000 in Year 10). However, at present it appears to neither generate a surplus nor be financially self-sustaining – instead, it generates a significant deficit (-c.£435,000 in Year 10), which is reduced to -c.£100,000 when only new staff posts are considered.

Staff costs are a key factor in the deficit. They comprise 75% of the entire cost base in Year 10, and generate a staff cost/income margin of 165%. They are particularly an issue for provision of viability testing services, for provision of seeds (both for the conservation market and for the agrochemical sector), and for provision of training and technical advice. 13.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

The sensitivity analysis shows that improvements across a range of elements (including a 50% reduction in staff costs, as well as increases in fees and seeds sold, and greater emphasis on the retail sector and on consultancy work) could lead to an income of c.£505,000 in Year 10, and a surplus of c.£100,000 when only new staff posts are considered. However, a deficit continues to be generated overall when all staff costs are included, albeit at a much reduced level of -c.£100,000.

The financial performance of the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative is driven in part by RBG Kew’s desire to primarily focus on supporting aspirations around ecological networks and enhanced biodiversity, and to operate on a non competitive, not for profit basis rather than for maximum commercial gain. This has led to a business model that focuses on opportunity areas where there is a need in the market (e.g. for ‘missing’ species, or for higher viability rates), but where demand is not yet established. Investment will therefore need to be made in developing demand, both through improved regulation/self regulation if possible, and through awareness building among the market players. 14.0 KEY RISKS

Emphasis on opportunity areas where demand is not yet established inevitably introduces uncertainty, and therefore risk, around projected income and overall surplus/deficit levels. It would thus be prudent to take a gradualist approach, ramping up activity gradually over time in response to demand. A project by project approach, in particular in the early years, is likely to be a sensible business development strategy.



One of RBG Kew’s key assets in the market is its brand, and its association with unrivalled authority, scientific knowledge and quality. It will therefore be important to ensure that none of the activities undertaken for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative undermine that brand strength. There are also risks associated with intellectual property. Much of the income is predicated on RBG Kew’s unique skills and expertise. It will therefore be critically important for RBG Kew to find ways to either retain such intellectual property rights, and therefore its value and income potential in the market, or to develop commercial arrangements that take due account of its value.

While it will be important to maintain good relationships with the primary producers in the market, it will also be critically important to build awareness among end users and specifiers. These end users and specifiers both ultimately drive demand, and can also be an important direct source of potential projects (and therefore income) for RBG Kew – as already demonstrated by the feedback received from the launch of the UK Native Seed Hub. Recruiting the Business Development Manager as soon as possible will be an important part of this. Overall, the funding provided by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation provides RBG Kew with the financial support to essentially pilot the Business Model over a multi-year period. Close monitoring will allow RBG Kew to update the financial model and the projected financial performance with actual data, and to build better understanding and greater confidence in the potential long term performance of the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative. The end of the four year pilot project provides RBG Kew with a natural decision point about whether to continue or not – with a decision informed by four years of hard data. To ensure the effectiveness of this approach, it is important that the four year Esmee Fairbairn Foundation funded project is fully aligned with the Business Model agreed through this process.

December 2013 UK Native Seed Hub

10 Year Business Plan Paper Final report_Business Plan_FOI Request Chris Blandford Associates

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 STRATEGIC AND MARKET CONTEXT 2

2.1 Overview 2

2.2 Strategic Context 2

2.3 Potential Market Size and Growth 6

2.4 Market Structure 7

2.5 Seed Production and Distribution Chain 9

3.0 KEY MARKET ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS 10

3.1 Overview 10

3.2 Key Issues and Gaps in the Market 10

3.3 Opportunity Areas and their Prioritisation 12

4.0 VISION AND BUSINESS MODEL 15

4.1 Overview 15

4.2 Overall Long Term Vision 15

4.3 Offer and Associated Products/Services 16

4.4 Habitat Types 18

4.5 Marketing and Business Development 20

4.6 Operations Resources, Commercial Partnerships and Governance 25

5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 28

5.1 Overview 28

5.2 Overall Financial Performance 28

5.3 Income 29

5.4 Staff Costs 30

5.5 Other Expenditure 32

6.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS, FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AND KEY

RISKS 35

6.1 Overview 35

6.2 Sensitivity Analysis and Financial Sustainability 35

6.3 Key Risks 37

FIGURES



1 UK Native Wildflower Seed Market – Who is Selling to Who?

2 Seed Production and Distribution Chain

APPENDICES

Appendix A Market Review Paper

Appendix B Key Players Paper

Appendix C Sources of Advantage Paper

Appendix D Business Model Paper

Appendix E Financial Plan Paper

Appendix F Glossary

December 2013 1 UK Native Seed Hub


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 Chris Blandford Associates were commissioned by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (RBG Kew) to

develop a 10 Year Business Plan for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative, as part of the Millennium

Seed Bank (MSB) at Wakehurst Place. Based on the project inception meeting and subsequent

discussions, our understanding was that the initiative would seek to support aspirations around

coherent, resilient ecological networks and enhanced biodiversity, and would operate on a not for

profit, cost recovery basis, rather than for maximum commercial gain.

1.1.2 Overall, there were 6 tasks associated with developing the Business Plan:

• Task 1: Assessment of UK native seed market;

• Task 2: Review of existing key players;

• Task 3: Understanding RBG Kew’s potential sources of advantage;

• Task 4: Defining the business model;

• Task 5: Developing the financial plan; and

• Task 6: Consolidation into 10 year business plan.

1.1.3 This document is the 10 Year Business Plan Paper associated with Task 6. It draws together the

findings from Tasks 1-5 (which are included as appendices to this Paper), and consolidates them

into one coherent Business Plan. It sets out the strategic and market context for the UK Native

Seed Hub initiative, and identifies the key market issues and opportunity areas. It then describes the

vision and business model for the initiative, which was developed in response to the strategic and

market context and the key market issues and opportunity areas, and identifies the financial

implications of that vision and business model. Finally, it sets out the results of a sensitivity analysis

on those financial implications, describes scenarios to reach financial sustainability in Year 10, and

also identifies key potential risks.



2.0 STRATEGIC AND MARKET CONTEXT

2.1 Overview

2.1.1 This Section sets out the strategic and market context for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. It

provides an overview of the key changes in policy and regulation that affect UK biodiversity and

native seeds, and estimates the size and potential growth of the UK native seed market. It also

provides an overview of the structure of the UK native seed market, in terms of the key types of

players that operate there and the relationships between them, and maps out the key elements of the

seed production and distribution chain. This understanding informs the view of the key issues and

opportunity areas in the market, which is discussed in Section 3. Further information on the

strategic and market context can be found in Appendices A and B.

2.2 Strategic Context

Natural Environment and Biodiversity

2.2.1 There has been ever increasing emphasis in recent times on enhancing biodiversity and on

developing coherent and resilient ecological networks, both globally and nationally. The 2010

Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan set a

new global vision and direction for biodiversity policy. It identified that nearly 2/3 of the world’s

ecosystems were degraded, highlighted ecological restoration as a significant opportunity for

achieving global conservation goals, and acknowledged that efforts to protect and enhance

biodiversity must increase significantly everywhere – with countries revising their own national

strategies and plans for biodiversity to take account of the new global framework. Agreement was

also reached on a short term ambition to take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of

biodiversity, so that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services.

2.2.2 In the UK, the first White Paper on the natural environment in England for over 20 years was

issued by Defra in 2011 (The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature). It places the value

of nature at the centre of choices around enhancing environment, economic growth and personal

wellbeing. It builds on the findings of the National Ecosystem Assessment, which shows that over

30% of the services provided by our natural environment are in decline, and on the findings of the

Lawton Report (Making Space for Nature), which identifies that the natural environment in

England has become increasingly fragmented and fragile, and is unable to respond effectively to

new pressures such as climate and demographic change. In response to these reports and their

findings, the White Paper sets out an overall mission and a number of aspirations and ambitions for

2020, including:



• Halt overall biodiversity loss, arrest the decline in habitats and species and the degradation of

landscapes, and be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better

state than it inherited – with at least 17% of England managed effectively to safeguard

biodiversity and ecosystem services, an increase of at least 200,000 hectares in the overall extent

of priority habitats, 90% of priority wildlife habitats in recovering or favourable condition, at

least 50% of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in favourable condition, and at least 95%

of SSSIs maintained in favourable or recovering condition;

• Promote multiple benefits from ecological restoration at a landscape scale;

• Establish coherent and resilient ecological networks, with more, bigger, better, and better

connected places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and people – by working in a more

ambitious and integrated way at a ‘landscape scale’, to reflect natural boundaries;

• Protect air, biodiversity, soils, and water, and support healthy well-functioning ecosystems, by

restoring natural connections that provide essential services in the environment, and restore at

least 15% of degraded ecosystems that are important for climate change mitigation and

adaptation;

• Strengthen connections between people and nature to the benefit of both, both in terms of

enjoyment and responsibility;

• Develop a green and growing economy, with the real value of nature at the heart of economic

planning; and

• Show leadership in the EU and internationally, to protect and enhance natural assets globally –

including by implementing the Nagoya commitments on biodiversity.

2.2.3 A number of specific initiatives have been identified to help deliver the mission, aspirations and

ambitions. Those that are particularly relevant to the UK Native Seed Hub initiative include the

following:

• Maximised contribution of Environmental Stewardship and the Woodland Grant Scheme to

promoting multiple benefits from ecological restoration at a landscape scale, and reconciliation

of the goals of improving the environment and increasing food production;

• Major increase in the area of woodland in England, better management of existing woodlands,

and a renewed commitment to conserving and restoring ancient woodlands. An Independent

Panel on Forestry has been convened to advise the Government on the appropriate level of

ambition for woodland creation;

• Establishment of a system of biodiversity offsets, to deliver measurable biodiversity benefits in

compensation for losses incurred during development, without constraining housing supply and

economic growth;

• Creation of new Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs), to enhance and reconnect nature on a

significant scale;

• Increased realisation of the potential of linear features (such as railways, roads, canals and cycle

ways) to be wildlife corridors, habitat stepping stones, and buffers for adjacent, more valuable

habitats, and additional emphasis on initiatives to incorporate biodiversity into retail spaces;



• Improvement in the ecological status of over 800 water bodies by 2027;

• Promotion of sustainable wildlife-friendly gardening;

• Establishment of potentially 50 Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) across England, which could

operate across administrative boundaries, and establishment of 50 Natural Value Ambassadors,

who would work at a strategic scale;

• Introduction of a new community right to reclaim land, which can be used to protect and

improve nature in local neighbourhoods, and provision of new tools and guidance for key groups

of public bodies to support local action for nature;

• Planning system reforms, which would encourage a strategic approach to planning for nature

within and across local areas. This would guide development to the best locations, encourage

greener design and enable development to enhance natural networks;

• Inclusion of natural capital within the UK Environmental Accounts, establishment of an

independent Natural Capital Committee to advise the Government on the state of natural capital

in England, publication of a ‘Roadmap to a Green Economy’, and establishment of a Green

Economy Council and a business-led Ecosystem Markets Task Force to review business

opportunities; and

• Establishment of a new Green Investment Bank to invest in green infrastructure projects, and

establishment of a Green Infrastructure Partnership with civil society, to support the

development of green infrastructure in England.

2.2.4 In support of the White Paper, the Government recently published a new England Biodiversity

Strategy (Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England’s Wildlife and Ecosystem Services). A

new, compact set of biodiversity indicators will also be developed, and these will be finalised by

Spring 2012. Northern Ireland is also currently revising its biodiversity strategy, with a draft

anticipated by the end of 2011. The revised strategy will be informed by the Lawton report, and will

focus on landscape level strategies. Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy is also due to be reviewed over

the next 18 months.

2.2.5 Another important aspect of the strategic context is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The

CAP accounts for c.50% of the EU’s budget, and is divided into two Pillars. Pillar 2 comprises

expenditure under the Rural Development Regulation, and aims to support rural communities to

develop and diversify, including through environmental stewardship, farm adaptation, forestry and

woodland creation. The current CAP cycle is coming to an end in 2013/14, and discussions are

underway in terms of how to reform it for the future. The Commission has indicated that European

agriculture needs to be genuinely green, and that Green Europe must be ambitious as far as

agriculture is concerned. The three overarching objectives for the future CAP will therefore be

sustainable management of natural resources and climate change, viable food production, and

balanced territorial development. In England, concerns have been expressed about the impact of

reform on the woodland grant scheme in particular, and potentially also on the environmental

stewardship scheme, although it is unclear at this stage what form this might take and how

significant it might be.



Use and Marketing of Seeds

2.2.6 There is at present limited regulation of UK native wildflower seeds. Although Council Directive

66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 set up a uniform certification scheme to regulate the marketing of

fodder plant seed for the European Community, there had been limited regulation of fodder plant

seed mixtures intended for use in the preservation of the natural environment (‘preservation

mixtures’). The recent Commission Directive 2010/60/EU of 30 August 2010 seeks to address

this. However, the new requirements only apply to seeds of certain fodder plant species which are

specified in the Directive. These are known as "prescribed species", and approximately 10% of the

species identified are UK native species. The Directive is due to be implemented by Member States

by 30th November 2011. In Scotland, the enacted Fodder Plant Seed (Scotland) Regulations

2005, currently under consultation, accommodates this new Directive.

2.2.7 Regulation is much stronger in the tree and shrub sector. The Forest Reproductive Material

(Great Britain) Regulations 2002 came into force on 1st January 2003, and implements EC

Directive 1999/105. The Regulations cover 46 tree species and the genus Populus (the ‘controlled

species’), and provide a system of identification and control. In 1999 the Forestry Commission

introduced a Voluntary Scheme for the Certification of Native Trees and Shrubs which were

not controlled by the above regulations – although an increased number of native species have since

been included in the list of controlled species. The procedures in the Voluntary Scheme are the same

as for those species controlled under the regulations. There is also regulation pertaining to the

quality of the forestry seeds being marketed, with all seeds needing to be tested first for viability

and germinability.

2.2.8 The Wildlife and Countryside Act implements the Convention on the Conservation of

European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) in Great Britain. There are also

numerous country-specific Orders pertaining to Variation of Schedules of the Act. The Act contains

measures for preventing the establishment of non-native species which may be detrimental to native

wildlife, including prohibiting the planting of plants listed in Schedule 9. It also seeks to protect

species, by making it an offence to pick, uproot, destroy or sell any wild plant listed in Schedule 8

(unless a license is granted). Various legislative amendments have occurred since the original

enactment. A key recent amendment to the Act is the Wildlife and Natural Environment

(Scotland) Act 2011, which makes it an offence to plant or cause to grow in the wild (including on

roadside verges beyond settlement boundaries) any plant outwith its native range. This includes

plants which are non-native to Scotland and which have been brought to Scotland by man’s

activities from 1492 onwards (when the new world was discovered and truly exotic species started

to travel oceans). The Act ultimately aims to address concerns around seed origin, and prevent the

introduction of invasive non-native species, although as a by-product it currently makes a

significant share of the existing seed market in Scotland illegal. The Wildlife and Natural

Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which received Royal Assent on 29th March 2011,



makes it an offence to pick, uproot or destroy seeds and spores of protected wild plants as well as

the wild plants themselves. It also controls introduction of hybrid non-native invasive species, as

well as non-hybrid non-native invasive species.

2.3 Potential Market Size and Growth

2.3.1 The overall UK native seed market is estimated to currently be worth 70-120t in weight, and £3-

6m in value. It should be noted that these figures, and those identified elsewhere in Section 2.3,

include both the grass and wildflower component of commercial seed mixes. This is particularly

relevant for species rich grassland mixes, where grass seeds (often comprising commercial grasses)

comprise 70-80% of total seed weight. The figures exclude agricultural crops, and agricultural and

amenity grasslands dominated by perennial rye-grass and other similar species.

2.3.2 The tree and shrub sector is estimated to comprise approximately 15-35% of the overall market. In

terms of the remainder of the market, 75-90% is dominated by species rich grassland. Heathland and

cornfield annuals are the next two largest segments, with heathland’s relatively high market price

giving it a higher share of market value (2-25%) than of market weight (0-10%). Coastal habitats,

wetland vegetation and woodland field layer comprise the remainder of the market, each

contributing 0-5% share.

2.3.3 In terms of market use and funding streams, the wholesale segment is estimated to comprise

approximately 5-20% of the overall market. In terms of the remainder of the market, 40-90% is

dominated by government funding, with the majority comprising environmental stewardship

schemes – although this segment has a slightly smaller share of market value than market weight.

Development and infrastructure projects are two sizeable segments (5-20% and 0-10% market share

respectively), and the retail packet/private landowners segment is also sizeable in terms of market

value (10-25% share), but slightly less so in terms of market weight (0-20% share). Other grant

schemes and mineral extraction/landfill comprise a smaller share of the market (0-10% collectively).

2.3.4 Overall, the market is anticipated to grow to potentially 120-240t by 2019/2020, and to be worth

£9-17m in value. This reflects 6-8% year on year growth in weight, and is in line with the average

historic 7% year on year growth reported by seed suppliers over the last 5 years. In terms of value,

it reflects a 12-13% year on year growth. Please note that market value figures do not include

inflation.

2.3.5 An aspiration associated with the Natural Environment White Paper is to rebalance spend on

habitat creation away from government towards other sources. Although Natural England, the

Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission will all continue to have a key role to play in

habitat creation, the Government also seeks to increase the role of individuals, businesses, civil

society organisations and local authorities in protecting and enhancing the natural environment. A

key contributor to this could be the new Biodiversity Offset scheme that was identified in the White



Paper. If a mandatory scheme was launched across England, then potentially 5,000-10,000 hectares

of offsets could be created annually in England by 2020 (assuming no habitat compensation

currently occurs). Alternatively, a voluntary national scheme could be launched, which could secure

50% of the offsets identified above.

2.3.6 There are mixed views on how much impact the Natural Environment White Paper and its

associated targets could have, and whether those targets will be met. A number of seed suppliers

have suggested that any step change could be significantly diluted by the time it reached the UK

native seed market, and others have commented that past targets have often been missed. Current

thinking in Defra suggests that even if biodiversity offsets and Nature Improvement Areas did not

meet expectations, the target of increasing the overall extent of priority habitats in England by at

least 200,000 hectares by 2020 (involving both habitat restoration and creation) could still be

delivered through other existing mechanisms (such as environmental stewardship).

2.4 Market Structure

2.4.1 The UK native wildflower seed market comprises 7 broad types of players. The different types of

players are described below, and the relationship between them is illustrated on Figure 1.

• Seed collectors/providers – who harvest seed from semi-natural populations, and sell it on to

primary producers or end customers without any bulking up or multiplication. There appear to

be relatively small numbers of players focusing exclusively on this activity since, typically, the

primary producers undertake their harvesting themselves;

• Primary producers – who harvest seed from semi-natural populations and then bulk up this

founder collection on their site. Often they will then harvest the majority of their seed from this

farmed crop on their site, going back into the wild to restock after a period of years. They will

also harvest seed directly from semi-natural populations and then sell it on without bulking it

up. Primary producers sell to seed merchants and end customers, and occasionally to each other

to meet specific requests or address specific shortages/crop failures. Some primary producers

focus predominantly on the wholesale market, others focus primarily on the end user market,

and others have a more even balance between the different markets. Primary producers are

dominated by a relatively small number of large scale key players, and there are also a number of

small scale players operating in the market;

• Seed merchants – who purchase seed from primary producers and from other seed merchants,

and sell it to retail market outlets and end customers. They do not grow seed themselves,

although some may supplement the seed they purchase with seed they harvest from semi-natural

populations. There is a core group of 2-3 seed merchants that focus primarily on the retail

market and have c.80% market share, while others have more limited contact in this area;



• Retail market outlets – who sell seeds to the retail market subset of end customers. Retail

market outlets include garden centres, hardware stores, DIY stores, supermarkets and visitor

attraction shops. The retail market is highly fragmented in terms of its sales channels – there are

for example 1,200 garden centre businesses operating through 2,500 outlets, with the largest

chain of garden centres (The Garden Centre Group) having only 120 outlets. Retail market

outlets buy their seed from a core group of 2-3 seed merchants, and sell them in packets;

• End customers – who are the ultimate purchasers of the seed, whether through retail outlets

(such as the Garden Centre Group), seed merchants, primary producers or seed

collectors/providers. There are a wide variety of end customers, including farmers, contractors

associated with development or infrastructure schemes, local authorities, mineral extraction

companies, conservation/restoration organisations, smaller scale private landowners, gardeners,

and plant nurseries (who grow seeds into plug plants or plants before selling them on – although

plant nurseries typically harvest their seed from their own plants);

• Specifiers – who develop seed specification for end users. Specifiers are not always the end user

purchaser themselves, and they often do not monitor the purchase or use of the seed.

Specification often includes requirements around native origin, recommended type of seed mix,

and soil treatment. Key specifiers include statutory bodies (such as Natural England),

landowners who appoint contractors for large scale schemes, and landscape architects and

ecologists; and

• Conservation/restoration organisations (or organisations that have a conservation/

restoration role to play) - who exert influence on different parts of the market depending on

their area of expertise and network, including through legislation, publication of guidance, and

grant schemes. These include Flora locale, the Grasslands Trust, Buglife and the Heritage

Lottery Fund.

2.4.2 The UK native tree and shrub seed market has many similarities with the UK native wildflower

seed market, but is slightly less complex. It comprises 5 broad types of players, and appears to be

much more concentrated among a smaller number of players:

• Seed collectors/providers – relatively speaking, there appear to be a number of players who

operate as seed collectors/providers;

• Seed merchants – there do not appear to be many players in this part of the market;

• End customers – these include tree nurseries, who buy in seed to grow into seedlings, saplings

or trees that they sell, although tree nurseries typically harvest seed from their own trees;

• Specifiers – who also include the Forestry Commission and Woodland Trust; and

• Conservation/restoration organisations.

2.4.3 Profiles of the key players in the market can be found in Appendix B.



2.5 Seed Production and Distribution Chain

2.5.1 Overall, there are broadly 11 elements in the production and distribution chain for UK native seeds.

The different players in the market engage in different elements of the chain depending in part on

whether they are seed collectors/providers, primary producers or seed merchants. In addition,

within seed collectors/providers, primary producers and seed merchants, the number of elements in

the production and distribution chain that players choose to engage in will also vary, as will the

time and resources they choose to invest. Seed merchants have a particularly varied model, where

some engage at the beginning of the chain in harvesting, others at the end of the chain in testing,

bagging and distribution, and some do not engage in the chain at all (with bagging and distribution

carried out by the primary producers). Figure 2 represents, at a high level, the full breadth of

elements of a best practice seed production and distribution chain.



3.0 KEY MARKET ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 This Section sets out the key issues and opportunity areas in the UK native seed market. It

highlights the challenges and gaps in the market, and then prioritises the resultant opportunity

areas based on their relative importance to UK nature conservation (taking into account activities

already undertaken by key players in the market) and their alignment with RBG Kew current

strengths and assets. This prioritisation informs the development of the vision and business model

for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative, which is described in Section 4. Further information on the

market issues and opportunity areas can be found in Appendices A-C.

3.2 Key Issues and Gaps in the Market

Issue Area Summary Issues/Gaps in the UK Native Seed Market

Availability and supply of seeds

There are a number of seed species that are very desirable in a mix and that contribute to overall biodiversity aims, but that are not currently readily available in the market. For example, some existing seed mixtures (eg calcareous mixes) do not reflect the full range of species that can be found in the wild/in semi natural populations, there is limited availability of target later-successional grassland species, negatively impacting meadow restoration, and agricultural cultivars are more available in the market than native grass species. ‘Missing’ species include those that are challenging to harvest or produce in commercial quantities at a competitive price (including dwarf thistle, eyebrights and milkwort for example), those that are cheaper and easier to import from abroad (such as birdsfoot trefoil which sells for £120-130/kg in the UK but can be bought in Germany for £5/kg), those whose germination lies outside the harvesting window or which have long dormancy (such as campanula patula), those with challenging germination rates, rare species, Schedule 8 species, and potentially also species that come under the new EU Fodder Plant Seed Mixtures Directive (since many commercial seed suppliers will not want to undertake the admin and cost implications of selling regulated seeds, or may instead provide agricultural rather than wild versions of the relevant prescribed species, which may not be of native stock). Seeds are collected from a relatively narrow geographic range of sites, resulting in a limited offer of local origin seeds. This is further undermined by a loss of local knowledge of regional or county communities. Supply is potentially not sufficient to meet latent demand in the market. The small number of key primary producers operating in the market raises challenges about continuity of supply and the ability of the market to meet demand in a timely way, and the scale nature of the industry makes it harder for smaller players to compete effectively on price. Supply of UK native species is also a key issue in the retail packet market, where currently most ornamental seeds on offer are of international origin, and many aquatic and wetland plants that are sold in garden centres are invasive.

Quality of available seeds

There are concerns that some of the seeds being marketed as UK native are grown in the UK rather than actually of UK native origin – with concerns being localised to specific (unnamed) seed suppliers. This can lead to certain species not being used in sensitive habitat recreation works, due to concerns about the impact that potential foreign variants may have on the rest of the habitat.




Concerns have also been raised about the quality of seeds available in the market, and their associated emergence rates. In some cases, this has emerged as a bigger issue than native origin. The generally unregulated nature of the UK native seed market, and lack of demand from end users for tested seed, has driven a lack of quality standards, and as a result there are mixed levels of quality control among primary producers and seed merchants. There are sub-optimal cleaning, drying and storage conditions among some players in the market, caused by mixed awareness of best practice standards. This contributes to some of the issues around the quality and viability of seeds in the market.

Regulation, standards of practice and monitoring

There is currently limited formal regulation of UK native wildflower species, except when used as fodder stock. At present, the key players in the UK native seed market have limited influence on broad policy and regulatory developments that impact the market. Flora Locale operate a voluntary code of conduct for the commercial seed industry, but this does not appear to be fully enforced at present. For development and infrastructure projects in particular, there can sometimes be a disconnect between the seeds specified and those actually planted, leading to substitution of imported seeds or lower specification/cheaper seeds. This is driven in part by the limited monitoring that generally currently takes place between specifications and actual seed purchase and sowing.

Awareness and demand

The provision of native seeds can often be seen as relatively low priority in large scale and high value development and infrastructure projects. As a result, provision of native seeds can become particularly subject to budget and timing pressures. In some cases, contractors will seek cost savings on seed provision and opt for lower priced alternatives without full appreciation of the implications for seed origin and quality, and ultimately for the biodiversity value of the site. There are mixed levels of awareness among some contractors (particularly in single contract development projects) of the lead times and costs associated with delivering the required seed specification and quantities, and as a result specifications can sometimes be undeliverable (either in terms of the species required or their quantity), or seed purchases driven by expediency and cost rather than quality. There are mixed levels of awareness among some landowners or design professionals of the value and importance of specifying native origin. Some stakeholders have also identified that understanding of ecology among developers and landscape architects can also be relatively limited. There are mixed levels of awareness among some market participants (eg among some development contractors and landscape architects) that native wildflower species are an unregulated segment of the overall seed market. Given the regulations in place for the agricultural and forestry segments of the market, there is sometimes an assumption that there is also regulation for native wildflower species, and that wildflower species have therefore already been tested. There is growing, but still limited retail consumer demand around seeds that contribute to biodiversity. The focus in the consumer market is still very strongly on the aesthetic value of seeds. There can also be a perception issue among retail customers in terms of buying and using UK native seed. For some, wildflower species are devalued because they can be seen freely growing on roadside edges. For others, especially those looking for decoration for suburban gardens, there can be a perception that UK native species are not formal enough.

Understanding and research

There is at present insufficient understanding of the impact of imported seeds on local habitats. There is insufficient understanding of the impact of climate change, of climate change adaptability of native species, and the impact of local origin on long term sustainability.




Some stakeholders have identified issues around seed germination and establishment rather than seed viability. Concerns have been raised around the actual techniques being used for habitat creation, and what happens at a field level.

3.3 Opportunity Areas and their Prioritisation

3.3.1 The market issues and gaps identified above create a number of opportunity areas for RBG Kew in

the UK native seed market. These have been prioritised in the table below, along two dimensions.

The first dimension is the relative importance of these potential opportunity areas to UK nature

conservation, taking into account activities already undertaken by key players in the market. This

reflects RBG Kew’s aim for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative to support aspirations around

coherent, resilient ecological networks and enhanced biodiversity (on a cost recovery basis), rather

than to attain maximum commercial gain. The second dimension is the alignment of these potential

opportunity areas with existing RBG Kew strengths and assets. The table has then been colour

coded: opportunities which score highly both in terms of their importance to UK nature

conservation and in terms of their alignment with existing RBG Kew strengths are coloured green;

opportunities which score medium or above on both dimensions are coloured orange; and

opportunities which score low or low/medium on either dimension are coloured red.

3.3.2 Please note that this table very much represents a ‘snapshot in time’ picture, based on current

understanding of the market and existing RBG Kew strengths and assets. It does not reflect RBG

Kew’s aspirations for the future. The table should be reviewed on a regular basis to reflect changes

in the market or additional information about the market, and to reflect changes to RBG Kew’s

strengths and assets. On this basis, although opportunities in the red ‘zone’ may not be deemed a

priority at this stage, it does not preclude them from becoming a priority at some point in the

future.


10 Year Business Plan Paper

Final report_Business Plan_FOI Request Chris Blandford Associates

Relative Importance of Potential Opportunity Areas to UK Nature Conservation

Low Low/

Medium

Medium Medium/High High A

lign

men

t of

Pot

enti

al O

ppor

tuni

ty A

reas

wit

h R

BG

Kew

Str

engt

hs a

nd A

sset

s Low • • • Entrance into the market as a primary producer, to address concerns that supply is potentially not sufficient to meet latent demand.

• Provision of database of available local origin species, to address current limitations in availability.

• Provision of certification or testing service around UK native origin, to address issues around incorrect marketing.

• •

Low/

Medium

• • • • •

Medium • • • Provision of founder stocks of local or multi origin to address current limitations in availability.

• Build awareness and demand among end customers of importance of UK native origin and need to request certification, to address issues around incorrect marketing.

• Provision of tailored seed offer for retail market, with bulking up undertaken by primary producers, to address issue of insufficient supply of UK native seed.

• Build awareness and demand among end customers of importance of high quality cleaning and storage and need to request certification, to address issues around mixed quality standards around seed cleaning and storage, and impact on viability.

• Build understanding among end customers to address issues around disconnect between specifications and actual seed planted, and relatively low prioritisation of seeds in large scale development/ infrastructure projects.

• Build awareness and demand among end customers of importance of seed testing and need to request certification, to address issues around low quality and viability of some seeds.

• Greater collaboration with Defra to address issue of limited formal regulation of native wildflower seed market.

• Greater collaboration with Flora locale and key market players to establish wider and more robust code of practice, and encourage greater regulation and promotion of the code.

• Greater collaboration with Defra to




Relative Importance of Potential Opportunity Areas to UK Nature Conservation

Low Low/

Medium

Medium Medium/High High

encourage broad policy and regulatory developments to take greater account of implications for the UK native seed market.

• Greater collaboration with Flora locale and key market players to develop coherent industry responses to draft policy and regulatory changes.

Medium

/High

• • • Build awareness around UK native seeds among the retail seed packet market, to help increase current relatively limited levels of demand.

• Research to build increased understanding of impact of imported seeds on local species, populations and habitats.

• Provision of technical advice, accreditation, or cleaning and storage facilities, to address issues around mixed quality standards around seed cleaning and storage.

• Provision of technical advice, accreditation, or testing service, to address issues around low viability of some seeds.

• Research to build increased understanding of impact of climate change and local origin on long term sustainability.

High • • • • • Provision of founder stocks to address current limitations in range of seed offered by commercial companies.

• Research to build understanding of seed establishment, and techniques for habitat creation.




4.0 VISION AND BUSINESS MODEL

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 This Section sets out the vision and business model for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. These

are informed by an understanding of the strategic and market context (Section 2), and by an

understanding of the key issues and opportunity areas in the UK native seed market (Section 3).

The business model describes the offer and associated products/services of the UK Native Seed Hub

initiative, and the habitat types that are being prioritised. It also identifies priorities for marketing

and business development, and key considerations related to operational resources, commercial

partnerships and governance. The vision and business model form the basis of the financial

implications described in Section 5. Further information on the vision and business model can be

found in Appendix D.

4.2 Overall Long Term Vision

4.2.1 The UK Native Seed Hub initiative will use the seed collections, scientific facilities, seed

technology, horticultural expertise, and authoritative brand of RBG Kew and its Millennium

Seed Bank to actively contribute to developing coherent, resilient ecological networks and to

enhancing biodiversity in the UK, in line with the aspirations set out in the Government’s

Natural Environment White Paper (2011).

4.2.2 It will achieve this by supporting the UK native seed market to provide high quality UK native

seeds from a range of species with high biodiversity value, through provision of seeds, provision of

training and technical advice, and provision of consultancy and other services. This will be

supported by targeted research, and by efforts to increase regulation and end user awareness – in a

way that contributes to the market without drowning its players in unnecessary bureaucracy.

4.2.3 The UK Native Seed Hub initiative will also support efforts to build general public awareness of the

importance and value of UK native seeds and their contribution to biodiversity – by using the

resources of Wakehurst Place and RBG Kew as popular visitor attractions with strong brands, and

by designing a seed offer tailored to the particular needs and desires of the retail market.

4.2.4 In line with RBG Kew’s activities elsewhere, partnership working will be a key part of how the UK

Native Seed Hub initiative operates. As a public body, RBG Kew aims to work with, rather than in

competition with, existing players in the market. Emphasis will also be placed on building good

working relationships with end users and specifiers, on working in partnership with Flora locale,

and on building an advisory relationship with Defra.




4.2.5 Over time, RBG Kew could potentially develop into a trusted advisor for end users and specifiers. It

could develop a strategic brokerage offer, becoming a centralised hub through which a multitude of

services (delivered both by RBG Kew and also other players) could be accessed.

4.2.6 The UK Native Seed Hub is ultimately a not for profit initiative, although it will seek to operate on

a cost-recovery basis. In support of this, the initiative will charge for some of its services, and will

also extend provision of its services to other related sectors (such as agrochemicals).

4.3 Offer and Associated Products/Services

4.3.1 The table below sets out the key offer areas and associated products/services that support the

overall long term vision for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. The core offer comprises provision

of seed, provision of training and technical advice, and provision of other facilities/services. This is

supported by tailored research activities, which provide associated information and expertise, and

which help build RBG Kew’s credibility in the market. The core offer is also supported by activities

focused on regulation/standards of practice, and awareness and demand building, reflecting a need

to build demand to address some of the issues in the market and to support RBG Kew’s offer.

4.3.2 Within all offer areas, the emphasis is on the more challenging and difficult to commercially

harvest/germinate species, and on seed quality and viability testing, storage and cleaning, reflecting

the gaps and issues in the market and RBG Kew’s particular strengths.

Offer Area Products/Services Offered

Seed provision

‘Missing’ species Production of founder stocks (or single bulking up if commercial quantities required were relatively low) for species currently missing from existing commercial mixes (whether because they are difficult to harvest commercially, are outside typical harvesting windows, have long dormancy, are difficult to germinate, or are too expensive for the market to bear at present). Founder stocks would be provided to primary producers, who would then bulk up the species to commercial quantities as required. Single bulking up could be provided to primary producers, seed merchants, or directly to end customers. Provision of seeds to be accompanied by appropriate advice/guidance notes and certification. Rare species and Schedule 8 species Production of founder stocks (or single bulking up if commercial quantities required were relatively low) for rare species and Schedule 8 species. Founder stocks would be provided to primary producers, who would then bulk up the species to commercial quantities as required. Single bulking up could be provided to primary producers, seed merchants, or directly to end customers. Provision of seeds to be accompanied by appropriate advice/guidance notes and certification. Local/multi origin Production of founder stocks (or single bulking up if commercial quantities required were





relatively low) for local or multi origin seeds. Founder stocks would be provided to primary producers, who would then bulk up the species to commercial quantities as required. Single bulking up could be provided to primary producers, seed merchants, or directly to end customers. Provision of seeds to be accompanied by appropriate advice/guidance notes and certification. High quality founder stocks Production of high quality founder stocks for species that primary producers currently harvest from the wild. Founder stocks would be provided to primary producers, who would then bulk up the species to commercial quantities as required. Provision of seeds to be accompanied by appropriate advice/guidance notes and certification. Agrochemical sector Provision of high quality seeds (either directly harvested or through single bulking up) with tailored germination protocol for agrochemical sector (eg for companies developing herbicides). This would be a primarily income generating activity, with limited value for UK nature conservation. Provision of seeds to be accompanied by appropriate advice/guidance notes and certification. Retail market Provision of tailored seed offer for the retail market – where RBG Kew would design, brand and viability test the offer, and primary producers would grow seeds in commercial quantities under contract or license. Seeds would be accompanied by starter kits and ‘how to’ guides.

Provision of training and technical advice

Seed viability Training and technical advice to primary producers, seed collectors/providers and seed merchants on seed viability – including on realistic germination and dormancy profiles, how to establish viability tests, and factors that influence viability. Seed cleaning and storage Training and technical advice to primary producers, seed collectors/providers and seed merchants on seed cleaning and storage needs, best practice facilities, and on impact on seed viability. Horticultural skills Training and technical advice (including protocols) on how to maximise conversion from seedlings to plants, and how to achieve optimal plant performance – including use of high vs low intensity methods, and impact of compost and soils.

Provision of other facilities/ services

Viability testing Provision of seed viability testing service, for primary producers, seed merchants and/or end users. RBG Kew tested seeds to potentially be appropriately kitemarked or branded. Cleaning and storage facilities Provision of use of high quality MSB cleaning and storage facilities to primary producers, seed merchants and/or end users. Consultancy/trusted advisor Provision of consultancy advice (particularly to exemplar projects) – including for example on species currently growing in the area, mix of species that should be planted, how best to ensure good planting rates, and where to source seeds. Where appropriate, would be supplemented by provision of founder stocks to supplement commercial mixes available, and by provision of viability testing and cleaning and storage facility services (see above).





Please note that consultancy opportunities associated with restoration ecology are outside the scope of this study.

Research Seed establishment and habitat creation Undertake research into seed establishment and techniques for habitat creation – potentially including identifying which mixes and seed origin would be suitable for different geographic areas around the UK, and resolving germination and propagation issues for specific species. Climate change, local origin and sustainability Undertake research into understanding the impact of climate change and how that relates to the importance of local origin on long term sustainability.

Regulation and standards of practice

Increased regulation Government lobbying to increase formal regulation/monitoring of the UK native wildflower market (including around marketing of UK native origin seeds, and around quality and viability standards), and to encourage broad policy and regulatory developments to take greater account of UK native seed market needs and implications. Increased self-regulation Collaboration with Flora locale and key market players to establish a broader, more robust, better regulated and better promoted Code of Practice (with sufficient emphasis on seed quality and viability, storage and cleaning), and to develop coherent industry responses to draft policy and regulatory changes. Collaboration could involve the development of an informal trade association.

Awareness building and demand development

End users and specifiers Awareness building and demand development among end users and specifiers. Focus on the importance of seed testing/viability, high quality cleaning/ storage and associated impact on viability, UK native and local origin, increased emphasis on enhanced certification, and value of incorporating stricter guidelines in seed specifications. Retail market/private individuals Awareness building and demand development among retail market/private individuals.

4.4 Habitat Types

4.4.1 The table below sets out the prioritised habitat types RBG Kew will focus on when delivering the

offer areas and associated products/services for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. This informs

allocation of space in the nursery and seed production beds, as well as prioritising staff time and

costs.

4.4.2 Overall, greatest emphasis is proposed for seeds associated with species rich grassland. This habitat

type dominates the market at present and is likely to grow, many of the issues in the market relate

to this habitat segment, and this is also aligned with RBG Kew’s current areas of expertise and

experience. It is also proposed that some emphasis be given to seeds associated with heathland and

wetland vegetation habitats, where growth is forecast in the future, and to cornfield annuals, which

are likely to share some of the issues associated with species rich grassland seeds.




4.4.3 It is further proposed that some emphasis also be given to seeds associated with woodland field

layer. Although this is currently a very small sector of the market with limited funding, there is

some recognition in the market that there would be value in greater emphasis on this habitat type.

At present, there are a number of technical issues that prevent wider use of seeds, which could mean

that this habitat type is well suited to RBG Kew’s distinctive expertise. However, there is likely to

be a need for efforts to build market demand in this area, and for research to understand and resolve

some of the technical issues that are acting as barriers to growth.

4.4.4 Seeds associated with trees/shrubs and with coastal habitats have been given the lowest priority

ranking. The tree/shrub market is already relatively mature and well regulated, while coastal

habitats represent a very small sector of the market with no immediate prospects for growth.

4.4.5 The prioritisation described above and set out in the table below is very much intended to provide a

broad framework for allocating resources. It will also be important to respond to specific

opportunities that arise, and that do not fit in the broad habitat types identified, including for

example for northern upland windfarms.

% Habitat Created through Seeds

% Seeds Provided Through

Commercial Suppliers

% of UK Native Seed

Market

Potential Value of RBG Kew Contribution

Trees/ shrubs

80% 15-35% Low. Mature, relatively well regulated market; Forestry Commission takes active role, including in research; market dominated by small number of key players, with many seeds harvested by nurseries from their own crops.

Of the remainder of the market…

Species rich grassland

90% 80% 75-90% High. Habitat segment dominates the market at present, and many of the issues identified in the UK native seed market relate to this habitat segment; habitat segment is also aligned with RBG Kew’s current areas of expertise; NEWP and UK BAP targets suggest potential future growth in this habitat segment.

Heathland 80% 30% 0-25% Medium. Relatively limited share of seeds provided through commercial suppliers; however, NEWP and UK BAP targets suggest potential future growth in this habitat segment.

Wetland vegetation

50% 80% 0-5% Medium. Very small segment at present, although NEWP and UK BAP targets suggest potential future growth in this habitat segment.




% Habitat Created through Seeds

% Seeds Provided Through


% of UK Native Seed

Market


Cornfield annuals

30% 100% 0-10% Medium. Some issues associated with species rich grassland also likely to apply to cornfield annuals.

Woodland field layer

5% 100% 0-5% Medium. Very small segment at present, with limited funding associated with it, and technical germination/establishment issues that act as barriers to growth. However, there is some market recognition that there is potential/value in greater emphasis on woodland field layer, although emphasis would need to be given to building market demand and undertaking research to identify and resolve the technical issues.

Coastal habitats

5% 10% 0-5% Low. Very small segment at present; seeds have limited use in the creation of coastal habitats.

4.5 Marketing and Business Development

Key Objectives

4.5.1 Three key marketing and business development objectives will be important to successfully develop

the UK Native Seed Hub initiative:

• Objective 1: Build demand for the UK Native Seed Hub offer;

• Objective 2: Identify suitable high profile ‘exemplar projects’ early on; and

• Objective 3: Adopt a gradualist approach to developing the UK Native Seed Hub initiative.


4.5.2 The offer and associated products/services for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative respond to a need

for a wider range of higher quality, more viable seeds. However, demand for this is currently

relatively limited. The market for UK native seeds is relatively unsophisticated in comparison, for

example, with the agricultural seed market. Formal regulation is limited, and the existing Code of

Practice contains some gaps and has limited monitoring and enforcement. End users often do not

have the expertise or experience to understand or address the issues, while specifiers can often be

removed from the seed purchase process, and therefore either be unaware of the issues or have

limited ability to impact them.




4.5.3 RBG Kew will therefore need to work to build this demand before the full potential of its offer can

be realised. Using its brand, assets and expertise, it will need to implement a proactive business

development strategy, focusing on awareness building, improving standards of practice and self-

regulation, and increasing formal regulation. Essentially, it will need to try and lead the sector from

the front.

4.5.4 Awareness building will be important among both end users/specifiers and also among the key

players in the market. At present, although RBG Kew has a strong brand generally, its profile,

perceived relevance and therefore credibility in the UK native seed market is currently more mixed.

Awareness building will therefore need to focus both on RBG Kew and what it has to offer in the

market, as well as the needs associated with using UK native seeds for habitat restoration and

creation.

4.5.5 There are a number of tools that RBG Kew will need to employ to build awareness and therefore

demand in the market. These include:

• Participating in Flora locale’s training programme;

• Participating in conferences, trade fairs, seminars and collaborations - eg those associated with

the British Ecological Society, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Institute

of Environmental Management and Assessment, International Association of Landscape

Ecology (UK), Construction Industry Research and Information Association, Association of

Local Government Ecologists, Landscape Institute, and Royal Town Planning Institute;

• Organising conferences/symposia;

• Providing educational opportunities associated with land management courses - such as Capel

Manor;

• Publishing articles and practical guidance notes in relevant trade journals (eg those associated

with the above mentioned organisations, and also others such as British Wildlife), and on the

Flora locale website;

• Publishing books and manuals;

• General networking - eg with Defra/Environment Bank on Biodiversity Offset pilots, Natural

England/Nature Partnerships on Nature Improvement Areas, statutory bodies, Royal

Horticultural Society, Professional Gardeners’ Guild, National Farmers Union, and a range of

conservation NGOs (such as Buglife, Butterfly Conservation, Royal Entomological Society,

Wildlife Trusts, and RSPB); and

• Developing a focused UK Native Seed Hub microsite (or dedicated web pages) within the RBG

Kew website, linked to Flora locale’s website.

4.5.6 All tools will be important, but face to face interactions and building networks and relationships will

be particularly critical.




4.5.7 The key to ensuring that awareness building activities generate a specific return for the UK Native

Seed Hub initiative itself, in addition to their general value, is to ensure they are unified around a

consistent focus – namely RBG Kew’s key strengths (its collections, facilities, expertise and brand),

and the offer it is trying to build in the market. Awareness building activities should therefore focus

around the value of widening the range of species offered in the market, the importance of seed

quality and viability and the factors that influence those, the impact of climate change and the value

of local origin, and the benefit of stricter guidelines in seed specifications, greater formal and self

regulation, and improved monitoring.

4.5.8 Awareness building will also be important in the retail market, to support RBG Kew’s offer in that

area, and to build general interest and demand for high quality UK native seed. Awareness building

will need to focus on integrating seed production beds into the general visitor attraction at

Wakehurst Place, and on providing information for visitors about the value and importance of UK

native species, through:

• Interpretation, both onsite and online (including on the dedicated microsite described above);

• Learning programmes - both formal education programmes linked to the national curriculum for

schools, and informal learning activities across all ages;

• The volunteer programme;

• General interest publications; and

• Mass media - including tv, radio, mass publications, and social media (such as BBC Wildlife, the

BBC Natural History unit, Facebook and Twitter).

4.5.9 In terms of regulation and standards of practice, RBG Kew will need to build a collaborative

partnership with Flora locale to encourage wider and more robust self regulation in the market, and

to develop coherent industry responses to new policies (potentially through the development of an

informal trade association). Over the longer term, RBG Kew will need to develop more of an

advisory relationship with Defra, and seek to encourage greater formal regulation of the UK native

seed market.

Objective 2: Identify Suitable High Profile ‘Exemplar Projects’ Early On

4.5.10 Objective 2 focuses on identifying and working with high profile ‘exemplar projects’ early on, both

to help build awareness and demand for high quality UK native seed, and to help at the same time

showcase what RBG Kew has to offer, help build its profile in the marketplace, and create demand

for its services. Exemplar projects could include, for example:




• Nature Improvement Areas and Biodiversity Offset pilots identified in the Natural Environment

White Paper (2011);

• Large scale infrastructure or development schemes REDACTED TEXT

• Specific market leading projects with dynamic companies REDACTED TEXT; or

• Projects focused on habitat creation/restoration or creation of public open space - eg associated

with conservation NGOs or funding bodies.

4.5.11 The awareness building activities identified in Objective 1 will also help identify potential exemplar

projects, and provide a platform for disseminating information about them.


4.5.12 Objective 3 focuses on taking a gradualist approach to building the UK Native Seed Hub initiative.

This would allow RBG Kew to learn by doing, test the waters, and flexibly adapt in response to

market reaction, without committing significant financial and human resources too early on.

4.5.13 The gradualist approach would focus on providing some of the products and services at a relatively

small scale initially, before ramping up once market demand and RBG Kew’s effectiveness at

delivery had been confirmed. Thus, for example, RBG Kew could begin by providing seeds

associated with a limited number of ‘missing’ species initially, and ramping up to a broader range of

species if the market responded favourably. A similar approach could be taken to provision of

consultancy services. A project by project approach for at least some of the offer areas, in particular

in the early years, is likely to be a sensible business development strategy – with projects ideally

comprising the exemplar projects described in Objective 2 above.

4.5.14 As part of the gradualist approach, it will be important to closely monitor the performance of the

UK Native Seed Hub initiative, and to adjust approach, resources and investment accordingly. To

ensure the effectiveness of this approach, it is critical that the 4 year Esmée Fairbairn Foundation

funded project is fully aligned with the Business Model agreed by the Steering Team through this

process and set out above in this Section.

Business Development and Phasing Approach for the Offer Areas

4.5.15 The table below sets out the broad business development and phasing approach for the offer areas.

It articulates how the business development objectives identified above apply to the relevant offer

areas, and it also sets out the implications for phasing.

Offer Area Products/Services

Offered

Broad Business Development and Phasing Approach

Seed provision Missing species First, undertake research to identify which species are missing from





Offered


commercial mixes, what the associated issues are, and how they can be resolved. Identify a focused, limited range of species to develop an initial offer for, and increase volumes once market demand and RBG Kew’s effectiveness at delivery has been confirmed. Focus on species that are likely to have wide use over a range of geographical areas and projects. (Objective 3) Identify exemplar projects to showcase the value of RBG Kew’s contribution. (Objective 2) Focus on this activity early on, to generate income to support other activities.

Rare species and Schedule 8 species

Take a reactive approach to this opportunity – develop founder stocks only in response to specific project requests.

Local/multi origin

Take a reactive approach to this opportunity until research has confirmed the value and importance of local origin – develop founder stocks only in response to specific project requests. In the meantime, continue to collect local origin seeds to supplement the collection in the MSB, focusing on those species where local origin is most likely to have an impact.

High quality founder stocks

Take a reactive approach to this opportunity – develop founder stocks only in response to specific primary producer or project requests.

Agrochemical sector

Begin to offer this at a limited scale initially, and increase volumes once market demand and RBG Kew’s effectiveness at delivery has been confirmed. (Objective 3) Focus on this activity early on to generate income to support other activities.

Retail market

Wait for the results of the ‘Go Native’ funding application before continuing. If successful, focus on ‘Go Native’ first and then, based on outputs and learnings from that project, start to develop an offer for the retail market. (Objective 3)


Seed viability

Focus strongly on this early on, to help build profile in the market and demand for RBG Kew services. (Objective 1)

Seed cleaning and storage Horticultural skills


Viability testing

Need to focus on awareness building and improved regulation first, to build demand for this. (Objective 1) Identify exemplar projects to showcase the value of RBG Kew’s contribution. (Objective 2) Begin to offer this at a limited scale initially, and increase volumes once market demand and RBG Kew’s effectiveness at delivery has been confirmed. (Objective 3)

Cleaning and storage facilities

Need to focus on awareness building and improved regulation first, to build demand for this. (Objective 1) Identify exemplar projects to showcase the value of RBG Kew’s contribution. (Objective 2)

Consultancy /trusted advisor

Identify exemplar projects to showcase the consultancy service that RBG Kew can offer. (Objective 2).





Offered


Focus on this early on, to help build profile in the market and demand for RBG Kew services (Objective 1), but offer this at a limited scale initially, and increase scale once market demand and RBG Kew’s effectiveness at delivery have been confirmed. (Objective 3)

Research Seed establishment and habitat creation

Focus on this early on to generate the knowledge to build RBG Kew’s profile and value in the market. (Objective 1) Climate change,

local origin and sustainability

Regulation and Standards of Practice

Increased regulation

Likely to be a longer term opportunity. Focus first on building a generally more advisory relationship with Defra, and on seeking to improve self regulation in the market (see below). Focus on government lobbying once progress has been made on the above.

Increased self regulation

Focus strongly on this early on, to help build demand for RBG Kew services. (Objective 1)


End users and specifiers

First, undertake research to identify the scale and nature of seed viability issues in the market. Focus strongly on this early on, to help build demand for RBG Kew services. (Objective 1)

Retail market/private individuals

Focus strongly on this early on, to help build demand for RBG Kew services. (Objective 1)

4.6 Operations Resources, Commercial Partnerships and Governance

Operational Resources

4.6.1 An initiative of this ambition and desired impact needs to ensure that it has sufficient staff resources

to develop demand and to deliver a timely, quality service to its clients. With the exception of the

new horticulturalist and sandwich course students, all staff currently allocated to the 4 year Esmée

Fairbairn Foundation funded pilot programme have their responsibilities divided between the UK

Native Seed Hub initiative and their ‘day job’, with most staff having 20% or less of their time

allocated to the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. Developing a credible initiative with a track record

of delivery in the market is likely to require significantly higher staff allocations, particularly in the

later years, and formal arrangements will need to be made concerning backfilling or introduction of

new posts as required. In the early years, the Business Development Manager in particular will need

to devote significant time to awareness building and demand development, supported by other staff

as required.




4.6.2 In terms of assets and facilities, requirements for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative include new

dedicated seed production beds, and use of the MSB’s seed germination and seed processing

laboratories (with temperature controlled incubators, a digital x-ray machine and seed cleaning

equipment), drying and cold room facilities, and nursery. Discussions with MSB staff suggest that

there is sufficient capacity within the MSB’s facilities to accommodate the needs of the UK Native

Seed Hub initiative, with the possible exception of the nursery – it may be necessary to purchase one

or several polytunnels as the land associated with seed production beds increases. The UK Native

Seed Hub initiative will also need to make use of the MSB’s existing collection of UK native seeds,

and may also require new additions to the collections focused in particular around local origin and

genetic diversity.

Commercial Relationships and Partnerships

4.6.3 In addition to staff resources, building commercial relationships and partnerships will also be

important to delivery of the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. To help build awareness and demand, it

will be important to develop a partnership with Flora locale (to help support efforts around

improved regulation and to provide access to their network of end users), and to develop greater

collaboration and a more advisory relationship with Defra (to support efforts around improved

regulation). In addition, as identified in Section 4.5 above, it will also be critical for RBG Kew to

build relationships with end users and specifiers. Not only will this help build demand for its offer,

but this could also potentially provide an important direct source of projects and therefore income.

Provision of consultancy advice, for example, could be associated with exemplar projects that are

driven by end users. In addition, provision of seeds for the conservation market could also be driven

by relationships with end users and specifiers, with specifiers identifying specific species that RBG

Kew could provide. This approach is already starting to be validated by the response to RBG Kew’s

launch of the UK Native Seed Hub initiative – with REDACTED TEXTl and other end user

organisations coming forward to express their desire to work directly with RBG Kew.

Governance

4.6.4 The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation funded 4 year pilot programme for the UK Native Seed Hub

initiative is organisationally situated within the Seed Conservation (Millennium Seed Bank

Partnership) section of the Conservation, Living Collections and Estates Directorate. This is also

likely to be the most appropriate location for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative – Kew Enterprises

is too commercial for an initiative that is primarily not for profit (although it will be important to

collaborate with Kew Enterprises on the retail seed offer), and the Kew Innovation Unit (KIU) is

too internationally focused and, with its base at RBG Kew rather than Wakehurst Place, too

geographically distant to effectively manage the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. By being

organisationally and physically situated at the Millennium Seed Bank, the UK Native Seed Hub

initiative has immediate access to the assets, facilities, expertise and staff that it needs.




4.6.5 The Steering Team for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative includes representatives from the key

disciplines that will contribute to, and be impacted by, the initiative. There may, however, also be

value in including a representative from KIU on the Steering Team – this will help ensure that any

learnings and synergies can be effectively shared between KIU and the initiative, to the benefit of

both. The new Business Development Manager will also need to be included on the Steering Team.

4.6.6 Strong leadership from the top will be required to realise the ambition and achieve the desired

impact of the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. This leadership would essentially act as the initiative’s

‘CEO’, and would focus on business development and also ensuring effective coordination of staff

resources for high quality delivery. At present, leadership of the initiative is divided between 3

senior staff members (Head of Conservation and Technology Section, Head of Collecting and

Network Support Section, and Head of Wakehurst Place), all of whom currently have 5% of their

time allocated to the 4 year pilot programme. There would be value in retaining these 3 staff as

senior sponsors/champions of the UK Native Seed Hub initiative, but there would also be value in

delegating day to day accountability for the initiative to the new Business Development Manager

post that is due to be recruited. The holder of this post should have both the time and the

skills/expertise to develop this initiative and, if appropriate, grow it into a fully-fledged not for

profit enterprise. The UK Native Seed Hub initiative should therefore be the majority focus of the

Business Development Manager’s time.




5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Overview

5.1.1 This Section sets out the financial implications of the vision and business model that were described

in Section 4. It sets out the overall financial performance for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative, and

then provides further information on income, staff costs and other expenditure. Further information

on the financial implications can be found in Appendix E.

5.2 Overall Financial Performance

5.2.1 Based on current income and cost assumptions, the UK Native Seed Hub initiative could potentially

generate a sizeable income (c.£205,000) by Year 10 (see table below). However, at present it

appears to generate a significant deficit (-c.£450,000) in Year 10, which falls to -c.£70,000 when

only new staff posts are considered (although it is important to note that if some backfilling was

required with existing staff posts, this would in turn generate additional costs).

5.2.2 Staff costs are a key factor in the deficit. They comprise 70% of the entire cost base in Year 10, and

generate a staff cost/income margin of 220%. They are particularly an issue for provision of seeds

(both for the conservation market and for the agrochemical sector), and for provision of training and

technical advice.

5.2.3 In the early years, the overall deficit can be partially offset against funding from the Esmée

Fairbairn Foundation. The Foundation awarded RBG Kew £750,000 for the UK Native Seed Hub

Initiative, of which £167,000 was allocated for capital costs. The remainder is assumed to be

divided equally among the 4 years of the project, with 2011 (Year 0) comprising the first year.

Funding from the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation would largely, but not entirely, offset the overall

deficit, and entirely offset it when only new staff posts are considered.

OVERALL FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Year 1

2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Income £52,345 £75,826 £103,655 £134,769 £204,523 Staff Costs £195,360 £225,107 £268,499 £306,158 £453,132 Operating Costs £18,896 £32,162 £47,267 £71,897 £149,723 Marketing and PR £40,000 £15,000 £23,000 £32,000 £32,000 Expenses £24,758 £20,670 £21,582 £18,103 £21,236 Surplus/Deficit -£226,669 -£217,114 -£256,693 -£293,389 -£451,568 Staff Costs Associated with New Posts Only

£14,998 £18,774 £26,468 £32,267 £68,859





Year 1

2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Surplus/Deficit When Only New Staff Posts are Considered

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£14,662 -£19,498 -£67,296

Income from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Allocated to Revenue Funds (vs Capital Costs)

£145,750 £145,750 £145,750

5.2.4 A number of macro assumptions have been made in assessing the potential financial performance of

the UK Native Seed Hub initiative:

• The 10 year financial plan reflects the findings and assumptions associated with the 4 year

Esmée Fairbairn Foundation funded project (2011-14). The first year of the Esmée Fairbairn

Foundation funded project comprises Year 0 of the financial plan, and the financial plan assumes

that seeds are sown in the nursery in 2011, ready for planting in the seed production beds in

2012;

• The UK Native Seed Hub initiative is run as an initiative out of the Millennium Seed Bank, not

as a separate enterprise (whether commercial, social or not for profit);

• It is assumed, on the advice of RBG Kew, that the UK Native Seed Hub initiative will not incur

any shared services or corporate overhead costs (including for heating, electricity, share of MSB

offices and facilities space, HR, finance and legal); and

• Inflation has not been included.

5.3 Income

5.3.1 As can be seen from the table below, a key income generator at present is provision of seeds to the

conservation market (ie focusing on ‘missing’ species, rare species, local/multi origin seeds, and

high quality seeds), which could potentially generate c.35% of income by Year 10.

5.3.2 Provision of consultancy services could potentially generate 25% of income by Year 10, while

provision of cleaning and storage services and provision of seeds for the retail market (involving

designing, branding and viability testing of seeds) could each generate 15% of income in Year 10.

5.3.3 Provision of seeds for the agrochemical sector, provision of viability testing services, and provision

of training and technical advice are currently much more marginal, and together comprise less than

15% of total income in Year 10.




5.3.4 Although research was a significant income generator in Year 1, with research grants contributing

to 60% of total income, no grants are currently anticipated for Year 10. Other key changes over the

10 year period include a significant increase over time in the relative importance of provision of

founder stocks of seed for the conservation market, and a marked increase in the importance of seed

provision for the retail market.

INCOME BY OFFER AREA

Offer Area Products/Services Year 1

2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Seed provision Missing species, rare species and Schedule 8 species, local/multi origin seeds, high quality founder stocks

£2,976 £7,638 £13,067 £22,240 £71,101

Agrochemical sector £0 £610 £1,862 £3,147 £10,864 Retail market – design of offer, branding, viability testing, with seed production undertaken by primary producers

£0 £0 £2,938 £5,875 £30,000


Seed viability, seed cleaning and storage, horticultural skills

£720 £1,040 £1,360 £1,680 £3,600


Viability testing £1,474 £3,439 £5,404 £6,877 £9,333 Cleaning and storage facilities £6,579 £13,158 £19,737 £26,316 £32,895 Consultancy/trusted advisor £9,346 £18,692 £28,038 £37,384 £46,730

Research Seed establishment and habitat creation, climate change, local origin and sustainability

£31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £0

TOTAL INCOME £52,345 £75,826 £103,655

£134,769

£204,523

5.3.5 The key assumptions that support this income can be found in Appendix E.

5.4 Staff Costs

5.4.1 The table below sets out the staff costs associated with delivering each of the offer areas and

associated products/services. These calculations are based on assumptions about the amount of staff

time required to deliver the products/services, and the associated salary costs. On costs (including

for example National Insurance and pensions) have also been included, calculated at 25% of base

salary. In line with RBG Kew advice, costs associated with the Wakehurst Place Interpretation




Officer are assumed to be outside the budget of the UK Native Seed Hub initiative, and have

therefore not been included.

5.4.2 For some offer areas, such as seed provision, provision of training/technical advice, and provision of

other facilities/services, staff costs are assumed to increase over time – whether in line with land

used for seed production beds, with the number of species sold, with the number of species tested,

with weight of seeds stored/cleaned, with the number of consultancy project days required, or with

the number of training courses run. For other areas, such as research, and awareness and demand

building, staff time is assumed to be relatively constant over time, because these are activities that

need to be maintained on an ongoing basis to ensure demand for RBG Kew’s offer and to ensure

RBG Kew continues to have the expertise and skills to deliver. In terms of staff time associated with

regulation and standards of practice, it is assumed that concerted efforts are made over a focused,

short period of time to achieve improvements in these areas. Beyond this, it is assumed either that

goals have been achieved, in which case additional staff time won’t be required, or that goals are

unlikely to be achieved, in which case there is limited value in continuing to invest significant staff

resources.

5.4.3 By Year 10, 50% of total staff costs are generated by just two areas – provision of training and

technical advice (28% of total staff costs), and provision of conservation market seeds (22% of total

staff costs). Research and awareness building among end users and specifiers together generate 15%

of total staff costs in Year 10, while the remaining staff cost areas each generate 6% or less of total

staff costs in Year 10.

5.4.4 Overall, the staff costs in Year 10 are significantly higher than the income generated, resulting in a

staff cost/income margin of 220%. When only those staff costs that are directly related to income

generating activities are included (ie seed provision, provision of training and technical advice,

provision of other facilities/services, and research), the staff cost/income margin falls but, at 170%,

it is still much greater than 100%.

5.4.5 There are four areas where the staff cost/income margin is higher than or equal to 100% in Year 10

- ie where the costs outweigh or match the income. Provision of training and technical advice has by

far the highest staff cost/income margin (at 3,545%). Provision of conservation market seeds has a

staff cost/income margin of 140%, while provision of seeds for the agrochemical sector and viability

testing have more comparable staff cost/income margins, at 105% and 100% respectively. Those

areas where the income generated outweighs the staff costs of delivery are the retail market (40%

staff cost/income margin), provision of consultancy services (60% staff cost/income margin) and

provision of cleaning and storage facilities (80% staff cost/income margin).

STAFF COSTS BY OFFER AREA





2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021


£5,442 £10,340 £21,255 £32,170 £97,658

Agrochemical sector £2,361 £2,804 £3,271 £6,099 £11,262 Retail market – design of offer, branding, viability testing, with seed production undertaken by primary producers

£0 £0 £6,314 £6,314 £12,628



£25,511 £36,849 £48,187 £59,525 £127,553




£36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108



£0 £0 £11,580 £11,580 £0

Increased self-regulation

£10,291 £10,291 £0 £0 £0



£36,495 £36,495 £36,495 £36,495 £36,495

Primary producers and other key players

£24,789 £24,789 £24,789 £24,789 £24,789


£21,144 £21,144 £21,144 £21,144 £21,144

Steering and Operating Team meetings

£20,638 £20,638 £20,638 £20,638 £20,638

TOTAL STAFF COSTS £195,360

£225,107

£268,499

£306,158

£453,132

5.4.6 The key assumptions that support these staff costs, including assumptions around the amount of

staff time required to deliver the different products/services, can be found in Appendix E. Appendix

E also includes information about staff costs associated with new staff posts only.

5.5 Other Expenditure

5.5.1 The table below sets out a breakdown of the other expenditure for the UK Native Seed Hub

initiative, which comprises operating costs, marketing and PR costs, and expenses. The key

assumptions that underpin these costs can be found in Appendix E.




5.5.2 The operating costs are the most significant other expenditure cost, comprising 75% of total other

expenditure in Year 10, with an operating cost/income margin of 75% in the same year. Almost half

of the costs comprise laboratory consumables. The costs are largely based on the costs identified for

the 4 year Esmée Fairbairn Foundation funded project. They are assumed to largely increase in line

with the area of land used for seed production beds or with the weight of seeds produced and tested,

as appropriate, and they take into account costs associated with Year 0/2011 (Year 1 of the 4 year

Esmée Fairbairn Foundation funded project). They also assume acquisition of a polytunnel every 4

years.

5.5.3 The marketing and PR costs have been introduced by CBA, to reflect the need to invest financial

resources as well as staff time in awareness building and demand development. They essentially

constitute a budget for the new Business Development Manager. The expenses costs are a

combination of costs identified for the 4 year Esmée Fairbairn Foundation funded project, and also

additional costs introduced by CBA to support the different offer areas and associated

products/services.

OTHER EXPENDITURE

Year 1

2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

OPERATING COSTS

Isolation mesh/fleece/supports for beds £2,531 £5,203 £7,875 £10,547 £23,906 Nursery equipment £2,531 £5,203 £7,875 £16,547 £23,906 Soil, compost, fertiliser etc £3,000 £6,167 £9,333 £12,500 £28,333 Laboratory consumables £6,333 £11,089 £20,184 £30,304 £71,577

Interpretation/learning materials £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 Contribution to grassland restoration book

£2,500 £2,500 £0 £0 £0

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS £18,896 £32,162 £47,267 £71,897 £149,723

MARKETING AND PR COSTS Entertainment Budget £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000

Photography £2,000 £0 £0 £2,000 £2,000

Exhibition costs £8,000 £0 £8,000 £0 £0

Publications £10,000 £0 £0 £10,000 £10,000

Advertising £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000

Website £5,000 £0 £0 £5,000 £5,000




OTHER EXPENDITURE

Year 1

2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

TOTAL MARKETING AND PR COSTS

£40,000 £15,000 £23,000 £32,000 £32,000

EXPENSES Volunteer travel costs and training benefits

£400 £400 £400 £400 £400

UK travel (networking/ business development)

£7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500

UK travel (collecting) £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 Conferences external £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 Training/technical guidance materials £1,000 £1,444 £1,889 £2,333 £5,000 WMI Consultant (based on Band D average, 24 days per year)

£4,391 £4,391 £4,391 £0 £0

Recruitment £5,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 Expenses associated with consultancy projects

£467 £935 £1,402 £1,869 £2,336

General admin £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 TOTAL EXPENSES £24,758 £20,670 £21,582 £18,103 £21,236

5.5.4 The key assumptions that support the other expenditure can be found in Appendix E.




6.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS, FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AND KEY RISKS

6.1 Overview

6.1.1 This Section focuses on sensitivity analysis, financial sustainability and the key risks associated with

the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. It sets out the results of the sensitivity analysis that was carried

out on a number of the income and cost assumptions used in the financial model, and also identifies

scenarios where the UK Native Seed Hub initiative could achieve an operating surplus in Year 10.

Further information on the sensitivity analysis, financial sustainability and key risks can be found in

Appendix E.

6.2 Sensitivity Analysis and Financial Sustainability

6.2.1 Overall, the two individual elements which exert the greatest impact on the overall financial

performance of the UK Native Seed Hub initiative are the RBG Kew increase on the baseline

average market price for conservation seeds associated with species rich grassland habitats, and staff

costs.

6.2.2 At present, the baseline average market price for conservation seeds associated with species rich

grassland habitats is £120/kg of seed (excluding the grass component of commercial mixes), and it

is assumed that RBG Kew’s focus on ‘missing’/challenging/rare species and on high quality seeds

would see it achieve an average price of £180/kg of seed, 50% higher than the baseline market

average. However, examination of market prices for some of the species that are currently in

production for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative suggest that the potential upside could be much

greater. Indeed, examination of market prices for Cardamine pratensis, Potentilla erecta (not

currently in production), Succisa pratensis, Serratula tinctoria, Campanula rotundifolia, Ajuga

reptans and Genista tinctoria yields a market average price of £1,500/kg for large packets, and

£6,700/kg for small packets. If RBG Kew were to achieve a price of £1,320/kg of seed (a 1,000%

increase on the baseline market average), this would increase income in Year 10 by £220,000 to

£425,000, and reduce the operating deficit to -£230,000. If only new staff costs were considered, it

would generate a surplus of £155,000. However, it is important to note that there is wide variance

in market prices across the species reviewed, from £235/kg to £3,100/kg for large packets, and the

final average price RBG Kew will achieve for its species rich grassland conservation seeds will

depend very much on the choice of species and the relative allocation of seed production beds

between these species.

6.2.3 As identified earlier, staff costs associated with the different offer areas would seem to be very high,

and significantly outweigh the income generated from staff involvement – they comprise 70% of the

entire cost base in Year 10, and generate a staff cost/income margin of 220%. This reflects in part




the large number of staff members involved in delivering the different offer areas (including 16

different staff members involved in providing seeds for the conservation market, 15 in providing

seeds for the retail market, 11 in awareness building and demand development among end users and

specifiers, 10 in providing seeds for the agrochemical sector, and 10 in research), as well as

significant involvement of senior (and therefore expensive) staff members. A general reduction in

staff costs across all offer areas by 25% (whether by reducing the number of people involved in

delivering activities and/or reducing the amount of days they spend) would see the overall deficit in

Year 10 fall from –c.£450,000 to -c.£360,000.

6.2.4 Apart from the above elements, the greatest impact on income comes from changing the weight of

seed produced and therefore sold. An increase in the area of land used for seed production beds in

Year 10, from 1.7ha to 3ha, causes income to rise by c.£60,000, from c.£205,000 to c.£265,000.

However, this increase in income conversely also leads to an increase in deficit, from -c.£450,000 to

-c.£515,000. This reflects the 140% staff cost/income margin identified in Section 5 for the

provision of conservation market seeds, as well as the additional other costs (primarily operational

costs) that are also associated with the provision of these seeds. This means that an increase in

income for this offer area is accompanied by an even greater increase in costs, and therefore an

increase in deficit. It also explains why the deficit actually decreases when the area of land allocated

for seed production beds is reduced from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 1ha.

6.2.5 The same issue also affects provision of seeds for the agrochemical sector. The cost of collecting,

priming and distributing seeds for the agrochemical sector far outweighs the income generated, and

so a significant increase in the number of seeds collected, from 3,000 to 30,000 in Year 10, leads to a

significant increase in deficit from -c.£450,000 to -c.£515,000.

6.2.6 Beyond the areas identified above, the next greatest impact on income and operating deficit comes

from the share of seeds produced that are sold, from provision of consultancy services, and from

provision of seeds to the retail market. However, none of these elements individually generate a

particularly significant impact. If only 50% of seeds produced were sold in Year 10, the deficit would

worsen by £35,000 to -£490,000. An increase in the average day rate for consultancy projects,

from £467 to £657 in Year 10, sees a £20,000 improvement in both income and deficit, while a

50% increase or decrease in total consultancy days (from 100 days in Year 10 to 150 or 50 days) has

a £25,000 impact on income and a £10,000 impact on the deficit in Year 10. A 50% increase or

decrease in the number of RBG Kew packets of retail seed sold (from 50,000 in Year 10 to 75,000 or

25,000) has a £15,000 impact on both income and deficit, as does a 50% increase or decrease on the

license fee/retail seed packet (from 20% in Year 10 to 30% or 10%).

6.2.7 Given the findings above, it becomes evident that a combination of elements would be required to

achieve an operating surplus. Potential options, which include much higher than baseline average




market prices for species rich grassland conservation seeds and/or reduction in staff costs for

maximum impact, are set out below:

• 25% reduction in staff costs, increase in average RBG Kew price of species rich grassland

conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to 1,000% increase on the baseline

market average), and increase in percentage of relevant seed production bed land used for species

rich grassland from 40% in Year 10 to 70% – which would generate an income of £570,000 and

an operating surplus of £20,000 in Year 10;


conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to a 1,000% increase on the

baseline market average), increase in percentage of relevant seed production bed land used for

species rich grassland from 40% in Year 10 to 60%, increase in total consultancy days from 100

in Year 10 to 150, and increase in average consultancy day rate to £657 – which would generate

an income of £580,000 and an operating surplus of £20,000 in Year 10;


conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to a 1,000% increase on the

baseline market average), and increase in land used for seed production beds from 1.7ha in Year

10 to 3.5 ha – which would generate an income of £725,000 and an operating surplus of

£40,000 in Year 10; and

• Increase in average RBG Kew price of species rich grassland conservation seeds from £180/kg

to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to a 1,000% increase on the baseline market average), increase in

percentage of relevant seed production bed land used for species rich grassland from 40% in

Year 10 to 60%, and increase in land used for seed production beds from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 3 ha

– which would generate an income of £855,000 and an operating surplus of £65,000 in Year 10.

6.3 Key Risks

6.3.1 Driven in part by RBG Kew’s desire to primarily focus on supporting aspirations around coherent,

resilient ecological networks and enhanced biodiversity, and to operate on a non-competitive, not

for profit basis rather than for maximum commercial gain, the UK Native Seed Hub initiative

focuses on opportunity areas where there is market need but where demand has not yet been

established. This inevitably introduces uncertainty, and therefore risk, around the projected

financial performance of the UK Native Seed Hub – it assumes that demand can be built by RBG

Kew over time, through forging new relationships with new types of organisations (eg with end

users and specifiers), and through redefining existing relationships (eg with Defra, Flora locale and

primary producers). As identified in Section 4, a strong emphasis early on on building awareness

and demand, and a gradualist approach that sees activities (and, by association, costs) ramp up




gradually over time in response to demand, will contribute to mitigating against this risk. A project

by project approach for at least some of the offer areas, in particular in the early years, is likely to be

a sensible business development strategy. It will also be important to closely monitor performance,

and to adjust approach, resources and investment accordingly.

6.3.2 One of RBG Kew’s key assets in the market is its brand, and its association with unrivalled

authority, scientific knowledge and quality. It will therefore be important to ensure that none of the

activities undertaken for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative undermine that brand strength. Thus,

for example, RBG Kew branded seeds for the retail market should have high viability, and therefore

be tested before distribution. It will also be important to ensure that any marketing is closely

followed by high quality delivery – otherwise RBG Kew’s credibility in the market is immediately

undermined.

6.3.3 A further key risk relates to intellectual property. RBG Kew’s intellectual property, particularly its

skills and expertise, plays an important role in underpinning the UK Native Seed Hub initiative, and

it forms the basis of RBG Kew’s value to the market. For example, the income associated with

provision of seeds to the conservation market (particularly ‘missing’ species) is predicated on RBG

Kew’s unique expertise in unlocking germination or other difficulties associated with these species.

If RBG Kew surrenders this intellectual property when providing founder stocks to primary

producers to bulk up, then it undermines its future value to the market and therefore its financial

sustainability. To combat this, it needs to either provide commercial quantities of these species

(assuming that commercial quantities are relatively low and therefore within RBG Kew’s capacity),

to provide founder stocks whilst at the same time withholding dormancy/germination protocols, or

to develop a commercial arrangement with primary producers that involves some form of

licensing/copyright payment on current and potentially future sales of these species.

6.3.4 There would be value in RBG Kew focusing first on producing commercial quantities of these

conservation species, assuming quantities required were within RBG Kew’s capacity to deliver, and

offering them to the full range of primary producers in the market (and potentially also seed

merchants), who could add them in to their seed mixes as required. In doing so, RBG Kew would

not be competing with existing primary producers, at least initially, since these ‘missing’ species are

by definition not currently widely offered in the market. Finalisation of specific species would need

to be based on research into which are the missing species, and also based on conversations with end

users, specifiers and primary producers to determine which species are required by the market.

6.3.5 If/when the commercial quantities required outstripped RBG Kew’s capacity for delivery, then

there would be value in RBG Kew providing founder stocks for primary producers to bulk up.

However, instead of developing exclusive partnerships with 2/3 primary producers, there would be

greater value, both for RBG Kew and also for UK biodiversity, in RBG Kew offering founder stocks

to all primary producers, whether on a license/copyright arrangement that saw RBG Kew




compensated for its intellectual property, or with the necessary germination/other protocols

withheld, to protect the financial value of RBG Kew’s intellectual property and safeguard future

income streams.




APPENDIX A

MARKET REVIEW PAPER




APPENDIX B

KEY PLAYERS PAPER




APPENDIX C

SOURCES OF ADVANTAGE PAPER




APPENDIX D

BUSINESS MODEL PAPER




APPENDIX E

FINANCIAL PLAN PAPER




APPENDIX F

GLOSSARY




GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Viability Describes the ability of seeds (or embryos) to germinate. In practice it is generally

considered to be the germination rate, which is the proportion of seeds that germinate

given appropriate environmental conditions.

Purity Describes the degree to which batches of seed are free from contaminants, including

seed of non-target species.

Quality Captures or combines the concepts of viability and purity.

Restoration Restoring a natural or semi-natural habitat that was present on a particular site

historically (for which there needs to be evidence).

Creation Creating a habitat which may or may not have been present on a particular site

historically.

Expansion An increase in the size of an existing habitat or habitats, usually contiguously.

Heathland habitat

type

A habitat developed on acid substrates/soils dominated by dwarf shrubs, of which the

heathers/heaths are usually a significant component (although it could also include

dwarf and western gorse, bilberry and a number of other species). Depending on the

type of heath and its location, it also often includes bracken, grassland and mire species,

and mosses and lichens can also be important components.


Market Review Paper Appendix A Final_Market_Review_Paper_FOI Request Chris Blandford Associates

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 STATEGIC CONTEXT 3

2.1 Overview 3

2.2 Natural Environment and Biodiversity 3

2.3 Use and Marketing of Seeds 7

3.0 MARKET SIZE AND GROWTH 11

3.1 Overview 11

3.2 Market Size and Growth 11

3.3 Market Dynamics and Trends 16

4.0 KEY ISSUES AND EMERGING OPPORTUNITY AREAS 23

4.1 Overview 23

4.2 Key Issues and Challenges 23

4.3 Emerging Potential Opportunity Areas 27

APPENDICES

Appendix A Prescribed Species Under the Fodder Plant Seed (Scotland) Regulations

2005 (As Amended)

Appendix B Tree and Shrub Species Controlled under the Forest Reproductive

Material (Great Britain) Regulations 2002

Appendix C Species Other than Birds Specially Protected Under the Wildlife and

Countryside Act, 1981: Schedule 8 (Plants)

Appendix D Questionnaire Distributed to Commercial and Retail Seed Suppliers



1.0 INTRODUCTION



Seed Bank (MSB) at Wakehurst Place. Based on project inception meeting and subsequent

discussions, our understanding is that the initiative would seek to support aspirations around



1.1.2 Overall, there are 6 tasks associated with developing the Business Plan:







1.1.3 This document is the Market Review Paper associated with Task 1 (assessment of the UK native

seed market). It explores the broad strategic context of the UK native seed market, estimates its size

and potential growth, and identifies the key segments within the market. It identifies key market

dynamics and trends, and also highlights key issues/challenges and emerging potential opportunity

areas. Agricultural crops and agricultural and amenity grasslands dominated by perennial rye-grass

and other similar species have not been included in this Paper, following agreement at the project

inception meeting.

1.1.4 A draft of the document was issued to the Steering Team on 15th August 2011, and discussed at a

Steering Team meeting on 19th August 2011. This final document reflects comments made by the

Steering Team at that Steering Team meeting. It does not include any further additional

information.

1.1.5 Within this paper, the following terms and definitions have been used:

• Restoration: restoring a natural or semi-natural habitat that was present on a particular site

historically (for which there needs to be evidence);

• Creation: creating a habitat which may or may not have been present on a particular site

historically;

• Expansion: increase in the size of an existing habitat or habitats, usually contiguously; and

• Heathland habitat type - a habitat developed on acid substrates/soils dominated by dwarf

shrubs, of which the heathers/heaths are usually a significant component (although it could also



include dwarf and western gorse, bilberry and a number of other species). Depending on the type

of heath and its location, it also often includes bracken, grassland and mire species, and mosses

and lichens can also be important components.



2.0 STATEGIC CONTEXT

2.1 Overview

2.1.1 This section provides an overview of the key changes in the policy and regulatory context for the

UK native seed hub initiative. This understanding informs the view of both market size and growth,

and also of key issues/challenges and potential opportunities in the market. This section looks at

key changes in policy and regulation for the natural environment and biodiversity generally, and

also at key changes governing seeds in particular.

2.2 Natural Environment and Biodiversity

2010 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya, Japan

2.2.1 The 2010 Conference set a new global vision and direction for biodiversity policy. It identified that

nearly 2/3 of the world’s ecosystems were degraded, highlighted ecological restoration as a

significant opportunity for achieving global conservation goals, and acknowledged that efforts to

protect and enhance biodiversity must increase significantly everywhere – with countries revising

their own national strategies and plans for biodiversity to take account of the new global

framework. More than 190 countries agreed an ambitious conservation plan to protect global

biodiversity, with global targets for restoration or management of at least 15% of each ecological

region or vegetation type. Agreement was also reached on a short term ambition to take effective

and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity, so that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and

continue to provide essential services.

The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature (Defra White Paper 2011)

2.2.2 This is the first White Paper on the natural environment in England for over 20 years, and it places

the value of nature at the centre of choices around enhancing environment, economic growth and

personal wellbeing. It builds on the findings of the National Ecosystem Assessment, which shows

that over 30% of the services provided by our natural environment are in decline, and the Lawton

Report (Making Space for Nature), which identifies that the natural environment in England has

become increasingly fragmented and fragile, and is unable to respond effectively to new pressures

such as climate and demographic change. The White Paper identifies that in 2008, 18 out of 42

priority habitats and 120 out of 390 priority species were in decline.

2.2.3 In response to these reports and their findings, the White Paper sets out an overall mission and a

number of aspirations and ambitions for 2020, including:



• Halt overall biodiversity loss, arrest the decline in habitats and species and the degradation of

landscapes, and be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better

state than it inherited – with at least 17% of England managed effectively to safeguard

biodiversity and ecosystem services, an increase of at least 200,000 hectares in the overall extent

of priority habitats, 90% of priority wildlife habitats in recovering or favourable condition, at

least 50% of SSSIs in favourable condition, and at least 95% of SSSIs maintained in favourable or

recovering condition;

• Promote multiple benefits from ecological restoration at a landscape scale;

• Establish coherent and resilient ecological networks, with more, bigger, better and better

connected places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and people – by working in a more

ambitious and integrated way at a ‘landscape scale’, to reflect natural boundaries;

• Protect air, biodiversity, soils and water, and support healthy well-functioning ecosystems, by

restoring natural connections that provide essential services in the environment, and restore at

least 15% of degraded ecosystems that are important for climate change mitigation and

adaptation;

• Strengthen connections between people and nature to the benefit of both, both in terms of

enjoyment and responsibility; and

• Develop a green and growing economy, with the real value of nature at the heart of economic

planning;

• Show leadership in the EU and internationally, to protect and enhance natural assets globally –

including by implementing the Nagoya commitments on biodiversity (see above).

2.2.4 A number of specific initiatives have been identified to help deliver the mission, aspirations and

ambitions. Those that are particularly relevant to the UK native seed hub include the following:

• Maximised contribution of Environmental Stewardship and the Woodland Grant Scheme to

promoting multiple benefits from ecological restoration at a landscape scale, and reconciliation

of the goals of improving the environment and increasing food production – with conclusions on

this to be published within the next 12 months. Increased focus in Environmental Stewardship

on outcomes to yield better environmental results (particularly for Entry Level Stewardship

schemes), through improved incentives, advice, training and information, and consideration of

new types of scheme, in particular to support buffer sites and establish stepping stones and

ecological corridors. Increased funding for the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme, identified in

the Lawton report and recognised by Government as the single most important tool for

maintaining and expanding the most significant areas of priority habitat and populations of

priority species, by over 80% by 2013/14. Greater integration between the Woodland Grant

Scheme and Environmental Stewardship, to increase coordination in the provision of financial

incentives across farmland and forests;

• Major increase in the area of woodland in England, better management of existing woodlands,

and a renewed commitment to conserving and restoring ancient woodlands. The 2009 Read



Report (Combating Climate Change - a Role for UK Forests) identified that woodlands planted

since 1990, coupled to an enhanced woodland creation programme of 23,000 ha per year in the

UK over the next 40 years, could by the 2050s be delivering, on an annual basis, emissions

abatement equivalent to 10% of total GHG emissions at that time. Within England, this could

translate to an increase in woodland creation from 2,300 ha/year to 10,000 ha/year over time.

The Read Report also identified the need to establish which tree species will be most suitable for

specific requirements, since by the end of the century the climate will have become unsuitable for

some native and non native species. An Independent Panel on Forestry has been convened to

advise the Government on the appropriate level of ambition for woodland creation, given falling

planting rates and the reduction in Government funding. The interim report is due in October

2011, and the final report in April 2012;

• Establishment of a system of biodiversity offsets, to deliver measurable biodiversity benefits in

compensation for losses incurred during development, without constraining housing supply and

economic growth - through a simpler, more consistent and transparent, and cost effective

approach. This will launch in April 2012 as a two year programme with 4 county scale pilots,

and local authorities interested in volunteering to pilot offsetting have already been invited to

apply;

• Creation of new Native Improvement Areas (NIAs), to enhance and reconnect nature on a

significant scale. This will launch in April 2012 as a three year pilot, with £7.5m provided by

Government to support the establishment of 12 initial NIAs, each of which should be 10,000 –

50,000 hectares in size. The intention is that NIAs are established through partnerships of local

authorities, local communities and landowners, the private sector and conservation

organisations, and that the £7.5m is matched by in kind contribution. NIAs are likely to be

structured around sites that have been designated for their value to nature conservation (such as

Sites of Special Scientific Interest), and are also likely to be supported by environmental

stewardship and woodland grant schemes. The competition for NIAs has now been launched.

Beyond the pilot, the approach could be rolled out as a more mainstream initiative, potentially

on a similar or even larger scale (such as 50 NIAs in the future);

• Increased realisation of the potential of linear features (such as railways, roads, canals and cycle

ways) to be wildlife corridors, habitat stepping stones, and buffers for adjacent, more valuable

habitats, and additional emphasis on initiatives to incorporate biodiversity into retail spaces;

• Improvement in the ecological status of over 800 water bodies by 2027, with £92m funding

over the next 4 years to restore habitats, tackle pollution and address invasive non native

species;

• Promotion of sustainable wildlife-friendly gardening, through funding support for the Big

Wildlife Garden scheme (which supports a major national competition for Wildlife Garden of



the Year and which is open to homes, schools and communities), and through development of a

definitive online guide for wildlife gardening;

• Establishment of potentially 50 Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) across England, which could

operate across administrative boundaries, would enable local leadership and set local priorities,

raise awareness and resources, and promote an ecosystems approach at a local level. A one-off

fund of £1m would be provided in 2011/12 to develop LNPs. At the same time, a network of 50

Natural Value Ambassadors would also be established, who would work at a strategic scale;

• Introduction of new community right to reclaim land, which can be used to protect and improve

nature in local neighbourhoods, and provision of new tools and guidance for key groups of

public bodies to support local action for nature;

• Planning system reforms, which will encourage a strategic approach to planning for nature

within and across local areas. This will guide development to the best locations, encourage

greener design and enable development to enhance natural networks;

• Inclusion of natural capital within the UK Environmental Accounts, establishment of an

independent Natural Capital Committee to advise the Government on the state of natural capital

in England, publication of a ‘Roadmap to a Green Economy’, and establishment of a Green

Economy Council and a business-led Ecosystem Markets Task Force to review business

opportunities; and

• Establishment of a new Green Investment Bank, capitalised with £3bn funding, which will

invest in green infrastructure projects and which will have borrowing powers from 2015-16, and

establishment of a Green Infrastructure Partnership with civil society, to support the

development of green infrastructure in England.

2.2.5 In support of the White Paper, the Government is due to publish a new England Biodiversity

Strategy by the end of August 2011, together with a 3 year delivery/implementation plan. A new,

compact set of biodiversity indicators will also be developed, and these will be finalised by Spring

2012. Northern Ireland is also currently revising its biodiversity strategy, and plans to have

something in draft by the end of 2011. The revised strategy will be informed by the Lawton report,

and will focus on landscape level strategies. Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy is also due to be

reviewed over the next 18 months.

Common Agricultural Policy

2.2.6 The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) accounts for c.50% of the EU’s budget, and is divided into

two Pillars (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2). Pillar 2 comprises expenditure under the Rural Development



Regulation, and aims to support rural communities to develop and diversify, including through

environmental stewardship, farm adaptation, forestry and woodland creation.

2.2.7 The current CAP cycle is coming to an end in 2013/14, and discussions are underway in terms of

how to reform Pillars 1 and 2 for the future. Going forward, the Commission has indicated that

European agriculture needs to be genuinely green, and that Green Europe must be ambitious as far

as agriculture is concerned. There is an expectation that the balance of nature needs to be respected

and environmental sustainability improved, but that there also needs to be, within this framework, a

focus on economic performance and greater justification for the expenditure on CAP. The three

overarching objectives for the future CAP will therefore be sustainable management of natural

resources and climate change, viable food production, and balanced territorial development. In

England, concerns have been expressed on the impact of reform on the woodland grant scheme in

particular and potentially also on the environmental stewardship scheme, although it is unclear at

this stage what form this might take and how significant it might be.

2.3 Use and Marketing of Seeds

Council Directive 66/401/EEC

2.3.1 Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 set up a uniform certification scheme for the

European Community which generally permitted Member States to restrict the marketing of fodder

plant seed to that which has been officially examined (or examined under official supervision) and

certified or, where appropriate, controlled. Certification can only be granted if the seed fulfils the

conditions laid down in the Directive, which relate to previous cropping, identity and purity of

variety, and minimum distances from neighbouring pollen sources and the presence of harmful

organisms in respect of crops.

2.3.2 The Directive requires that fodder plant seed harvested in countries outside the European

Community may only be marketed within the EU if the seed affords the same assurances as seed

officially certified within the Community. In addition, specific requirements are set out regarding

sealing, labelling and documentation, in response to the need for the identity of seed to be ensured

throughout the marketing processes. Requirements include marketing the seed in sufficiently

homogenous lots and in sealed tamper-proof packaging.

2.3.3 It should be noted that some Member States have been released from the obligation of applying

Directive 66/401/EEC to certain fodder plant species.

Commission Directive 2010/60/EU



2.3.4 Commission Directive 2010/60/EU of 30 August 2010 relates to the marketing of fodder plant seed

mixtures intended for use in the preservation of the natural environment (‘preservation mixtures’),

and aims to support biodiversity and conservation of plant genetic resources. Preservation mixtures

are mixtures of seeds of fodder plant species such as grasses and vetches, which have been developed

to allow the re-creation of natural and semi-natural habitats. Mixtures of this kind have previously

been marketed with limited regulation being applied. The new requirements only apply to seeds of

certain fodder plant species which are specified in the Directive. These are known as "prescribed

species", and approximately 10% of the species identified are UK native species.

2.3.5 The Directive requires a range of information to be provided, including species and subspecies,

region of origin, source area, collection site, multiplication site (if appropriate), habitat type of the

collection site, year of collection, harvesting method, germination rates, and percentage by weight

of the components as species. It sets prescriptions around choice of collection sites, limits on

multiplication rates, percentage of components in preservation mixtures, germination rates, and

identifies requirements around appropriate sealing and labelling to support traceability of

preservation mixtures, and official monitoring, through tests or visual inspections.

2.3.6 The Directive is due to be implemented by Member States by 30th November 2011. In Scotland, the

enacted Fodder Plant Seed (Scotland) Regulations 2005, currently under consultation,

accommodates this new Directive. The prescribed species associated with the enacted Regulations

can be found in Appendix A.

Forest Reproductive Material (Great Britain) Regulations 2002

2.3.7 The Forest Reproductive Material (Great Britain) Regulations 2002 came into force on 1st January

2003, and implements EC Directive 1999/105. Forest Reproductive Material (FRM) is the generic

name for the seeds, cones, cuttings and planting stock used for forestry purposes - defined as

woodland planting of any description for any forestry purpose, including timber production, forests

and woodlands for tourist, recreational, sporting, educational or amenity purposes, and the

conservation and enhancement of the forest and woodland environment. The 46 tree species and the

genus Populus (including aspen, black poplar and grey poplar) covered by the Regulations are

known as the “controlled species” (see Appendix B). The Regulations govern the marketing of

FRM, and provide a system of identification and control. They ensure that planting stock is

traceable through the collection and production process to a registered source of basic material,

which allows those who buy FRM to have sufficient information about the material being bought,

such as provenance and origin.

2.3.8 In 1999 the Forestry Commission introduced a Voluntary Scheme for the Certification of Native

Trees and Shrubs (The Voluntary Scheme) which were not controlled by the regulations – although

an increased number of native species have since been included in the list of controlled species. The



procedures in the Voluntary Scheme are the same as for those species controlled under the

regulations.

2.3.9 There is also regulation pertaining to the quality of the forestry seeds being marketed, with all

seeds needing to be tested first for viability and germinability. Historically, the Forestry

Commission provided the official testing of seeds, with all suppliers having to send in their seeds.

Since 2000, it has been up to the supplier to test their seeds to international standards, with testing

being monitored by the Forestry Commission. The seed supplier certificate has to include

information concerning testing.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Associated Amendments

2.3.10 The Wildlife and Countryside Act implements the Convention on the Conservation of European

Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) in Great Britain. There are also numerous

country-specific Orders pertaining to Variation of Schedules of the Act.

2.3.11 The Act contains measures for preventing the establishment of non-native species which may be

detrimental to native wildlife, including prohibiting the planting of plants listed in Schedule 9 (and,

in Scotland only, any hybrid). The Act also makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to:

• intentionally pick, uproot or destroy any wild plant listed in Schedule 8 (and/or, in Scotland

only, any seed or spore attached to any such wild plant);

• intentionally uproot any wild plant not included in Schedule 8, unless authorised;

• sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess (for the purposes of trade), any live or dead wild plant

included in Schedule 8, or any part of, or anything derived from, such a plant.

2.3.12 The Act also provides a mechanism for making any of the above offences legal through the granting

of licences by the appropriate authorities.

2.3.13 Various legislative amendments have occurred since the original enactment. A key recent

amendment is the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. Section 14 of this

new Act amends key paragraphs of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on non-native species,

and makes it an offence to plant or cause to grow in the wild (including on roadside verges beyond

settlement boundaries) any plant outwith its native range. This includes plants which are non native

to Scotland and which have been brought to Scotland by man’s activities from 1492 onwards (when

the new world was discovered and truly exotic species started to travel oceans). It also covers native

species taken beyond their native range. Other offences relate to the keeping, notification and sale of

invasive plants. The Act ultimately aims to address concerns around seed origin, and prevent the

introduction of invasive non native species, although as a by-product it makes a significant share of

the existing seed market in Scotland illegal. It is likely that a licensing scheme will be established

for an agreed list of species, as an exception to the Act.



2.3.14 The Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 received Royal Assent on

29th March 2011. The Act introduces new provisions and amends the Wildlife (Northern Ireland)

Order 1985 No. 171 (N.I.2) (‘the Wildlife Order’), in order to reflect the increasing significance of

protecting Northern Ireland’s biodiversity and the need to continue to deter wildlife crime. Those

Sections that are particularly relevant to the UK native seed hub initiative include:

• Section 12, which clarifies that the offence of intentionally picking, removing, uprooting or

destroying a protected wild plant also applies to its seeds or spores;

• Sections 13 and 15, which relate to controlling the introduction of non-native invasive species.

Section 13 applies controls to hybrids of such species, and also refers to guidance to help control

introduction of invasive species. Section 15 allows the Department to prohibit the sale of non-

native invasive species.



3.0 MARKET SIZE AND GROWTH

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 This section provides an overview of the size and potential growth of the UK native seed market. It

also identifies the key segments within the market, and discusses key market dynamics and trends.

Please note that agricultural crops and agricultural and amenity grasslands dominated by perennial

rye-grass and other similar species have not been included, following agreement at the project

inception meeting.

3.2 Market Size and Growth

3.2.1 An understanding of market size and growth was developed through four key approaches:

• Questionnaires to primary producers and seed merchants, with responses secured on the basis

that they would be kept confidential and aggregated on an anonymous basis (see Appendix D);

• Identification of key funding streams in the market, and assessment of UK native seeds

associated with habitat creation;

• Review of key strategy and policy documents, including the Lawton Report, the Natural

Environment White Paper, and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (see Section 2.0); and

• Meetings with key players and stakeholders in the market, including: seed producers, suppliers

and retail outlets; statutory bodies, conservation organisations and NGOs; government

departments, funding bodies, and development/infrastructure bodies.

3.2.2 There are a number of challenges around the availability and quality of information on the UK

native seed market, and as a result all figures on market size and growth are given as ranges.

Market Size

3.2.3 The overall UK native seed market is estimated to currently be worth 70-120t in weight, and £3m

- £6m in value. It should be noted that many wildflower mixes, particularly for species rich

grassland, typically comprise 20-30% wildflower seeds and 70-80% grass seeds (often commercial

grass seeds). All market size and growth figures in this paper include both the wildflower and grass

components of the mixes. The breakdown of these figures by habitat type and market use/funding

stream is set out below.

Breakdown by Habitat Type



3.2.4 For ease in collating data, the market was segmented by habitat type in line with seed mixes that

are typically sold by commercial seed suppliers. These are set out and defined in the table below,

together with an estimate of the market share in terms of both weight and value.

3.2.5 The tree and shrub sector is estimated to comprise approximately 15-35% of the overall market. In

terms of the remainder of the market, 75-90% is dominated by species rich grassland. Heathland and

cornfield annuals are the next two largest segments, with heathland’s relatively high market price

giving it a higher share of market value (2-25%) than of market weight (0-10%). Coastal habitats,

wetland vegetation and woodland field layer comprise the remainder of the market, each

contributing 0-5% share.

Habitat

Type

Definition Market

Share

(Weight

)

Market

Share

(Value)

Trees and

shrubs

Excludes non native species

Includes the following priority habitats: native woodland,

lowland wood pasture and parkland (tree/shrub component),

ancient and/or species rich hedgerow

15-35% 15-35%


Species rich

grassland

Excludes agricultural and amenity grasslands dominated by

perennial rye-grass and other similar species

Includes the following priority habitats: lowland wood

pasture and parkland (grassland component), coastal and

floodplain grazing marsh, upland hay meadows, purple

moor-grass and rush pastures, lowland meadows, lowland

dry acid-grassland, lowland calcareous grassland, and

cereal/arable field margins

80-90% 75-85%

Heathland1 Includes the following priority habitat: lowland heathland 0-10% 2-25%

Cornfield

annuals

0-10% 0-10%

Coastal

habitats

Includes the following priority habitats: saline lagoons,

mudflats, maritime cliff and slope, coastal saltmarsh. Also

includes dune and shingle

0-5% 0-5%

Wetland

vegetation

Includes the following priority habitats: reedbeds. Also

includes fen mire and swamp

0-5% 0-5%

Woodland

field layer

0-5% 0-5%

1 Heathland is defined as a habitat developed on acid substrates/soils dominated by dwarf shrubs, of which the heathers/heaths are usually a significant component (although it could also include dwarf and western gorse, bilberry and a number of other species). Depending on the type of heath and its location, it also often includes bracken, grassland and mire species, while mosses and lichens can also be important components.



Breakdown by Market Use/Funding Stream

3.2.6 Given the nature of the data that was provided, the figures in the table below exclude woodland

creation.

3.2.7 The wholesale segment is estimated to comprise approximately 5-20% of the overall market. In

terms of the remainder of the market, 40-90% is dominated by government funding, with the

majority comprising environmental stewardship schemes – although this segment has a slightly

smaller share of market value than market weight. Development and infrastructure projects are two

sizeable segments (5-20% and 0-10% market share respectively), and the retail packet/private

landowners segment is also sizeable in terms of market value (10-25% share), but slightly less so in

terms of market weight (0-20% share). Other grant schemes and mineral extraction/landfill

comprise a smaller share of the market (0-10% collectively).

Market Use/

Funding

Stream

Definition Market

Share

(Weight

)

Market

Share

(Value)

Wholesale Seed sold by commercial seed suppliers to other

commercial seed suppliers

10-20% 5-15%


Government

funding

Includes environmental stewardship schemes, and other

schemes funded by government departments or

statutory agencies (eg Environment Agency, Scottish

Natural Heritage, Northern Ireland Environment

Agency, Countryside Council for Wales, Natural

England)

40-90% 40-75%

Development Includes new residential, commercial and industrial

development

5-20% 5-20%

Infrastructure Includes roads, railway and canals 0-10% 0-10%

Retail Includes private landowners not covered above, and the

packet seed market

0-20% 15-25%

Other Includes other grant schemes (such as Heritage Lottery

Fund and Landfill Communities Fund), and mineral

extraction/landfill

0-10% 0-10%

Market Growth

3.2.8 Overall, the market is anticipated to grow to 120-240t by 2019/2020, and to be worth £9-17m in

value. This reflects 6-8% year on year growth in weight when the low, mid and high points of the



weight ranges are compared with their relevant counterparts, and is in line with the average historic

7% year on year growth reported by seed suppliers over the last 5 years. In terms of value, it reflects

a 12-13% year on year growth, when relevant value ranges are compared.

3.2.9 As described in Section 2, the Natural Environment White Paper sets out a target of increasing the

overall extent of priority habitats in England by at least 200,000 hectares by 2020 (involving both

restoration and expansion). The forthcoming England Biodiversity Strategy, together with

additional detailed analysis that will be carried out over the next 6-8 months, is due to provide

further clarity on the implications of this target, but current advice from Natural England and a

review of the 2020 targets in the UK BAP suggests that if this target were achieved, it could

breakdown down as follows:

• 65,000 hectares of arable field margins could be created, although only approximately 25,000 of

this is likely to involve species rich grassland and native species, and a further 10,000 hectares of

species rich grassland could be created, comprising lowland calcareous grassland in particular;

• 45,000 hectares could be associated with new native woodland planting;

• c.10,000 hectares could be associated with heathland expansion; and

• 0 – 5,000 hectares could be associated with lowland wetland habitat expansion.

3.2.10 In terms of market use/funding stream, an aspiration associated with the Natural Environment

White Paper is to rebalance spend on habitat creation away from government towards other

sources. Although Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission will all

continue to have a key role to play in habitat creation, the Government also seeks to increase the

role of individuals, businesses, civil society organisations and local authorities in protecting and

enhancing the natural environment. A key contributor to this could be the new Biodiversity Offset

scheme that was identified in the White Paper. The Offset scheme is being piloted over the next two

years, and anticipates c. 360-770 hectares of offsets each year in 2011/12 and 2012/13 (involving

both habitat restoration and expansion). Beyond 2012/13, if a mandatory scheme was launched

across England, then potentially 5,000-10,000 hectares of offsets could be created annually in

England by 2020 (assuming no habitat compensation currently occurs). Alternatively, a voluntary

national scheme could be launched, which could secure 50% of the offsets identified above.

3.2.11 There are mixed views on how much impact the Natural Environment White Paper and its

associated targets could have, and whether those targets will be met. A number of seed suppliers

have suggested that any step change could be significantly diluted by the time it reached the UK

native seed market, and others have commented that past targets have often been missed. Current

thinking in Defra suggests that even if biodiversity offsets and Nature Improvement Areas did not

meet expectations, the target 200,000 hectares could still be delivered through other existing

mechanisms (such as environmental stewardship).

Key Assumptions



3.2.12 A number of assumptions were made to arrive at the figures above. These are set out in the bullet

points and tables below:

• Many wildflower mixes, particularly for species rich grassland, typically comprise 20-30%

wildflower seeds and 70-80% grass seeds (often commercial grass seeds). All figures in this paper

include both the wildflower and grass components of the mixes;

• All figures exclude agricultural crops and agricultural and amenity grasslands dominated by

perennial rye-grass and other similar species;

• In general, habitat creation and expansion have been identified as the most relevant habitat

related activities in terms of the use of UK native seed. Although seed will also be used in

restoration activities, it is assumed that this is not, in relative terms, a significant share of the

market;

• Areas of habitat creation that are known to specifically not use UK native species (through use of

non native tree species for example) have been excluded from calculations. Areas of habitat

creation which have no specification on species have been included;

• Woodland creation figures (on new planting and restocking) published by the Forestry

Commission cover all woodland creation in the UK, whether on Forestry Commission land or

not, and whether funded through Woodland Grants or not. The same holds for targeted future

woodland creation; and

• Future market value figures do not include inflation.

3.2.13 The following average assumptions were made for each habitat type:

Habitat

type

% Habitat Created

Through Use of

Seeds

% Seeds Through


Sowing Rate

(kg/ha)

Seed Value

(£/kg)

Species rich

grassland

90% 80% 30 46

Heathland 80% 30% 30 116

Cornfield

annuals

30% 100% 30 60

Coastal

habitats

5% 10% 15 85

Wetland

vegetation

50% 80% 0.3 55

Woodland

field layer

5% 100% 30 46



3.2.14 The average market value for species rich grassland seeds when grass components is excluded is

£120/kg.

3.2.15 For trees in particular, the following average assumptions were made:

Metric Value

Number of trees/hectare 1,500

Loss rate between seeds and plants 30%

% habitat created through seeds (and not, for example, natural colonisation) 80%

Seeds/kg 3,075

Seed value (£/kg) 63

3.3 Market Dynamics and Trends

General

3.3.1 Seed suppliers have identified that an increased focus on sustainability and the negation of

environmental damage is driving an increase in demand for UK native seeds and, in some cases, an

increase in the size of the order. There has also been a general increase in base level understanding

of seeds, and an increase in the sophistication of seed specifications over time. Other seed suppliers

have noted that there have been limited changes to the distribution of seed volumes by habitat type

over the last 5 years, driven by the same seed mixes being used for a variety of situations – from

motorway verges to private gardens.

3.3.2 Some seed suppliers have expressed a concern about the market supply of UK native seeds, and its

potential to limit significant growth in the future. There are currently a small number of core seed

producers in the market at present, with limited potential for new entrants, given relatively high

skills and cost barriers to entry. Production costs are also rising, and as native wild flora species are

becoming more popular, the market is becoming more competitive.

3.3.3 There are relatively mixed views on the importance of local origin, among both seed suppliers and

conservation bodies. For some, concerns around local origin are undermined by the fact that seeds

have already been moved around the UK over the past 20-30 years, that soils have changed

significantly, and that climate change may mean that local origin is not as important a consideration

in the future as it might be in the past – indeed recent reports have indicated that habitats are

moving uphill at a rate of 50m/decade. In addition, questions have been raised about the genetic

robustness of small localised groups of species.

By Habitat Type

Trees and Shrubs



3.3.4 The tree and shrub segment is receiving significant government attention, and there are a number

of targets focused around woodland creation. This reflects a focus on climate change mitigation as

much as, if not more than, a focus on biodiversity enhancement. As part of the emphasis on climate

change mitigation, there is increasing focus within the forestry sector on identifying and planting

species that are likely to be ecologically suitable to a changing climate – including for example

broadening the portfolio of species grown from productive woods and forests to get more drought

tolerant species. This focus is being incorporated in grant schemes and conditions.

3.3.5 In England, the Government is awaiting the findings of the Independent Panel on Forestry, but

current views suggest that the annual rate of new woodland creation could treble by 2020 – while at

the same time seeing a fall in the proportion of native planting from 100% of new planting to 80%.

In Scotland, the Climate Change Delivery Plan (2009) sets out a key milestone for forestry to

increase planting rates to 10,000 - 15,000 hectares/year by 2015, and woodland creation grants

have been increased accordingly. As with England, there is anticipated to be a fall in the proportion

of new planting that is of native species, from 76% to 40%. In Wales, the Climate Change Strategy

for Wales (2010) identified a target of increasing the average planting rate from about 500 to

5,000ha/year over the next 20 years, with the intention of making a relatively gentle start before

ramping up. The share of new planting that comprises native species is anticipated to remain high at

90%. In Northern Ireland, the Strategy for Sustainability and Growth sets a target to double

woodland cover from 6.4% to 12% of land area over a 50 year period, with the recognition that there

is going to be a slow start. The Woodland Trust is also seeking to encourage landowners and

farmers to plant further scattered trees outside woodland creation.

3.3.6 Although there is an active market in tree and shrub seeds, anecdotal evidence suggests that most

new woodland planting (90-95%) is through saplings rather than direct seeding, and many nurseries

harvest seeds from their own crops. In addition, as identified in Section 2, this is a sector that is

already reasonably well regulated in terms of seeds, and significant research has already been

undertaken (by the Forestry Commission and others) to optimise seed harvesting and germination,

including breakage of dormancy.

Remaining Habitat Types

3.3.7 In comparison to the tree and shrub segment, there is limited woodland flora planting taking place

at present, although anecdotal evidence suggests this may be an emerging market. Typically,

woodland creation grants focus on tree planting and not on woodland flora planting, and are driven

by other factors in addition to biodiversity (eg climate change mitigation). In addition, an

assumption is often made that woodland flora develops naturally. In Scotland, there is still much

native woodland, so seed sources are relatively close by, allowing for natural colonisation and

regeneration.



3.3.8 Species rich grassland has historically been a steady growth area in terms of UK native seed, and a

high proportion of grassland habitat creation is delivered through environmental stewardship

schemes – the conversion of ex-arable land to species rich lowland grassland is becoming one of the

most commonly performed restoration projects in the UK.

3.3.9 Heathland habitats tend to be restored or created by cut material being strewn, rather than sourced

through seed suppliers. Heathland habitats are relatively challenging to grow from seed, requiring

the right soil and environmental conditions. They are often associated, not always successfully, with

landfill/mineral extraction sites. Good seed for heathland habitats is also relatively challenging to

source, and this makes it expensive – bilberry for example costs c. £3,000/kg.

3.3.10 Most coastal habitats are expanded through natural regeneration rather than the use of seeds.

Where re-seeding is used, some seed suppliers have identified that customers typically purchase

plugs rather than seeds, driven in part by low seed germination rates. Wetland vegetation

expansion is often undertaken through natural regeneration and colonisation rather than through

re-seeding – thus, for example, ponds or rivers are created and it is then left to nature to bring in

the wetland vegetation.

3.3.11 Cornfield annuals address customers’ desires for aesthetically attractive species that flower

relatively quickly. Some seed suppliers have reported a trend towards plug plants over seeds for this

category. Cornfield annuals mixtures typically do not contain grassland and grow very readily, so

they are seen as attractive from a commercial perspective.

By Market Use/Funding Stream

Government Funding

3.3.12 Environmental stewardship schemes are a key segment within government funding. Beyond these

schemes, grant activities by statutory bodies tend to involve relatively limited habitat creation. In

Scotland, for example, the emphasis at Scottish Natural Heritage is more on monitoring/surveying

and community engagement, than on habitat creation.

3.3.13 In England, the habitat creation associated with environmental stewardship typically focuses on

Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) rather than Entry Level Stewardship (ELS). ELS is not currently

targeted enough to deliver biodiversity outcomes, although the introduction of a small range of

additional species into rye grass swards could generate benefits both around wildlife and also water

pollution and carbon sequestration. HLS has historically focused on woodland and wood pasture,

floristically enhanced grass margins, wet grassland, species-rich semi natural grassland, upland and

lowland heathland, moorland, fen and hedgerow. Creation of grassland typically emphasises natural

colonisation first, followed by sourcing of seed from the site itself, and finally use of seed mixes from

commercial seed suppliers. In Scotland, the habitat creation on comparable schemes typically



focuses on hedges (whether for landscape or biodiversity benefit), woodland (both on agricultural

and non agricultural land, of productive, native, and mixed planting), species rich grassland, and

grass margins and beetle banks. In Northern Ireland the focus has been on pollen and nectar, grass

margins (including along watercourses/riparian banks), and approved field boundary restoration. In

Wales, the focus is on conversion of arable to grassland, woodland, scrub and tree shelter belts,

reedbeds and swamps, upland and lowland heathland, grass buffer strips, and fen. In general,

environmental stewardship schemes typically focus on lower end of wildflower mixtures, with

higher percentage of grass. As identified in Section 2, the reform of the Common Agricultural

Policy could potentially have a significant impact on environmental stewardship schemes from

2013/14 onwards, but there is at present limited clarity on the nature and scale of that impact.

Development

3.3.14 In terms of development, habitat creation and the use of seeds is dominated by the residential

market in particular. Natural England has identified that a minimum of 40% of new eco-town

residential development areas should ideally comprise green infrastructure. At present, in Northern

Ireland it is estimated that on average across all new residential developments, 10% of the area

comprises green infrastructure, and elsewhere in the UK the average is assumed to be 10-20%. The

majority of green infrastructure is assumed to be amenity grassland, with the remainder largely

comprising species rich grassland and trees and shrubs. Some seed suppliers anticipate an increase

in demand from residential development, driven by a greater interest in enhancing the biodiversity

of the associated green infrastructure – for example through emphasis on wildflower lawns and

meadows (ideally that can be mown) as part of communal areas. In addition, a number of seed

suppliers have identified a growing interest in green roofs and living walls. Historically for green

roofs, the focus was on non native seed, but this has now started to change. In addition, where the

market was historically dominated by seed, it now comprises both plug plants and seeds – with plug

plants providing the benefit of instant results.

3.3.15 In terms of commercial development, some seed suppliers have reported that much habitat creation

is in response to environmental damage caused by development, with many companies often looking

for foreign plants rather than UK native seeds.

Infrastructure

3.3.16 In terms of the soft estate associated with road infrastructure, wildflower sowing and planting is

seen as highly specialised in England, and it therefore tends to be used at key locations only. Going

forward, current views suggest a reduction in investment in new road infrastructure in England

over the next few years, with those works that do go ahead involving limited creation of new soft

estate. In Wales, natural regeneration rather than provision of seed by a commercial seed supplier is



seen as an important priority when developing the soft estate associated with roads. This is driven

in part by cost considerations. In Scotland, the bulk of wildflower seeds sown for infrastructure

projects are not of native origin. Seed suppliers have indicated that sales associated with waterway

works typically focus predominantly on plants rather than seeds (c.85-95% on plants).

Retail

3.3.17 The overall retail market for seeds is estimated to be £70-80m in value. This includes vegetable as

well as ornamental seeds. Vegetables are a significant sector in the market (c. 65%-75%), and grow

your own vegetables have dominated growth in recent years. The ornamental sector is dominated

primarily by exotic (non UK) species, which comprise c. 85-95% of this segment. Both seed suppliers

and retail outlets have identified a lack of supply of commercial quantities of UK native seeds as

being a constraining factor in this market.

3.3.18 Although UK native seeds are currently a very small share of this market, among some retail

outlets the supply of native seeds with a biodiversity value is seen as potentially a key new growth

opportunity. Awareness and support of nature conservation is increasing among consumers, as

evidenced by the emergence of seed mixes targeted at supporting particular species or particular

natural processes (eg pollinators or butterflies). There is also increased emphasis on green roofs

(although these tend to be plant rather than seed driven), and schools are also increasing their focus

on biodiversity in school gardens. However, the primary purchase driver still seems to be an

aesthetic one, and consumers appear to be unwilling to make a purchase on biodiversity benefit

alone. The origin of the seeds appears to be even further down the decision tree, and often plays no

role at all. In addition, there is also emphasis on ease of growing and swift results, with some

consumers displaying a preference for young plants or bulbs rather than seeds. Ease of maintenance

is also important, with mowing seen as a key tool.

3.3.19 The internet has become an increasingly important distribution channel in the retail market, with

some seed suppliers seeing a 20-25% growth in sales in the last year. The freer access to seeds is

supporting both general demand, and also the supply of more specialised species. It is also resulting

in some customers going direct to seed growers, and bypassing seed merchants.

3.3.20 Some seed suppliers have also identified that the breakthrough in methods of introducing

wildflower into existing grassland in the last 18 months will lead to an increase in demand from

private landowners – driven by increased confidence in method and results. At present,

understanding of wildflower seeds among private landowners is currently relatively limited, and

wildflowers have sometimes been seen historically as relatively expensive and more challenging to

germinate than other ornamentals.

By Geography



England

3.3.21 The key priorities for future growth in England are impacted by the Natural Environment White

Paper, as discussed in Sections 2 and 3.2. In general, Natural England has indicated a preference for

alternatives to sowing seeds in habitat restoration or creation. This is driven in part by cost

considerations.

Scotland

3.3.22 In Scotland, there is a general increase in awareness of the importance of biodiversity, and there is

also an aspiration to create a national ecological network, with target restoration of large scale

habitats, most likely to be woodlands and uplands. This would be delivered through existing

mechanisms, such as the Scottish Rural Development Programme and agri-environment schemes. A

key opportunity for the seed market would be around urban and agricultural areas where the

predominant habitat is wildflower grasslands – given greater emphasis on more biodiverse green

infrastructure as part of new development, such as species rich grasslands as part of school grounds

or parks. A number of local authorities are also improving the biodiversity of existing green

infrastructure retrospectively. This is in line with increasing focus on health and well-being as well

as on the environment. There are also potential habitat creation opportunities associated with open

cast coal developments and reclamation of brownfield land.

3.3.23 The nature of the Scotland Act 1998, which established the devolved Scottish Parliament, means

that EU Directives are rigorously enforced in Scotland – potentially more so than in the rest of the

UK. There is also strong emphasis in Scotland on local origin – driven both by concerns around

invasive species, and by the fact that climatic conditions mean that seeds sourced from elsewhere in

the UK do not always thrive well there.

Wales

3.3.24 In Wales there has historically been strong emphasis on restoration rather than new habitat

creation, and on natural regeneration rather than seed mixtures. Where seeds have been used, the

emphasis has been on seeking seed from as close to source as possible, and CCW is relatively strict

about enforcing this. At present, however, there is a shortage of locally sourced seeds, and seeds are

brought in from other parts of the UK or more broadly from Europe. Going forward, there is an

emerging cultural shift towards appreciating the role that translocation could play, but only when

there is good understanding of the range of genetic variabilities at play, given concerns about the

risk of building imbalances in the genetic population.

Northern Ireland



3.3.25 In Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, commercial seed suppliers are seeing an increase in

cheaper foreign imports. In Northern Ireland, some seed suppliers are selling wildflower seed

mixtures which are skewed much more heavily towards wildflower seeds than grass seeds (70%-

30% instead of more general average of 20%-80%), given higher rainfall. Anecdotal evidence

suggests that customers in Northern Ireland are more likely to source their seeds from the Republic

of Ireland than the UK mainland, if they are unable to source them from Northern Ireland.



4.0 KEY ISSUES AND EMERGING OPPORTUNITY AREAS

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 This section provides an overview of the key issues and challenges in the UK native seed market,

and the associated emerging opportunity areas. Please note that these are potential opportunity

areas that have emerged through meetings with stakeholders, and they have not been filtered for

relevance or suitability to the UK native seed hub initiative. These opportunity areas will inform the

development of the business model for the UK native seed hub initiative.

4.2 Key Issues and Challenges

Availability and Supply of Seeds

4.2.1 There are a number of seed species that are very desirable in a mix and that contribute to overall

biodiversity aims, but that are not currently readily available in the market. For example, there is

limited availability of target later-successional grassland species which, together with soil fertility,

has been identified as negatively impacting meadow restoration and contributing to limited level of

success in restoring desired grassland communities. Often, agricultural cultivars are more available

in the market than native grass species. There would be benefit in introducing a further 6-8 species

in calcareous mixes. For some species, the issue is that seeds are too small or too low to be

harvested by mechanical means in commercial quantities (including dwarf thistle, eyebrights and

milkwort for example). For other species, the issue focuses around challenging germination rates, or

around late flowering plants that are outside the harvesting window. This contributes to a

significantly elevated price for the seeds (eg £2,000/kg for thyme).

4.2.2 Concerns have been raised by some stakeholders that the bulking up process tends to select against

genes for dormancy – particularly for those seeds that don’t germinate for several years (such as

campanula patula).

4.2.3 Some seed suppliers accept a contract before verifying whether they are able to deliver on it. This

can lead to relatively last minute substitutions (which the contracts generally allow for), including

use of imported seeds or lower spec (and cheaper) mixes.

4.2.4 There is currently a small number of seed producers operating in the UK. The geographic coverage

of the seeds that they collectively provide is inevitably relatively limited in scope, particularly as

seed producers are not evenly distributed geographically across the UK. Seed suppliers’ ability to

provide local origin seeds is also undermined by a loss of local knowledge of regional or county

communities. Similarly, tree nurseries often focus on a small number of woods where they can get

access, and this results in a relatively narrow range of species being available.



4.2.5 The small number of seed producers operating in the market also raises challenges about continuity

of supply and the ability of the market to meet demand in a timely way. Some conservation bodies

have expressed concern that the available seed material could not meet demand if a native planting

approach was taken. Seed production is very much a scale business, which can undermine the ability

of new players to enter the market and compete effectively. Smaller scale producers who undertake

direct harvesting may produce seeds that cost twice as much as the larger scale producers who have

the benefits of larger scale machinery.

4.2.6 Some stakeholders have indicated that a lack of constant and large scale supply of native tree seed

has been a constraining factor in conservation projects in the past. The limited number of tree seed

collectors is seen as a contributing factor to this issue. There are concerns that English nurseries do

not currently have the stock required to support delivery of UK targets around woodland creation,

and this is leading to introduction of imported seedlings (with increased associated risk of disease).

4.2.7 The UK native seed market can be very price competitive, and for some species (including tree

species) it is cheaper and easier to import seed from abroad than to provide native origin seeds.

Birdsfoot trefoil, for example, sells for £120-130/kg in the UK, but can be bought in Germany for

£5/kg. UK native harebell seeds are more expensive than exotic species that are available, and not

as easy to germinate. This is also a key issue in the retail market. Cost of production appears to be

much higher in the UK than abroad, and the stock is felt to not always be as reliable.

4.2.8 In the retail market, there is currently a lack of supply of commercial quantities of UK native seeds,

which is constraining growth. Most ornamental seeds on offer are of international origin, and many

aquatic and wetland plants that are sold in garden centres are invasive.

4.2.9 The 2010 Commission Directive 2010/60/EU, relating to the marketing of fodder plant seed

mixtures intended for use in the preservation of the natural environment, is likely to mean a

restriction in the range of seeds on offer, since many commercial seed suppliers will not want to

undertake the admin and cost implications of selling regulated seeds. It may also lead to seed

suppliers providing agricultural rather than wild versions of the relevant prescribed species, which

may not be of native stock.

Quality and Suitability of Seeds

4.2.10 Conservation organisations/practitioners have expressed a degree of mistrust about the nature of

some of the seeds sold in the market, and whether they are truly native origin. There appears to be a

lack of consistency in the market, and a general sense that the market is divided between those seed

producers and harvesters who do truly provide native origin seed, and those who are more likely to

import some of the seed from abroad. Some suppliers identify their seeds as being of native

provenance if they’ve been grown in the UK, rather than if they originate from the UK. This can



lead to certain species not being used in sensitive habitat recreation works, due to concerns about

the impact that potential foreign variants may have on the rest of the habitat.

4.2.11 Concerns have also been raised about the quality of seeds available in the market (both the retail and

the professional market) and their associated emergence rates. In some cases, this has emerged as a

bigger issue than native origin. Some conservation organisations/ practitioners invest in having

seeds tested abroad, to help determine the full volume of seeds that need to be bought to compensate

for low viability and to ensure that relative proportions of seeds in seed mixtures remain intact.

4.2.12 The generally unregulated nature of UK native seeds has driven a lack of quality standards, and as a

result there are mixed levels of quality control among seed producers. Although some facilities for

seed testing are available in the market, take-up has historically been relatively low. This is driven

in part by cost implications of testing, by lack of demand from customers for tested seed, and by the

ecological rather than technical background of some seed producers and merchants (and also

specifiers and customers). There is also a general presumption that wildflowers are more

challenging to germinate and more variable than agricultural seeds.

4.2.13 At present, there is relatively limited cleaning/scarification/priming or testing of seeds among seed

suppliers, and storage conditions are sometimes sub-optimal. There is mixed awareness among seed

producers and suppliers of best practice storage of seeds. There is also currently limited research

about what causes seed deterioration within storage. Viability is potentially linked to storage issues

- sometimes smaller producers have high viability seeds, potentially because the seed is fresher.

4.2.14 In the tree and shrub sector, there has been much research on developing good quality seedling

orchards, but these have tended to focus on trees that support large industrial scale projects.

Economic constraints mean that funding is far more limited for investment in improving (native)

broadleaves.

Regulation and Monitoring

4.2.15 There is a lack of formal regulation around harvesting and sale of native wildflower species not used

in fodder stocks. Flora Locale do operate a voluntary code of conduct for the commercial seed

industry, but this does not appear to be fully enforced at present.

4.2.16 For development and infrastructure projects in particular, there can sometimes be a disconnect

between the seed specifications identified by conservation organisations/practitioners or landscape

architects, and the seed that is actually planted, including the substitution of imported seeds. This is

driven in part by the limited monitoring that generally currently takes place between specifications

and actual seed purchase and sowing, and by limited auditing of evidence of the origin of seeds,

contributes to the issue of some seed being imported rather than native.



Awareness and Demand

4.2.17 For development and infrastructure projects in particular, the provision of native seeds can often be

seen as one of the smaller scale and final components of long term, high value, and complex

projects. As a result, provision of native seeds can become particularly subject to budget and timing

pressures. In some cases, contractors will seek cost savings on seed provision, and opt for lower

priced alternatives without full consideration of the implications for quality and origin of seed, and

ultimately for the biodiversity value of the site.

4.2.18 There are mixed levels of awareness among some contractors (particularly in single contract

development projects) of the lead times and costs associated with delivering the required seed

specification and quantities, and as a result specifications can sometimes be undeliverable (either in

terms of the species required or their quantity) or seed purchases driven by expediency and cost

rather than quality. The issue of misalignment between project planning/phasing and the lead times

involved in producing seeds is driven in part by the constraints of the financial year – there is often

a flurry of spend in the last quarter of the financial year in line with fixed budgets.

4.2.19 There are mixed levels of awareness among some landowners or design professionals (including

local authorities and contractors) of the value and importance of specifying native origin. Some

stakeholders have also identified that understanding of ecology among developers and landscape

architects can also be relatively limited.

4.2.20 There are mixed levels of awareness among some market participants (eg among some development

contractors and landscape architects) that native wildflower species are an unregulated segment of

the overall seed market. Given the regulations in place for the agricultural and forestry segments of

the market, there is sometimes an assumption that there is also regulation for native wildflower

species, and that wildflower species have therefore already been tested.

4.2.21 There is growing, but still limited retail consumer demand around seeds that contribute to

biodiversity. The focus in the consumer market is still very strongly on the aesthetic value of seeds.

There can also be a perception issue among retail customers in terms of buying and using UK native

seed. For some, wildflower species are devalued because they can be seen freely growing on roadside

edges. For others, especially those looking for decoration for suburban gardens, there can be a

perception that UK native species are not formal enough. In addition, the existing advice and

guidance on meadow creation can be over complicated, thereby discouraging retail customers.

Research and Understanding

4.2.22 There is insufficient understanding of the problems associated with bringing in foreign genetic

material to local habitats.



4.2.23 Some stakeholders have identified issues around seed germination and establishment rather than

seed viability. Concerns have been raised around the actual techniques being used for habitat

creation, and what happens at a field level.

4.2.24 A focus on native seeds or local origin can sometimes limit the long term sustainability of restored

habitats. Seeds harvested from small relict plant populations near to restoration sites can sometimes

have poor genetic health due to inbreeding, and reduced adaptability to a changing environment. In

the tree and shrub segment, there is increasing emphasis on species that are adaptable to climate

change patterns rather than purely on local origin. The impact of climate change and climate

change adaptability of native wildflower and tree species is not yet fully understood.

Impact and Influence

4.2.25 The small size of the UK native seed market, and the relatively small number of producers, means

that there is currently limited influence in broader policy and regulatory developments that impact

the market.

4.3 Emerging Potential Opportunity Areas

Availability and Supply of Seeds

4.3.1 Provision of founder stocks for ‘middle range’ species that are not currently available commercially

(such as field woodrush, marsh foxtail, autumn gentian and native red clover). but that would

enhance the biodiversity value of current mixes and also support broader ecosystem services In

addition, consideration of whether ecotypes would need bulking up for different habitats or

geographical locations. This could help significantly increase the rate of restoration (in contrast to

natural regeneration).

4.3.2 Provision of seeds from a wider range of geographical regions than can be viably supplied by the

limited number of existing suppliers in the market.

4.3.3 Single bulking up of rarer species associated with restoration and recreation efforts – since volumes

are likely to be too small for commercial seed suppliers.

4.3.4 Provision of seeds or founder stocks of IUCN red list species or 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act

Schedule 8 species.

4.3.5 Large scale tree seed collection (including from ancient and veteran trees) from a range of sites

across the UK (including Woodland Trust sites), to help increase the range and scale of seeds

available in the market.



4.3.6 Creation of a database (plant finder) of species available among different growers, with details on

stock origin, to help restoration practitioners access suitable stocks.

4.3.7 For the retail market, identification of 5-10 key species for a small selection of key habitats

(including for example grassland, woodland, ponds), to help introduce consumers to the concept of

UK native origin and the contribution to biodiversity.

Research and Technical Advice

4.3.8 Establishment of a central hub of best practice, best expertise, and the best seed source.

4.3.9 Analysis of high quality habitats and existing relevant seed mixes (eg chalk grassland and

calcareous seed mixes), to identify additional species that are not currently available in the

commercial market but that would contribute to the biodiversity value of the mixes. Provision of

advice (such as authoritative guide notes) on seed quality, germination, ripening, and the

introduction into habitats of these rarer or more challenging species (such as horseshoe vetch,

milkwort, dwarf thistle, heather etc), either independently or to accompany provision of founder

stock of seeds.

4.3.10 More proactive support for restoration and creation initiatives (including for grassland creation and

wetland planting), through research and advice on appropriate seeds and optimal seed mixtures

(including the damage that invasive species cause), species viability, germination, appropriate

conditions for successful restoration, interaction between species, community succession during the

restoration process and how this can be manipulated, practical techniques of how to establish more

difficult species in the sward (such as sawort, dropwort and rock rose), and general maintenance and

management techniques.

4.3.11 Research, advice and potentially the provision of facilities related to seed technology, including seed

collection/harvesting, cleaning/scarification/priming, drying, storage (including tolerances of

different seeds at various stages), seed viability, seed bed preparation and seed introduction.

Research and advice on realistic germination and dormancy profiles for a good diverse sample of

native species (as opposed to commercially produced lines), and for more challenging species (eg for

some aquatic or woodland species).

4.3.12 Provision of advice on what particular mixes and origin would be suitable for different geographic

areas around the UK, based on scientific evidence and ecological fitness (rather than necessarily

only local origin).

4.3.13 Contribution to research on the impact of climate change, including the value and success of

transmigration of species (both wildflower and tree species), and which varieties and species would

be best suited to a changing climate.



4.3.14 Additional scientific research into the genetic variability and viability of species, particularly for

those that are threatened or declining.

4.3.15 Research on the agronomy of species grown for seed production, which could help reduce the

market price and therefore increase demand and use of some species.

4.3.16 Provision of more pragmatic advice to encourage retail consumers to feel confident and comfortable

about taking a more biodiverse approach to their gardens.

Awareness and Training

4.3.17 Collaboration with and training for development project clients, contractors and design

professionals, to build further understanding of the dynamics of seed production and selling

(including cost and lead times), to encourage greater up front planning, and to help reduce the

disconnect between supply and demand in terms of both quantities and species.

4.3.18 Awareness building among specifiers and purchasers of seeds of the importance of seed quality and

viability, to build demand for higher quality seeds in the market.

4.3.19 Emphasis on helping to raise the importance and profile of native tree seed, to help grow the market

and increase demand.

4.3.20 Awareness building with retail consumers of the value and importance of native seeds, to help build

demand and grow the market – including through school programmes.

Regulation and Monitoring

4.3.21 Provision of accreditation for seeds (to take account of origin, viability, and/or ecological fitness) or

for components of the activity chain (eg storage) – which would need to be offered by an

organisation with a strong independent reputation. This would increase confidence and trust in the

market around seed origin, and could help encourage conservation organisations/practitioners to

use a wider range of species in habitat recreation works, thereby increasing biodiversity value. It

would also help to increase the quality and viability of seeds on offer. There has, however, been

mixed response to this among some seed suppliers and stakeholders – there are concerns about the

additional costs this would introduce into an already price sensitive market and about the confusion

it could generate among customers, and some stakeholders consider that this would overlap with

the work of Flora Locale.

4.3.22 Support for enhanced traceability of seeds, through enhanced certification or seed labelling

(potentially comparable to existing EU plant labelling systems).



Quality and Suitability of Seeds

4.3.23 Provision of facilities to test quality, purity or genetic identity of seeds, or auditing of facilities

already offered by existing seed suppliers.

Impact and Influence

4.3.24 Greater profile within the UK native seed market, to help increase the influence that the market has

on strategic, policy and regulatory changes that impact the market.



APPENDIX A

PRESCRIBED SPECIES UNDER THE FODDER PLANT SEED (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2005

(AS AMENDED)



Prescribed Species Under the Fodder Plant Seed (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (As

Amended)

1. Seed of fine grasses of the following plant species

(a) annual meadowgrass;

(b) brown top;

(c) creeping bent grass;

(d) festulolium;

(e) red fescue (including Chewings fescue);

(f) red top;

(g) rough-stalked meadowgrass;

(h) sheep's fescue (including fine-leaved fescue and hard fescue);

(i) smoothed-stalked meadowgrass;

(j) velvet bent; and

(k) wood meadowgrass.

2. Seed of fodder grasses of the following plant species

(a) alaska brome-grass;

(b) cocksfoot;

(c) hybrid ryegrass;

(d) italian ryegrass;

(e) meadow fescue;

(f) perennial ryegrass;

(g) rescue grass;

(h) small Timothy;

(i) tall fescue;

(j) tall oatgrass; and

(k) Timothy

3. Seed of small seeded legumes of the following plant species

(a) alsike clover;

(b) birdsfoot trefoil;

(c) lucerne;

(d) red clover;

(e) sainfoin;

(f) trefoil, black medick: and

(g) white clover.

4. Seed of large seeded legumes of the following plant species

(a) blue lupin (also known as narrow-leaved lupin);



(b) common vetch;

(c) field bean;

(d) field pea;

(e) hairy vetch;

(f) Hungarian vetch;

(g) white lupin; and

(h) yellow lupin.

5. Seed of crucifers of the following plant species

(a) fodder kale;

(b) fodder radish; and

(c) swede.



APPENDIX B

TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES CONTROLLED UNDER THE FOREST REPRODUCTIVE

MATERIAL

(GREAT BRITAIN) REGULATIONS 2002



APPENDIX C

SPECIES OTHER THAN BIRDS SPECIALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE WILDLIFE AND

COUNTRYSIDE ACT, 1981: SCHEDULE 8 (PLANTS)



APPENDIX D

QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTED TO COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL SEED SUPPLIERS



ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW – SUPPORTING UK NATIVE SEED

The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew is about to launch a new initiative that will draw on its Millennium Seed Bank’s extensive collection of UK native seeds, as well as its horticultural and scientific expertise to support the UK seed industry, conservation groups and other organisations working to respond to the urgent need to repair the UK’s ecological network, protect biodiversity and maintain ecosystem services (see for example: Making Space for Nature, Lawton et al, 2010; Natural Environment White Paper, Defra, 2011, ThinkBig, England Biodiversity Group, 2011).

Working alongside commercial companies and restoration practitioners, RBG Kew will create high quality seed stocks of priority UK species stored to international standards to maintain viability and genetic integrity. Samples from these stocks will then be made available to commercial seed companies for bulking up for use in restoration projects. The Millennium Seed Bank will also continue to work with conservation agencies to safeguard the UK’s most threatened plants. Conservation collections will be held in long term storage, but seeds and plants will also be raised to support the re-introduction of these species to suitable sites.

The initiative will also include scientific research and development studies to improve the quality and diversity of UK native seeds and plants available for restoration, thus playing an important role in addressing the UK Government’s commitment to protecting biodiversity and improving the UK’s ecological network. Knowledge and information generated by the UK Native Seed Hub project will be shared freely and training will be provided to landowners and agencies wishing to grow and use native plants.

RBG Kew has already received positive feedback from a number of private and public sector organisations they have approached. However, they are keen to broaden this engagement and gather information about the UK seed industry in order to plan their work programmes so they can provide a service that truly meets the needs and aspirations of users of native seeds and plants.

As part of this initiative, RBG Kew have appointed Chris Blandford Associates to help them further understand the size and potential growth of the UK native seed market, what niche they can best occupy in the supply chain on a not for profit basis, and to help them develop a 10 year operating and business plan.

We would be grateful if you could fill out this questionnaire and return it by Tuesday 2th August 2011. Please send the completed questionnaire and/or any comments or queries to Elena Phyrillas, either by email ([email protected]) or by post (Elena Phyrillas, Chris Blandford Associates, 1 Swan Court, 9 Tanner Street, London SE1 3LE).

Please note that any data obtained will be treated as anonymous and will remain confidential.

Thank you for your time – it is very much appreciated.

mailto:[email protected]



Focusing on all seeds…

1 Approximately how much seed material did you sell last year in unit weight?

2a Broadly, how does the weight of seed you sold last year break down by habitat type?

% agricultural crops and agricultural and amenity grasslands dominated by perennial rye-grass and other similar species

% species rich grassland % trees and shrubs

% woodland field layer/ ground flora

% heathland % wetland vegetation (eg fen mire and swamp)

% coastal habitats (eg dune, shingle, saltmarsh)

% cornfield annuals % other (please specify)

2b Broadly, have these % significantly changed over the last 5 years? If so, what did they used to be in terms of % breakdown?

Focusing only on UK native wild species (excluding agricultural crops and agricultural and amenity grasslands dominated by perennial rye-grass and other similar species)…

3a How has the weight of UK native wild species seed you sold (as defined above, excluding agricultural and amenity seeds) changed in the last 5 years?

Increased Remained stable Decreased

3b If it has increased or decreased, by approximately how much?

3c Approximately what share of the market would you say you currently hold?

4a Broadly, how does the weight of seed you sold last year break down by use?

% associated with agri-environment schemes

% associated with other schemes funded by government departments or statutory agencies (eg Natural England, Forestry Commission)

% associated with other funded schemes (eg Heritage Lottery Fund, Landfill Communities Fund)

% associated with key infrastructure projects (roads, railway, canals etc)

% associated with new development (residential, commercial, industrial)

% associated with mineral extraction/landfill

% to other seed suppliers % to private individuals/ retail

% other projects/landowners (please specify)

4b Broadly, have these % significantly changed over the last 5 years? If so, what did they used to be?



5a Do you focus on a particular geographic area of the UK?

Serve the UK as a whole Focus on a geographic area (please specify)

6a Do you harvest seed from semi-natural populations? If yes…

6b How many sites do you harvest from?

6c How often do you return to donor sites to restock seed samples?

6d What approach do you take to harvesting seeds, for both larger and smaller sites? Eg what proportion of the site do you harvest from?

6e What approach do you take to ensuring that seeds collected are, in so far as possible, UK native and/or local provenance?

6f Do you seek landowner consent before harvesting?

6g Do you pay landowners for seed you collect? If yes, how much?

7a Do you sell seeds imported from outside the UK (including in mixes)? If yes…

7b Approximately what proportion do these make up of sales?

7c What countries do the seeds come from?

7d Do these focus on particular species or groups of species?

8a Do you offer training/advice as well as seeds?

8b If yes, what do you offer advice/training on?

9 What do you see as the key trends and changes in demand in the market, and what impact do you think the Government’s White Paper ‘The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature’ will have?

10 How do you think those trends will affect your seed sales over the next 5 years?

10a Broadly how much would you anticipate your seed sales increasing by?



10b Broadly, do you anticipate a significant change in how the weight of seed you sell breaks down by habitat type? If so, what break down do you anticipate?







10c Broadly, do you anticipate a significant change in how the weight of seed you sell breaks down by use? If so, what break down do you anticipate?

% associated with agri-environment schemes

% associated with other schemes funded by government departments or statutory agencies (eg Natural England, Forestry Commission)

% associated with other funded schemes (eg Heritage Lottery Fund, Landfill Communities Fund)

% associated with key infrastructure projects (roads, railway, canals etc)

% associated with new development (residential, commercial, industrial)

% associated with mineral extraction/landfill

% to other seed suppliers % to private individuals/ retail

% other projects/landowners (please specify)

11 What do you and your customers see as the key issues and challenges in the UK native wild species seed market, both today and in the future?

12 How do you think the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, with its Millennium Seed Bank, could best support your activities and contribute to the UK native wild species seed market?

13a Approximately what were your overall seed revenues last year, and your revenues for the UK native wild species seeds?

13b Approximately what was your profit margin for the UK native wild species seeds?

13c Approximately what was your average price/unit weight for each of the habitat types?









Overview of Model

Overall aim and approach

This model aims to estimate the size and potential growth of the UK native seed market

In general, habitat creation and expansion have been identified as the most relevant habitat related activities in terms of the use of UK native seed. Although seed will also be used in restoration activities, it is assumed that this is not, in relative terms, a significant share of the market

Where information is available, the model identifies the key funding streams in the market, and assesses the weight and value of UK native seeds associated with habitat creation/expansion

It then compares the findings from this approach with findings from the responses to the quesionnaire sent to primary producers and seed merchants, to arrive at an overall estimate

Limitations on availability and quality of information has led to all overall estimates of market size and growth being given as ranges

Please note that figures for species rich grassland include the grass components of commercial mixes, which typically comprise 70-80% of total weight

Structure of the model

The model first seeks to calculate how much habitat is created, by habitat type, through the following funding streams - agrienvironment, development schemes, Heritage Lottery Fund, Environment Agency, road schemes, special projects (Olympic Park)

The habitat types identified are relatively high level, and were chosen to align with the nature of information that would be provided through responses to the questionnaire sent to primary producers and seed merchants - this would allow the two data streams to be compared

It also identifies how much woodland habitat is created, through information provided by the Forestry Commission, how much additional habitat may be created in the future in line with the targets set out in the Natural Environment White Paper, and how many retail packets of seed are sold

Care is taken to avoid double counting - particularly between woodland creation identified through funding streams and woodland creation data across the UK provided by the Forestry Commission

Information on habitat creation through other infrastructure projects (railway and waterways), through landfill grants, mineral extraction schemes, agrienvironment schemes in Wales and road schemes in Northern Ireland was not available, and was therefore not included

This approach also does not include habitat creation associated with private landowners (other than what is covered through the funding streams above), and the wholesale market for UK native seed - whether primary producers selling to other primary producers, or primary producers selling to seed merchants

Only habitat creation that is likely to be relevant to the UK native seed hub is included - ie habitat creation involving amenity grassland or species poor grassland, or involving non native species, is excluded

Macro seed assumptions were then developed to convert the area of habitat creation into weight of seeds and market value of seeds, by habitat type

The market size calcs sheet then combines these two sets of input, and calculates the weight and marke summary by market geography, funding and habitat type

For ease, this information is then consolidated into three summary sheets - summary market habitats, summary market end use (ie funding stream), and summary market geography

For ease and transparency, the summary sheets show market weight and value both with and without taking the NEWP targets into account

The overall view of the market sheet compares the data in this model with the findings from the questionnaire sent to primary producers and seed merchants, and arrives at an overall market estimate. This is presented as a range, to reflect the challenges and limitations associated with the data

Overall View of Market

Factors in findings from this spreadsheet, and from responses to questionnaire sent to primary producers and seed merchants

All figures include grass components of commercial seed mixes

Findings from this spreadsheet Findings from questionnaire responses Final view of market size, nature and growth

1 CURRENT MARKET SIZE

a Total market weight of seeds (kg) 109,324 Total market weight of seeds (kg) 127,579 Total market weight of seeds 70-120 t

Current data

Total weight of seeds in model (kg) 51,856 Total weight of seeds from questionnaire responses (kg) 62,079

Assessing total market weight… Assessing total market weight…

trees/shrubs trees/shrubs

total weight of tree/shrub seeds in the model (kg) 6,790 total weight of tree/shrub seeds from questionnaire

responses (kg)

8,500

potential total weight of tree/shrub seed market, based on

findings from questionnaire responses (kg)

34,000 % market share this is identified to represent 25%

potential total weight of tree/shrub seed market (kg) 34,000

other habitat types other habitat types

total weight of seeds associated with other habitats (not

trees/shrubs) in the model (kg)

45,066 total weight of seeds associated with other habitats (not

trees/shrubs) from questionnaire responses (kg)

53,579

% total market weight not currently represented in the

model (based on findings from questionnaire responses)

40% Potential total market seed weight associated with other

(non trees/shrubs) habitat types, factoring in potential

weight produced by 2 largest primary producers in the

market (who didn't respond to the questionnaire)

93,579

% of total market weight associated with selling to other

seed suppliers

15%

% of total market weight associated with mineral

extraction/landfill

3%

% of total market weight associated with selling to private

landowners (not packet seeds)

18%

% of total market weight associated with infrastructure

excluding roads (eg rail, waterways)

4%

Potential total market seed weight associated with other

(non trees/shrubs) habitat types (kg)

75,324

b Total market value of seeds (£) 6,798,105 Total market value of seeds (£) 5,529,761 Total market value of seeds £3-£6m

Current data

Total seed value in model (£) 3,405,794 Average total seed value from questionnaire responses

(£)

1,487,401

Total seed revenues provided through questionnaire

responses (£)

1,229,301

Total seed value calculated from price info provided

through questionnaire responses (£)

1,745,500

Assessing total market value… Assessing total market value…

trees/shrubs trees/shrubs

total value of tree/shrub seeds in the model (£) 427,779 tree/shrub market as % of total market value of seeds 32%

% of tree/shrub seed market potentially currently

represented in the model

20% potential total market value of tree/shrub seed market (£) 1,742,360

potential total market value of tree/shrub seed market (£) 2,142,000

other habitat types other habitat types

total value of seeds associated with other habitats (not

trees/shrubs) in the model (£)

2,978,016 potential total market value associated with other habitat

types, factoring in potential revenue by 2 largest primary

producers in the market (who didn't respond to the

questionnaire), and also allowing for revenues by those

respondents who didn't provide this information (£)

3,787,401

% total market value not currently represented in the model 40%

% of total market weight associated with selling to other

seed suppliers (ie wholesale market)

15%

Discount associated with wholesale market, based on

findings from questionnaire responses

56%

potential total market value associated with other habitat

types (£)

4,656,105

2 BREAKDOWN OF MARKET BY SEGMENT

a By habitat type

i Weight of seeds (kg)

Tree/shrub segment Tree/shrub segment Tree/shrub segment vs other habitat

types

tree/shrub segment market share in model 13% tree/shrub segment market share calculated from total

market size estimates above

27% tree/shrub segment market share 15-35%

tree/shrub segment market share calculated from total


31% other habitat types market share 65-85%

average tree/shrub segment market share 22%

Breakdown of other habitat types… Breakdown of other habitat types… Breakdown of other habitat types…

Based on the model, and excludes retail seed packet

market

Based on findings from questionnaire responses

species rich grassland 88% species rich grassland 80% species rich grassland 80-90%

coastal habitats 0% coastal habitats 2% coastal habitats 0-5%

woodland field layer 0% woodland field layer 6% woodland field layer 0-5%

heathland 12% heathland 2% heathland 0-10%

wetland vegetation 0% wetland vegetation 2% wetland vegetation 0-5%

cornfield annuals 0% cornfield annuals 8% cornfield annuals 0-10%

total 100% total 100%

ii Market value (£)

Tree/shrub segment Tree/shrub segment Tree/shrub segment vs other habitat

types

tree/shrub segment market share in model 15% tree/shrub segment market share calculated from total


32% tree/shrub segment market share 15-35%

tree/shrub segment market share calculated from total


32% other habitat types market share 65-85%

average tree/shrub segment market share 23%

Breakdown of other habitat types… Breakdown of other habitat types… Breakdown of other habitat types…

Based on the model, and excludes retail seed packet

market

Based on findings from questionnaire responses

species rich grassland 75% species rich grassland 86% species rich grassland 75-85%

coastal habitats 0.02% coastal habitats 0.1% coastal habitats 0-5%

woodland field layer 0.04% woodland field layer 2% woodland field layer 0-5%

heathland 25% heathland 2% heathland 2-25%

wetland vegetation 0% wetland vegetation 2% wetland vegetation 0-5%

cornfield annuals 0% cornfield annuals 8% cornfield annuals 0-10%

total 100% total 100%

b By end use

i Weight of seeds (kg) - excluding trees

to other seed suppliers 17% to other seed suppliers 10-20%

of the rest… of the rest… of the rest…

Agrienvironment 92% Agrienvironment 18% agrienvironment and other

government funded schemes

40-90%

Other government funding (including Environment Agency) 1% Other government funding 23%

Other funding (including Heritage Lottery Fund) 1% Other funding 6%

Infrastructure schemes (roads only) 1% Infrastructure schemes 10% Infrastructure schemes 0-10%

Development schemes 5% Development schemes 18% Development schemes 5-20%

Mineral/landfill 0% Mineral/landfill 4%

Retail seed pack 0.4% Private landowners 21% Retail seed pack and private

landowners

0-20%

Other 0% Other Other (including other funding,

mineral/landfill)

0-10%

Total 100% Total 100%

ii Market value (£) - excluding trees

of the rest… of the rest… of the rest…

Agrienvironment 76% Agrienvironment 18% agrienvironment and other

government funded schemes

40-75%

Other government funding (including Environment Agency) 0% Other government funding 23%

Other funding (including Heritage Lottery Fund) 1% Other funding 6%

Infrastructure schemes (roads only) 1% Infrastructure schemes 10% Infrastructure schemes 0-10%

Development schemes 4% Development schemes 18% Development schemes 5-20%

Mineral/landfill 0% Mineral/landfill 4%

Retail seed pack 18% Private landowners 21% Retail seed pack and private

landowners

15-25%

Other 0% Other Other (including other funding,

mineral/landfill)

0-10%

Total 100% Total 100%

3 FUTURE MARKET GROWTH

a 2020 market weight of seeds (kg) 232,201 2020 market weight of seeds (kg) 238,227 2020 market weight of seeds (kg) 120-240t

2020 market weight of seeds in model, including England

future given NEWP (kg)110,140 5 year future growth rate from questionnaire responses 40% Implied growth rates vs current market

weightassociated 5 year future CAGR from questionnaire

responses7% taking low point

% total market weight not currently represented in the

model - for both tree/shrub and other habitat types

53% current market weight (kg) 70

2020 market weight of seeds, factoring in % of total market

weight not currently represented in the model (kg)

232,201 5 year historic growth from questionnaire responses 43% 2020 market weight (kg) 120

associated 5 year historic CAGR from questionnaire

responses7% CAGR 6%

average 5 year CAGR 7% taking mid point

current market weight (kg) 95

Total market weight of seeds (kg) 127,579 2020 market weight (kg) 180

2020 market weight of seeds assuming average CAGR

(kg)

238,227 CAGR 7%

taking high point

current market weight (kg) 120

2020 market weight (kg) 240

CAGR 8%

b 2020 market value of seeds (£) 17,975,233 2020 market value of seeds (£) 10,325,682 2020 market value of seeds (£) £9-15m

2020 market value of seeds in model, including England

future given NEWP (£)9,005,443 Current market value £/kg 43 Implied growth rates vs current market

value

2020 market value of seeds, given 2020 weight of seeds

(£)

10,325,682 taking low point

% total market value not currently represented in the model -

for both tree/shrub and other habitat types

50% current market value (£) 3

2020 market value of seeds, factoring in % of total market

value not currently represented in the model (£)

17,975,233 2020 market value (£) 9

CAGR 13%

taking mid point

current market value (£) 4.5

2020 market value (£) 13

CAGR 13%

taking high point

current market value (£) 6

2020 market value (£) 17

CAGR 12%

Summary Market Size - By Habitat Type


Total weight of seeds (kg)

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

species rich grassland 39,650 48,151 42,162 42,842 41,015 48,220 48,284 48,480 48,809 48,879

trees and shrubs 6,790 7,059 7,471 7,784 8,237 8,626 9,025 9,441 9,881 10,353

coastal habitats 6 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

woodland field layer 19 29 30 32 35 36 37 39 40 41

heathland 5,184 4,946 5,359 5,421 5,393 5,397 5,402 5,407 5,412 5,417

wetland vegetation 13 15 16 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

cornfield annuals 10 48 83 99 70 70 70 70 70 70

retail 184 361 538 714 891 1,068 1,068 1,068 1,068 1,068

other/unallocated

total 51,856 60,611 55,662 56,914 55,663 63,438 63,908 64,527 65,302 65,851 0

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total incl England future given NEWP 108,259 102,660 103,408 101,653 109,070 109,185 109,461 109,907 110,140

Total value of seeds (£)

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

species rich grassland 1,823,912 2,214,965 1,939,444 1,970,733 1,886,684 2,218,107 2,221,055 2,230,078 2,245,194 2,248,453

trees and shrubs 427,779 444,689 470,685 490,418 518,960 543,412 568,573 594,784 622,495 652,261


woodland field layer 877 1,340 1,371 1,478 1,590 1,648 1,712 1,776 1,842 1,908

heathland 599,592 572,034 619,829 626,982 623,807 624,309 624,864 625,417 625,969 626,513


cornfield annuals 615 2,878 4,981 5,927 4,206 4,206 4,206 4,206 4,206 4,206

retail 551,838 1,082,206 1,612,574 2,142,941 2,673,309 3,203,676 3,203,676 3,203,676 3,203,676 3,203,676

other/unallocated 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

total 3,405,795 4,319,165 4,650,027 5,239,760 5,709,833 6,596,647 6,625,386 6,661,248 6,704,704 6,738,352

check 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total incl England future given NEWP 6,793,412 7,068,143 7,629,837 8,072,176 8,938,652 8,947,420 8,964,137 8,989,278 9,005,443

Summary Market Size - By End Use

NB EA woodland creation covered under Forestry Commission data only counted under woodland creation

NB excludes overlap with agrienvironment scheme



2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

Agrienvironment 41,466 45,799 37,951 37,355 37,359 44,382 44,253 44,253 44,382 44,253

Woodland creation 6,689 6,937 7,340 7,643 8,092 8,476 8,872 9,284 9,720 10,189

Environment Agency 232 249 291 334 376 413 452 490 528 567

Heritage Lottery Fund 589 3,512 5,819 6,876 4,670 4,670 4,670 4,670 4,670 4,670

Road schemes 563 498 379 384 390 396 402 408 414 420

Olympic Park 0 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Development schemes 2,133 3,093 3,344 3,607 3,884 4,032 4,192 4,354 4,518 4,685

Retail seed packet market 184 361 538 714 891 1,068 1,068 1,068 1,068 1,068

total 51,856 60,611 55,662 56,914 55,663 63,438 63,908 64,527 65,302 65,851

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total incl England future given NEWP 108,259 102,660 103,408 101,653 109,070 109,185 109,461 109,907 110,140


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

Agrienvironment 2,255,319 2,431,588 2,091,829 2,064,432 2,064,600 2,387,665 2,381,703 2,381,703 2,387,665 2,381,703

Woodland creation 421,389 437,012 462,442 481,521 509,773 534,011 558,938 584,915 612,389 641,919

Environment Agency 11,257 12,125 14,188 16,251 18,315 20,125 21,994 23,864 25,734 27,604

Heritage Lottery Fund 31,608 169,469 284,063 336,518 231,944 231,944 231,944 231,944 231,944 231,944

Road schemes 27,255 24,215 17,632 17,929 18,226 18,524 18,821 19,118 19,416 19,713

Olympic Park 0 7,503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Development schemes 107,129 155,046 167,299 180,167 193,665 200,702 208,308 216,026 223,880 231,791

Retail seed packet market 551,838 1,082,206 1,612,574 2,142,941 2,673,309 3,203,676 3,203,676 3,203,676 3,203,676 3,203,676

total 3,405,794 4,319,164 4,650,026 5,239,759 5,709,832 6,596,646 6,625,385 6,661,247 6,704,703 6,738,351

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total incl England future given NEWP 6,793,412 7,068,143 7,629,837 8,072,176 8,938,652 8,947,420 8,964,137 8,989,278 9,005,443

Summary Market Size - By Geography



2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

England 41,577 42,583 43,232 43,737 44,240 44,598 44,953 45,296 45,625 45,942

Scotland 7,935 12,775 4,463 3,998 4,124 11,110 11,204 11,301 11,400 11,502

Wales 1,138 932 985 1,049 1,123 1,207 1,315 1,452 1,625 1,844

N Ireland 200 200 333 207 238 372 246 250 384 258

Other/unallocated 1,005 4,122 6,648 7,924 5,938 6,152 6,190 6,228 6,267 6,305

total 51,856 60,611 55,662 56,914 55,663 63,438 63,908 64,527 65,302 65,851

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

England future given NEWP 90,230 90,230 90,230 90,230 90,230 90,230 90,230 90,230 90,230

Total incl England future 108,259 102,660 103,408 101,653 109,070 109,185 109,461 109,907 110,140 9%


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

England 2,308,211 2,339,700 2,395,831 2,423,869 2,451,604 2,471,942 2,491,913 2,511,058 2,529,373 2,546,855

Scotland 426,806 652,256 270,236 248,585 256,233 578,866 584,531 590,331 596,267 602,340

Wales 66,191 53,515 57,123 61,379 66,284 71,807 78,814 87,665 98,810 112,806

N Ireland 9,884 9,892 16,012 10,216 12,144 18,286 12,513 12,709 18,899 13,125

Other/unallocated 594,703 1,263,800 1,910,825 2,495,710 2,923,567 3,455,745 3,457,615 3,459,484 3,461,354 3,463,224

total 3,405,794 4,319,164 4,650,026 5,239,759 5,709,832 6,596,646 6,625,385 6,661,247 6,704,703 6,738,351

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

England future given NEWP 4,813,948 4,813,948 4,813,948 4,813,948 4,813,948 4,813,948 4,813,948 4,813,948 4,813,948

Total incl England future 6,793,412 7,068,143 7,629,837 8,072,176 8,938,652 8,947,420 8,964,137 8,989,278 9,005,443

Calculating Market Size


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

SEGMENT SUB SEGMENT

Agrienvironment Schemes

England


soft estate created (ha) 1,493 1,493 1,493 1,493 1,493 1,493 1,493 1,493 1,493 1,493

% habitat created through reseeding 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

% seeds provided through commercial suppliers (vs 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

total seeds (kg) 32,245 32,245 32,245 32,245 32,245 32,245 32,245 32,245 32,245 32,245

average value of seeds (£/kg) 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46

total revenues (£) 1,483,290 1,483,290 1,483,290 1,483,290 1,483,290 1,483,290 1,483,290 1,483,290 1,483,290 1,483,290

wetland habitats

soft estate created (ha) 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65


sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7


total revenues (£) 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 373

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%

% not created through seeding/planting 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

total trees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% of trees that are seeded 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

total seeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

woodland field layer



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 4,992 4,661 4,966 4,966 4,966 4,966 4,966 4,966 4,966 4,966


total revenues (£) 577,352 539,127 574,404 574,404 574,404 574,404 574,404 574,404 574,404 574,404

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Scotland




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 4,084 8,750 467 1 5 6,898 6,898 6,898 6,898 6,898


total revenues (£) 187,863 402,485 21,487 51 220 317,323 317,323 317,323 317,323 317,323

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%

% natural colonisation (UK) 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

total trees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N. Ireland




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 135 133 262 133 133 262 133 133 262 133


total revenues (£) 6,220 6,097 12,058 6,097 6,097 12,058 6,097 6,097 12,058 6,097

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees planted 10,731 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519


total seeds 10,731 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519 10,519

total seeds (kg) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3


total revenues (£) 220 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wales


soft estate created (ha) 0


sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Woodland Creation

New Planting

Area of new native planting (ha)

England 2,500 2,988 3,451 3,889 4,302 4,691 5,056 5,395 5,710 6,000

Scotland 3,900 4,076 4,097 3,941 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

Wales 630 288 405 540 693 863 1,075 1,339 1,668 2,077

N. Ireland 48 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100

Total UK 7,078 7,402 8,002 8,420 9,095 9,654 10,231 10,834 11,477 12,177

# trees/ha (UK) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate (UK) 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 12,133,521 12,688,840 13,718,410 14,433,636 15,592,233 16,550,524 17,538,075 18,572,456 19,675,556 20,874,633


total seeds 12,133,521 12,688,840 13,718,410 14,433,636 15,592,233 16,550,524 17,538,075 18,572,456 19,675,556 20,874,633

total seeds (kg) 3,946 4,126 4,461 4,694 5,071 5,382 5,703 6,040 6,399 6,788


total revenues (£) 248,589 259,966 281,060 295,714 319,451 339,084 359,317 380,509 403,109 427,675

Restocking

Area of native restocking (ha)

England 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700

Scotland 2,420 2,541 2,664 2,790 2,919 3,050 3,184 3,320 3,459 3,600

Wales 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800

N. Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total UK 4,920 5,041 5,164 5,290 5,419 5,550 5,684 5,820 5,959 6,100

# trees/ha (UK) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate (UK) 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 8,434,286 8,641,527 8,853,149 9,069,151 9,289,533 9,514,295 9,743,437 9,976,959 10,214,861 10,457,143


total seeds 8,434,286 8,641,527 8,853,149 9,069,151 9,289,533 9,514,295 9,743,437 9,976,959 10,214,861 10,457,143

total seeds (kg) 2,743 2,810 2,879 2,949 3,021 3,094 3,169 3,245 3,322 3,401


total revenues (£) 172,800 177,046 181,382 185,807 190,322 194,927 199,622 204,406 209,280 214,244

Environment Agency

(excluding overlap with agrienvironment funding)

England and Wales




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 222 238 279 320 360 396 433 470 507 544


total revenues (£) 10,209 10,954 12,827 14,700 16,573 18,217 19,914 21,612 23,309 25,006

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


total revenues (£) 95 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1


total revenues (£) 37 28 33 37 42 46 51 55 59 64

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 8 9 11 13 14 16 17 18 20 21


total revenues (£) 916 1,084 1,269 1,455 1,640 1,803 1,971 2,139 2,307 2,475

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Heritage Lottery Funded Schemes

Landscape Partnership Scheme




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 471 3,320 5,476 6,446 4,311 4,311 4,311 4,311 4,311 4,311


total revenues (£) 21,660 152,740 251,901 296,523 198,323 198,323 198,323 198,323 198,323 198,323

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2


total revenues (£) 22 52 102 124 100 100 100 100 100 100

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 2,192 13,938 20,022 21,050 12,170 12,170 12,170 12,170 12,170 12,170


total seeds 2,192 13,938 20,022 21,050 12,170 12,170 12,170 12,170 12,170 12,170

total seeds (kg) 1 5 7 7 4 4 4 4 4 4


total revenues (£) 45 286 410 431 249 249 249 249 249 249




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 9 24 34 30 30 30 30 30 30

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 57 101 214 266 227 227 227 227 227 227


total revenues (£) 6,543 11,668 24,808 30,721 26,279 26,279 26,279 26,279 26,279 26,279

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 10 48 83 99 70 70 70 70 70 70


total revenues (£) 615 2,878 4,981 5,927 4,206 4,206 4,206 4,206 4,206 4,206

Heritage Grants




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 32 29 29 43 43 43 43 43 43 43


total revenues (£) 1,490 1,327 1,327 1,990 1,990 1,990 1,990 1,990 1,990 1,990

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2


total revenues (£) 0 88 88 133 133 133 133 133 133 133

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 42,102 17,307 17,307 25,960 25,960 25,960 25,960 25,960 25,960 25,960


total seeds 42,102 17,307 17,307 25,960 25,960 25,960 25,960 25,960 25,960 25,960

total seeds (kg) 14 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8


total revenues (£) 863 355 355 532 532 532 532 532 532 532




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


total revenues (£) 370 68 68 101 101 101 101 101 101 101

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Road Schemes

England




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 121 81 104 128 152 175 199 223 246 270


total revenues (£) 5,585 3,707 4,796 5,885 6,974 8,063 9,153 10,242 11,331 12,420

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 28 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 32,656 15,285 15,263 15,241 15,218 15,196 15,174 15,152 15,129 15,107


total seeds 32,656 15,285 15,263 15,241 15,218 15,196 15,174 15,152 15,129 15,107

total seeds (kg) 11 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5


total revenues (£) 669 313 313 312 312 311 311 310 310 310

Wales




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 279 261 242 224 205 186 168 149 131 112


total revenues (£) 12,857 12,001 11,146 10,290 9,434 8,579 7,723 6,867 6,012 5,156

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 9,530 11,107 12,683 14,259 15,836 17,412 18,989 20,565 22,142 23,718


total seeds 9,530 11,107 12,683 14,259 15,836 17,412 18,989 20,565 22,142 23,718

total seeds (kg) 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8


total revenues (£) 195 228 260 292 324 357 389 421 454 486




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2


total revenues (£) 0 32 64 95 127 159 191 223 254 286

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Scotland




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 131 131 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22


total revenues (£) 6,046 6,046 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 8 8 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109


total seeds 8 8 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109

total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 1,874 1,874 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Olympic Park


soft estate created (ha) 0 7 0


sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 7,432 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 1.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 70.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Development Schemes

Residential

England

Area of land associated with new build dwellings (ha 2,643 3,809 3,930 4,052 4,174 4,133 4,103 4,074 4,044 4,014

% of land allocated to creation of new green space 18% 19% 19% 20% 20% 20% 21% 21% 22% 22%

New green space creation (ha) 486 716 755 794 835 843 853 864 873 883

Scotland

Area of land associated with new build dwellings (ha 462 462 481 499 518 536 555 573 592 610



Wales




Northern Ireland




Total UK new green space creation (ha) 558 789 832 876 922 935 950 965 981 996

Commercial and Industrial

Total UK new green space creation (ha) 62 88 92 97 102 104 106 107 109 111

check 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Residential, Commercial and Industrial

Total UK new green space creation (ha) 620 876 924 974 1,024 1,039 1,056 1,073 1,090 1,106




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 1,928 2,802 3,035 3,281 3,539 3,680 3,831 3,986 4,143 4,301


total revenues (£) 88,692 128,886 139,611 150,905 162,781 169,263 176,242 183,333 190,557 197,846

wetland habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6


total revenues (£) 177 251 264 278 293 297 302 307 312 316

trees and shrubs


# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%


total trees 214,656 306,510 326,449 347,147 368,617 377,507 387,333 397,226 407,230 417,205


total seeds 214,656 306,510 326,449 347,147 368,617 377,507 387,333 397,226 407,230 417,205

total seeds (kg) 70 100 106 113 120 123 126 129 132 136


total revenues (£) 4,398 6,280 6,688 7,112 7,552 7,734 7,936 8,138 8,343 8,548




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 19 28 30 32 35 36 37 39 40 41


total revenues (£) 877 1,270 1,371 1,478 1,590 1,648 1,712 1,776 1,842 1,908

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2


total revenues (£) 79 112 118 124 131 132 135 137 139 141

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 112 158 166 175 184 187 190 193 196 199


total revenues (£) 12,906 18,248 19,246 20,270 21,318 21,627 21,982 22,335 22,687 23,032

Retail seed packet market

Market seed sales (£) 551,838 1,082,206 1,612,574 2,142,941 2,673,309 3,203,676 3,203,676 3,203,676 3,203,676 3,203,676

ave price/seed packet (£) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

market volume of packets sold 183,946 360,735 537,525 714,314 891,103 1,067,892 1,067,892 1,067,892 1,067,892 1,067,892

average weight of seeds/packet (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

total weight of seeds (kg) 184 361 538 714 891 1,068 1,068 1,068 1,068 1,068

TOTAL

Total weight of seeds (kg) 51,856 60,611 55,662 56,914 55,663 63,438 63,908 64,527 65,302 65,851

Total value of seeds (£) 3,405,794 4,319,164 4,650,026 5,239,759 5,709,832 6,596,646 6,625,385 6,661,247 6,704,703 6,738,351

Future Growth in England based on NEWP Targets


soft estate created (ha) 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662


sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 79,105 79,105 79,105 79,105 79,105 79,105 79,105 79,105 79,105


total revenues (£) 0 3,638,851 3,638,851 3,638,851 3,638,851 3,638,851 3,638,851 3,638,851 3,638,851 3,638,851

wetland habitats

soft estate created (ha) 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153


sowing rate (kg/ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total seeds (kg) 0 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16


total revenues (£) 0 874 874 874 874 874 874 874 874 874

trees and shrubs

soft estate created (ha) 3,755 3,755 3,755 3,755 3,755 3,755 3,755 3,755 3,755

# trees/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

% loss rate 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%

% not created through seeding/planting 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

total trees 0 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426


total seeds 0 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426 6,436,426

total seeds (kg) 0 2,093 2,093 2,093 2,093 2,093 2,093 2,093 2,093 2,093


total revenues (£) 0 131,868 131,868 131,868 131,868 131,868 131,868 131,868 131,868 131,868




sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats



sowing rate (kg/ha) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15


total seeds (kg) 0 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16


total revenues (£) 0 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355 1,355

heathland



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000


total revenues (£) 0 1,041,000 1,041,000 1,041,000 1,041,000 1,041,000 1,041,000 1,041,000 1,041,000 1,041,000

cornfield annuals



sowing rate (kg/ha) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


total seeds (kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


total revenues (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Macro Seed Assumptions


blue = direct input from market players/stakeholders; red = CBA input, based on discussions with market players and CBA's own experience; black = calculations

NB data for species rich grassland reflects commercial seed mixes which typically comprise 80% grass and 20% wildflower

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020 Comment

% Habitat created through use of seeds (vs natural regeneration etc)

species rich grassland 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Source: CBA; small amount of habitat created through natural regeneration (eg next to existing areas of species rich grassland), but majority through use of seeds

coastal habitats 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Source: CBA; most habitat created through natural regeneration

woodland field layer 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Source: CBA; most habitat created through natural regeneration

heathland 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% [WITHHELD, EXEMPT UNDER S41 OF THE FOIA]

wetland vegetation 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Source: CBA; combination of planting used, and then left to natural regeneration to develop

cornfield annuals 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Source: CBA; often conditions are created for cornfield annuals, and then these are allowed to develop naturally

Sowing rate (kg/ha) Sowing rate for full mixture, including grass components

species rich grassland 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 [WITHHELD, EXEMPT UNDER S41 OF THE FOIA]

coastal habitats 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Source: CBA; coastal habitats generally support sparser vegetation

woodland field layer 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 [WITHHELD, EXEMPT UNDER S41 OF THE FOIA]

heathland 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 [WITHHELD, EXEMPT UNDER S41 OF THE FOIA]

wetland vegetation 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Source: CBA; assumes 40,000plants/ha, with a loss rate of 30%, and 200,000 seeds/kg

cornfield annuals 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 [WITHHELD, EXEMPT UNDER S41 OF THE FOIA]

% Seeds provided through commercial suppliers (vs green hay strewing and/or in situ brush harvesting)species rich grassland 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% [WITHHELD, EXEMPT UNDER S41 OF THE FOIA]

coastal habitats 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Source: CBA; assumes site based collections for most seeds used

woodland field layer 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: CBA; based on known cases

heathland 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Source: CBA; most seeds are collected through areas of heathland

wetland vegetation 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% Source: CBA; assumes some site based collections

cornfield annuals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: CBA; no knowledge of alternative sources

Average value of seeds (£/kg) Average value of seeds for mixes, including those with grass components; inflation isn't factored in for future years

species rich grassland 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 Source: CBA; takes average of findings from commercial seed supplier questionnaires, excluding outliers

trees and shrubs 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 Source: CBA; based on web research (particularly forestart website)

coastal habitats 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Source: CBA; takes average of findings from commercial seed supplier questionnaires, excluding outliers

woodland field layer 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 Source: CBA; takes average of findings from commercial seed supplier questionnaires, excluding outliers

heathland 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 Source: CBA; takes average of findings from commercial seed supplier questionnaires, excluding outliers

wetland vegetation 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 Source: CBA; takes average of findings from commercial seed supplier questionnaires, excluding outliers

cornfield annuals 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Source: CBA; takes average of findings from commercial seed supplier questionnaires, excluding outliers

Trees and shrubs

# trees and shrubs/ha 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Source: Forestry Commission; traditional average is 2,000 trees/ha, but that includes commercially planted trees; native woodland likely to be lower

% loss rate from seeds to plants 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Source: CBA; loss rate of 10% assumed in contracts, but actual loss rate assumed to be higher % habitat created through natural

colonisation (vs seeding/planting)20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Source: CBA; most new trees/shrubs on agricultural land is new planting, so opportunities for natural colonisation are limited

% of trees that are directly seeded 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: CBA;

Number of seeds/kg 3,075 3,075 3,075 3,075 3,075 3,075 3,075 3,075 3,075 3,075 Source: CBA; based on web research (particularly forestart website

Habitat Creation Associated with Agrienvironment Schemes

blue = di ect input from market players/stakeholders; red = CBA input, based on d scuss ons with market playe s and CBA's own experience; b ack = calculations

England

Source: Na ural England

Key relevant schemes are Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) and Countryside Stewardsh p Scheme (CSS)

Current HLS and CSS options start 2006 and end 2011

Only options relevant to the UK Native Seed Hub in tiative are inc uded

Hig e Le el Ste a ds i

total number of years covered 6

% of hab tat creat on/year 17% In the absence of any other information, assumes total habi at creation s divided evenly over 6 year per od

Option Option

Area (Ha)

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 total Overall

For tree

element

For

grassland

element

% a ea

relevant to

UK native

seed hub

% area

re evant to

UK native

seed hub -

for tree

element

% area

re evant to

UK native

seed hub -

for

grass and

element Comments

To al all Options 58,1 5 9,691 9,691 9,691 9,691 9,691 9 691 58,1 5

HC10 - Creation of woodland ou s de of the SDA & ML 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 100% 100%

HC1 - Creation of wood pasture 601 100 100 100 100 100 100 601 1% 50% 100% 10% Assumes both trees and grassland would be planted; for trees, assumes much lower tree planting densit es than average ( e c.15 trees/hectare instead of 1,500); for grassland, assumes 50% habitat c ea ion because in some cases grassland may already be present; assumes that only 10% of grass and would be species rich g assland

HC9 - Creat on of woodland in the SDA 601 100 100 100 100 100 100 601 100% 100%

HE10 - Floristica ly enhanced grass margin 3,508 585 585 585 585 585 585 3,508 100% 100%

HK13 - Creation of wet grassland for breeding waders 3,631 605 605 605 605 605 605 3,631 50% 50% Creating wet grassland could involve a number of ac ions in add tion to introduction of p anting (eg improvements to hydro og cal regime, or o site management/intens ty and timing of grazing); c. 50% of the area could involve introduction of planting, with half of that involving amenity/rye grass and

HK1 - Creation of wet grassland for wintering waders and wildfowl 1,382 230 230 230 230 230 230 1,382 50% 50% Creating wet grassland could involve a number of ac ions in add tion to introduction of p anting (eg improvements to hydro og cal regime, or o site management/intens ty and timing of grazing); c. 50% of the area could involve introduction of planting, with half of that involving amenity/rye grass and

HK7 - Restoration of species-r ch, semi-natural grassland 1,086 6,8 8 6,8 8 6,8 8 6,8 8 6,8 8 6 8 8 1,086 0% 0% Resto at on typ cally involves natural co on sation first, then sourcing seed from the existing site

HK8 - Crea ion of species-rich, semi-natural grassland ,166 69 69 69 69 69 69 ,166 100% 100%

HL11 - Creat on of upland heath and 2,176 363 363 363 363 363 363 2,176 100% 100%

HO - Creat on of owland heath and from arab e or improved grass and 155 26 26 26 26 26 26 155 100% 100%

HO5 - Creat on of owland heath and on worked mineral sites 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 100% 100%

HQ8 - Creat on of fen 392 65 65 65 65 65 65 392 100% 100%

Countryside S ewa dship Scheme

Option

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

% of land

involving

habitat

creation

(eg vs

manageme

nt or other

activ ties)

% area

relevant

to UK

native

seed hub Comment

LH3/Re-creation of heathland 289 289 299 289 30 258 100% 100%

M2/Restorat on of moorland on improved land 37 37 100% 100% involves recreation of a historic moor and s te

Area of habitat created by habitat type (ha), for both HLS and CSS

Assumes 2012-13 onwards s comparab e o p eceeding years, in line with d scussion w th Defra; calculated as an average of previous years

% of wood and creat on not covered under Forestry Commiss on da a 0% Forestry Commiss on da a covers a l wood and c ea ion; see woodland creation sheet or more deta ls

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1 201 -15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total

species r ch grassland 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 1, 93 16, 21

trees and shrubs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

coastal habitats 0

woodland ie d layer 0

heath and 715 715 689 679 693 6 7 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 7,587

wet and vegetat on 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 718

cornf eld annuals 0

total 2,273 2,273 2,2 7 2,237 2,251 2,206 2,2 8 2 2 8 2,2 8 2 2 8 2,2 8 2,2 8 2,2 8 2,2 8

Scot and

Source: Scottish Government - Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate (SGRPID) - Rural Prior ties

Key relevant schemes are Land Management Contract Menu Scheme (LMCMS), Land Managers Options (LMO), Rural Priorities (RP)

LMCMS was the predecessor to LMO


Data provided reflects approvals by claim year

Data provided by calendar year, but has been realigned to f nancial year

Assumes 2012-13 onwards is comparable to preceed ng years, as w th England; calculated as an average of relevant previous years

1 m2 = 0.0001 ha

Area of Associated Land

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1 201 -15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Land Management Contract Menu Scheme

Dykes (sqm) 5,6 1,888 5,629,868 5,62 63 5 59 , 65 593,165

Dykes (ha) 56 563 562 559 59

Land Managers Options

Dykes (sqm) 329,798 387, 86 ,755, 22 5 768,387 5,720,852 5,720,852 5,720,852 5 720,852 5,720 852 5,720 852 5 720,852 5,720,852

Dykes (ha) 33 39 76 577 572 572 572 572 572 572 572 572

Small Scale Woodland C ea ion - Agricultural Land (ha) 67 3 77 106 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73

Small Scale Woodland C ea ion - Non-Agr cultu al Land (ha) 5 3 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Rural Priorities

Creation and management of spec es rich grassland (ha) 0 3 3 175 391 21 0 0 303 303 303 303 303

grass margins and beet e banks (ha) - mixed arable 0. 6 10 280 279 12 1 0 323 323 323 323 323

grass margins and beet e banks (ha) - organ c 9 1 3 1 1

Rural Priorities Woodland Creation

Produc ive Coni er Low Cost (ha) 785 89 1,369 1 0 0 0 0 1,016 1,016 1,016

Produc ive Coni er H gh Cost (ha) 0 9 136 0 0 0 0 0 115 115 115

Produc ive Broadleaf Woodland (ha) 19 3 2 5 0 0 0 31 31 31

Native Wood and Planting (ha) 957 3, 76 , 03 738 03 9 96 0 2,9 5 2,9 5 2,9 5

Native Wood and Nat Regen (ha) 2 9 15 8 59 281 135 139 81 81 81

Mixed Con fer Broadleaved Woodland (ha) 139 716 22 72 1 2 0 0 26 26 26

% of Land Involving Relevant Hab tat Creation

% area

assoc ated

with

habitat

creat on

% area

relevant to

UK native

seed hub

time period

for delivery

(yea s) Comments

Dykes 0% 0% 1 Focus for th s will largely be on mending s one wa ls

Small Scale Woodland C ea ion - Agricultural Land 100% 100% 1

Small Scale Woodland C ea ion - Non-Agr cultu al Land 100% 100% 1

Creation and management of spec es rich grassland 100% 100% 1 Assump ion that planting takes place in the irst year, and that subsequent years ocus more on management/es ab ishment

grass margins and beet e banks - arable 100% 5% 1 Much p an ing will be grassland that s not elevant o RBG Kew (ie species poor grassland)

grass margins and beet e banks - organ c 100% 5% 1 Much p an ing will be grassland that s not elevant o RBG Kew (ie species poor grassland)

Produc ive Coni er Low Cost 100% 20% 1 According to the Forestry Comm ssion, only c. 20% of conifers in Scot and are scottish pine, and hence UK native spec es

Produc ive Coni er H gh Cost 100% 20% 1 According to the Forestry Comm ssion, only c. 20% of conifers in Scot and are scottish pine, and hence UK native spec es

Produc ive Broadleaf Woodland 100% 50% 3 Since it is productive, a proport on of the broadleaf s ikely to be non-native; assumes planting in 1st 3 y s - management thereafter

Native Wood and Planting 100% 100% 3 assumes planting in 1st 3 yrs - management thereafter

Native Wood and Nat Regen 100% 0% 1 Natural regenerat on does not involve any planting

Mixed Con fer Broadleaved Woodland 100% 76% 3 In line w th Forestry Comm ssion assumpt ons (see woodland creat on sheet for more deta ls)

% of wood and creat on not covered under Forestry Commiss on da a 0% Forestry Commiss on da a covers a l wood and c ea ion; see woodland creation sheet or more deta ls

Relevant Hab tat Creation (ha)

Area of assoc ated land (ha)

Area of associa ed and (ha)

Area of hab tat crea ed (ha)

A ea of associated land

Relevant hab tat creation (ha)

% of and involving habitat creation

eg vs management or other

activ ties)

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1 201 -15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Check

Dykes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Small Scale Woodland C ea ion - Agricultural Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Small Scale Woodland C ea ion - Non-Agr cultu al Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Creation and management of spec es rich grassland 0 0 0 3 3 175 391 21 0 0 303 303 303 303 303 2, 5 0

grass margins and beet e banks - arable 0 0 0 21 1 1 1 0 0 16 16 16 16 16 130 0

grass margins and beet e banks - organ c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Produc ive Coni er Low Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Produc ive Coni er H gh Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Produc ive Broadleaf Woodland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Native Wood and Planting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Native Wood and Nat Regen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mixed Con fer Broadleaved Woodland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

total 0 0 0 36 189 05 22 0 0 319 319 319 319 319 2,577

Relevant habitat Creation by Hab tat Type (ha)

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1 201 -15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total

species r ch grassland 0 0 0 36 189 05 22 0 0 319 319 319 319 319 1,619

trees and shrubs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

coastal habitats 0

woodland ie d layer 0

heath and 0

wet and vegetat on 0

cornf eld annuals 0

total 0 0 0 36 189 05 22 0 0 319 319 319 319 319

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern Ireland

Source: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland (DARDN )


Assumes 2012-13 onwards is comparable to preceed ng years, as w th England; calculated as an average of relevant previous years

Data provided is area of land managed under agrienvironment agreement in that year

Area of Land Managed Under Agr environment Agreement

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1 201 -15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Po len and nectar 6 6

Grass margins p an ed w th trees along a watercourse/ iparian zones

planted w th natives 3 32 29 29 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31

Grass margins p an ed w th na ive trees 593 592 535 598 595 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583 583

% of Land Involving Relevant Hab tat Creation

% area

assoc ated

with

habitat

creat on

% area

relevant to

UK native

seed hub

time period

for delivery

(yea s) Comments

po len and nectar 100% 100%


planted w th natives - grass and component 100% 5% 5

Much p an ing will be grassland that s not elevant o RBG Kew (ie species poor grassland)


planted w th natives - woodland component 5% 100% 5

Assumes that dens ty of tree planting much lower than woodland creat on average (75 trees/ha instead of 1 500)

Grass margins p an ed w th native trees - wood and component 5% 100% 5 Assumes that dens ty of tree planting much lower than woodland creat on average (75 trees/ha instead of 1 500)

Grass margins p an ed w th native trees - grassland component 100% 5% 5 Much p an ing will be grassland that s not elevant o RBG Kew (ie species poor grassland)

% of wood and creat on not covered under Forestry Commiss on da a 100% scattered tree p anting, not wood and creat on

Relevant Hab tat Creation

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1 201 -15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Comments

Po len and nectar 6 6 6 6 Th s s a new option which started in 2009; assumed that land is re-sown every 3 years


planted w th natives - grass and component 0.3 0.32 0 29 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0 31 0.31 0.31 0 31 0.31


planted w th natives - woodland component 0.3 0.32 0 29 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0 31 0.31 0.31 0 31 0.31

Grass margins p an ed w th native trees - wood and component 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Grass margins p an ed w th native trees - grassland component 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

To al 13 12 11 19 13 12 18 12 12 18 12 12 18 12

Relevant habitat Creation by Hab tat Type

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1 201 -15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

species r ch grassland 6 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 6

trees and shrubs 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

coastal habitats

woodland ie d layer

heath and

wet and vegetat on

cornf eld annuals

total 13 12 11 19 13 12 18 12 12 18 12 12 18 12

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wa es

Data not prov ded

Area of and managed under agr environment scheme (ha)

Relevant hab tat creation (ha)

Re evant habi at creation by habitat type (ha)

Re evant habi at creation by habitat type (ha)

Woodland Creation

Source Forestry Commission Northern Ireland Forestry

Current/h storic statistics are based on results from the National Forest Inventory

Covers both public sector woodland (Forestry Commiss on and Forest Service owned/managed and other public sector) and also privately owned wood and

ncludes woodland formed by natural co on sation

blue direct input from market players/stakeholders; red CBA input, based on discussions with market players and CBA's own experience; black calculations

NEW PLANTING

Current New Planting

2010/11 actuals

New woodland planting

England Wales Sco land N. Ireland UK Comments

Conifers 0 0 1,500 0 1,500

Broadleaves 2 500 700 3 600 200 7 000

Total 2,500 700 5,100 200 8,500

England Wales Sco land N. Ireland UK

Conifers 0% 0% 29% 0% 18%

Broadleaves 100% 100% 71% 100% 82%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Split between native and non native species


% new plantings hat are native 24% In 09/10, 24% of new planting in Northern Ireland was associated with native species

% conifers that are native species 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% Con fers are generally non-native; however, c. 20% of conifers in scotland are scottish pine (a native species)


Native species 2 500 630 3 900 48 7 078

Non native species 0 70 1,200 152 1,422

Total 2 500 700 5 100 200 8 500 0

check 0 0 0 0 0


Native species 100% 90% 76% 24% 83%

Non native species 0% 10% 24% 76% 17%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Future New Planting

Assumes a steady progression between ex sting new planting f gures and future woodland deve opment targets

Resurgence of interest in wood and crea ion is driven by renewable energy and carbon sequestration (more than biodiversity)

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020 Comments

England

Target new woodland development (ha/year) 3,056 3,611 4,167 4,722 5,278 5,833 6,389 6,944 7,500 Climate Change Committee recommended rapid accelera ion of woodland creation, so Forestry Commission advised an assumption that current new woodland planting levels would treble by 2020; NB Woodland Trust were much more sceptical, given that past woodland creation targets haven't been met

% native woodland development 98% 96% 93% 91% 89% 87% 84% 82% 80% Forestry Commission assumes equivalent spl t of conifers/broadleaves as today (0/100%), but that by 2020 non native planting will increase so that split will become (20/80%)

Target new native woodland development (ha) 2,988 3,451 3,889 4,302 4,691 5,056 5,395 5,710 6,000

Scot and

Target new woodland development (ha/year) 6,080 7,060 8,040 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Scottish Government's Rationale for Woodland Expansion (2009) set a target of planting a further 650,000 hectares of woodland. This requires woodland planting rates to increase to an average of 10,000 ha/yr by 2015; after 2015, aim is to keep that rate constant

% native woodland development 67% 58% 49% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% By 2014-15 assumed that 60% of new planting would be productive (largely conifer excluding scots pine) native species would fall into the remaining 40%

Target new native woodland development (ha) 4,076 4,097 3,941 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

Wales

Target new woodland development (ha/year) 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Welsh C imate Change Strategy identified target of planting 100,000ha of new woodland over next 20 years; a new grant scheme for woodland creation (Glastir) was introduced late in 2010

% native woodland development 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Assumed to stay at current levels

Target new native woodland development (ha) 900 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500

Assumed new woodland development (ha/year) 320 450 600 770 959 1 194 1 488 1 853 2 308 Reality anticipated to fa l short of targets 2011/12 - 2014/15 CAGR 25%

% native woodland development 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Assumed to stay at current levels

Assumed new native woodland development (ha) 288 405 540 693 863 1 075 1 339 1 668 2 077

Northern re and

Target new woodland development (ha/year) 200 200 200 400 400 400 400 400 400 Northern Ireland Forestry A Strategy for Sustainab lity and Growth set itself target to double woodland cover in northern ireland (long term objective to increase woodland cover from 6.4% to 12% of land area over a 50 year period from 2006); However, recognition that going to be a slow start

% native woodland development 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Assumed to be on a par with existing levels

Target new native woodland development (ha) 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100

RESTOCKING

Current Restocking

2010/11 actuals

Restocking


Conifers 2,300 1,300 5,600 1,000 10,200

Broadleaves 1,700 800 1,300 0 3,800

Total 4 000 2 100 6 900 1 000 14 000


Conifers 58% 62% 81% 100% 73%

Broadleaves 43% 38% 19% 0% 27%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Split between native and non native species


% conifers that are native species 0% 0% 20% 0% 0%


Native species 1,700 800 2,420 0 3,800

Non native species 2 300 1 300 4 480 1 000 10 200

Total 4,000 2,100 6,900 1,000 14,000

check 0 0 0 0 0

Restocking (ha)

% sp it between conifers and broadleaves

Restocking (ha) by native vs non native

New woodland planting (ha)

% sp it between conifers and broadleaves

New woodland planting (ha) by native vs non native

% split between native and non native species

Future new planting


Native species 43% 38% 35% 0% 27%

Non native species 58% 62% 65% 100% 73%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Future Restocking

Assumes a steady progression between ex sting restocking f gures and future targets

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

England

Target restocking (ha/year) 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Assumes current figures hold constant

% native woodland in restocking 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% Assumes current figures hold constant

Target native restocking (ha/year) 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700

Scot and

Target restocking (ha/year) 7,133 7,367 7,600 7,833 8,067 8,300 8,533 8,767 9,000

% native woodland in restocking 36% 36% 37% 37% 38% 38% 39% 39% 40% Assumed future split is 75% conifer (of which 20% is native species) 25% broadleaf

Target native restocking (ha/year) 2,541 2,664 2,790 2,919 3,050 3,184 3,320 3,459 3,600

Wales

Target restocking (ha/year) 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 Assumes current figures hold constant

% native woodland in restocking 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% Assumes current figures hold constant

Target native restocking (ha/year) 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800

Northern re and

Target restocking (ha/year) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 assumed to continue at existing rate

% broadleaf 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% requirement under UK forestry standard guidelines

% of broadleaf that native 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%

% of native broadleaf de ivered through natural regenerati 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Target native restocking involving planting (ha/year) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% split between native and non native species

Future restocking

Habitat Creation Associated with Development


RESIDENTIAL

England

Source DCLG

2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020 2020-21 Comments

house bu lding permanent dwellings completed 143,960 155,890 163,400 167,680 168,770 134,110 113,670

Future new household building 113,670 Assumes 2010-11 reflects 2009-10, given economic crisis

Density of new dwellings/ha 43 43 41 43 43 Assumes density of new dwe lings remains constant

Area of land associated w th new build dwellings (ha) 3,900 3,925 3,271 2,643 2,643

Projected demand for undeveloped land for future residential development (ha) 2,191 2,272 2,353 2,434 2,373 2,353 2,333 2,314 2,294 2,313 source GHK study on biodiversity offsetting; assumes intervening years represent steady increases/decreases

Projected demand for developed land for future residential development (ha) 3,235 3,316 3,397 3,478 3,520 3,500 3,480 3,461 3,441 3,442 source GHK study on biodiversity offsetting; assumes intervening years represent steady increases/decreases

% of developed land associated with creation of new green spaces 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% source CBA, based on experience with development schemes

Projected demand for undeveloped and developed land for future residential development (ha) 3,809 3,930 4,052 4,174 4,133 4,103 4,074 4,044 4,014 4,034

Scotland

Source the scottish government

2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020 2020-21 Comments

completed new dwellings 23,822 26,468 24,947 24,247 25,781 21,019 17,266 17,099

Future new household building 17,099 17,784 18,469 19,155 19,840 20,525 21,210 21,896 22,581 Assumes 2010-11 reflects 2009-10, given economic crisis; 2019-2020 is an average of historic new house building, with a steady increase assumed between 2010-11 and 2019-20

Density of new dwellings/ha 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Assumed to be lower than england, because Scotland doesn't have same metropolitan density issues

Area of land associated w th new build dwellings (ha) 467 462 462 481 499 518 536 555 573 592 610

Wales

Source welsh assembly government

2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020 2020-21 Comments

completed new dwellings 8,296 8,492 8,249 9,334 8,664 7,121 6,174 5,505

Future new household building 5,505 5,783 6,061 6,339 6,617 6,895 7,173 7,451 7,729 Assumes 2010-11 reflects 2009-10, given economic crisis; 2019-2020 is an average of historic new house building, with a steady increase assumed between 2010-11 and 2019-20

Density of new dwellings/ha (engl and wales) 44 Source Robert Home, Anglia Law School

density of new dwellings/ha (wales) 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Assumed to be lower than england, because Wales doesn't have same metropolitan density issues

Area of land associated w th new build dwellings (ha) 234 192 167 149 149 156 164 171 179 186 194 201 209

Northern Ireland

total population (2009 estimate) 1,789,000 source wikipedia

wales total population 2,900,000 source welsh government

N ireland population as % of wales population 62%

2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020 2020-21 Comments

area of land associated with new bu ld dwellings (ha) 144 119 103 92 92 96 101 106 110 115 120 124 129 assumes that ratio of N. Ireland/Wales population is broadly replicated in terms of new bu ld development

UK

Source CBA

% of new residential development land allocated to creation of new green space

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020 Comments

England 18% 18% 19% 19% 20% 20% 20% 21% 21% 22% 22% Natural England green infratructure guidance identifies that, for ecotowns, >40% of land should be allocated to green space; improvement over time reflects increasing emphasis on green infrastructure

Scotland 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% Likely to be similar to Northern Ireland, given current development densities; improvement over time reflects increasing emphasis on green infrastructure

Wales 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% Likely to be similar to Northern Ireland, given current development densities; improvement over time reflects increasing emphasis on green infrastructure

N. Ireland 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% Source NIEA improvement over time reflects increasing emphasis on green infrastructure

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020 Comments

commercial and industrial new green space development as % of all development 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Based on CBA experiences

RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

Source CBA

Breakdown of green space for private sector development

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020 Comments

amenity grassland 54% 53% 53% 52% 52% 51% 50% 50% 49% 49% 48%

species rich grassland 14% 14% 15% 15% 16% 16% 16% 17% 17% 18% 18% Trend in last 10 years towards increased species rich grassland and reduced amenity grassland, due to positive impact on biodiversity and reduced maintenance requirements; also reflects increasing emphasis on green roofs

trees and shrubs 20% 20% 20% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 22% 22% 22%

coastal habitats 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

woodland field layer 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3%

heathland 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

wetland vegetation 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

cornfield annuals 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

% of new residential development land allocated to creation of new green space

Breakdown of green space for private sector development

Habitat Creation Associated with Heritage Lottery Fund Grants

Source: HLF

Coverage: UK

blue = direct input from market players/stakeholders; red = CBA input, based on discussions with market players and CBA s own experience; black = calculations

LANDSCAPE PAR NERSHIP SCHEME (LPS)

Defin tions

maintain extent maintain current extent

achieve condition maintain or improve the condition with n existing resource

Restore improve condition of relict habitat so it qualifies as BAP habitat

Expand increase extent of resource

CBA assumption: expand category most relevant to UK native seed hub because t is more likely to invo ve hab tat creation and therefore use of seeds

achieved

predicted anticipated outputs to end of HLF funding

Maintain extent Achieve condition Restore Expand Maintain

extent

Achieve

condit onRestore Expand Comments

Grass and and heath (ha)

calaminarian grassland 19 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 100%

lowland calcareous grass and 0 11 1 6 68 131 39 98 70 100%

lowland dry ac d grassland 0 0 5 0 51 0 6 1 100%

lowland heathland 5 70 73 10 393 70 108 16 100%

lowland meadow 66 65 1 1 168 337 215 202 100%

machair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%

mountain heath and willow scrub 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 100%

purple moor grass and rush pasture 0 10 91 10 100%

upland calcareous grass and 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 100%

upland hay meadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%

upland heathland 1,500 1,500 22 5 1,626 1,500 7 0 100%

other 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 100%

total 1,630 1,650 251 13 2, 87 1,950 38 299

wood and (ha)

lowland beech & yew woodland 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%

lowland mixed dec dious woodland 57 161 1 2 21 11 12 100%

native pine woodland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%

traditional orchard 20 20 2 18 20 20 1 1 0% 10% Assumes grassland wou d be planted as we l as trees; traditional orchard does not comprise native wild species; assumes 10% of grassland is spec es rich grassland, and the remainder s species poor grassland

upland birchwood 0 0 0 20 0 0 30 250 100%

upland mixed ashwood 0 0 21 100 0 0 0 0 100%

upland oakwood 0 0 0 10 123 0 0 0 100%

wet woodland 15 0 0 35 15 0 6 35 100%

wood-pasture and parkland 53 0 0 698 75 0 0 110 1% 10% Assumes both trees and grassland would be planted; for trees, assumes much lower tree planting densities than average for woodland creat on (ie c.15 trees/hectare ins ead of 1,500); assumes 10% of grassland s species rich grassland, and the remainder is spec es poor grass and

restorat on of PAWS (p anted ancient woodland 0 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 100%

other 3 23 2 2 93 33 52 13 100%

total 150 20 9 885 752 167 106 13

wetland (ha)

blanket bog 0 0 0 0 5, 15 5, 10 5, 10 0

lowland en 15 0 180 0 13 0 0 0

lowland raised bog 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

reedbed 36 57 0 25 1 57 9 12 100%

upland lushes, fens and swamps 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0

other 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0

total 51 58 189 25 5, 69 5, 68 5, 21 12

waterbodies (ha)

lakes (ha) 552 29 3 0 22 32 0 0 100%

ponds (no) 10 8 26 36 1,072 2 18 20 20% Re lects fact that sowing rate is much ower for ponds than for other types of wetland habitat

rivers (km) 82 82 2 0 172 82 2 0 100%

riparian habitat (km) 0 0 56 0 0 0 5 0 100%

riparian habitat (ha) 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 100%

other (no) 0 0 0 0 0 9 100%

coastal & marine (ha)

coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 500 783 153 0 500 618 0 0 10% assumes 10% s species rich grass and, and the remainder is spec es poor grassland

coastal saltmarsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100%

coastal sand dune 0 0 0 0 821 118 0 0 100%

maritime cl ff and slope 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% habitat not created through vegetation

intertidal mud lats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% habitat not created through vegetation

reefs and lagoons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%

other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%

total 500 783 153 0 1,321 736 0 2

other priority hab tats

arable field margins (ha) 0 0 0 10 5 0 0 12 100% 20% 80% reflects sp it between grassland and annua s

hedgerows (km) 7 10 2 26 30 37 7 100%

inland rock outcrop and scree habitat (ha) 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 100%

limestone pavement (ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100%

open mosaic habitats on previously developed a 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 100%

other (ha) 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 100%

TOTAL 2,885 2,727 663 1,061 10, 82 8,35 5,970 7 2

other landscape eatures

new individual trees 5, 66 13,890 100%

Key assumptions

average ha/pond 0.2 doesn't include area of and around the pond

ha/km2 100

trees/ha 1,500 Source: Forestry Comm ss on; tradi ional average is 2,000 trees/ha, but that includes commercially p anted trees; native wood and likely to be lower

% of new trees that are native 83% Source: Forestry Comm ss on (see woodland creation page or more de ails)

Relevant achieved and predicted expansion by habitat type

Focusing only on expand category

Ach eved Predicted

species rich grass and (ha) 153 297

trees and shrubs (ha) 179 311

coastal habitats (ha) 0 2

wood and field layer (ha)

heathland (ha) 55 16

wetland vegetation (ha) 26 13

cornfie d annua s (ha) 8 10

total 21 6 8

% of relevant expanded area likely to be associated w th habi at creat on

species rich grass and (ha) 100%

LPS Total

Achieved Predicted

LPS Total % area

re evant to

UK na ive

seed hub -

overa l

% area

relevant o

UK native

seed hub -

grassland

component

% area

re evant to

UK native

seed hub -

cornf eld

component

Relevant expansion by habitat type (ha)

trees and shrubs (ha) 100%

coastal habitats (ha) 100%

wood and field layer (ha) 100%

heathland (ha) 100%

wetland vegetation (ha) 100%

cornfie d annua s (ha) 100%

% of tree and shrub planting not covered under FC s 5% assumes wood pasture and park and isn't covered by FC woodland creat on data; wood pasture and parkland ikely to have lower density of planting than typical wood and creation

Ach eved and pred cted re evant habitat creat on by habitat type

Ach eved Predicted

species rich grass and 153 297

trees and shrubs 9 16

coastal habitats 0 2

wood and field layer 0 0

heathland 55 16

wetland vegetation 26 13

cornfie d annua s 8 10

total 251 352

Annua ising data on ex sting 5 LP schemes

data covers 5 LP schemes, although 11 others were awarded mid July 2011

assumed time per od over which total achieved hab tat creation s delivered (yrs) 7 covers period 200 -2011; detail on individual projects s unknown, so total habitat creation s equally div ded over 7 year period

assumed time per od over which total pred cted habitat creation is delivered (yrs) 3 assumed hab tat creation takes 2 years, but some schemes in development sti l; detail on individual projects is unknown, so total habitat creat on is equally divided over 7 year period

Annua ised relevant hab tat creation by habitat type (ha)

200 -5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1

species rich grass and 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 99 99 99

trees and shrubs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5


wood and field layer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heathland 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 5 5

wetland vegetation

cornfie d annua s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3

total 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 117 117 117

check 0

Factoring in data on new schemes

number of existing schemes 5

number of new schemes awarded July 2011 11

pro ect duration of habitat creat on of new schemes (years) 2

number of new schemes awarded each year from july 2012 20

pro ect duration of new schemes (years) 2

total hab tat created on existing schemes (achieved predicted) (ha) 603

assumed total re evant habitat created on 11 new schemes from july 2011 (ha) 1 8 assumes that, overa l, average size of schemes histor ca ly s comparable to average s ze of schemes in the future

assumed total re evant habitat creat on on new schemes each year from july 2012 (ha) 268

Distribution of relevant habitat creation by hab tat types

Distribution of relevant habitat creation by hab tat types

Ex sting schemes

New schemes

launched July 2011

New

schemes

launched

from July

2012

onwards

species rich grass and 7 % 7 % 7 %

trees and shrubs % % 3%

coastal habitats 0.3% 1% 2% increase in coastal projects seen, including at east marine projects in july 2011 batch of schemes agreed; assume therefore that over time trees and shrubs go down relatively, and coastal habitats go up; Richard- why is t trees/shrubs that's going down?

wood and field layer 0.0% 0% 0%

heathland 12% 12% 12%

wetland vegetation 7% 7% 7%

cornfie d annua s 3% 3% 3%

total 100% 101% 100%

total annual relevant habitat created on new schemes

New schemes

launched July

2011

New schemes

launched July 2012

New

schemes

launched

July 2013

New

schemes

launched

July 201

New

schemes

aunched

July 2015

New

schemes

launched

July 2016

New

schemes

aunched

July 2017

New

schemes

launched

July 2018

New

schemes

launched

July 2019

species rich grass and 55 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

trees and shrubs 3

coastal habitats 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

wood and field layer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heathland 9 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

wetland vegetation 5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

cornfie d annua s 2

total 7 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Relevant habitat creation by hab tat type for new schemes

200 -5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1 201 -15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

species rich grass and 55 155 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

trees and shrubs 3 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

coastal habitats 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5


heathland 9 2 32 32 32 32 32 32 32


cornfie d annua s 2 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 208 268 268 268 268 268 268 268

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total relevant habitat creation by habitat type, incorporating ex sting and new schemes

200 -5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1 201 -15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

species rich grass and 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 15 25 298 200 200 200 200 200 200

trees and shrubs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 12 12 7 7 7 7 7 7

coastal habitats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

wood and field layer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heathland 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 30 37 32 32 32 32 32 32


cornfie d annua s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 9 11 8 8 8 8 8 8

total 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 192 326 386 268 268 268 268 268 268

Relevant hab tat creation by hab tat type for new schemes (ha)

Total relevant hab tat creation by habitat type, incorporating existing and new schemes(ha)

Relevant habitat creation (ha)

Annua ised relevant hab tat creation by habitat type (ha)

total annual relevant habitat created on new schemes (ha)

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HERI AGE GRAN S

Habitat Created Init al decis on Area (ha) Grant awarded (£)

reedbed 1995-96 1 0

heathland / moorland 1997-98 180



semi-natural woodland 1998-99 90



pond 1999-00 2

fen 1999-00 5 .7







reedbed 2001-02 16.2


Wood and pasture 2002-3 58


wet wood and 200 -05 5.9

Reedbed 200 -05 1.1

fen 200 -05 83

pond 2007-08 1

pond 2007-08 1

semi-natural woodland 2008-9 580 965,500

meadow 2010-11 1.5 7,000

saltmarsh 2010-11 58 55,000

semi-natural woodland 2010-11 500 25,800

semi-natural woodland 2010-11 0.8 7,700

total 3,565

Habitat creat on each year over 2002-3 to 2010-11

2002-3 2003- 200 -5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 total

semi-natural woodland 30 8 580 501 1,119 100%

Wood and pasture 58 58 1% 10% Assumes both trees and grassland would be planted; for trees, assumes much lower tree planting densities than average for woodland creat on (ie c.15 trees/hectare instead of 1,500); or grassland, assumes only 10% of grass and is species rich grassland

wet wood and 6 6 100%

Reedbed 1 1 100%

fen 83 83 100%

pond 2 2 20%

meadow 2 2 100%

saltmarsh 58 58 100%

total 88 8 90 0 2 0 580 0 560 1,328

check 0

% of woodland creation not covered under FC data 5% wood pasture not covered by FC data on woodland creat on

overall current funding for heritage work (£) 220,000,000

future (post 2013) funding for heritage work (£) 330,000,000

increase in overall funding 50%

assumed increase in habitat creation in 2013 50% in line with increase in funding

assumed yearly increase post 2013 0% conservative estimate

Distribution of relevant habitat creation by hab tat type

Distribution of relevant habitat creation by hab tat type

2002/3 - 2010/11 Assumed for 2011-12 onwards

species rich grass and % % assumed to be comparable

trees and shrubs 27% 27% assumed to be comparable

coastal habitats 28% 28% assumed to be comparable

wood and field layer 0% 0% assumed to be comparable

heathland 0% 0% assumed to be comparable

wetland vegetation 1% 1% assumed to be comparable

cornfie d annua s 0% 0% assumed to be comparable

total 100% 100%

Relevant habitat creation by hab tat type

2002-3 2003- 200 -5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1 201 -15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

species rich grass and 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

trees and shrubs 1 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 25 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

coastal habitats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 11 11 16 16 16 16 16 16 16


heathland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

wetland vegetation 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

cornfie d annua s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

total 7 0 8 0 0 0 28 0 8 38 38 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Relevant hab tat creation by habi at type (ha)

Hab tat creation each year (ha) % area

relevant o

UK native

seed hub -

overall

% area

re evant to

UK native

seed hub -

grassland

component

Habitat Creation Associated with Environment Agency

Source: Environment Agency


UK BAP Habitat Gains

England Wales Total England Wales Total England Wales Total England Wales Total

Intertidal 122 7 129 8 2 10 0 0

intertidal mudflats 0 0 1 1 16 16

PO 3 2 5 0 0 0

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 99 7 106 213 38 251 367 1 368 443 8 451

Reedbed 15 4 20 15 7 22 -18 1 -17 41 22 63

Lowland meadow 14 0 14 1 1 61 61 58 58

Wet woodland 3 5 8 1 1 6 6 27 23 49

Fen 0 1 1 3 3 0 0

lowland fen 0 0 9 9 20 20

UH 3 0 3 0 0 0

UM 0 0 0 0 0 0

Saline lagoon 0 0 0 0 6 1 7

Calcareous grassland 0 2 2 0 0

Blanket bog 0 0 4 4 5 7 12 11 11

coastal saltmarsh 0 0 41 41 45 7 51

ponds 0 0 12 4 15 24 3 27

chalk rivers 0 0 5 5 36 36

rivers 0 0 0 6 6

eutrophic standing water 0 15 15 0 0

TOTAL 258 26 284 253 54 307 482 18 500 701 93 794

River leng h enhanced (km) 154 18 172 153 51 204 37 4 42 212 24 236

No of ponds created 28 18 46 70 50 120 75 11 86 225 47 272

No of SSSIs improved 38 5

average ha/pond 0.2

Consolidated UK BAP Habitat Gains across England and Wales

2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 Cumulative distribution

intertidal mudflats 129 10 1 16 8%

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 106 251 368 451 60%

Reedbed 21 25 -17 63 5%

Lowland meadow 14 1 61 58 7%

Wet woodland 8 1 6 49 3%

lowland fen 0 0 9 20 1%

Saline lagoon 0 0 0 7 0%

Blanket bog 3 4 12 11 1%

coastal saltmarsh 0 0 41 51 5%

ponds 9 24 33 81 7%

chalk rivers 0 0 5 36 2%

rivers 0 0 0 6 0%

total 289 315 517 848 100%

Future consolidated UK BAP Habitat Gains (ha)

UK BAP Habitat Gains (ha)

Consolidated UK BAP Habitat Gains (ha)

2009-102008-92007-8 2010-11

assumes 2007-2011 cumula ive distribu ion by habitat holds for 2020

% assumed increase in UK BAP Habitat Gains between 2010-11 and 2019-20 120% According to the EA, could at least double, or achieve 2,000ha with right funding

intertidal BAP habitat to be delivered by March 2015 (ha) 400

% intertidal habitat delivered each year 25%

minimum habitat creation/year of freshwater wetland habitat )ha) 200

check 0

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Comments

intertidal mudflats 100 100 100 100 114 124 135 146 156 0% Limited vegetation, and certainly no seed used

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 518 607 695 784 862 942 1,022 1,103 1,183 10% assumed to include species poor grassland

Reedbed 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 100%

Lowland meadow 58 68 78 88 97 106 115 124 133 100%

Wet woodland 28 33 38 43 47 51 56 60 64 100%

lowland fen 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 100%

Saline lagoon 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 100%

Blanket bog 13 15 17 20 22 24 26 28 30 100%

coastal saltmarsh 41 48 55 62 68 74 80 87 93 100%

ponds 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 20%

chalk rivers 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 15%

rivers 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 15%

total 962 1,075 1,188 1,301 1,414 1,527 1,640 1,753 1,866

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

River leng h enhanced (km) 268 299 331 362 394 425 457 488 520 15% Most of river length won't make use of seed for habitat creation

% of tree and shrub planting not covered under FC stats 0% all tree/shrub planting assumed to be woodland creation

Relevant habitat creation by habitat type

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

species rich grassland 103 110 129 148 167 183 200 218 235 252

trees and shrubs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



heathland 11 13 15 17 20 22 24 26 28 30


cornfield annuals

total 337 270 299 327 356 381 407 432 458 484

River leng h enhanced (km) 35 40 45 50 54 59 64 68 73 78

Relevant habitat creation not delivered through agri environment schemes

% of habitat creation through agri-environment schemes 90%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20


trees and shrubs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



heathland 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3

Future UK BAP habitat gains (ha)

% area

relevant to

UK na ive

seed hub

Relevant habitat creation by habitat type (ha)

Relevant habitat creation not delivered through agri environment schemes (ha)


cornfield annuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

total 34 27 30 33 36 38 41 43 46 48

check 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

River leng h enhanced (km) 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8

Habitat Creation Associated with Road Schemes


ENGLAND

source: HA

New road development

New HA trunk road development (ha) 3,100

period of time over which road developed (years) 10

trunk road development as % of all road development 60% remainder incl local authority roads

total area of new road development (ha) 5,167

rounded annual average (ha) 517

trunk road development soft estate (ha) 1,600

period of time over which soft estate developed (years) 10

soft estate as % of trunk road development 52%

rounded annual total soft estate development (ha) 267

future annual trunk road soft estate development (ha) 75

future total annual soft estate develompent (ha) 125

Area (ha) Breakdown

Total soft estate for trunk road estate (as at 2009/10) 33,000

species rich grassland 400 1%

amenity grassland 16,000 49%

trees and shrubs 15,500 48%

wetlands 600 2%

check 100%

% of tree and shrub planting not covered under FC stats 15% tree and shrub planting that isn't woodland creation; based on CBA experience

Breakdown of new soft estate for all new road developmet

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

amenity grassland 49% 48% 48% 47% 46% 45% 44% 43% 43% 42% 41%

species rich grassland 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% assumes greater emphasis on species rich grassland, in response to biodiversity and maintenance concerns

trees and shrubs 48% 48% 48% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47%


total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Overall habitat creation

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

total soft estate created 267 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125


trees and shrubs 19 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

coastal habitats


heathland


cornfield annuals

total 30 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24

WALES

source: Welsh Government

NB increasing focus on natural regeneration and maintenance over soft estate

1 m2 = 0.0001 ha

current area of existing soft estate (ha) 4,000

Info on 2 schemes near to completion this year

A487 Porthmadog

A40 Penblewin

A40 Penblewin soft estate creation

Breakdown of new soft estate for all new road developmet

Overall habitat creation (ha)

m2 ha

% area

relevant to

UK native

seed hub

amenity grass areas 31,238 3.1 0%

bulb planting 483 0.0 0%

species rich grassland (for conservation) 42,408 4.2 100%

species rich grassland for reinforced soil areas 510 0.1 100%

open grassland 22,703 2.3 50% unclear what this is

woodland 10,715 1.1 100% woodland creation associated with road schemes tends to focus on native species

linear belts of trees and shrubs 13,519 1.4 100%

shrubs with intermitten trees 6,920 0.7 100%

shrub planting 3,936 0.4 100%

scrub planting 3,422 0.3 100%

aquatic marginal species 148 0.0 100%

reedbed species 58 0.0 100%

marshy/wet grassland 10,429 1.0 100%

total soft estate 146,488 14.6

check 0

% of tree and shrub planting not covered under FC stats 72% assumes that only woodland creation is covered

Relevant habitat creation by habitat type - 2010/11

A40 A486 Total

species rich grassland 6.5 6.5 13 assume A486 same scale and profile as A40

trees and shrubs 2.8 2.8 6

coastal habitats 0.0 0

woodland field layer 0.0 0

heathland 0.0 0

wetland vegetation 0.0 0.0 0

cornfield annuals 0.0 0

total 9 9 19

Overall soft estate breakdown

m2 ha

% area

relevant to

UK native

seed hub

amenity grasslands 5,175,624 518 0%

grasslands with bulbs 35,449 4 0%

species rich grasslands 262,530 26 100%

rock and scree 577,202 58 50% Reflects potential of part of this habitat type pre-existing any soft estate works

heath and moorland 432,671 43 50% Reflects potential of part of this habitat type pre-existing any soft estate works

open grassland 5,696,044 570 50% unclear what exactly this is

grass reinforced walls 318 0 0%

woodland 6,125,934 613 100%

woodland edge 712,487 71 100%

high forest 73,111 7 90% in line with FC findings on native vs non native new planting

linear belts of trees and shrubs 5,452,134 545 100%

shrubs with intermittent trees 919,929 92 100%

shrubs 623,781 62 100%

scattered trees 692,531 69 90% Small amount of trees likely to be non native species

scrub 2,371,813 237 100%

amenity tree and shrub planting 117 0 50% Likely to be ornamental in nature, and therefore potentially not native species

ornamental shrubs 12,949 1 0% Unlikely to be native species

groundcover 1,518 0 0% Unlikely to be native species

climbers and trailers 144 0 0% Unlikely to be native species

ornamental species hedge (lin m) 285 0% Unlikely to be native species

native species hedges (lin m) 14,797 100%

trees 3 0 0%

water bodies and plants 93,493 9 20% Only edges of water bodies likely to be relevant

banks and ditches 47,481 5 80% Takes into account that some of the banks and ditches will contain water

reed beds 5,441 1 100%

total 29,327,786 2,931

% of tree and shrub planting not covered under FC stats 52% assumes shrubs, linear belts of trees and scattered trees aren't covered

Breakdown of relevant existing soft estate by habitat type

Breakdown of relevant existing soft estate by habitat type (ha)

Relevant habitat creation (ha)

Overall soft estate

existing soft

estate (ha)

distribution

of existing

soft estate

anticipated

future

distribution

of soft estate

(2019-20) Comments

species rich grassland 311 25% 27% Reflects fact that most of increase in annual relevant soft estate creation relates to species rich grassland

trees and shrubs 886 72% 71%

coastal habitats 0%

woodland field layer 0%

heathland 22 2% 2%

wetland vegetation 6 0.5% 0.5%

cornfield annuals 0.0%

total 1,225 100% 100%

Anticipated growth in annual relevant soft estate creation by 2019-2020 5% reflects Welsh Government's view that no future growth in annual soft estate, and CBA view that relative importance of amenity grassland will fall and species rich grassland will increase, given biodiversity and maintenance considerations

Overall habitat creation

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020

species rich grassland 12.9 12.1 11.2 10.4 9.5 8.6 7.8 6.9 6.1 5.2

trees and shrubs 5.6 6.5 7.4 8.3 9.2 10.2 11.1 12.0 12.9 13.8

coastal habitats 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

woodland field layer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

heathland 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3

wetland vegetation 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

cornfield annuals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

total 18.5 18.6 18.7 18.8 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SCOTLAND

Source: Transport Scotland

Habitat creation by scheme

Scheme A75

Hardgrove to

Kinmount

A9

Crubenmo

re Dual

Carriagew

ay

Extension

A9 Kincraig -

Dalraddy

Carriageway

Widening

Proposed

A75

Dunragit

Bypass

A77

Bogend to

Symington

A77 Park

End to

Bennane

Improveme

nt

M74

completion

Total total (ha)

% area

relevant to

UK native

seed hub

constructiontbc

2010/11 -

2011-12

tbc not

started

tbc not

started not started

2010/11 -

2011-12

2008/9 -

2010/11

length (km) 3.7 3.2 3.4 5.3 5.0 3.0 24

Shrubs (m2) 28,193 15,684 43,877 4 100%

Trees (no) 65 6 178 249 80% Remaining trees assumed to be non native species

marginal and Aquatic planting (no) 200 3,600 3,800 100%

grass seeding (m2) 25,586 22,088 200,118 36,352 5,860 290,004 29 0% Assumed to be amenity grassland

species rich dry acid grassland seeding (m2) 7,430 47,294 54,724 5 100%

dry acid heathland (m2) 22,507 22,507 2 100%

non competitive species rich seed mix to encourage natural

regeneration (m2) 10,741 10,741 1 100%

native woodland (m2) 6,079 5,592 6,858 18,529 2 100%

heather planting 7,094 7,094 100%

rapid response woodland (no) 25,279 25,279 100% Figures assumed to relate to number of plants

dense screening planting (no) 6,611 6,611 100% Figures assumed to relate to number of plants

pond woodland planting (no) 5,600 5,600 100% Figures assumed to relate to number of plants

wildflower seeding (m2) 8,967 26,710 35,677 4 100%

hedge row trees (no) 364 364 100%

marginal planting (m2) 194 194 0 100%

woodland planting (m2) 18,405 18,405 2 100%

daffodil bulbs (no) 2,000 2,000 0%

cordalyne australis trees (no) 13 13 0% Non native species

total 545,692 49

1 m2 = 0.0001 ha

marginal and aquatic planting no/ha 40,000

rapid response woodland (no)/ha 1500

dense screening planting (no)/ha 1500

pond woodland planting (no)/ha 1500

heather planting no/ha 40,000

Habitat creation by scheme

Overall habitat creation (ha)

% of tree and shrub planting not covered under FC data 1% scattered tree and shrub planting assumed to be excluded from FC woodland creation data

Relevant habitat creation by habitat type

total

2010/11 -

2011/12

Subseque

nt years Total Overall split

species rich grassland 10 6 4.0 10 78%

trees and shrubs 0 0 0.3 0 2%

coastal habitats 0 0%

woodland field layer 0 0%

heathland 2 2 0.2 2 19%

wetland vegetation 0 0 0.1 0 1%

cornfield annuals 0 0%

total 13 8 4.6 13 100%

2010/11 - 2011/12 schemes

% of habitat creation in each of those years 50%

remaining 2 schemes as % of existing schemes 100%

2012/13 - 2017/18

total number of schemes 6

remaining 2 schemes as % of existing schemes 50%

average duration of habitat creation for each scheme (years) 2

number of schemes that start each year from 2012-13 2

2018/19 - 2019/20

assume same yearly figures as previous years

Relevant habitat creation by habitat type/year

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

species rich grassland 6 6 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01

trees and shrubs 0 0 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06

coastal habitats 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

woodland field layer 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

heathland 2 2 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

wetland vegetation 0 0 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

cornfield annuals 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

total 8 8 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

0

Relevant habitat creation by habitat type (ha)

Relevant habitat creation by habitat type/year (ha)

Habitat Creation Associated with Olympic Park (as example of major project)

source: sheffield university (Professor James Hitchmough)


size of seeded area (m2) 85,000

1 m2 = 0.0001 ha

size of seeded area (ha) 8.5

type of habitat meadows

woodland understorey

swales

sowing rates (g/m2) 2.5 average between 1 and 4 g/m2

weight of seed (kg) 212.5

Habitat creation by habitat type

Habitat creation by habitat type (ha)

Split Actuals

species rich grassland 88% 7.5 assumptions based on type of habitat described above

trees and shrubs

coastal habitats

woodland field layer 12% 1.0 assumptions based on type of habitat described above

heathland

wetland vegetation

cornfield annuals

total 100% 8.5

check 0

number of years seeding takes place 1

Annual habitat creation by habitat type

Annual habitat creation by habitat type (ha)

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

species rich grassland 7.5

trees and shrubs

coastal habitats

woodland field layer 1.0

heathland

wetland vegetation

cornfield annuals

total 0 8.5 0

check 0

Seed Sales Associated with Retail Seed Packet Market

[WITHHELD, EXEMPT UNDER S41 OF THE FOIA]

Future Habitat Creation Growth


ENGLAND

UK BAP 2020 targets for England

restoration expansion Commentsnative woodland (ha) 80,000 new planting on agricu tural land and restocking

native woodland (ha) 14 000 coniferous or mixed PAWS are actively conserved

native woodland (ha) 53 000 coniferous or mixed PAWS are actively conserved; involve felling or restocking as well as thinning

lowland wood pasture and parkland (ha) 7,200 in most cases w ll be extension of existing sites and linked to restoration; target of 240 sites identified; few sites l kely to be less than 10ha in size, so average of 30ha/site assumed

lowland wood pasture and parkland (ha) 24,000 target of 800 sites identified; few sites less than 10ha in size, so average of 30ha/site assumed

reedbeds (ha) 2400

mesotrophic lakes (ha) 30 target of 10 lakes identified; assumed average of 3ha/lake

lowland raised bog (ha) 1 500

fens (ha) 2250

eutrophic standing waters (ha) 18 target of 3 standing waters; assumed average of 6ha/standing water

coastal and floodplain grazing marsh (ha) 2,500 generally agricultural land

coastal and floodplain grazing marsh (ha) 15,000

saline lagoons (ha) 100 2015 target; through managed realignment and changes to management

mudflats (ha) 3,240 2015 target;

Maritime cliff and slope (ha) 200 2015 target; on arable land or semi improved grassland

Maritime cliff and slope (ha) 275 2015 target;

coastal vegetated shingle (sites) 2 2015 target;

coastal sand dunes (ha) 210 2010 target

coastal saltmarsh (ha) 3,240 2015 target;

Upland hay meadows (ha) 72 2015 target; from arable or improved grassland

Upland hay meadows (ha) 71

Purple moor-grass and rush pastures (ha) 304

Purple moor-grass and rush pastures (ha) 342

Lowland meadows (ha) 309

Lowland meadows (ha) 722

Lowland heathland (ha) 9,150

Lowland dry acid grassland (ha) 329

Lowland dry acid grassland (ha) 427

Lowland calcareous grassland (ha) 8,479

Lowland calcareous grassland (ha) 1,088

limestone pavement (ha) 80 2015 target of 4 sites; assumed average of 20ha/site; in scotland, 250ha covered 5 sites

Cereal field margins (ha) 25,178 2015 target

Cereal field margins (ha) 13 200 2015 target

Cereal field margins (ha) 20 000 2015 target

Cereal field margins (ha) 11,000 2015 target

2015 target; at least 1 native species

TOTAL 113,015 186,901

Distr bution of target 200,000 increase in extent of prior ty hab tats in line with UK BAP 2020 targets for England

NEWP target minimum increase in overa l extent of priority habitats by 2020 (ha) 200,000

% of NEWP target achieved by 2020 75%

assumed % of 200,000 ha from restoration 67% source Natural England

assumed % of 200,000 ha from EXPANSION 33% source Natural England

potential breakdown of parts of the 200,000ha

source Natural England

ha % involving hab tat creation

arable field margins 65 000 100%

new woodland 45,000 reflects existing po icy

new forest/year (ha) 10,000

% native species 50%

period of time 9

heathland 15,000 poss bly through restoration

lowland wetland hab tat 10,000 15,000ha would be good, but probably won't be achieved

TOTAL

taking into account both above targets and also UK BAP targets…

restoration expansion restoration expansion

% land

relevant to UK

native seed

hub initiative

% land relevant to

UK native seed hub

initiative - grassland

component

native woodland (ha) 0% 43% 33,750 100%

native woodland (ha) 12% 0% 4,080 0

native woodland (ha) 47% 0% 15,446 0

lowland wood pasture and parkland (ha) 0% 4% 0 4,124 1% 10% Assumes both trees and grassland would be planted; for trees, assumes much lower tree planting dens ties than average for woodland creation (ie c.15 trees/hectare instead of 1,500); for grassland, reflects high percentage of species poor grassland

lowland wood pasture and parkland (ha) 21% 0% 6,995 0

reedbeds (ha) 0% 1% 0 1,375 100%

mesotrophic lakes (ha) 0% 0% 9 0

lowland raised bog (ha) 1% 0% 7,500 0

fens (ha) 2% 0% 656 0

eutrophic standing waters (ha) 0% 0% 5 0

coastal and floodplain grazing marsh (ha) 0% 1% 0 1,432 10% reflects high percentage of species poor grassland

coastal and floodplain grazing marsh (ha) 13% 0% 4,372 0

saline lagoons (ha) 0% 0% 0 57 100%

mudflats (ha) 0% 2% 0 1,856 0% Limited, if any, use of seeds

ha

overall spl t Allocating the 200k ha

Maritime cliff and slope (ha) 0% 0% 0 115 0% Limited, if any, use of seeds

Maritime cliff and slope (ha) 0% 0% 80 0

coastal vegetated shingle (sites) 0% 0% 1 0

coastal sand dunes (ha) 0% 0% 61 0

coastal saltmarsh (ha) 0% 2% 0 1,856 100%

Upland hay meadows (ha) 0% 0% 0 41 100%

Upland hay meadows (ha) 0% 0% 21 0

Purple moor-grass and rush pastures (ha) 0% 0% 0 174 100%

Purple moor-grass and rush pastures (ha) 0% 0% 100 0

Lowland meadows (ha) 0% 0% 0 177 100%

Lowland meadows (ha) 1% 0% 210 0

Lowland heathland (ha) 0% 5% 0 11,250 100%

Lowland dry acid grassland (ha) 0% 0% 0 188 100%

Lowland dry acid grassland (ha) 0% 0% 124 0

Lowland calcareous grassland (ha) 0% 5% 0 4,856 100%

Lowland calcareous grassland (ha) 1% 0% 317 0

limestone pavement (ha) 0% 0% 23 0

Cereal field margins (ha) - arable field margins 0% 13% 0 17,692 100%

Cereal field margins (ha) 0% 7% 0 9,275 100%

Cereal field margins (ha) 0% 11% 0 14,053 0% L kely to be cultivated rather than sown, and/or to comprise species poor grassland

Cereal field margins (ha) 0% 6% 0 7,729 0% L kely to be cultivated rather than sown, and/or to comprise species poor grassland

TOTAL 100% 100% 40,000 110,000

check 150 000

20% 55%

2011/2 - 2019/20 habitat creation by hab tat type (ha)

period of years 9

assumed % of habitat creation/year 11% equal distribution over the 9 year period

habitat creation by habitat type

habitat creation by habitat type (ha)

Total Annual

species rich grassland 32,961 3,662

trees and shrubs 33,791 3,755

coastal habitats 1,913 213

woodland field layer 0

heathland 11,250 1,250

wetland vegetation 1,375 153

cornfield annuals 0

Total 81,289 9,032

UK Native Seed Hub

Key Players Paper

Appendix B Final_Key_Players_Paper_FOI Request

redactions justified under FOIA Chris Blandford Associates

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 MARKET STRUCTURE AND SEED PRODUCTION CHAIN 2

2.1 Overview 2

2.2 Market Structure 2

2.3 Seed Production and Distribution Chain 7

3.0 PROFILE OF KEY PLAYERS 12

3.1 Overview 12

3.2 Primary Producers 12

3.3 Tree and Shrub Seed Suppliers 21

3.4 Summary Tables 23

3.5 Other Key Organisations 27

4.0 EMERGING IMPLICATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 32

FIGURES

1 UK Native Wildflower Seed Market – Who is Selling to Who?

2 UK Native Tree and Shrub Seed Market – Who is Selling to Who?

3 Seed Production and Distribution Chain

APPENDICES

Appendix A Flora Locale 2011 Training Programme

Appendix B Flora Locale Voluntary Code of Conduct

1 UK Native Seed Hub

Key Players Paper



1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 Chris Blandford Associates were commissioned by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew to develop a 10

Year Business Plan for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative, as part of the Millennium Seed Bank at

Wakehurst Place. Based on discussions at the project inception meeting, our understanding is that

the initiative would seek to support aspirations around coherent, resilient ecological networks and

enhanced biodiversity, and would operate on a not for profit, cost recovery basis, rather than for

maximum commercial gain.


Task 1: Assessment of UK native seed market;

Task 2: Review of existing key players;

Task 3: Understanding RBG Kew’s potential sources of advantage;

Task 4: Defining the business model;

Task 5: Developing the business plan; and

Task 6: Consolidation into 10 year business plan.

1.1.3 This document is the final Key Players Paper associated with Task 2 (review of existing key

players). It seeks to provide an overview of the structure and production chain for the UK native

seed market, and to profile the key players/market leaders among the primary producers. This

informs the understanding of where the key market opportunities are, what the potential role for

RBG Kew could be in the market, and what the associated business model might be.

1.1.4 A draft of the document was issued to the Steering Team on 30 th August 2011, and discussed at a

Steering Team meeting on 8th September 2011. This final document reflects comments made by the


information.


Key Players Paper



2.0 MARKET STRUCTURE AND SEED PRODUCTION CHAIN

2.1 Overview

2.1.1 This section provides an overview of the structure of the UK native seed market, and identifies the

main companies and organisations that operate there. It also maps out the key elements of the seed

production and distribution chain, and describes how participation of the chain varies among the

broad types of player operating in the market.

2.2 Market Structure

UK Native Wildflower Seed Market

2.2.1 The UK native wildflower seed market comprises 7 broad types of players:

Seed collectors/providers;

Primary producers;

Seed merchants;

Retail market outlets;

End customers;

Specifiers; and

Conservation/restoration organisations.

2.2.2 Seed collectors/providers harvest seed from semi-natural populations, and sell it on to primary

producers or end customers without any bulking up or multiplication. There appear to be relatively

small numbers of players focusing exclusively on this activity – typically, the primary producers

undertake their harvesting themselves.

2.2.3 Primary producers harvest seed from semi-natural populations and then bulk up this founder

collection on their site. Often they will then harvest the majority of their seed from this farmed crop

on their site, going back into the wild to restock after a period of years. They will also harvest seed

directly from semi-natural populations and then sell it on without bulking it up. Primary producers

sell to seed merchants and end customers, and occasionally to each other to meet specific requests or

address specific shortages/crop failures. Some primary producers focus predominantly on the

wholesale market, others focus primarily on the end user market, and others have a more even

balance between the different markets. Primary producers are dominated by a relatively small

number of large scale key players, and there are also a number of small scale players operating in

the market.


Key Players Paper



2.2.4 Seed merchants purchase seed from primary producers and from other seed merchants, and sell it

to retail market outlets and end customers. They do not grow seed themselves, although some may

supplement the seed they purchase with seed they harvest from semi-natural populations. There is a

core group of 2-3 seed merchants that focus primarily on the retail market and have c. 80% market

share, while others have more limited contact in this area.

2.2.5 Retail market outlets sell seeds to the retail market subset of end customers. Retail market outlets

include garden centres, hardware stores, DIY stores, supermarkets and visitor attraction shops. The

retail market is highly fragmented in terms of its sales channels – there are for example 1,200

garden centre businesses operating through 2,500 outlets, with the largest chain of garden centres

(The Garden Centre Group) having only 120 outlets. Retail market outlets buy their seed from a

core group of 2-3 seed merchants, and sell them in packets.

2.2.6 End customers are the ultimate purchasers of the seed, whether through retail outlets (such as the

Garden Centre Group), seed merchants, primary producers or seed collectors/providers. There are

a wide variety of end customers, including:

Farmers, who plant UK native wildflower species through environmental stewardship schemes;

Contractors associated with new development schemes (residential, commercial or industrial) or

with new infrastructure schemes (eg road, rail or water). Typically contracts are let to

engineering companies who provide a one stop shop service and procure all necessary

subcontracts, including seeding. Some landowners, such as the Welsh Government, ask for

contractors and managing agents that have environmental coordinators;

Local authorities;

Mineral extraction companies;

Conservation/restoration organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,

the Wildlife Trust, the Woodland Trust, wildlife site management boards;

Smaller scale private landowners (both private individuals and community organisations);

Gardeners; and

Plant nurseries, who grow seeds into plug plants or plants before selling them on – although

plant nurseries typically harvest their seed from their own plants.

2.2.7 Specifiers develop the specification for the seed that the end user is required to purchase, but they

are not always the end user purchaser themselves, and they often do not monitor the purchase or

use of the seed. Specification often includes requirements around native origin, recommended type

of seed mix, and soil treatment. Key specifiers include:

Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage, Countryside Council for Wales, Northern Ireland

Environment Agency – in giving guidance for environmental stewardship schemes;


Key Players Paper



Landowners who appoint contracters for large scale schemes – such as the Highways Agency,

Local Authorities, water companies, and the Environment Agency. Often specifiers within these

organisations are ecologists or soft estate managers; and

Landscape architects/ecologists.

2.2.8 Conservation/restoration organisations (or organisations that have a conservation/restoration

role to play) exert influence on different parts of the market depending on their area of expertise and

network, including through legislation, publication of guidance, and grant schemes. Key

organisations include:

British Ecological Society;

Buglife;

Bumblee Conservation Trust;

Butterfly Conservation;

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology;

Countryside Council for Wales;

Defra;

Environment Agency;

Flora Locale;

Grasslands Trust;

Heritage Lottery Fund;

IEEM;

Landlife;

National Trust;

Natural England;

Nature after Minerals;

Northern Ireland Environment Agency;


Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds;

Scottish Natural Heritage;

Wildlife Trust; and

Woodland Trust.

2.2.9 Based on our current understanding, the table below provides examples of seed

collectors/producers, primary producers and seed merchants.

Seed collector/ provider Primary producer Seed merchant

Devon Wildflower Seeds Key primary producers Bill White Nurseries


Key Players Paper



Seed collector/ provider Primary producer Seed merchant

Plant Wild

VarScotica

Weald Meadows Initiative

Growing Wild

Naturescape

Emorsgate

Scotia Seeds

Charles Flower Wildflowers

Boston Seeds

British Flora

Herbiseed Goring Gap

Wildflowers

Landlife Wildflowers

Other primary producers

Agrifactors

Bright Seeds (tbc)

Design by Nature

DLF Trifolium

Ecoseeds

Forestart

Goren Farm

H Edmunds

Heritage Seeds

SaithFfynnon Plants

Wild Flower Shop

British Seed Houses

Chiltern Seeds

Cotswold Grass Seeds Direct

Craigmarloch Nurseries

Cumbria Wildflowers/ OpenSpace

Cumbria Ltd

English Cottage Garden Nursery

Kings Seeds

Habitat Aid

John Chambers Wildflower Seeds

Jubilee Seeds and Turf

Kingsdown Nurseries

MAS Seeds

Really Wild Flowers

Scott’s Wildflowers

Seed Logistics

Sue Everett

Wildlife and Countryside Services

Yellow Flag Wildflowers

Key retail seed merchants

Mr Fothergill’s Seeds

Sutton Seeds

Thompson and Morgan

2.2.10 Other players potentially also include the following, but no information was available to determine

their position in the market:

B&K Wharf Farming;

English Wildflower Company;

Fold Garden;

Mike Handyside Wildflowers;


Key Players Paper



Mike Mullis Wildflower Plants;

Nicky’s Nursery;

the Wild Flower Company; and

the Wildlife Garden Company.

2.2.11 Figure 1 maps out the key sales and influence links between the 7 broad types of player in the

market.

UK Native Tree and Shrub Seed Market

2.2.12 The UK native tree and shrub seed market has many similarities with the UK native wildflower

seed market, but is slightly less complex. It comprises 5 broad types of players:

Seed collectors/providers;

Seed merchants;

End customers;

Specifiers; and

Conservation/restoration organisations.

2.2.13 Seed collectors/providers harvest seed from semi-natural populations, and also from their own

tree stocks, and sell them on to seed merchants and end customers. Occasionally, seed

collectors/providers will also sell to other seed collectors/providers. Relatively speaking, there

appear to be a number of players who operate as seed collectors/providers.

2.2.14 Seed merchants purchase seed from seed collectors/providers and sell it to end customers. There

do not appear to be many players in this part of the market.

2.2.15 End customers are the ultimate purchasers of the seed, whether through seed merchants, or seed

collectors/providers. There are a wide variety of end customers, and these broadly include the same

list identified for the UK native wildflower seed market. In addition, end customers also include tree

nurseries, who buy in seed to grow into seedlings, saplings or trees that they sell – although tree

nurseries typically harvest seed from their own trees.

2.2.16 Specifiers develop the specification for the seed that the end user is required to purchase, but they

are not always the end user purchaser themselves, and they often do not monitor the purchase or

use of the seed. Key specifiers broadly include the same set as for the UK native wildflower seed

market, and in addition also include the Forestry Commission and Woodland Trust.

2.2.17 Conservation/restoration organisations (or organisations that have a conservation/restoration

role to play) exert influence on different parts of the market depending on their area of expertise and


Key Players Paper



network, including through legislation, publication of guidance, and grant schemes. Key

organisations broadly include the same list as for the UK native wildflower seed market, and in

addition also include the Forestry Commission.

2.2.18 Based on our current understanding, the key players in the UK native tree and shrub market

include:

Forestart – as seed collector/provider;

Maelor Forest Nurseries – as seed merchant; and

Potentially also the Forestry Commission as seed collector/provider.

2.2.19 Other players include:

Aveland Trees - seed collector/provider (tbc);

Bryngwyn Estates - seed collector/provider;

David Bendon - seed collector/provider;

Growing Heart Workers Co-op - seed collector/provider; and

Chiltern Seeds – seed merchant.

2.2.20 Other players potentially also include the following, but no information was available to determine

their position in the market:

Greenhills Nursery;

Greenwood Trees;

Island Provenance;

Mark Vigrass;

Mill House Nurseries;

Steps Farm; and

Trees to Grow.

2.2.21 Figure 2 maps out the key sales and influence links between the 5 broad types of player in the UK

native tree and shrub market.

2.3 Seed Production and Distribution Chain

2.3.1 Overall, there are broadly 11 elements in the production and distribution chain for UK native seeds

(see Figure 3). The different players in the market engage in different elements of the production

and distribution chain, depending in part on whether they are seed collectors/providers, primary

producers or seed merchants. Primary producers operate across the production and distribution


Key Players Paper



chain, as do a number of seed collectors/providers - although the latter do not bulk up seeds. Some

seed collectors/providers engage in creating mixes. In addition, within seed collectors/providers,

primary producers and seed merchants, the number of elements in the production and distribution

chain that players choose to engage in will also vary, as will the time and resources they choose to

invest. Seed merchants have a very varied model, where some engage at the beginning of the chain

in harvesting, others at the end of the chain in testing, bagging and distribution, and some do not

engage in the chain at all (with bagging and distribution carried out by the primary producers).

Figure 3 represents, at a high level, the full breadth of elements of a best practice seed production

and distribution chain.

2.3.2 Broadly, the process begins with identification of seed sources, and negotiation and agreement

with landowners. In some cases, the seed source is the primary producer’s own stock and they are

the landowner. In other cases, the seed is sourced from semi-natural populations. According to the

responses to the CBA questionnaire distributed to seed suppliers, landowner consent is sought in

the vast majority of cases before seed is harvested. Payment to landowners for their seed appears to

vary. There does not appear to be an industry standard approach to this – instead, agreements

appear to be reached on a relationship by relationship or case by case basis. Some landowners are

happy to allow seed collectors/providers and primary producers to take seed at no cost, on the

grounds that they are happy to support enhancement of the natural environment. Others look for in

kind contribution – such as provision of seeds of different species. Some landowners seek payment

for their seeds – in some cases this is calculated on a per acre/hectare of land basis, in others on a

per kg of seed basis, and in others (particularly in the tree and shrub seed market) a 10% royalty fee

off the commercial value of the seed appears to be common.

2.3.3 The next element in the production and distribution chain involves seed harvesting – whether of

semi-natural populations or founder stocks. Harvesting is undertaken by both seed

collectors/providers and primary producers. The results of the survey undertaken by Rupert Cunro

into the common methods of seed sourcing, processing, storage and distribution has indicated that,

among the sample of small and large scale players in the UK native seed market who returned the

survey (comprising primarily primary producers but also including seed collectors/providers and

seed merchants), once the seed merchants were stripped out, c. 90% of respondents undertook hand

harvesting, c.65% brush harvesting, c.65% combine harvesting, c. 40% vacuum suction and 25%

other methods of harvesting. All respondents harvested and processed the seed they produced, and

one player offered this as a service to other companies.

2.3.4 Most respondents to CBA’s questionnaire harvested from 2-20 semi-natural populations, and a

smaller number (typically tree and shrub seed players) from 50+ sites. Most respondents returned

every 1-5 years to donor sites to restock seed samples, while a smaller number returned

approximately every 10 years – they produce 2nd and 3rd generation seeds from their original

founder stock which they keep in cold storage. Most ensured that seeds collected were UK native


Key Players Paper



origin by focusing on sites that are typical of or have a well documented history of species and

habitats (such as high quality meadows or SSSIs where possible), sites that have least chance of

contamination (eg which have not been used for other purposes for several decades, have not been

improved by seeding, or are remote), or sites that they have planted themselves. In terms of the

approach to harvesting seeds, a more mixed approach is used: some harvest from all or as much of

the site as practically possible; others harvest from only 20-30% of the site (partly in response to

Natural England stipulations for SSSIs); and others harvest from only a small share of the site if

they want only a small amount of seed.

2.3.5 Following harvesting the seed is dried. Overall, c. 90% of respondents to Cunro’s survey undertook

seed drying when the seed merchants were excluded from the results, and all of these dried seeds

before cleaning and extraction. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that not all players undertake

this step for all their seeds - the type of species, weather conditions, and the sales turnover rate can

all play a key role in whether seeds are dried. A mixture of drying methods are used. The significant

majority of survey respondents (c. 90%) dry seeds inside (eg in a polytunnel or in draughty old

cattle sheds). A much smaller share (c. 25%) use a controlled environment (such as a dry room), c.

15% use ambient conditions outside (eg on nylon meshed trays), and c. 15% use warm air drying as

for crop seed. Some also use forced air drying.

2.3.6 The next element involves extraction and cleaning. Extraction normally takes place in a shed.

Excluding the seed merchants, c. 90% of respondents to Cunro’s survey indicated that they cleaned

their seeds. Equipment used varies, depending in part on the scale of the player. c. 30% of

respondents use sieves, and c. 30% use automated seed and grain cleaners that clean, separate and

sort the various species. c. 15% have air-screen cleaners, indent cylinders, spirals, and various

dehullers and deawners, and c. 15% have a relatively comprehensive range of commercial and

laboratory scale cleaning equipment, including air screen cleaners of various sizes, indented

cylinders, brushers, gravity separators, velvet rollers, winnowers, and threshers.

2.3.7 Fuller drying then takes place again after extraction and cleaning, although only c. 15% of the

respondents to Cunro’s survey undertook this step.

2.3.8 The seed is then stored, and all respondents to Cunro’s survey (excluding seed merchants)

indicated that they undertook this step. A mixture of storage methods are used by c. 65% of

respondents. More than half of respondents (c. 65%) store seeds at ambient conditions (e.g. in a shed

or warehouse), and similar numbers (c. 65%) store seeds in a controlled environment (such as a cold

room). c. 40% store seeds in plastic/polyproylene sacks, and c. 25% store seeds in air tight

containers. Of those that store seeds in a controlled environment, c. 60% store seeds at 3-5 degrees

Celsius, and 20% store seeds at 11 degrees Celsius. Anecdotal evidence suggests that awareness of

storage requirements, and impact on viability of seeds, is variable among players in the market.


Key Players Paper



2.3.9 The next step involves testing the seed for purity and germination/viability. This is a relatively

expensive process that requires costly lab facilities and the right skills. 30% of respondents to

Cunro’s survey had no quality control procedures in place, 20% undertook occasional/very

occasional quality testing, and 50% undertook regular standardised quality testing (although most

of these test the seed through the process of growing it into plants and plug plants) . Reasons for not

undertaking regular testing include: there being no regulatory requirement for it; no or limited end

customer demand; high cost implications of establishing testing facilities or running tests (although

those players that do have the facilities have offered them for use and not had their offer taken up) ; a

view by some primary producers that the process of harvesting seeds from their own founder stocks

acts as a quality control mechanism; and a view by some primary producers that there is limited

practical use for testing since seed lots would perform the same whether tested or not. Where

testing does occur, some players germinate test samples of seeds, chosen based on new suppliers or

past germination problems, others sow seed at different times of year to check germination, and a

small minority have their own laboratory and staff where they have a regular testing and retesting

system in place.

2.3.10 Among those seed merchants that dominate in the retail market, quality control is given greater

emphasis – mainly because those merchants also sell vegetable seeds, and there are EU standards

for vegetable seed germination (65-70%). Some retail seed merchants undertake rigorous trials in

laboratories and tests at trial grounds before products are approved for the market (although it is

unclear whether this applies to UK native wildflower seeds as well as to vegetable seeds). Similarly,

seeds from tree and shrub species that are regulated by the Forest Reproductive Material (Great

Britain) Regulations 2002 are required to adhere to identification and quality control standards, and

some of those tree and shrub seed players that have now entered the UK native wildflower seed

market have applied a similar quality control process to wildflower seeds.

2.3.11 Founder stocks are bulked up by primary producers as required, to provide sufficient quantities to

meet the needs of seed merchants and end customers. Seeds are then combined to form relevant

mixtures, and then bagged and distributed. In some cases, although the seed is sold to the end

customer or retail market by a seed merchant, it is bagged and distributed directly by the primary

producer – although using the seed merchant’s branding and packaging. Some suppliers provide

written confirmation/certification of UK native origin and (where relevant) wild harvesting when

distributing their seed. Others tell customers that the seeds are native to the UK, but do not provide

formal confirmation of origin. Labels appear to be used by some primary producers more for grass

seed and mixtures involving grass seed than for pure wildflower seeds.

2.3.12 Numerous players provide advice to their customers on seed selection, germination, and

management and maintenance. This is often provided free of charge, and is viewed as part of the

marketing and after sales support processes.


Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper



3.0 PROFILE OF KEY PLAYERS

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 This section provides a profile of the key players/market leaders in the UK native seed market. It

focuses in particular on the primary producers of the wildflower segment of the market, given RBG

Kew’s stated aim to work with primary producers in the market and to not act as seed merchants. It

also profiles the key players in the tree and shrub segment of the market, and also other

organisations that may potentially play a similar role in the market.

3.2 Primary Producers

Comment [MKF1]: This section is redacted. Exempt under s41 FOIA


Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper



3.3 Tree and Shrub Seed Suppliers



Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper



3.4 Summary Tables

3.4.1 The tables below summarise the types of seed that the key players, and who they buy from/sell it to.


Key Players Paper

Appendix B Final_Key_Players_Paper_FOI Request redactions justified under FOIA Chris Blandford Associates

Type of Seed Sold by Habitat Type

3.4.2 All key primary producers of UK native wildflower seeds sell seeds associated with species rich grassland, and almost all also sell cornfield annuals. Participation

among the remaining habitat types is more mixed, with woodland field layer and wetland vegetation the most commonly sold habitat types, followed by coastal

habitats, and then trees/shrubs and heathland.

Species Rich

Grassland

Trees/Shrubs Coastal Habitats Woodland Field

Layer

Heathland Wetland

Vegetation

Cornfield

Annuals

Comment [MKF3]: Parts of this section are redacted. Exempt under s41 FOIA


Key Players Paper


Who is Selling to Who

3.4.3 Almost all key primary producers of UK native wildflower seeds buy from other primary producers, sell to other primary producers or seed merchants, and sell

to end customers. By way of contrast, only a few buy seeds from seed collectors/providers.

Buy from Seed

Collector/Provider

Buy from Primary Producer Sell to Primary Producer/

Seed Merchant

Sell to End Customer

Type of End Customer That Seed is Sold to




Key Players Paper


3.4.4 The type of end customer that seed is sold to varies among the key primary producers of UK native wildflower seeds, although all sell to the retail market – even

if only through online sales via their website. Sales to government funded schemes (particularly environmental stewardship), development and infrastructure

projects appear to be particularly common, while sales to other funded schemes (such as Heritage Lottery Fund or Landfill Communities Fund) and mineral

extraction projects tend to be less common.

Government Funding (incl.

Environmental Stewardship)

Development

(eg Residential)

Infrastructure

(eg Roads)

Other Funding (eg

Heritage Lottery Fund)

Mineral

Extraction

Retail Market


Key Players Paper



3.5 Other Key Organisations



Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper




Key Players Paper



4.0 EMERGING IMPLICATIONS FOR DISCUSSION

4.1.1 The table below summarises the issues/gaps in the UK native seed market identified during Task 1 of the project (assessment of UK native seed market),

summarises the contribution made by the key players to addressing these market issues/gaps, and identifies the emerging implications/potential opportunity

areas for RBG Kew. These potential opportunity areas will be further reviewed at the end of the Task 3 (understanding RBG Kew’s potential sources of

advantage).

Issue and

Opportunity

Area

Summary Issues/Gaps in the UK

Native Seed Market

Contribution of Key Players to Addressing

Market Issues/Gaps

Emerging Implications/Potential Opportunity Areas

Availability and

supply of seeds

Widely held view that there are

limitations in existing range of seed

offered by commercial companies – eg

gaps in seed mixtures (eg calcareous

mixes), species that are difficult to be

harvested or produced in commercial

quantities at a competitive price, species

that are outside the harvesting window,

species that have long dormancy, rare

species, Schedule 8 species, and potentially

also species that come under the new EU

Fodder Plant Seed Mixtures Directive)

Provision of founder stocks or single bulking up to

address current limitations, supported by research into

most appropriate additional species to introduce into

existing mixtures and accompanied by authoritative

advice/guidance notes, still appears to be a potential

opportunity area – although given the current niche

nature of these type of seeds the commercial potential

from this may be relatively limited unless the larger scale

potential can be unlocked

Seeds collected from a relatively narrow

range of sites, resulting in limited offer of

Potential opportunity to provide seeds or founder stocks

may be more limited here, given activities/services of

Comment [MKF7]: Redacted. Exempt under s41 FOIA



Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


local origin seeds

existing key primary producer players and potentially

significant investment required to represent local origin in

the MSB. Potentially a niche market unless there are

policy/regulatory changes to reinforce the importance of

local origin seeds

Alternative potential opportunity around developing a

database (plant finder) of species available among different

growers, but commercial potential from this may be

relatively limited

Supply potentially not sufficient to meet

latent demand in the market, and

imported seeds are often much cheaper.

Supply particularly an issue in the retail

market

Potential opportunity to enter the market as primary

producer, but would require significant investment in land

and machinery.

Retail seed merchants require commercial quantities of

UK native seed, which primary producers are currently

better equipped than RBG Kew to supply.

Potential opportunity to develop a tailored seed offer for

the retail market (accompanied by pragmatic starter kits






Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


and how to guides) in partnership with retail seed

merchants, with bulking up to commercial quantities

undertaken under license by existing primary producers –

although it is unclear whether RBG Kew has better

expertise to develop that seed offer than existing

suppliers.

Viability of seed likely to be a key driver in a retail market

used to 65-70% germination rates on vegetable seeds.

Potential opportunities associated with ensuring high

quality seed for the retail market (see section on seed

quality below)

Quality of

Available Seeds

Concerns that some of the seeds being

marketed as UK native origin are not

actually UK native origin – with concerns

being localised to specific (unnamed) seed

suppliers

.

Potential opportunity to provide independent and credible

certification service on UK origin, or origin testing service

on seeds to seed suppliers or end customers, seems more

limited, since issue seems to be localised to some players

only. In addition, mixed levels of quality in the seed

production process could lead to RBG Kew kitemarked

seeds with low viability, thereby potentially damaging the

brand

Potential opportunity still remains to build awareness and



Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


.

demand among end customers (and potentially among

policy makers) of the importance of UK native origin and

the need to request formal certification. Commercial

return from this is potentially limited, although there

would be a commercial need to undertake this action if the

above opportunity were to be pursued

Relatively low quality and viability of

some of the seeds available in the market,

with limited quality testing and control

Potential opportunity to build understanding and

awareness among seed suppliers of the importance and

benefit (including associated efficiencies) of quality testing

still remains – potential commercial opportunity around

technical advice on how to establish tests and realistic

germination and dormancy profiles, accreditation of




Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


Flora locale organise training courses and

offer a wealth of information and guidance on

their website, but there appears to be

relatively limited focus on seed quality and

testing at present. Flora locale’s Code of

Practice has a section (11) on quality, but this

is not particularly strong at present – it

places the onus on the customer to request

seed samples to test or to request available

information on viability (where known)

testing methods, or provision (to seed suppliers or end

customers) of MSB facilities for testing.

Potential opportunity to build awareness and demand

among end customers (and also policy makers) of the

importance of seed testing and quality, and the need to

request formal certification of viability, still remains.

Commercial return from this may be relatively limited,

although there would be a commercial need to undertake

this action if the above opportunity were to be pursued

Mixed quality standards in the seed

production chain, including sub-optimal

Anecdotal evidence suggests that awareness

of storage requirements, and impact on

Potential opportunity to build understanding and

awareness among seed suppliers of the importance and





Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


cleaning and storage conditions viability, appears to be relatively mixed

25% of Cunro survey respondents used

controlled drying environment for seeds, 15%

undertook further drying after

extraction/cleaning, and 65% stored seeds in

a controlled environment such as a cold room

– although it is important to note that some

seeds offered by commercial suppliers may

have a fast turnover of sales, and therefore

more limited need for a controlled

environment

.

Flora locale organise training courses and

offer a wealth of information and guidance on

their website, but there appears to be

relatively limited focus on seed cleaning and

storage, and its impact on viability, at present

benefit (including associated efficiencies) of improved seed

cleaning and storage still remains – potential commercial

opportunity around technical advice on best practice

cleaning and storage, accreditation of cleaning and storage

methods, or provision of MSB facilities for cleaning and

storage.

Potential opportunity to build awareness and demand

among end customers (and also policy makers) of the

importance of quality seed cleaning and storage and its

impact on seed viability still remains. Commercial return

from this may be relatively limited, although there would

be a commercial need to undertake this action if the above

opportunity were to be pursued




Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


Limited formal regulation of native

wildflower species, except when used as

fodder stock

Flora locale operate a Code of Practice for

collectors, growers and suppliers of native

flora, although this is voluntary and not

enforced.

Potential opportunity to leverage existing relationship

with Defra to encourage increased regulation/monitoring.

Commercial opportunity associated with this is relatively

limited, but achieving this could have a significant impact

on other commercial opportunities identified above

Potential opportunity to work with Flora locale and key

suppliers/players in the market to establish a wider and

more robust code of practice, and to encourage greater

regulation and promotion of the code. Human resource

investment likely to be required to achieve this, and direct

commercial opportunity likely to be limited, but could

have a significant impact on other commercial

opportunities identified

Awareness and

demand

Disconnect sometimes between seed

specifications and the seed that is actually

planted (including last minute

substitutions of lower specification and

cheaper seeds by seed suppliers), driven in

part by limited monitoring

Most key primary producer players promote

the value of UK native wildflower species on

their websites. A number of key primary

producer players provide consultancy services

or training in addition to seed–

Potential opportunity for RBG Kew to help address issues

by building awareness among end customers may be more

limited given activities undertaken by key primary

producer players and Flora locale in the market – unless

RBG Kew can reach a broader range of end customers

through its brand and market independence than the

current players can, or unless a ‘preferred partner’

relationship is developed with specifiers whereby RBG

Purchase and sowing of seeds can be seen

as relatively low priority in large scale



Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


development and infrastructure projects,

leading to budget and time constraints

Flora locale provides training and technical

guidance for land managers and advisers,

with topics including habitat creation, seed

collecting and use, designing and planning a

project

Kew is seen as a project advisor and end customers have

to engage with them early on in the process

Mixed levels of awareness among some

contractors of lead times and costs

associated with seed supply

Mixed understanding among some

developers, landscape architects and

contractors of ecology and the importance

of UK native species

Growing, but still limited retail consumer

demand around seeds that contribute to

biodiversity

Most key primary producer players promote

the value of UK native wildflower species on

their websites, and offer advice and guidance

on choice of species, sowing and management

Potential opportunity to contribute to existing efforts and

build understanding, awareness and demand for UK

native seeds among the retail market/private individuals

still remains – eg by incorporating UK native wildflowers

it into the visitor offer at Wakehurst Place, developing a

tailored learning programme for schools linked into the

national curriculum, and making information available on

its website. Direct commercial opportunity from this

likely to be relatively limited, but would support



Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


Most key primary producers supply the retail

market, and many have developed some

mixes that are tailored to this segment of the

market (eg bumblebee and butterfly mixes).

The RHS and the Wildlife Trusts have been

appointed by Defra to run the BIG Wildlife

commercial opportunity below

Potential opportunity to work with key industry

partners/stakeholders to support efforts to promote

wildlife gardening at a national scale – this is likely to

require some investment and may generate limited

commercial return, although it would support the

commercial opportunity below

Potential opportunity to develop a tailored seed offer for

the retail market (accompanied by starter kits and how to

guides) in partnership with retail seed merchants, with

bulking up to commercial quantities undertaken under

license by existing primary producers – although it is

unclear whether RBG Kew has better expertise to develop

that seed offer than existing suppliers.

Viability of seed likely to be a key driver in a retail market

used to 65-70% germination rates on vegetable seeds.

Potential opportunities associated with ensuring high

quality seed for the retail market (see section on seed

quality above)





Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


Garden Competition in August 2011, with

categories for small residential, large

residential, new residential, educational,

community, business

Limited influence of the UK native seed

market on broad policy and regulatory

developments that impact the market

Flora locale currently contributes to policy

development, but lack of resources constrains

their impact in this area. Their 2011-14

Business Plan, however, aims for a significant

upscaling of this type of activity

Potential opportunity to leverage existing relationship

with Defra to encourage broad policy and regulatory

developments to take account of the needs and

implications for the UK native seed market. Commercial

opportunity associated with this is relatively limited, but

achieving this could have a significant impact on other

commercial opportunities identified


suppliers/players to develop coherent industry responses

to draft policy and regulatory changes. Human resource

investment likely to be required to achieve this, and direct

commercial opportunity likely to be limited, but could

have a significant impact on other commercial

opportunities identified

Understanding

and Research

Insufficient understanding of impact of

imported seeds to local habitats

Flora locale training course topics include

genetic conservation and wild flora

Potential opportunity still remains for research and advice

associated with this topic area, although it may be

relatively limited. A number of players (particularly in the


Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


tree and shrub sector) felt that climate change

considerations and long term viability outweighed issues

of local origin. Other players also commented that a lack

of focus on local origin over the last few years, and the

subsequent widespread dissemination of seeds beyond

their natural location, has rendered this an impractical

issue to address. RBG Kew may be best placed to advise

on how significant an issue this is

Insufficient understanding of the impact

of climate change, of climate change

adaptability of native species, and the

impact of local origin on long term

sustainability

Flora locale issued a discussion document

focused on wild plants for a changing climate

in 2007, but they themselves do not

undertake or fund research

The Forestry Commission are already

undertaking research on climate change

impacts with respect to trees.

Given activities of the Forestry Commission in this area,

the potential opportunity associated with UK native trees

and shrubs may be relatively limited.

Potential opportunity still remains for research and advice

associated with UK native wildflower seeds and climate

change. Commercial potential from this may be relatively

limited, although it would reinforce RBG Kew’s brand and

value to the market



Key Players Paper



Issue and

Opportunity

Area


Native Seed Market


Market Issues/Gaps


Insufficient understanding of seed

establishment and the techniques for

habitat creation

A number of key primary producer players

offer advice or training on seed establishment

and habitat creation,

Given activities of existing key primary producer players

in the market, potential opportunity associated with this

may be relatively limited – unless RBG Kew has

unmatched relevant scientific expertise/evidence in this

area (eg on which particular mixes and origin would be

suitable for different geographic areas around the UK)




Key Players Paper



Appendix A

Flora Locale 2011 Training Programme


Key Players Paper



Appendix B

Flora Locale Voluntary Code of Conduct

UK Native Seed Hub

Sources of Advantage Paper

Appendix C Final Sources of Advantage Paper_FOI

Request redactions justified under FOIA Chris Blandford Associates

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 KEY RBG KEW STRENGTHS AND ASSETS 2

2.1 Overview 2

2.2 RBG Kew Brand, Skills and Expertise 2

2.3 Facilities and Assets 6

2.4 Relationships, Networks and Partners 8

2.5 Perception of RBG Kew in the UK Native Seed Market 9

3.0 STRATEGIC AND ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT 10

3.1 Overview 10

3.2 RBG Kew and the Breathing Planet Programme 10

3.3 Landscape Masterplan 11

3.4 Organisational Structure 13

3.5 Financial Resources 15

4.0 UK NATIVE SEED HUB FOUR YEAR PILOT PROJECT 17

4.1 Overview 17

4.2 Project Goal and Outputs 17

4.3 Facilities and Resources 18

5.0 EMERGING IMPLICATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 22





1.0 INTRODUCTION



Seed Bank (MSB) at Wakehurst Place. Based on discussions at the project inception meeting, our

understanding is that the initiative would seek to support aspirations around coherent, resilient

ecological networks and enhanced biodiversity, and would operate on a not for profit, cost recovery

basis, rather than for maximum commercial gain.






Task 5: Developing the business plan; and


1.1.3 This document is the final Potential Sources of Advantage Paper associated with Task 3

(understanding RBG Kew’s potential sources of advantage). It seeks to identify the key RBG Kew

strengths and assets that the UK Native Seed Hub can draw upon to participate in the UK native

seed market, and to understand arrangements for the 4 year Esmee Fairbairn Foundation funded

pilot project. This informs identification of RBG Kew’s potential niche/role in the UK native seed

industry, and what the associated business model might be.

1.1.4 A draft of the document was issued to the Steering Team on 16th September 2011, and discussed at a

Steering Team meeting on 22nd September 2011. This final document reflects comments made by

the Steering Team at that Steering Team meeting. It does not include any further additional

information.





2.0 KEY RBG KEW STRENGTHS AND ASSETS

2.1 Overview

2.1.1 This section provides an overview of the key RBG Kew strengths and assets that the UK Native

Seed Hub can draw upon to participate in the UK native seed market – including brand, skills and

expertise; facilities and assets; and relationships, networks and partners.

2.2 RBG Kew Brand, Skills and Expertise

RBG Kew Brand

2 2.1 RBG Kew has a very strong brand, both in the UK and internationally. It is a world famous

scientific organisation, the premier centre in the world for the basic and applied study of plants, and

the premier botanic garden in the world. It is respected globally as a provider of high quality, un-

biased, impartial, authoritative scientific advice on plant conservation. It is internationally respected

for its living collection of plants and for its scientific expertise around discovering and

understanding the diversity of plants. It is also a World Heritage Site.

2 2.2 RBG Kew is also one of the bodies that produce the IUCN Red Data List for plants, and it actively

contributes major elements of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation in support of the

Convention of Biological Diversity.

Skills and Expertise

2 2.3 RBG Kew is first and foremost a scientific institution - a scientifically independent research

institute. It is a world leading plant science and conservation organisation sitting at the heart of a

global network, and the acknowledged leader in the science of plant and fungal diversity. Its

purpose is to discover and describe species, work out the relationships between them, and

investigate the properties that make them useful. It has considerable expertise in developing

sustainable uses for plants and fungi to benefit mankind and support biodiversity. It has undertaken

pioneering research into the biology, chemistry and cultivation of wild plants, which is helping to

identify and grow species that can provide new sources of food, medicine, and a range of other

benefits. In support of this, it has over 200 scientists in a diverse range of disciplines, including

taxonomy, seed science, economic and ethno-botany, microbiology, plant chemistry, morphology,

mycology, genetics and plant – animal interactions.

2 2.4 RBG Kew also has significant horticultural and ecological restoration expertise. With 19,000

species growing on RBG Kew’s two sites, the knowledge needed to grow and maintain them is

unparalleled, and RBG Kew has 200 world class horticulturalists. In addition, in its work with





through use of dormancy breaking treatments. In addition, RBG Kew has the resources and

opportunities (in a way few other industry players have) to undertake research on emergence,

particularly for species where emergence levels are low; and

Providing back up reference information on founder seeds.

2 2.9 The method that RBG Kew follows for processing its seed collections is set out below.





Seed Collection

Rapid Shipment to Bank

Data and Initial Drying

Entry onto in Dry Room

Computer (15 c, 15% RH)

Cleaning

Sample X-Ray Analysis

Re-Clean or Seed Number

Determination

Main Drying (>4 Weeks)

Packaging/Banking (-20 c)

Verification Initial Germination Test

of Collection (To assess Viability)

Distribution

(If >1000 seeds & not conservation sample)

Germination Retest

(Every Ten years to monitor Viability)





2.3 Facilities and Assets

2 3.1 RBG Kew holds extensive plant collections of unrivalled international significance and diversity.

With 250 years of public service, and its collections of living and preserved plants, of plant products

and botanical information, RBG Kew forms a global encyclopaedia of knowledge about the plant

kingdom, with taxonomic and economic plant databases readily available. The Museum of Economic

Botany is the oldest, largest and most active in the world, with 85,000 specimens. The new

Fungarium holds 1.25 million dried fungus specimens – the biggest and most scientifically valuable

in the world. The world class Herbarium contains 7 million preserved plant specimens, some of

which are now extinct. 19,000 species grow on RBG Kew’s two sites. Following the 1987 storm,

RBG Kew has continued to develop a botanical collection that is fully documented and collected

from wild populations.

2 3.2 Wakehurst Place is one of the most significant botanical gardens in the country, where ornamental

plantings and exotic tree and shrub collections of international importance sit within native

woodland. It provides the opportunity to extend RBG Kew’s documented collections of plants on

different soil and micro climatic conditions.

2 3.3 It has a unique living plant collection representing the key phytogeographic regions of the world’s

temperate woodland, and also established national collections of Skimmia, Hypericum, Betula and

Nothofagus. The Loder Valley Nature Reserve is a key site in the UK for monitoring dormouse

populations. The Francis Rose Reserve was the first reserve in Europe dedicated to the

conservation of mosses, lichens, liverworts and ferns, many associated with local sandstone

outcrops. The SSSI is cited in the European list of important sites by the European Committee for

the Conservation of Bryophyes (ECCB). Wakehurst Place is also one of the most visited botanical

gardens in the UK, with almost half a million visits/year – indeed it is the most visited garden

owned by the National Trust.

2 3.4 The MSB is a global facility for the conservation of wild plant species. It safeguards plant diversity

by storing seed from wild species and making seed available for sustainable use in agriculture,

horticulture, forestry and habitat restoration. It is the largest ex situ science-based plant

conservation project and seed bank in the world. It houses the largest collection of seeds collected

from wild species – with almost 2 billion seeds of more than 30,000 species of wild plants from 140

countries. The focus is on global plant life faced with the threat of extinction (from climate change

and the ever-increasing impact of human activities), and plants of most use for the future. The MSB

has already successfully banked 10% of the world's wild plant species, with the aim of banking seed

from 25% of the world’s wild plant species by 2020.

2 3.5 As part of this, the MSB stores seeds from all of the UK’s native plant species, apart from a handful

of species that are either very rare or whose seeds are particularly difficult to store. At present, the





collections don’t always reflect local origin – the aim was to maximise the number of species

collected and conserved, and therefore there are very few populations for many of the UK species in

the MSB. The MSB is also in the process of becoming the nation’s forestry seed bank.

2 3.6 The 5,500 m² complex of buildings at the MSB houses advanced seed research and processing

facilities. It has laboratories, seed-preparation facilities, and a public exhibition area. Beneath these

lies a vast, high quality storage vault, with a floor area of about 930m2 and an internal height of just

under 5m. The vault has space enough for 50-60% of the world’s species. The MSB also has 14

bedrooms for visiting scientists, a library, and a seminar room holding up to 100 people.

2 3.7 The laboratories include a dedicated seed germination lab, with temperature controlled incubators.

The facility is used for all routine viability and germination testing. There is also a seed processing

lab, which houses equipment for seed cleaning. The equipment includes a digital x-ray machine that

enables the quality/purity of seeds to be checked at the end of the cleaning process.

2 3.8 Within the seed vault are four 48m2 prefabricated cold rooms operating to international standards

at -20 °C. These are accessed from a drying room running at 10% RH and 18 °C which, in turn, is

accessed through an air lock. Fully fitted out, the vault could hold a further five such cold rooms,

with the capacity for perhaps as much as 40% of the world's seed-bearing species (with an average of

just under two accessions of each). Only about 10% of the capacity of the initial drying room is

currently being used. Expansion of the drying facilities in the vault are being planned for the future,

and cold rooms would also be added as required.

2 3.9 The thickness of concrete in the vault roof and walls reduces the effects of radiation damage to the

collections in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. The air to the dry rooms is monitored continuously

for radioactivity and is closed off if any is detected, thereby preventing radioactive dust entering the

vault and damaging the seeds. The cold rooms are chilled using a state of the art Pack system

comprising seven scrolling compressors. The building also has its own generator.

2 3.10 Wakehurst Place also contains a nursery, used to cultivate seeds and plants collected from around

the world.

2 3.11 Furthermore, Wakehurst Place also contains a number of assets, such as the Mansion and estate

cottages, that are not currently fully utilised both in terms of visitor engagement or revenue

generation.

2 3.12 Although Wakehurst Place is largely owned by the National Trust (on a 65 year lease), the land

associated with the MSB is owned by RBG Kew. In addition, Kew Foundation has put aside money

to buy parcels of private land within or adjacent to the estate when they are available for purchase.





2.4 Relationships, Networks and Partners

2 4.1 RBG Kew is the hub of a vast and continually growing global network of expertise, directed

towards helping reduce the extent and impact of climate change, rescuing species and habitats from

destruction, and finding ways to use plants sustainably to improve people’s lives. It works with 800

organisations in more than 100 countries, and with more than 50% of FTSE 100 companies to put

its knowledge to work for people and the environment.

2 4.2 RBG Kew has already built up a network of partners in relation to the MSB, both in the UK and

internationally. The MSB Partnership is a collaboration between RBG Kew and 120 partners in 54

countries, including other botanic gardens, tree seed centres, government genebanks, universities,

and a wide range of NGOs. Each partnership is different, but the common aim is to collect and

conserve seeds, and strengthen capacity for the successful collection, storage and use of seeds. The

partnerships also focus on cooperation, with information, skills and expertise shared across state

and national borders. Each partnership is based on a legally binding contract, such as an Access and

Benefit Sharing Agreement, in which the obligations of Partners exchanging seeds and information

are clearly set out. RBG Kew has also developed a Memorandum of Understanding with ISTO, who

have developed a set of guidelines for the germination of crop seeds, with the aim of using RBG

Kew’s expertise in wild species to help develop guidelines for germination of wild species.

2 4.3 Within the UK, RBG Kew has recently signed a formal Memorandum of Collaboration (MoC) with

The High Weald Landscape Trust as part of the HWLT’s - Weald Meadows Initiative (HWLT -

WMI). The MoC aims to support valuable research as well as practical application. ‘Wild harvested’

WMI Weald Native Origin Seed (WNOS) will be harvested and made available to enhance and

create new meadows, and will also be transferred to the MSB to become part of the new meadow

seed collection that will be used for research and bulking up to support wildflower growers and

providers throughout the UK. The partnership will also aim to continue with planned enhancement

of the landscape at Wakehurst Place, and to provide interpretation material for visitors there. The

MoC builds on the strong relationship between the MSB and the WMI. The two organisations have

collaborated for many years on the collection, study and conservation of the flora of lowland

meadows in the Weald of Sussex and Kent. RBG Kew has used ‘wild harvested’ WNO seed to

enhance the landscape around the MSB and to deliver a new programme of grassland enhancements

under the Environmental Stewardship Scheme. It has also used WNO seed in demonstration plots

at Wakehurst Place to display a range of enhancement techniques, including spreading green hay,

whole crop meadow material and combined grass and wildflower seed.

2 4.4 At present, RBG Kew formally offers its core expertise of seed collecting, processing and

germination to international partners – on a generally not for profit basis. In addition, RBG Kew

issues samples containing 50 seeds with all of the critical biological information which users may

require, for study/research for the public good. RBG Kew also currently offers bespoke technical





3.0 STRATEGIC AND ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 This section provides an overview of key strategic priorities or developments that potentially

impact the key assets and skills that RBG Kew could bring to the UK native seed market. It also

summarises the organisational structure and financial resources that would support the UK Native

Seed Hub initiative.

3.2 RBG Kew and the Breathing Planet Programme

3 2.1 RBG Kew’s mission is ‘to inspire and deliver science-based plant conservation worldwide,

enhancing the quality of life’. Within this context, the Director’s Vision 2008- 2011 introduced the

concept of the ‘Breathing Planet Programme’ (BPP). The BPP aims to address more efficiently some

of the major environmental challenges that the world faces today. It is a 10-year action plan that

draws on RBG Kew’s assets to rescue, revive and restore the plants and fungi that directly or

indirectly sustain us all. It has been described by Sir David Attenborough as ‘perhaps the most

exciting, urgent and necessary conservation and sustainability initiative of our time.’

3 2.2 The BPP is structured around 7 strategies, each drawing on different aspects of RBG Kew’s work:

Driving discovery and global access to essential information - speeding up the discovery of new

species of plants and fungi under threat, through new web-based identification tools and DNA

technology;

Identifying highly threatened species and regions – using cutting edge mapping techniques to

pinpoint places that need attention most urgently;

Helping global conservation programmes on the ground – sharing knowledge and expertise to

help conserve the remains of the world’s intact habitats;

Safeguarding seed from 25% of the world’s plants by 2020 through the Millennium Seed Bank

partnership – by storing seed from wild species and making seed available for sustainable use in

agriculture, horticulture, forestry and habitat restoration;

Building a global network to restore lost and damaged habitats;





Growing locally appropriate species for a changing world – by helping to identify and grow

species that can provide new sources of food, medicine and other benefits, thereby helping people

in some of the world’s poorest regions and those most vulnerable to climate change; and

Using botanic gardens to inform and inspire – using its two gardens and outreach programme to

build awareness and appreciation among the general public of the environment, the importance

of biodiversity and its conservation.

3 2.3 Implementation of these strategies will focus on partnership and working with colleagues around

the world.

3.3 Landscape Masterplan

3 3.1 A Landscape Masterplan was recently developed for Wakehurst Place and the Millennium Seed

Bank (MSB). It provides a long term vision for the site, reinvigorating it as ‘Kew in the Country’

and highlighting its unique contribution to RBG Kew’s mission in terms of inspiring and delivering

international, national and regional science-based plant conservation. The vision combines the

unique local qualities of the site with showcasing RBG Kew’s global mission of conservation,

biodiversity and sustainability, and in particular RBG Kew’s Breathing Planet Programme. The

vision also sees Wakehurst Place providing a practical demonstration of the Government’s

commitment to biodiversity and sustainability, thereby providing a clear connection between policy

and on-ground action for departments such as Defra.

3 3.2 The vision also provides the platform for combining conservation and innovation at Wakehurst in a

dynamic working estate. A key aim of the masterplan is that Wakehurst Place should become an

inspirational and international centre of excellence and innovation with respect to sustainability and

environmental stewardship (conservation in action). Within the vision, the MSB is seen as the key

catalyst to further develop Wakehurst Place, and is seen as integral to a series of new visitor

experiences.

3 3.3 3 strategic projects have been identified that would act as catalysts for change at Wakehurst Place.

These will help develop Wakehurst Place’s status as a centre of excellence for conservation and

education, increase visitor numbers by further developing the offer, and provide the foundation for a

more sustainable financial future. The projects are:

Millennium Seed Bank experience and gateway (see below for more details);

Temperate world walk – which would provide a narrative around temperate woodlands and

their conservation, communicate RBG Kew’s mission in relation to worldwide plant

conservation within the local context of the garden, and demonstrate conservation in action; and





International centre for sustainable land management and habitat restoration – which would

further foster conservation and education, and use the unique resources of RBG Kew and the

National Trust. It would demonstrate sustainable agricultural practice (including farming, food

production and energy creation) through a series of conservation in action projects, and

potentially through creation of an ‘AgriCentre’ for research, exhibition and farmers markets. It

would also demonstrate aspects of the sustainable management of woodland, grasslands and

wetland. A key aspect of this initiative would also be the establishment of a new school and

educational programme, which would be an addition to the School of Horticulture at RBG Kew,

and which would have a specific focus on the countryside and rural landscape. In addition, a

‘Learning Precinct’ would be established to demonstrate sustainable living, together with a

series of field stations, and a woodland craft and conservation centre to provide a unique facility

to teach and demonstrate the High Weald tradition of woodland management.

3 3.4 The MSB experience and gateway would see the development of the MSB into an extended public

facility that would offer more engagement for visitors with its scientific work. It would aim to

communicate that “Plants Matter”, and that plant diversity underpins human innovation and

adaption in agriculture, horticulture, forestry and sustainable land use. In support of this, the new

visitor experiences incorporated at the MSB would include the following (which could, if required,

independently operate as a fee paying visitor attraction):

Seed production beds associated with the UK Native Seed Hub that also would be a visitor

attraction in their own right;

A new state of art nursery complex, which would provide key infrastructure support for the

MSB and RBG Kew’s ornamental horticulture and restoration ecology programmes (both in the

UK and overseas). The nursery would also be used as an educational display, and would

demonstrate that Wakehurst is a working estate focused on conservation in action;

Plants for Food – a series of gardens, glasshouses, agricultural fields and orchards to

demonstrate where food comes from, how it is grown, and how farming practices contribute to

biodiversity conservation;

Living on One Planet – a project which would communicate the close relationship between

lifestyle and sustainability, which would address issues like renewable energy, housing, food,

water and waste management, and which would provide a ‘shop front’ for pioneering new

initiatives which demonstrate how to live more sustainably at home, on the land and in the

garden;





Energy Gardens – which would communicate the importance of plants as a source of bio-fuel,

and how such projects can contribute to a sustainable future;

Temperate zone habitat gardens – which would communicate the issues associated with

threatened habitats of the temperate world, building on the eight parterres at the front of the

MSB that were constructed and planted to represent UK habitats under threat;

A new gateway, to develop a sense of arrival and introduce the site and its importance in relation

to global plant conservation. In the medium-longer term, a more ambitious gateway could

include a new state of the art visitor centre; and

Sunset and seed playground/café – to include an active play area with bespoke play elements

inspired by seeds, healthy food in an adjoining café, and public art.

3 3.5 The Landscape Masterplan is envisioned as a process of transformation over a prolonged period of

time, whose rate of implementation will be driven by the availability of funding.

3.4 Organisational Structure

3 4.1 RBG Kew is a Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB), governed by a Board of 14 Trustees, one of

which is appointed by H.M the Queen. RBG Kew is managed by a Director (CEO and Chief

Scientist) and an Executive Board. Within RBG Kew, there are a number of Directorates:

Herbarium, library, art and archives – which focuses on plant resource inventories, mycology,

systematics, biodiversity, informatics and economic botany;

Jodrell Laboratory – which researches molecular systematics, conservation biotechnology,

restoration ecology, micromorphology, genetics, sustainable uses and science policy;

Conservation, living collections and estates – which curates the collection of living plants and

provides integrated education and interpretation. This Directorate also includes seed

conservation and the MSB, Wakehurst Place, estates, and conventions and policies;

Public engagement and learning – which includes marketing, PR and strategic communications,

education development, interpretation and visitor services, and content and learning (digital

media, publishing, design and photography, and schools, families and adult learning

programmes);

Business and corporate services – which includes the Kew Innovation Unit, policy, Kew

Enterprises and catering, IT, HR, finance, strategic and financial planning, and legal and

governance; and

Development – which includes Kew Foundation and government funding (excluding grant-in-

aid).





3 4.2 Within the Conservation, Living Collections and Estates Directorate, Seed Conservation (the MSB)

comprises 5 key departments, with approximately 50 FTEs in total:

Conservation and technology (20 5 FTEs) - which includes 13 FTEs associated with processing,

4 FTEs germination specialists/assistants, 1 FTE curation assistant, 0 5 FTE deputy lab

manager/technology specialist, 1 FTE technology assistant (vacant), and 1 FTE head of

department;

Collecting and network support (10.9 FTEs) – which includes 6 FTE international project

coordinators, 0.9 FTE UK coordinator (vacant), 1 FTE project coordinator, 2 FTEs partnership

assistant and training specialist, and 1 FTE head of department;

Management support (8.2 FTEs) - which includes 0.6 FTE restoration ecology coordinator, 0.6

FTE information officer and 2.5 FTEs lab managers/assistants;

Research; and

Botanical information.

3 4.3 The Conservation and Technology Department is also budgeted to recruit 3 sandwich course

students who are undertaking degrees in UK universities each year. There are also volunteers who

support seed processing and cleaning, research and education.

3 4.4 At Wakehurst Place, 6 FTEs are focused on conservation and woodlands, 12.7 FTEs on the

gardens, and 5 3 FTEs on plant propagation and conservation.

3 4.5 The Kew Innovation Unit (KIU), within the Business and Corporate Services Directorate, focuses

on maximising return from RBG Kew’s intellectual property. It has a remit across RBG Kew and

Wakehurst, and works with businesses and organisations around the world who seek to conserve

and enhance biodiversity and improve the quality of life within their business operations . It is a

unique venture that marks a significant change in the way RBG Kew uses its considerable expertise

- to benefit mankind and support biodiversity while also helping to build itself a more independent

financial future. KIU provides a wide range of advisory, practical and training services for land-

based industries, including extractive, commodity, construction, health and cosmetics industries,

international development and conservation organisations, and governments wanting to establish

botanic gardens or institutes. These services include:

Biodiversity strategy development – including production of field guides for plant identification

or seed collection;

Vegetation survey – including seed collection maps (although not in the UK);

Offsetting;

Habitat restoration services;

Community/social responsibility;

Plant product support;





3 5.1 RBG Kew received c.£25m funding from the UK Government through Defra in 2010/11, of which

c. £8m was for capital. This covered approximately 65% of incoming resources (down from 97%

historically). Remaining incoming resources comprise commercial enterprise activities (including

retailing), incoming resources from charitable activities (including admissions, catering,

consultancy, and image library), and c. £9m from grants and donations (including from Kew

Foundation). The MSB is underwritten by a £3m/year contribution from Defra.

3 5.2 RBG Kew is currently involved in a £10m grant application to the BIG Lottery for a project called

‘Go Native’. The project, which is led by RBG Kew’s learning and education department, focuses on

conservation of wild plants and is targeted at disadvantaged groups across the UK (including young

offenders associations, schools and communities). The aim is to provide groups with basic seed

starter kits, supplemented by web based resources, that would allow them to grow relevant native

plants in and around their communities. This would help raise awareness of the importance of wild

plants and their conservation, and build understanding of what wild plants should be, or were

historically, growing in a particular area. The project would start in 2013, and would tap into the

UK Native Seed Hub network that would have been established by then. Seeds for the project would

potentially be supplied by some of the commercial seed suppliers that RBG Kew would have built

relationships with as part of the UK Native Seed Hub initiative, although input would be required

from RBG Kew to ensure that locally appropriate species were being distributed.





4.0 UK NATIVE SEED HUB FOUR YEAR PILOT PROJECT

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 This section summarises the four year pilot project for the UK Native Seed Hub. It also identifies

any emerging learnings from the initiative that could inform development of the UK Native Seed

Hub business plan.

4.2 Project Goal and Outputs

4 2.1 RBG Kew has recently launched the UK Native Seed Hub, with £750,000 funding from the Esmee

Fairbairn Foundation (which has now funded at least 3 distinct projects at RBG Kew) to establish

the project over four years (2011/12 – 2014/15). Additional resources (including staff time) have

also been provided by RBG Kew itself. The grant from the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation does not

come with any specific grant conditions.

4 2.2 The goal and purpose of the project is to support companies and NGOs to restore native plant

communities, through improving the quality and diversity of native seed available in the UK for

habitat restoration and species reintroduction, and through establishing a facility for provision of

appropriate high quality seed stocks, advice, and information across the UK. The project will enable

commercial seed growers to use correctly identified and tested founder seed of known origin, to

supply better quality seeds and plants for UK conservation needs. It also aims to develop research

into improved nursery and plant production techniques for UK native plants.

4 2.3 The key outputs from the project include:

Establishing facilities to provide best practice multiplication, storage and testing of seed

collections - with samples from at least 15 species provided to third parties for restoration or

multiplication;

Making high quality multiplied, processed and tested seed collections available for restoration

purposes – with 50 species established in seed production beds (with 250 seeds per species), 30

species available to users, and 20 species of small, priority MSB collections regenerated and

banked by the end of March 2014;

Creating, processing, banking and making available new wild seed collections of priority native

species - with at least 150 new collections of UK native species accessioned and 75% of these

collections processed, verified and banked;

Providing technical advice and information to land managers and habitat restoration

practitioners, with at least one technical training course provided each year - with seed test and

origin information provided to all users of native seed hub collections, results of experimental





work/research disseminated in appropriate publications, and development of a technical manual

on grassland restoration for restoration professionals; and

Raising public awareness about the opportunities for, and importance of habitat restoration with

native species – with 6 popular articles on the native seed hub initiative, and various learning

activities at Wakehurst Place (including fixed interpretation on seed production beds, guided

walks and tours).

4 2.4 The project will seek to supplement the existing collections in the MSB, and broaden the genetic

range held for important species (with an emphasis on those that are in-breeding rather than wind

pollinated). Species will be prioritised based on gaps in the existing MSB collection, importance to

restoration, and value to key players in the UK native seed market.

4 2.5 Overall, the focus for this initiative will be initially on species associated with lowland meadows and

semi-natural grasslands, and will ensure the establishment of a comprehensive stock of priority

species in sufficient quantity for companies to provide restoration-ready seed material which is

locally appropriate and of high quality. In addition, and in close liaison with conservation agencies

and landowners, rare species within the Lowland Meadows and other UK priority habitats will be

germinated and propagated in support of reintroduction efforts. The model established for the

Lowland Meadows will then provide a blueprint for the collections supporting restoration in the

other approximately 40 terrestrial priority habitats listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

4.3 Facilities and Resources

4 3.1 In support of the above project goal and outputs, a number of new facilities and resources are

potentially being established. These include:

Dedicated seed production beds (initially approximately 1 hectare in size, increasing to 1.7

hectares over time), with temporary beds established by summer 2011 and permanent beds by

summer 2012 – which will become part of Wakehurst Place’s visitor attraction . These are home

to 10 native species such as the cuckoo flower (Cardamine pratensis) and devil’s-bit scabious

(Succisa pratensis), both of which have been difficult to cultivate for seed production in the past ;

A dedicated UK native seed store, with seed containers, racking system and cold room (c. 50 sqm

in size) – although it is unclear now whether this will take place. There is an existing cold room

which has not been fitted out yet, and which may be fitted with a racking system (although much

of that racking would be used for general MSB collections). Additional cold rooms are due to be

built over the next 3-4 years, but it is unclear whether they will be dedicated to the UK Native

Seed Hub;

Development of record keeping systems and a seed hub database, to track progress and establish

best practice multiplication, storage and testing of seed;





A new horticulturalist (Band B), who would work full time in the nursery and focus entirely on

the UK Native Seed Hub. The horticulturalist would look after management of the seed

production beds, and would bridge the gap between technical horticulture and conservation

science; and

A new UK collections coordinator, 35% of whose time would be allocated to the UK Native Seed

Hub. The collections coordinator would undertake missions to create collections of rare and

threatened UK species, and would also at the same time make seed collections that could feed

into the UK Native Seed Hub.

4 3.2 The UK Native Seed Hub project would also make use of the MSB’s existing facilities. This includes

the seed germination and seed processing labs, which staff are confident can comfortably

accommodate the needs of the UK Native Seed Hub project – and indeed, not all seeds will need to

be tested, and only those with specialist requirements will need temperature controlled incubators

to get them started. This also includes the nursery, although there are some concerns at present

that the nursery may have potential capacity constraints in terms of accommodating the

requirements of the UK Native Seed Hub as well as other project requirements. Further assessment

would need to be made to understand whether, and how much of an issue this is likely to be. There

have also been discussions about erecting polythene tunnels to help further expand capacity.

4 3.3 Overall, the small scale, experimental nature of the seed production that would be undertaken to

support the UK native seed industry would mean that RBG Kew doesn’t need to invest in

significant new resources and commercial scale machinery, production and warehouse drying.

4 3.4 In addition to facilities, the UK Native Seed Hub project will also make use of existing human

resources at the MSB and Wakehurst Place. This includes leveraging RBG Kew’s relationships with

students and universities, and working with its pool of dedicated volunteers (eg for seed harvesting

and processing, or for interpretation activities). It also involves leveraging existing experienced

scientific and horticultural staff at the MSB, whether to participate on the Project Steering Team

and/or Operating Team, or to help deliver the project outputs. Staff resources that were identified

in the budget are set out in the table below, and these would be supplemented by a consultant from

the Weald Meadows Initiative, working on average 24 days/year. Although the UK native seed hub

project is still in relatively early stages, the demands on staff time has been higher than anticipated.

Staff allocations are therefore due to be revised by the project Steering Team over the forthcoming

months, and there is an awareness that there may be need to recruit additional staff or redeploy

existing staff to meet demand. Internal championship of the project is divided between the Head of

Technology & Training, Seed Conservation Department (SCD), the Head of Wakehurst, and the

Head of Collecting and Network Section (SCD).

Name Title Role % of Time

Vicky Foden HEM Botanical Propagation, planting out, irrigation, 100%






Horticulturalist monitoring, site maintenance and

cultivation of plants to produce seeds

Sandwich course student Science project work (lab/field) – eg

data monitoring, scientific study

100%

C&T Processing Assistant Seed processing, storage and

distribution

50%

Stephanie

Miles

UK Co-ordinator,

Collecting and Network

Section (CNS)

Project Steering Team and Operating

Team - co-ordination of UK seed

collecting programme

35%

David

Marchant

Logistics Manager HEM HEM groundwork - seed production

site development, construction and

maintenance

20%

Dr Kate

Hardwick

Restoration Ecology Co-

ordinator, SCD


Team – use of native plants and seeds

for ecological restoration

10%

Astrid

Krummins

Interpretation Officer Operating Team - delivery of

PR/education inputs

10%

Joanna

Wenham

Manager, Plant

Propagation and

Conservation, HEM


Team – Chair of OT, nursery inputs

and production, and supervision of

nursery work

10%

C&T Processing Team

Supervisor

Operating Team - coordination of

C&T inputs, liaison between seed bank

and nursery. Supervision of seed

processing, storage and distribution

10%

David

Hardman

Head of Horticulture and

Estate Management

(HEM)

Project Steering Team - management

and co-ordination of HEM resources

and direction to the horticultural team

delivering the project

5%

Andy Jackson Head of Wakehurst Place Project Steering Team - integration

with Landscape Master Plan and

sustainable financial future for

Wakehurst, site management and

interpretation

5%

Iain Parkinson Unit Manager,

Conservation and

Woodlands, HEM

Operating Team - Wakehurst Place,

meadows and woodland enhancement

work, focal point for liaison with local

partners such as Weald Meadows

Initiative

5%






Dr Robin

Probert

Head of Technology &

Training, Seed

Conservation Department

(SCD)

Project Steering Team – Chair, and

seed technology, processing, storage,

germination, and technical advice and

training

5%

Michael Way Head of Collecting and

Network Section (CNS),

Seed Conservation

Department (SCD)

Project Steering Team - collecting

and network development; overall

management of UK collecting

programme; networking with NGOs;

field work/collecting training

5%

Ted Chapman Botanical Horticulturalist,

Plant Propagation and

Conservation, HEM

Operating Team – nursery production tbc

4 3.5 c. £1.1million of investment was budgeted for the project in total. This included c. £800,000 of

staff, associated overhead and consultant costs, c. £165,000 of capital costs and c. £120,000 of

consumable and other costs. Work has been carried out to establish the main production site, and

the Steering Team are keeping under review how the remainder of the capital budget will be

deployed.



Appendix C Final Sources of Advantage Paper_FOI Request redactions justified under

FOIA Chris Blandford Associates

5.0 EMERGING IMPLICATIONS FOR DISCUSSION

5.1.1 The table below builds on the findings from the Key Players Paper (Task 2) by identifying where potential opportunity areas are aligned with RBG Kew’s core

strengths and assets. This alignment informs development of the business model for the UK Native Seed Hub.

Opportunity/

Issue Area

Summary Issues/Gaps in the

UK Native Seed Market

Emerging Implications/Potential Opportunity Areas from Key

Players Paper (Task 2)

Alignment with RBG Kew Core Strengths

and Assets

Availability and

supply of seeds

Limitations in existing range of

seed offered by commercial

companies – gaps in seed

mixtures (eg calcareous mixes),

and limited availability of some

species (eg species that are

difficult to be harvested or

produced in commercial

quantities at a competitive

price, species that are outside

the harvesting window, species

that have long dormancy, rare

species, Schedule 8 species, and

potentially also species that

come under the new EU Fodder

Plant Seed Mixtures Directive)

Provision of founder stocks or single bulking up to address current

limitations, supported by research into most appropriate additional

species to introduce into existing mixtures and accompanied by

authoritative advice/guidance notes, still appears to be a potential

opportunity area

Provision of high quality seeds with tailored germination protocols

to support agrochemical sector

High

MSB stores seeds from all of the UK’s native

plant species. Core skills include seed

collecting/harvesting, turning seeds into

plants, achieving high germination rates and

shortening dormamcy rates, and working

with/researching particularly challenging

species. Scale of opportunity also aligns with

scale of MSB production facilities.

Opportunity also aligned with RBG Kew

overall mission and ambition

Seeds collected from a Potential opportunity to provide seeds or founder stocks may be Medium





Opportunity/

Issue Area






and Assets

relatively narrow range of sites,

resulting in limited offer of

local origin seeds

more limited here, given activities/services of existing key primary

producer players. Research also required to assess the relative

importance of local origin in seed sustainability (see below), and

therefore the market need/value

Alternative potential opportunity around developing a database

(plant finder) of species available among different growers

MSB stores seeds from all of the UK’s native

plant species. However, genetic diversity and

range of origin of those seeds is currently

relatively limited - although the 4 year pilot

project is seeking to begin to address this

gap. Although existing key primary

producers have already begun this process,

RBG Kew’s storage facilities are generally

more sophisticated, ensuring the quality and

viability of the seeds over a longer time

frame

Low

RBG Kew does not have the information,

capacity or systems in place to consolidate

this information. Flora locale may be better

placed to deliver on this opportunity

Supply potentially not sufficient

to meet latent demand in the

market, and imported seeds are

often much cheaper. Supply

particularly an issue in the

retail market

Potential opportunity to enter the market as primary producer, but

would require significant investment in land and machinery.

Retail seed merchants require commercial quantities of UK native

seed, which primary producers are currently better equipped than

RBG Kew to supply.

Low

RBG Kew does not at present have the

machinery/production facilities and financial

resources to invest in becoming a primary

producer, and this does not align with

aspirations to work with existing producers





Opportunity/

Issue Area






and Assets

Potential opportunity to design a tailored seed offer for the retail

market (accompanied by pragmatic starter kits and how to guides) in

partnership with retail seed merchants, with seed production and

bulking up to commercial quantities undertaken by existing primary

producers

Viability of seed likely to be a key driver in a retail market used to

65-70% germination rates on vegetable seeds. Potential

opportunities associated with ensuring high quality seed for the

retail market (see section on seed quality below)

rather than compete with them

Medium

This is not a core strength for RBG Kew at

present. However, the ‘Go Native’ project, if

successful in its application to the BIG

Lottery for funding, would provide

significant resources to contribute to this,

and help develop the expertise and the

concept

See section below

Quality of

Available Seeds

Concerns that some of the seeds

being marketed as UK native

origin are not actually UK

native origin – with concerns

being localised to specific

(unnamed) seed suppliers

Potential opportunity to provide independent and credible

certification service on UK origin, or origin testing service on seeds

to seed suppliers or end customers, seems more limited, since issue

seems to be localised to some players only.

Potential opportunity still remains to build awareness and demand

Low

RBG Kew does not currently have the

genetic baseline data or taxonomic

collections to provide this service. It also has

limited experience or resources for

certification

Medium





Opportunity/

Issue Area






and Assets


suppliers/players in the market to establish a wider and more robust

code of practice, and to encourage greater regulation and promotion

of the code.

as an expert advisor to Defra, either on the

UK native seed market in particular, or on

UK biodiversity in general

Medium

RBG Kew brand associated with impartial,

authoritative scientific advice, and RBG Kew

core skills and facilities are in line with key

issues/gaps in the market (see above), which

would place RBG Kew in a good position to

advise on how to strengthen the code of

practice. However, some players in the

market consider RBG Kew to be too

academic/too removed from the work that

takes place on the ground, and so close

collaboration with Flora locale (with who

RBG Kew has already started building a

relationship) will be an important way in to

this. MSB has limited experience or

resources for regulation of a code

Awareness and

demand

Disconnect sometimes between

seed specifications and the seed

that is actually planted

Potential opportunity to help address issues by building awareness

among end customers may be more limited given activities

undertaken by key primary producer players and Flora locale in the

Medium


authoritative scientific advice. However,





Opportunity/

Issue Area






and Assets

(including last minute

substitutions of lower

specification and cheaper seeds

by seed suppliers), driven in

part by limited monitoring

market – unless a project advisor role is developed with specifiers although Wakehurst Place runs learning and

education programmes, and KIU offers

consultancy services to land-based industries

worldwide, MSB’s network, experience and

credibility among end customers in the UK is

relatively limited at present. Purchase and sowing of seeds

can be seen as relatively low

priority in large scale

development and infrastructure

projects, leading to budget and

time constraints

Mixed levels of awareness

among some contractors of lead

times and costs associated with

seed supply

Mixed understanding among

some developers, landscape

architects and contractors of

ecology and the importance of

UK native species

Growing, but still limited retail

consumer demand around seeds

that contribute to biodiversity

Potential opportunity to contribute to existing efforts and build

understanding, awareness and demand for UK native seeds among

the retail market/private individuals still remains

Medium – High

Native wildflowers have, and will continue to

be, integrated into the visitor experience at





Opportunity/

Issue Area






and Assets

Potential opportunity to work with key industry

partners/stakeholders to support efforts to promote wildlife

gardening at a national scale

Potential opportunity to design a tailored seed offer for the retail

market (accompanied by starter kits and how to guides), with seed

production and bulking up to commercial quantities undertaken by

existing primary producers

Viability of seed likely to be a key driver in a retail market used to

65-70% germination rates on vegetable seeds. Potential

opportunities associated with ensuring high quality seed for the

retail market (see section on seed quality above)

Wakehurst Place. Wakehurst is one of the

most visited botanical gardens in the UK,

and the most visited garden owned by the

National Trust, with almost half a million

visits/year. The RBG Kew website received

>4 million hits in 2010/11. Wakehurst also

delivers an extensive learning programme.

The ‘Go Native’ project, if successful in its

application to the BIG Lottery for funding,

would provide significant resources to

engage with private individuals/ community

groups and encourage them to learn about

and use native seed

Limited influence of the UK

native seed market on broad

policy and regulatory

developments that impact the

market

Potential opportunity to engage with Defra to encourage broad

policy and regulatory developments to take account of the needs and

implications for the UK native seed market.

Medium

RBG Kew has a funding relationship with

Defra, and its brand is associated with

impartial, authoritative scientific advice.

However, RBG Kew is not currently set up

as an expert advisor to Defra, either on the

UK native seed market in particular, or on

UK biodiversity in general





Opportunity/

Issue Area






and Assets


suppliers/players to develop coherent industry responses to draft

policy and regulatory changes.

Medium


authoritative scientific advice, although some

players in the market consider RBG Kew to

be too academic/too removed from the work

that takes place on the ground.

Understanding

and Research

Insufficient understanding of

impact of imported seeds to

local habitats

Potential opportunity still remains for research and advice associated

with this topic area, although it may be relatively limited. A number

of players (particularly in the tree and shrub sector) felt that climate

change considerations and long term viability outweighed issues of

local origin. Other players also commented that a lack of focus on

local origin over the last few years, and the subsequent widespread

dissemination of seeds beyond their natural location, has rendered

this an impractical issue to address.

Medium - High

RBG Kew is a world famous, independent

scientific research institute, with the

expertise to undertake this research – but it

hasn’t yet undertaken the research


the impact of climate change, of

climate change adaptability of

native species, and the impact of

local origin on long term

sustainability

Given activities of the Forestry Commission in this area, the

potential opportunity associated with UK native trees and shrubs

may be relatively limited.

Potential opportunity still remains for research and advice associated

with UK native wildflower seeds and climate change.

Medium – High


scientific research institute, with the

expertise to undertake this research – but it

hasn’t yet undertaken the research


seed establishment and the

techniques for habitat creation

Given activities of existing key primary producer players in the

market, potential opportunity associated with this may be relatively

limited – unless RBG Kew has unmatched relevant scientific

High


scientific research institute, with significant





Opportunity/

Issue Area






and Assets

expertise/evidence in this area existing horticultural and ecological

restoration expertise. It also has core skills

around seed germination and multiplication

UK Native Seed Hub

Final Business Model Paper

Appendix D Final Business Model Paper_FOI Request


CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 VISION, OFFER AND PARTICIPATION 3

2.1 Overview 3

2.2 Prioritising Opportunities 3

2.3 Key Offer and Proposition 6

2.4 Prioritising Habitat Segments 10

2.5 Overall Long Term Vision 12

3.0 MARKETING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 14

3.1 Overview 14

3.2 Key Objectives 14

3.3 Business Development and Phasing Approach for the Offer Areas 17

4.0 OPERATIONS AND GOVERNANCE 20

4.1 Overview 20

4.2 Operational Resources 20

4.3 Governance Considerations 24


Business Model Paper



1.0 INTRODUCTION












Task 5: Developing the financial plan; and


1.1.3 This document is the Business Model Paper associated with Task 4 (defining the business model). It

seeks to draw together the findings from Tasks 1-3 and define the strategic approach for the UK

Native Seed Hub initiative, including the overall vision, offer/proposition and which segments it

would participate in, the key approach to marketing and new business development, and the broad

operating model. This broad business model would form the basis of the financial plan developed in

Task 5.

1.1.4 A draft of the document was issued to the Steering Team on 30th September 2011, and discussed at a

Steering Team meeting on 5th October 2011. This final document reflects comments made by the


information.

1.1.5 Within this paper, the following terms and definitions have been used:

Viability – describes the ability of seeds (or embryos) to germinate. In practice it is generally

considered to be the germination rate, which is the proportion of seeds that germinate given

appropriate environmental conditions;

Purity – describes the degree to which batches of seed are free from contaminants, including

seed of non-target species; and

Quality – captures or combines the concepts of viability and purity.









2.0 VISION, OFFER AND PARTICIPATION

2.1 Overview

2.1.1 This section describes the core of the proposed business model. It first seeks to prioritise the

opportunities identified and discussed during Tasks 1-3 and then, based on this prioritisation, to

define a key offer and proposition for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. It also seeks to prioritise

which habitat segments the initiative should focus on. Drawing this all together, this section also

proposes a long term vision for the initiative.

2.2 Prioritising Opportunities

2 2.1 Task 1 identified a number of potential opportunity areas in the UK native seed market, based on

issues or gaps in the market. The table overleaf prioritises these potential opportunity areas for

RBG Kew along two dimensions. The first dimension is the relative scale and/or importance of

these potential opportunity areas to UK nature conservation, taking into account activities already

undertaken by key players in the market (as described in Task 2). This reflects RBG Kew’s aim for

the UK Native Seed Hub initiative to support aspirations around coherent, resilient ecological

networks and enhanced biodiversity (on a cost recovery basis), rather than to attain maximum

commercial gain. The second dimension is the alignment of these potential opportunity areas with

existing RBG Kew strengths and assets (as identified in Task 3). The table has then been colour

coded: opportunities which score highly both in terms of their importance to UK nature

conservation and in terms of their alignment with existing RBG Kew strengths are coloured green;

opportunities which score medium or above on both dimensions are coloured orange; and

opportunities which score low or low/medium on either dimension are coloured red.

2 2.2 Please note that this table very much represents a ‘snapshot in time’ picture, based on current

understanding of the market and existing RBG Kew strengths and assets. It does not reflect RBG

Kew’s aspirations for the future. The table should be reviewed on a regular basis to reflect changes

in the market or additional information about the market, and to reflect changes to RBG Kew’s

strengths and assets. On this basis, although opportunities in the red ‘zone’ may not be deemed a

priority at this stage, it does not preclude them from becoming a priority at some point in the

future.



Appendix D Final Business Model Paper_FOI Request redactions justified under FOIA Chris Blandford Associates

Relative Scale and/or Importance of Potential Opportunity Areas to UK Nature Conservation

Low Low/

Medium

Medium Medium-High High

Ali

gn

men

t o

f P

ote

nti

al

Op

po

rtu

nit

y A

reas

wit

h R

BG

Str

en

gth

s an

d A

ssets

Low Entrance into the market as a primary producer, to address concerns that supply is potentially not sufficient to meet latent demand.

Provision of database of available local origin species, to address current limitations in availability.

Provision of certification or testing service around UK native origin, to address issues around incorrect marketing.

Low/

Medium

Medium Provision of founder stocks of local or multi origin to address current limitations in availability.

Build awareness and demand among end customers of importance of UK native origin and need to request certification, to address issues around incorrect marketing.

Provision of tailored seed offer for retail market, with bulking up undertaken by primary producers under license, to address issue of insufficient supply of UK native seed.

Build awareness and demand among end customers of importance of high quality cleaning and storage and need to request certification, to address issues around mixed quality standards around seed cleaning and storage, and impact on viability.

Build understanding among end customers to address issues around disconnect between specifications and actual seed planted, and relatively low prioritisation of seeds in large scale development/ infrastructure projects.

Build awareness and demand among end customers of importance of seed testing and need to request certification, to address issues around low quality and viability of some seeds.

Greater collaboration with Defra to address issue of limited formal regulation of native wildflower seed market.

Greater collaboration with Flora locale and key market players to establish wider and more robust code of practice, and encourage greater regulation and promotion of the code.

Greater collaboration with Defra to



Appendix D Final Business Model Paper_FOI Request redactions justified under FOIA Chris Blandford Associates

Relative Scale and/or Importance of Potential Opportunity Areas to UK Nature Conservation

Low Low/

Medium

Medium Medium-High High

encourage broad policy and regulatory developments to take greater account of implications for the UK native seed market.

Greater collaboration with Flora locale and key market players to develop coherent industry responses to draft policy and regulatory changes.

Medium-

High

Build awareness around UK native seeds among the retail market, to help increase current relatively limited levels of demand.

Research to build increased understanding of impact of imported seeds on local species, populations and habitats.

Provision of technical advice, accreditation or cleaning and storage facilities, to address issues around mixed quality standards around seed cleaning and storage.

Provision of technical advice, accreditation or testing service, to address issues around low viability of some seeds.

Research to build increased understanding of impact of climate change and local origin on long term sustainability.

High Provision of founder stocks to address current limitations in range of seed offered by commercial companies.

Research to build understanding of seed establishment, and techniques for habitat creation.





2.3 Key Offer and Proposition

2 3.1 The table below sets out the proposed key offer areas and associated products/services for the UK

Native Seed Hub initiative. It takes into account the findings from the prioritisation table above, as

well as RBG Kew’s aspirations for the future, as discussed during the Steering Team meeting at the

end of Task 3. To support the aim for the initiative to operate on a cost recovery basis, it also

identifies which elements of the offer may have some income generating potential.

2 3.2 The core offer comprises provision of seed, provision of training and technical advice, and provision

of other facilities/services. This is supported by tailored research activities, which provide

associated information and expertise, and which help build RBG Kew’s credibility in the market.

The core offer is also supported by activities focused on regulation/standards of practice and

awareness building, reflecting a need to build demand to address some of the issues in the market

and to support RBG Kew’s offer.

2 3.3 Within all offer areas, the emphasis is on seed quality and viability testing, storage and cleaning,

and on more challenging and difficult to commercially harvest/germinate species, reflecting the

gaps and issues in the market and RBG Kew’s particular strengths.

Offer Area Products/Services Offered Comments

Seed

provision

Missing species

Production of founder stocks (or single bulking up if

commercial quantities required were relatively low) for

species currently missing from existing commercial

mixes (whether because they are difficult to harvest

commercially, are outside typical harvesting windows,

have long dormancy, are difficult to germinate, or are

too expensive for the market to bear at present),

including for example calcareous mixes.

Founder stocks would be provided to primary

producers, who would then bulk up the species to

commercial quantities as required.

Provision of seeds to be accompanied by appropriate

advice/guidance notes and certification.

Potential opportunity to generate

income as well as contribute to

UK nature conservation –

although seeds would need to be

produced at a reasonable cost

that the market could support.

Rare species and Schedule 8 species

Production of founder stocks (or single bulking up if

commercial quantities required were relatively low) for

rare species and Schedule 8 species.



commercial quantities. Single bulking up could be

provided directly to end customer.

Limited demand and income

potential, but supply would add

value to UK nature conservation.







advice/guidance notes

and certification.

Local/multi origin

Production of founder stocks, or single bulking up if

commercial quantities required were relatively low, for

local or multi origin seeds.



commercial quantities. Single bulking up would be

provided directly to end customer.



Although this is in the orange

‘zone’ of the table in Section 2 2,

views on the importance of this

opportunity to UK nature

conservation are currently mixed,

and RBG Kew is already

embarking on a programme to

collect local origin seeds that will

significantly strengthen their

assets in this area.

The inclusion of this service

should be reviewed once research

into the importance of local

origin is complete.

Potential opportunity to generate

income.

High quality founder stocks

Production of high quality founder stocks for species

that primary producers currently harvest from the wild.



commercial quantities.



There are currently mixed

messages from primary

producers on the value of RBG

Kew providing high quality

founder stocks of the more

common species, but there would

be value in exploring this further

Agrochemical sector

Provision of high quality seeds (either directly

harvested or through single bulking up) with tailored

germination protocol for agrochemical sector (eg for

companies developing herbicides).



Contribution to UK nature

conservation likely to be

relatively limited. However, this

could help generate income to

support the overall financial

sustainability of the UK Native

Seed Hub initiative.

Retail market

Provision of tailored seed offer for the retail market –

where RBG Kew would design, brand and viability test

the offer, and primary producers would grow seeds in

commercial quantities under contract or license. Seeds

would be accompanied by starter kits and ‘how to’

guides.


‘zone’ of the table in Section 2.2,

it is aligned with RBG Kew’s

future aspirations around the

retail sector – it would build on

the ‘Go Native’ project (assuming

the application to BIG Lottery is

successful) and RBG Kew’s

existing status and brand with

visitors. It would also indirectly

support broader demand and






awareness building activities, and

could provide an opportunity for

income generation.

Provision

of training

and

technical

advice

Seed viability

Training and technical advice to primary producers,

seed collectors/providers and seed merchants on seed

viability – including on realistic germination and

dormancy profiles, how to establish viability tests, and

factors that influence viability.

Some income generation

potential from this, but not likely

to be significant.

Seed cleaning and storage

Training and technical advice to primary producers,

seed collectors/providers and seed merchants on seed

cleaning and storage needs, best practice facilities, and

on impact on seed viability.

Some income generation from

this is possible, but not likely to

be significant.

Horticultural skills

Training and technical advice (including protocols)

focused around how to maximise conversion from

seedlings to plants and get optimal plant performance

(including value and use of high vs low intensity

methods, impact of compost and soils etc)

Some income generation from

this is possible, but not likely to

be significant.

Provision

of other

facilities/

services

Viability testing

Provision of seed viability testing service, for primary

producers, seed merchants and/or end users.

RBG Kew tested seeds to be appropriately kitemarked

or branded.

Potential income generation

opportunities here, particularly if

the offer is extended to other

associated sectors outside UK

native wildflower species.

Cleaning and storage facilities

Provision of use of high quality MSB cleaning and

storage facilities to primary producers, seed merchants

and/or end users.

Income generating potential

likely to be relatively limited.

Consultancy/trusted advisor

Provision of consultancy advice (particularly to

exemplar projects) on species currently growing in the

area, mix of species that should be planted, how best to

ensure good planting rates, where to source seeds etc.

Would be supplemented by provision of founder stocks

to supplement commercial mixes available, and

provision of viability testing and cleaning and storage

facility services (see above). Please note that

consultancy opportunities associated with restoration

ecology are outside the scope of this study.

Potential income generation

opportunities here, and advisory

status on projects could also lead

to other related income

opportunities (such as provision

of viability testing, or cleaning

and storage facilities)

Research Seed establishment and habitat creation

Undertake research into seed establishment and

techniques for habitat creation – potentially including

identifying which mixes and seed origin would be

suitable for different geographic areas around the UK,

and resolving germination and propagation issues for

specific species.

Builds RBG Kew credibility in

the market as well as providing

information to support RBG

Kew’s broader offer.

Some income generating

potential through contract

research, but unlikely to be

significant. Could be

supplemented by research grants.

Climate change, local origin and sustainability

Undertake research into understanding the impact of






climate change and how that relates to the importance

of local origin on long term sustainability.

Regulation

and

Standards

of Practice


Government lobbying to increase formal regulation/

monitoring of UK native wildflower market (including

on marketing of UK native origin seeds, and on quality

and viability standards), and to encourage broad policy

and regulatory developments to take greater account of

UK native seed market needs and implications.




future aspirations around their

relationship with Defra. It could

also significantly benefit UK

nature conservation, help drive

some of the required changes to

the UK native wildflower seed

market, and support RBG Kew’s

offer.

Limited income generating

potential.


Collaboration with Flora locale and key market players

to establish a broader, more robust, better regulated and

better promoted Code of Practice (with sufficient

emphasis on seed quality and viability, storage and

cleaning), and to develop coherent industry responses to

draft policy and regulatory changes. Collaboration could

involve the development of an informal trade

association.



this activity could significantly

benefit UK nature conservation,

help drive some of the required

changes to the UK native

wildflower seed market, and

support RBG Kew’s offer.

There is significant need for this,

although demand may be

currently relatively limited.

A partnership with Flora locale

would help to build RBG Kew’s

general credibility in this area,

and Flora locale has already

started to engage with RBG Kew

on development of its (Flora

locale’s) future strategy.


likely to be limited.

Awareness

building

and demand

developmen

t


Awareness building and demand development among

end users and specifiers. Focus on importance of seed

testing/viability, high quality cleaning/ storage and

associated impact on viability, UK native and local

origin, increased emphasis on enhanced certification,

and value of incorporating stricter guidelines in seed

specifications.

To be delivered through a range of means, including

participation in conferences/ seminars and Flora locale’s

training programme, organisation of conferences/



this activity is critical in building

demand for other components of

RBG Kew’s offer, and ultimately

in helping to improve UK nature

conservation.

Collaboration with Flora locale

will provide RBG Kew with

access to a network of end users/

specifiers – which would






symposia, provision of educational opportunities,

publication of articles and practical guidance notes,

development of a micro-website, and general

networking.

compensate for limitations in

RBG Kew’s existing network.




Awareness building and demand development among

retail market/private individuals.

To be delivered through range of means, including

integrating seed production beds into general visitor

attraction at Wakehurst Place, and including

information about value and importance of UK native

wildflower species in interpretation, learning

programmes, volunteer programme, and general

interest publications.

Where appropriate, opportunities should also be

explored to disseminate information through mass

media and social media.




future aspirations around the

retail sector – it would build on

the ‘Go Native’ project (assuming

the application to BIG Lottery is

successful) and RBG Kew’s

existing status and brand with

visitors. It would also support

RBG Kew’s retail offer, and

indirectly support broader

demand and awareness building

activities.



2 3.4 It should be noted that RBG Kew’s intellectual property, particularly its skills and expertise, plays

an important role in underpinning the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. It forms the basis of RBG

Kew’s value to the market. To help secure the long term financial sustainability of the initiative, it

will be important to ensure that sufficient intellectual property is retained within RBG Kew to

enable it to continue offering its products and services. Thus, for example, in providing founder

stocks of missing species (particularly those where commercial harvesting or germination is

challenging), RBG Kew should consider whether it can provide seeds without the technical

information to unlock the harvesting or germination challenges, or whether to provide plug plants

rather than seeds. Similarly, in terms of training primary producers on seed viability and testing,

RBG Kew should consider whether there is a level of training that would improve current standards

without undermining its own seed testing offer.

2.4 Prioritising Habitat Segments

2 4.1 In addition to prioritising opportunities, there is also value in prioritising which habitat types RBG

Kew should focus on. This will help inform allocation of space in the nursery and seed production

beds, as well as helping to prioritise staff time and costs.

2 4.2 Overall, greatest emphasis is proposed for seeds associated with species rich grassland. This habitat

type dominates the market at present and is likely to grow, many of the issues in the market relate





to this habitat segment, and this is also aligned with RBG Kew’s current areas of expertise and

experience. It is also proposed that some emphasis be given to seeds associated with heathland and

wetland vegetation habitats, where growth is forecast in the future, and to cornfield annuals, which

are likely to share some of the issues associated with species rich grassland seeds.

2 4.3 It is further proposed that some emphasis also be given to seeds associated with woodland field

layer. Although this is currently a very small sector of the market with limited funding, there is

some recognition in the market that there would be value in greater emphasis on this habitat type.

At present, there are a number of technical issues that prevent wider use of seeds, which could mean

that this habitat type is well suited to RBG Kew’s distinctive expertise. However, there is likely to

be a need for efforts to build market demand in this area, and for research to understand and resolve

some of the technical issues that are acting as barriers to growth.

2 4.4 Seeds associated with trees/shrubs and with coastal habitats have been given the lowest priority

ranking. The tree/shrub market is already relatively mature and well regulated, while coastal

habitats represent a very small sector of the market with no immediate prospects for growth.

2 4.5 The prioritisation described above and set out in the table below is very much intended to provide a

broad framework for allocating resources. It will also be important to respond to specific

opportunities that arise, and that do not fit in the broad habitat types identified, including for

example for northern upland windfarms.

%

Habitat

Created

through

Seeds

% Seeds

Provided

Through

Commercial

Suppliers

% of UK

Native Seed

Market


Trees/

shrubs

80% 15-35% Low. Mature, relatively well regulated market;

Forestry Commission takes active role, including

in research; market dominated by small number of

key players, with many seeds harvested by

nurseries from their own crops.


Species

rich

grassland

90% 80% 75-90% High. Habitat segment dominates the market at

present, and many of the issues identified in the

UK native seed market relate to this habitat

segment; habitat segment is also aligned with RBG

Kew’s current areas of expertise; NEWP and UK

BAP targets suggest potential future growth in

this habitat segment.

Heathland 80% 30% 0-25% Medium. Relatively limited share of seeds provided

through commercial suppliers; however, NEWP





%

Habitat

Created

through

Seeds

% Seeds

Provided

Through

Commercial

Suppliers

% of UK

Native Seed

Market


and UK BAP targets suggest potential future

growth in this habitat segment.

Wetland

vegetation

50% 80% 0-5% Medium. Very small segment at present, although

NEWP and UK BAP targets suggest potential

future growth in this habitat segment.

Cornfield

annuals

30% 100% 0-10% Medium. Some issues associated with species rich

grassland also likely to apply to cornfield annuals.

Woodland

field layer

5% 100% 0-5% Medium. Very small segment at present, with

limited funding associated with it, and technical

germination/establishment issues that act as

barriers. However, there is some market

recognition that there is potential/value in greater

emphasis on woodland field layer, although

emphasis would need to be given to building

market demand and undertaking research to

identify and resolve the technical issues.

Coastal

habitats

5% 10% 0-5% Low. Very small segment at present ; seeds have

limited use in the creation of coastal habitats.

2.5 Overall Long Term Vision

2.5.1 The UK Native Seed Hub initiative will use the seed collections, scientific facilities, seed

technology and horticultural expertise, and authoritative brand of RBG Kew and its

Millennium Seed Bank to actively contribute to developing coherent, resilient ecological

networks and to enhancing biodiversity in the UK, in line with the aspirations set out in the

Government’s Natural Environment White Paper (2011).

2 5.2 It will achieve this by supporting the UK native seed market to produce high quality UK native

seeds from a range of species with high biodiversity value, through provision of seeds,

training/technical advice, facilities and services. This will be supported by targeted research, and by

efforts to increase regulation and end user awareness – in a way that contributes to the market

without drowning its players in unnecessary bureaucracy.

2 5.3 The UK Native Seed Hub initiative will also support efforts to build general public awareness of the

importance and value of UK native seeds and their contribution to biodiversity – by using the

resources of Wakehurst Place and RBG Kew as popular visitor attractions with strong brands, and

by designing a seed offer tailored to the particular needs and desires of the retail market .





2 5.4 In line with RBG Kew’s activities elsewhere, partnership working will be a key part of how the UK

Native Seed Hub initiative operates. As a public body, RBG Kew aims to work with, rather than in

competition with, existing players in the market. Emphasis will be placed primarily on working

with primary seed producers to support a range of market use/funding stream segments. RBG Kew

will also focus on working in partnership with Flora locale and collaboratively with Defra, and on

building good working relationships with end users and specifiers.

2 5.5 Over time, RBG Kew could potentially develop into a trusted advisor for end users and specifiers,

becoming a centralised hub through which a multitude of services could be accessed.

2 5.6 The UK Native Seed Hub is ultimately a not for profit initiative, although it will seek to operate on

a cost-recovery basis. In support of this, the initiative will charge for some of its services, and will

also extend provision of its services to other related sectors (such as agrochemicals).





3.0 MARKETING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 This section describes the broad plan for developing the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. It sets out

the key objectives that need to underpin overall business development and ongoing marketing, and

the implications for business development for each of the proposed offer areas.

3.2 Key Objectives

3 2.1 Three key objectives will be important to successfully develop the UK Native Seed Hub initiative:

Objective 1: Build demand for the UK Native Seed Hub offer;

Objective 2: Identify suitable high profile ‘exemplar projects’ early on; and

Objective 3: Adopt a gradualist approach to developing the UK Native Seed Hub initiative.


3 2.2 As described in Section 2, the proposed offer and proposition for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative

responds to a need for a wider range of higher quality, more viable seeds. Recent international and

UK policy making focuses on urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity and to establish resilient

ecosystems, and market research conducted during Task 1 indicates that there are gaps in the range

of species currently on offer in the market, and issues with their viability. However, demand for a

wider range of higher quality, more viable seed is currently relatively limited. The market for UK

native seeds is relatively unsophisticated in comparison, for example, with the agricultural seed

market. Formal regulation is limited, and the existing Code of Practice contains some gaps and has

limited monitoring and enforcement. End users often do not have the expertise or experience to

understand or address the issues, while specifiers can often been removed from the seed purchase

process, and therefore either be unaware of the issues or have limited ability to impact them.

3 2.3 RBG Kew will therefore need to work to build this demand before the full potential of its offer can

be realised. Using its brand, assets and expertise, it will need to implement a proactive business

development strategy, focusing on awareness building, improving standards of practice and self-

regulation, and increasing formal regulation. Essentially, it will need to try and lead the sector from

the front.

3 2.4 Awareness building will be important among both end users/specifiers and also among the key

players in the market. At present, although RBG Kew has a strong brand generally, its profile,





perceived relevance and therefore credibility in the UK native seed market is currently more mixed.

Awareness building will therefore need to focus both on RBG Kew and what it has to offer in the

market, as well as the needs associated with using UK native seeds for habitat restoration and

creation.

3 2.5 There are a number of tools that RBG Kew will need to employ to build awareness and therefore

demand in the market. As described in Section 2, these include:

Participating in Flora locale’s training programme;

Participating in conferences, trade fairs, seminars and collaborations - eg those associated with

the British Ecological Society, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Institute

of Environmental Management and Assessment, International Association of Landscape

Ecology (UK), Construction Industry Research and Information Association, Association of

Local Government Ecologists, Landscape Institute, and Royal Town Planning Institute;

Organising conferences/ symposia;

Providing educational opportunities associated with land management courses - such as Capel

Manor;

Publishing articles and practical guidance notes in relevant trade journals (eg those associated

with the above mentioned organisations, and also others such as British Wildlife), and on the

Flora locale website;

Publishing books and manuals;

General networking - eg with Defra/Environment Bank on Biodiversity Offset pilots, Natural

England/Nature Partnerships on Nature Improvement Areas, statutory bodies, Royal

Horticultural Society, Professional Gardeners’ Guild, National Farmers Union, and a range of

conservation NGOs (such as Buglife, Butterfly Conservation, Royal Entomological Society,

Wildlife Trusts, and RSPB); and

Developing a focused UK Native Seed Hub microsite (or dedicated web pages) within the RBG

Kew website, linked to Flora locale’s website.

3 2.6 All tools will be important, but face to face interactions and building networks and relationships will

be particularly critical.

3 2.7 The key to ensuring that awareness building activities generate a specific return for the UK Native

Seed Hub initiative itself, in addition to their general value, is to ensure they are unified around a

consistent focus – namely RBG Kew’s key strengths (its collections, facilities, expertise and brand),

and the offer it is trying to build in the market. Awareness building activities should therefore focus

around the value of widening the range of species offered in the market, the importance of seed

quality and viability and the factors that influence those, the impact of climate change and the value

of local origin, and the benefit of stricter guidelines in seed specifications, greater formal and self

regulation, and improved monitoring.






3 2.12 Objective 3 focuses on taking a gradualist approach to building the UK Native Seed Hub initiative.

This would allow RBG Kew to learn by doing, test the waters and flexibly adapt in response to

market reaction, without committing significant resources too early on. The need to focus on

building demand, and the potentially limited income generating potential, at least initially, suggests

that it would be too early to ‘incorporate’ the UK Native Seed Hub concept at this stage into some

form of formal enterprise, such as a not for profit company.

3 2.13 The gradualist approach would focus on providing some of the products and services at a relatively

small scale initially, before ramping up once market demand and RBG Kew’s effectiveness at

delivery had been confirmed. Thus, for example, RBG Kew could begin by providing seeds

associated with a limited number of missing species initially, and ramping up to a broader range of

species if the market responded favourably. A similar approach could be taken to provision of seeds

for the agrochemical sector, and to provision of facilities for testing seed viability.

3.3 Business Development and Phasing Approach for the Offer Areas

3 3.1 The table below sets out the broad business development and phasing approach for the proposed

offer areas. It articulates how the business development objectives identified above apply to the

relevant offer areas, and it also sets out the implications for phasing.


Offered


Seed

provision

Missing species

First, undertake research to identify which species are missing from

commercial mixes, what the associated issues are and how they can be

resolved.

Identify a focused, limited range of species to develop an initial offer

for, and increase volumes once market demand and RBG Kew’s

effectiveness at delivery has been confirmed. Focus on species that are

likely to have wide use over a range of geographical areas and

projects. (Objective 3)

Identify exemplar projects to showcase the value of RBG Kew’s

contribution. (Objective 2)

Focus on this early on to generate income stream to support other

activities.

Rare species and

Schedule 8 species

Take a reactive approach to this opportunity – develop founder stocks

only in response to specific project requests.

Local/multi origin Take a reactive approach to this opportunity until research has






Offered


confirmed the value and importance of local origin – develop founder

stocks only in response to specific project requests.

In the meantime, continue to collect local origin seeds to supplement

the collection in the MSB, focusing on those species where local origin

is most likely to have an impact.

High quality

founder stocks

Take a reactive approach to this opportunity – develop founder stocks

only in response to specific primary producer or project requests

Agrochemical

sector

Begin to offer this at a limited scale initially, and increase volumes

once market demand and RBG Kew’s effectiveness at delivery has

been confirmed. (Objective 3)

Focus on this early on to generate income stream to support other

activities.

Retail market

Wait for results of ‘Go Native’ funding application before continuing.

If successful, focus on ‘Go Native’ first, and then based on outputs and

learnings from that project, start to develop an offer for the retail

market. (Objective 3)

Provision of

training and

technical

advice

Seed viability

Focus strongly on this early on, to help build profile in the market

and demand for RBG Kew services. (Objective 1)

Seed cleaning and

storage

Focus strongly on this early on, to help build profile in the market


Horticultural skills Focus strongly on this early on, to help build profile in the market


Provision of

other

facilities/

services

Viability testing

Need to focus on awareness building and improved regulation first, to

build demand for this. (Objective 1)


contribution, and to generate income to support other activities.

(Objective 2)

Cleaning and

storage facilities

Need to focus on awareness building and improved regulation first, to

build demand for this. (Objective 1)


contribution. (Objective 2)

Consultancy

/trusted advisor

Identify exemplar projects to showcase the consultancy service that

RBG Kew can offer. (Objective 2).

Focus on this early on, to help build profile in the market and demand

for RBG Kew services (Objective 1), but offer this at a limited scale

initially, and increase scale once market demand and RBG Kew’s

effectiveness at delivery has been confirmed. (Objective 3)

Research Seed establishment

and habitat creation

Focus on this early on to generate the knowledge to build RBG Kew’s

profile and value in the market. (Objective 1)

Climate change,

local origin and

sustainability

Regulation Increased Likely to be a longer term opportunity.






Offered


and

Standards of

Practice

regulation

Focus first on building a generally more advisory relationship with

Defra, and on seeking to improve self regulation in the market (see

below).

Focus on government lobbying once progress has been made on the

above.

Increased self-

regulation

First, undertake research to identify the scale and nature of seed

viability issues in the market.

Focus strongly on this early on, to help build demand for RBG Kew

services. (Objective 1)

Awareness

building and

demand

development

End users and

specifiers

First, undertake research to identify the scale and nature of seed

viability issues in the market.



Retail

market/private

individuals







4.0 OPERATIONS AND GOVERNANCE

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 This section describes the broad operating model that would support the proposed offer and

proposition for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative, as described in Section 2. It describes the key

types of operational resources required, as well as the key considerations for governance.

4.2 Operational Resources

4 2.1 An initial view of the types of operational resources required to support the proposed offer and

proposition is set out in the table below. The types of resources are largely in line with those

identified for the 4 year pilot programme supported by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation . However,

it is likely that staff time/numbers will need to be increased.

4 2.2 An initiative of this ambition and desired impact needs to ensure that it has sufficient staff resources

to develop demand and to deliver a timely, quality service to its clients. With the exception of the

new horticulturalist and sandwich course students, all staff currently allocated to the 4 year pilot

programme have their responsibilities divided between the UK Native Seed Hub initiative and their

‘day job’, with most staff having 20% or less of their time allocated to the UK Native Seed Hub

initiative. During the initial phase of the initiative when UK Native Seed Hub requirements for staff

time are relatively low, this informal arrangement can work. If, however, the aim is to develop a

credible not for profit enterprise with a track record of delivery in the market, formal arrangements

will need to be made concerning allocation of staff resource, with backfilling or new posts

introduced as required.

4 2.3 In terms of assets and facilities, requirements for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative include new

dedicated seed production beds, and use of the MSB’s seed germination and seed processing

laboratories (with temperature controlled incubators, a digital x-ray machine and seed cleaning

equipment), drying and cold room facilities, and nursery. Discussions with MSB staff suggest that

there is sufficient capacity within the MSB’s facilities to accommodate the needs of the UK Native

Seed Hub initiative, with the possible exception of the nursery. The UK Native Seed Hub initiative

will also need to make use of the MSB’s existing collection of UK native seeds, and may also require

new additions to the collections focused in particular around local origin and genetic diversity.

4 2.4 In terms of staff resources, learnings from the 4 year pilot programme have already indicated that

greater staff resources are likely to be required than originally anticipated. The proposed offer and

proposition for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative will also increase the requirement for staff

resources, particularly around the following activities:





Offer Area Products/Ser

vices Offered

Key Staff Requirements Key Assets/

Facilities Required

Staff to include: UK Collecting Coordinator, Head

of Collecting and Network Support Section,

Botanical Horticulturalist, Manager Plant

Propagation and Conservation, Harvesting Team,

C&T Processing Team, and Head of Conservation

and Technology Section.

germination and seed

processing labs,

drying and cold room

facilities, nursery.

In addition, will

require dedicated

seed production beds

and potentially

additional nursery

capacity.

Retail market

Likely to require additional resources and staff

time to those identified for 4 year pilot

programme.

Staff to include: new post associated with ‘Go

Native’ project, Kew Enterprises Team,

Restoration Ecology Coordinator, C&T

Processing Team, Head of Conservation and

Technology Section.

Partnership working with Garden Centre Group

and/or retail seed merchant.

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

germination lab.

Provision of

training and

technical

advice

Seed viability



programme.

Staff to include: Head of Collecting and Network

Support Section, C&T Processing Team,

Germination Specialist, and Head of Conservation

and Technology Section.

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

germination lab, seed

processing lab, and


facilities.

Seed cleaning

and storage

Likely to require additional staff time to that

identified for 4 year pilot programme.


Support Section, C&T Processing Team, and Head

of Conservation and Technology Section.

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

germination lab, seed

processing lab, and


facilities.

Horticultural

skills



programme.

Staff to include: Restoration Ecology Coordinator,

Botanical Horticulturalist, Manager Plant

Propagation and Conservation, Conservation and

Woodland Manager, and Head of Horticulture and

Estate Management.

Existing MSB

facilities: nursery,

seed production beds,

seed germination lab,

seed processing lab,

and drying and cold

room facilities.

Provision of

other

facilities/

Viability

testing

Will require additional staff time to that identified

for 4 year pilot programme.

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

germination lab.






vices Offered


Facilities Required

services

Staff to include: C&T Processing Team, Head of

Conservation and Technology Section.

Cleaning and

storage

facilities



Staff to include: C&T Processing Team, Head of

Conservation and Technology Section.

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

processing lab, and


facilities.

Consultancy/

trusted

advisor



Staff to include: Restoration Ecology Coordinator,

UK Collecting Coordinator, Head of Collecting

and Network Support Section, Botanical

Horticulturalist, Conservation and Woodland

Manager, Head of Conservation and Technology

Section, and Head of Horticulture and Estate

Management

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

germination and

processing labs, and


facilities.

Research Seed

establishment

and habitat

creation



programme.

Staff to include: Sandwich Course Student,

Restoration Ecology Coordinator, Germination

Specialist, Head of Conservation and Technology

Section, UK Collections Coordinator, Head of

Collecting and Network Support Section,

Conservation and Woodland Manager, and

Logistics Operative.

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

germination and

processing labs, and


facilities. Climate

change, local

origin and

sustainability

Regulation

and

Standards of

Practice

Increased

regulation



programme.


Support Section, Head of Conservation and

Technology Section, Head of Seed Conservation,

Head of Wakehurst Place.

Developing a collaborative and advisory

relationship with Defra will be key here.

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

processing and

germination labs, and


facilities (as

showcases).

Increased self-

regulation



programme.


Support Section, Head of Conservation and

Technology Section, Restoration Ecology

Coordinator.

Developing a partnership with Flora locale will be

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

processing and



facilities (as

showcases).






vices Offered


Facilities Required

key to building RBG Kew’s credibility in this area.

End users and

specifiers



programme.

Staff to include:

Restoration Ecology Coordinator, Head of

Conservation and Technology Section, UK

Collections Coordinator, Conservation and

Woodland Manager, Head of Collecting and

Network Support Section, Wakehurst/RBG Kew

Website and Publication Teams.

Developing a partnership with Flora locale will be

key to providing RBG Kew with access to a

network of end users.

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

processing and



facilities (as

showcases).

Retail

market/

private

individuals



programme.

Staff to include: Wakehurst Place Interpretation

Officer, Formal and Informal Learning Team, and

Wakehurst Place/ RBG Kew Volunteer Team,

Website Team, Publications Team, and

Marketing/PR Team, with advice/input from

Head of Wakehurst Place, Restoration Ecology

Coordinator, Botanical Horticulturalist, Head of

Conservation and Technology Section, UK

Collections Coordinator, Head of Collections and

Networking Support Section.

Existing RBG Kew

facilities: RBG Kew

website and

Wakehurst Place

visitor attraction.

New MSB facilities:

seed production beds,

to form part of the

general visitor

attraction at

Wakehurst Place.

Overall business development

and marketing/PR

Will require additional resources and staff time to

those identified for 4 year pilot programme.

Staff to include:

Business Development Manager (new post), RBG

Kew Marketing/PR Team, Head of Collecting and

Network Support Section, Head of Conservation

and Technology Section, Head of Seed

Conservation, Head of Wakehurst Place.

Existing MSB

facilities: seed

processing and



facilities (as

showcases).

4.3 Governance Considerations

4 3.1 The 4 year pilot programme is organisationally situated within the Seed Conservation (Millennium

Seed Bank Partnership) section of the Conservation, Living Collections and Estates Directorate.

This is also likely to be the most appropriate location for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative – Kew

Enterprises is too commercial for an initiative that is primarily not for profit (although it will be





important to collaborate with Kew Enterprises on the retail seed offer), and the Kew Innovation

Unit (KIU) is too internationally focused and, with its base at RBG Kew rather than Wakehurst

Place, too geographically distant to effectively manage the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. By being

organisationally and physically situated at the Millennium Seed Bank, the UK Native Seed Hub

initiative has immediate access to the assets, facilities, expertise and staff that it needs.

4 3.2 The Steering Team for the UK Native Seed Hub initiative includes representatives from the key

disciplines that will contribute to, and be impacted by, the initiative. There may, however, also be

value in including a representative from KIU on the Steering Team – this will help ensure that any

learnings and synergies can be effectively shared between KIU and the initiative, to the benefit of

both.

4 3.3 Strong leadership from the top will be required to realise the ambition and achieve the desired

impact of the UK Native Seed Hub initiative. This leadership would essentially act as the initiative’s

‘CEO’, and would focus on business development and also ensuring effective coordination of staff

resources for high quality delivery. At present, leadership of the initiative is divided between 3

senior staff members (Head of Conservation and Technology Section, Head of Collecting and

Network Support Section, and Head of Wakehurst Place), all of whom currently have 5% of their

time allocated to the 4 year pilot programme. There would be value in retaining these 3 staff as

senior sponsors/champions of the UK Native Seed Hub initiative, but there would also be value in

delegating day to day accountability for the initiative to the new Business Development Manager

post that is due to be recruited. The holder of this post should have both the time and the

skills/expertise to develop this initiative and, if appropriate, grow it into a fully fledged not for

profit enterprise. Although the Business Development Manager post is due to focus on general

opportunities to commercially leverage the assets and intellectual property of the MSB, the UK

Native Seed Hub initiative should be the majority focus of their time.


Project Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Distribution of Year 10 costs

Calendar Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Income £52,345 £75,826 £103,655 £134,769 £167,986 £181,864 £164,332 £177,888 £191,286 £204,523

Staff costs £195,360 £225,107 £268,499 £306,158 £330,858 £356,735 £379,454 £404,535 £430,412 £453,132 69%

Operating costs £18,896 £32,162 £47,267 £71,897 £83,064 £100,029 £116,794 £139,359 £149,723 £149,723 23% 74%

Marketing and PR £40,000 £15,000 £23,000 £32,000 £23,000 £15,000 £40,000 £15,000 £23,000 £32,000 5% 16%

Expenses £24,758 £20,670 £21,582 £18,103 £19,014 £19,459 £19,903 £20,348 £20,792 £21,236 3% 10%

Surplus/deficit -£226,669 -£217,114 -£256,693 -£293,389 -£287,950 -£309,359 -£391,820 -£401,354 -£432,642 -£451,568

check £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 100% 100%

Staff costs associated with new

posts only

£14,998 £18,774 £26,468 £32,267 £38,067 £44,794 £50,573 £56,353 £63,080 £68,859

Surplus/deficit when only new

staff posts are considered

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£14,662 -£19,498 £4,841 £2,583 -£62,939 -£53,172 -£65,309 -£67,296

check £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0

Income from Esmee Fairbairn

Foundation allocated to revenue

funds (vs capital costs)

£145,750 £145,750 £145,750

Surplus/deficit after Esmee

Fairbairn Foundation is factored

in

-£80,919 -£71,364 -£110,943

Surplus/deficit when only new

staff posts are considered, and

after Esmee Fairbairn

Foundation is factored in

£99,443 £134,970 £131,088

Project Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Calendar Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Distribution of Income

Comments Year 1 Year 10

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT


Species rich grassland £2 976 £7 638 £13 067 £16 752 £20 386 £24 647 £28 245 £31 180 £33 453 £35 061 See seed production calculations spreadsheet

Heathland £0 £0 £0 £4 324 £9 817 £13 148 £16 478 £19 809 £23 140 £26 470 See seed production calculations spreadsheet

Wetland vegetation £0 £0 £0 £0 £136 £212 £304 £411 £534 £672 See seed production calculations spreadsheet

Cornfield annuals £0 £0 £0 £632 £987 £1,414 £1,912 £2,482 £3,124 £3,836 See seed production calculations spreadsheet

woodland field layer £0 £0 £0 £531 £1,207 £1,796 £2,476 £3,246 £4,108 £5,061 See seed production calculations spreadsheet

TOTAL conservation market seed

provision

£2,976 £7,638 £13,067 £22,240 £32,532 £41,217 £49,416 £57,130 £64,358 £71,101

6% 35%

Seed provision Agrochemical

sector

Seeds produced £0 £609 £1,861 £3,147 £4,432 £5,718 £7,004 £8,289 £9,575 £10,861 See seed production calculations spreadsheet

Seeds collected tested and primed £0 £1 £1 £1 £1 £2 £2 £1 £2 £3 See other income calculations spreadsheet

TOTAL agrochemical market seed

provision

£0 £610 £1,862 £3,147 £4,434 £5,720 £7,005 £8,290 £9,577 £10,864

0% 5%

Seed provision Retail market Retail Income from seed packs for

public sale

£0 £0 £2,938 £5,875 £8,813 £12,400 £16,313 £20,550 £25,113 £30,000 See other income calculations spreadsheet

0% 15%

TOTAL Income from seed

provision

£2,976 £8,247 £17,866 £31,262 £45,778 £59,336 £72,734 £85,970 £99,047 £111,965

See other income calculations spreadsheet 1% 2%

Viability Testing £1,474 £3,439 £5,404 £6,877 £9,333 £9,333 £9,333 £9,333 £9,333 £9,333 See other income calculations spreadsheet 3% 5%

Cleaning and Storage facilities/services £6,579 £13,158 £19,737 £26,316 £32,895 £32,895 £32,895 £32,895 £32,895 £32,895 See other income calculations spreadsheet

13% 16%

Consultancy/trusted advisor £9,346 £18,692 £28,038 £37,384 £46,730 £46,730 £46,730 £46,730 £46,730 £46,730 See other income calculations spreadsheet 18% 23%

TOTAL Income from provision of

Other Facilities/Services

£17,399 £35,288 £53,178 £70,577 £88,958 £88,958 £88,958 £88,958 £88,958 £88,958

Research Grants associated with research on

seed establishment/ habitat creation

climate change local origin/

sustainability

£31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £0 £0 £0 £0 See other income calculations spreadsheet

60% 0%

TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME £52,345 £75,826 £103,655 £134,769 £167,986 £181,864 £164,332 £177,888 £191,286 £204,523 100% 100%

Staff cost per Offer Area:

Distribution of costs Staff cost/income margin

Offer Area Products/Services Year 10 Year 10

Seed provision Conservation

market

High quality founder stocks of missing

species, rare species, schedule 8

species local/multi origin species

£5,442 £10,340 £21,255 £32,170 £43,084 £53,999 £64,914 £75,828 £86,743 £97,658 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with increase

in area of land used for seed production for

conservation species

22% 137%

Provision of grown seeds £0 £442 £909 £1,376 £1,843 £2,310 £2,777 £3,244 £3,710 £4,177 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with increase


agrochemical species

1%

Provision of collected, primed seeds £2,361 £2,361 £2,361 £4,723 £4,723 £4,723 £4,723 £7,084 £7,084 £7,084 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with increase

in number of seeds collected

2%

Seed provision Retail market Seed packs for sale £0 £0 £6,314 £6,314 £6,314 £9,471 £9,471 £9,471 £12,628 £12,628 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the

number of species sold

3% 42%

Seed viability 28% 3543%Seed cleaning and storageHorticultural skillsViability Testing £1,474 £3,439 £5,404 £6,877 £9,333 £9,333 £9,333 £9,333 £9,333 £9,333 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the

number of species tested

2% 100%

Cleaning and Storage facilities/services £5,263 £10,526 £15,790 £21,053 £26,316 £26,316 £26,316 £26,316 £26,316 £26,316 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the

weight of seeds stored/cleaned

6% 80%

Consultancy/trusted advisor £5,841 £11,682 £17,524 £23,365 £29,206 £29,206 £29,206 £29,206 £29,206 £29,206 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the

number of staff days required to deliver projects

6% 63%

£2,320 £2,640

Income (per Offer Area)


market High quality founder stocks of

missing species, rare species,

schedule 8 species, local/multi origin

species

Provision of Training and

Technical advice

TOTAL Income from sessions on seed

viability, seed cleaning and storage &

horti-cultural skills

£720 £2,960 £3,280 £3,600

Provision of Other

Facilities/Services

Expenditure

Seed provision agrochemical

market

£1,040 £1,360 £1,680 £2,000

104%


Technical advice

£25,511 £36,849 £48,187 £59,525 £70,863 £82,201 £93,539 £104,877 £116,215 £127,553 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the

number of training courses run

Provision of other facilities/

services

Research Seed establishment/ habitat creation;

climate change; local origin/ sustainability

£36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108 Assumes research activities are relatively constant;

assumes that research grant funds research

activities carried out by existing staff and SCS, and

does not fund a new research post.

8% #DIV/0!

Increased regulation £0 £0 £11,580 £11,580 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Assumes a focused effort to improve regulation over

a short period of time, after efforts to improve self

regulation have been undertaken

0%

Increased self-regulation £10,291 £10,291 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Assumes a focused effort to improve self-regulation

over a short period of time

0%

End users and specifiers £36 495 £36 495 £36 495 £36 495 £36 495 £36 495 £36 495 £36 495 £36 495 £36 495 Assumes activities are relatively constant 8%Primary producers and other key players £24 789 £24 789 £24 789 £24 789 £24 789 £24 789 £24 789 £24 789 £24 789 £24 789 Assumes activities are relatively constant 5%Retail market/private individuals £21 144 £21 144 £21 144 £21 144 £21 144 £21 144 £21 144 £21 144 £21 144 £21 144 Assumes activities are relatively constant 5%Steering Team meetings £13 739 £13 739 £13 739 £13 739 £13 739 £13 739 £13 739 £13 739 £13 739 £13 739 Assumes activities are relatively constant 3%

Operating Team meetings £6 899 £6 899 £6 899 £6 899 £6 899 £6 899 £6 899 £6 899 £6 899 £6 899 Assumes activities are relatively constant 2%

TOTAL ANNUAL STAFF COSTS £195,360 £225,107 £268,499 £306,158 £330,858 £356,735 £379,454 £404,535 £430,412 £453,132 100% 222%

171%

New Staff cost only per Offer

Area:

Distribution of costs Staff cost/income margin

Offer Area Products/Services Year 10 Year 10


market

High quality founder stocks of missing

species, rare species, schedule 8

species, local/multi origin species

£1,823 £3,463 £7,118 £10,774 £14,429 £18,084 £21,740 £25,395 £29,051 £32,706 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with increase


conservation species

47% 46%

Provision of grown seeds £0 £152 £312 £472 £632 £792 £952 £1,112 £1,272 £1,432 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with increase


agrochemical species

2%

Provision of collected, primed seeds £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with increase

in number of seeds collected

0%

Seed provision Retail market Seed packs for sale £0 £0 £1,894 £1,894 £1,894 £2,841 £2,841 £2,841 £3,788 £3,788 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the

number of species sold

6% 13%

Seed viability 32% 614%



Viability Testing £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the

number of species tested

0% 0%

Cleaning and Storage facilities/services £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the

weight of seeds stored/cleaned

0% 0%

Consultancy/trusted advisor £20 £40 £60 £80 £100 £100 £100 £100 £100 £100 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the

number of staff days required to deliver projects

0% 0%

Research Seed establishment/ habitat creation;

climate change; local origin/ sustainability

£2,807 £2,807 £2,807 £2,807 £2,807 £2,807 £2,807 £2,807 £2,807 £2,807 Assumes research activities are relatively constant;

assumes that research grant funds research

activities carried out by existing staff and SCS, and

does not fund a new research post.

4%

Increased regulation £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Assumes a focused effort to improve regulation over

a short period of time, after efforts to improve self

regulation have been undertaken

0%

Increased self-regulation £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Assumes a focused effort to improve self-regulation

over a short period of time

0%

End users and specifiers £1 825 £1 825 £1 825 £1 825 £1 825 £1 825 £1 825 £1 825 £1 825 £1 825 Assumes activities are relatively constant 3%

Primary producers and other key players £1,420 £1,420 £1,420 £1,420 £1,420 £1,420 £1,420 £1,420 £1,420 £1,420 Assumes activities are relatively constant 2%

Retail market/private individuals £2,122 £2,122 £2,122 £2,122 £2,122 £2,122 £2,122 £2,122 £2,122 £2,122 Assumes activities are relatively constant 3%

Steering Team meetings £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Assumes activities are relatively constant 0%

Operating Team meetings £561 £561 £561 £561 £561 £561 £561 £561 £561 £561 Assumes activities are relatively constant 1%

TOTAL ANNUAL NEW STAFF

COSTS

£14,998 £18,774 £26,468 £32,267 £38,067 £44,794 £50,573 £56,353 £63,080 £68,859 100% 34%

31%

Other Expenditure: Staff cost/income margin

Year 10

Isolation mesh/fleece/supports for beds £2,531 £5,203 £7,875 £10,547 £13,219 £15,891 £18,563 £21,234 £23,906 £23,906 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project

spreadsheet identified £9,000 of costs over 3 years

(including Year 0/2011); costs assumed to increase

in line with area of land used for seed production

beds (which in turn impacts amount of staff time

involved)

Regulation and Standards of

Practice

Awareness building and demand

/business development

Seed provision agrochemical

market

13%


Technical advice

£4,420 £6,384 £8,348 £10,312 £12,277 £14,241 £16,205 £18,170 £20,134 £22,098 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the

number of training courses run

Provision of other facilities/

services


Practice

Awareness building and demand

/business development

Operating Costs

Nursery equipment £2,531 £5,203 £7,875 £16,547 £13,219 £15,891 £18,563 £27,234 £23,906 £23,906 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project


(including Year 0/2011); Assumes acquisition of

polytunnel every 4 years; remaining costs assumed

to increase in line with area of land used for seed

production beds (which in turn impacts amount of

staff time involved)

Soil, compost, fertiliser etc £3,000 £6,167 £9,333 £12,500 £15,667 £18,833 £22,000 £25,167 £28,333 £28,333 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project



in line with area of land used for seed production

beds

Laboratory consumables £6,333 £11,089 £20,184 £30,304 £38,959 £47,415 £55,669 £63,724 £71,577 £71,577 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project



in line with weight of seeds produced and tested

Interpretation/learning materials £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project

spreadsheet; costs assumed to remain constant

Contribution to grassland restoration book £2,500 £2,500 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project

spreadsheet

Total Operating costs £18,896 £32,162 £47,267 £71,897 £83,064 £100,029 £116,794 £139,359 £149,723 £149,723 73%

Entertainment Budget £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 To entertain key politicians/civil servants, end-users,

specifiers, and primary producers

Photography £2,000 £0 £0 £2,000 £0 £0 £2,000 £0 £0 £2,000 For brochures and exhibitions etc

Exhibition costs £8,000 £0 £8,000 £0 £8,000 £0 £8,000 £0 £8,000 £0 For exhibition stands at conferences

Publications £10,000 £0 £0 £10,000 £0 £0 £10,000 £0 £0 £10,000 Including brochures

Advertising £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 Includes placement of adverts in professional

journals (equivalent to 20 adverts at £500 each)

Website £5,000 £0 £0 £5,000 £0 £0 £5,000 £0 £0 £5,000

Total Marketing and PR costs £40,000 £15,000 £23,000 £32,000 £23,000 £15,000 £40,000 £15,000 £23,000 £32,000

volunteer travel costs and training £400 £400 £400 £400 £400 £400 £400 £400 £400 £400 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project UK travel (networking/business

development)

£7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500 Equivalent to 10,000 miles at £0.5/mile, and also

includes subsistence costs

UK travel (collecting) £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project

spreadsheet

Conferences external £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 assuming 3 conferences/year, attended by 1-2

people @ £400 / participant

Training/technical guidance materials £1,000 £1,444 £1,889 £2,333 £2,778 £3,222 £3,667 £4,111 £4,556 £5,000 Source: RBG Kew

WMI Consultant (based on band D

average, 24 days per year)

£4,391 £4,391 £4,391 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project

spreadsheet

Recruitment £5,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project

spreadsheet

Expenses associated with consultancy pro £467 £935 £1,402 £1,869 £2,336 £2,336 £2,336 £2,336 £2,336 £2,336 Assumed to be approximately 5% of consultancy

budget

General admin £2 000 £2 000 £2 000 £2 000 £2 000 £2 000 £2 000 £2 000 £2 000 £2 000

Total Expenses costs £24,758 £20,670 £21,582 £18,103 £19,014 £19,459 £19,903 £20,348 £20,792 £21,236

£83,654 £67,832 £91,849 £122,000 £125,078 £134,488 £176,698 £174,707 £193,515 £202,959

£279,014 £292,940 £360,348 £428,158 £455,936 £491,223 £556,152 £579,242 £623,927 £656,091

£98,652 £86,606 £118,316 £154,267 £163,145 £179,282 £227,271 £231,060 £256,595 £271,819

-£226,669 -£217,114 -£256,693 -£293,389 -£287,950 -£309,359 -£391,820 -£401,354 -£432,642 -£451,568

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£14,662 -£19,498 £4,841 £2,583 -£62,939 -£53,172 -£65,309 -£67,296

One-off funding items Income from the Esmee Fairbairn Fund £145,750 £145,750 £145,750 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project

spreadsheet; excludes funding associated with

capital cost items (£167,000)

Marketing and PR

Surplus (deficit) carried forward

Surplus (deficit) for the year including NEW staff only

Surplus (deficit) brought forward

Surplus (deficit) carried forward

Expenses

TOTAL ANNUAL OTHER COSTS

TOTAL ANNUAL STAFF AND OTHER COSTS

TOTAL ANNUAL NEW STAFF ONLY AND OTHER COSTS

Surplus (deficit) for the year including ALL staff

Surplus (deficit) brought forward

UK Native Seed Hub - Seed Production Assumptions

blue = inputs; black = calculations

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Seed Value Calcs/Planting Year Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Comments

Area of land allocated for seed production beds (ha) 0.00 0.09 0.18 0.37 0.56 0.75 0.94 1.13 1 32 1.51 1.70 Reflects a gradualist approach. Allocation of 1.7ha of land for seed production beds in year 10

identified in landscape masterplan; reflects the fact that year 0 focuses on seed collections and

sowing into the nursery, and use of seed production beds doesn't happen until year 1

% of seed production bed land given to growing plants

(less access routes etc)

0% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% Source: RBG Kew

Area of land in seed production (ha) 0 0.072 0.144 0 296 0.448 0.6 0.752 0.904 1.056 1 208 1 36 Figures for Years 1-2 from RBG Kew, and reflect actual planting associated with 4 year Esmee

Fairbairn project;

Of the land used for growing plants (less access

routes, storage areas etc)

% of land used for income generation plants (eg to

support agrochemical sector)

0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% As below. Delay in introduction of agrochemical sector plants reflects the fact that no plants are

being sown into the nursery this year for the agrochemical sector

% of land used for plants that benefit nature

conservation (less income generation plant area)

0% 100% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% To reflect RBG Kew's overall aim for the UK native seed hub to support UK biodiversity.

Of the land used for growing plants that benefit

nature conservation

Source: RBG Kew. Figures for years 1-2 reflect RBG Kew's current strengths around species rich

grassland; Figures for year 10 represent a combination of current relative size of market segments

and opportunities for RBG to help grow demand/the market. These %s should be revised once

research on missing species has been undertaken; % of land also likely to be allocated to other

species where there are specific opportunities for RBG Kew to get ahead of the market (eg

northern upland wind farms).

% land used for species rich grassland 0% 100% 100% 80% 60% 57% 53% 50% 47% 43% 40% Taking into account the fact that most species rich grassland commercial mixes comprise 80%

grass and 20% wildflower seeds, this habitat type is currently 50-60% of wildflower market by

weight; 10 year figure reflects the potential for RBG Kew to help grow the woodland field layer

market (see below; split provided by RBG Kew, and reflects view of potential unmet demand

% land used for heathland 0% 0% 0% 10% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Taking into account the fact that most species rich grassland commercial mixes comprise 80%


weight

% land used for wetland vegetation 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 6% 7% 8% 8% 9% 10% Taking into account the fact that most species rich grassland commercial mixes comprise 80%

grass and 20% wildflower seeds, this habitat type is currently 0-10% of wildflower market by weight

% land used for cornfield annuals 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 6% 7% 8% 8% 9% 10% Taking into account the fact that most species rich grassland commercial mixes comprise 80%


weight

% land used for woodland field layer 0% 0% 0% 10% 15% 17% 18% 20% 22% 23% 25% Taking into account the fact that most species rich grassland commercial mixes comprise 80%


weight; 10 year figure reflects the potential for RBG Kew to help grow this market

check 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Average number of plants/sqm 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Provided by RBG Kew. Average planned spacing between plants for 2012 target list species

Number of plants/ha 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 10,000 sqm/hectare

No. of plants in seed production 0 8,640 17,280 35,520 53,760 72,000 90,240 108,480 126,720 144,960 163,200

Number of seeds/plants

species rich grassland 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 Source: RBG Kew, from Salisbury, E. J (1942), the Reproductive Capacity of Plants; takes into

account empty/infested seeds (20% allowance made for this)

heathland 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 1,903 assumed to be comparable to species rich grassland

wetland vegetation 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 assumed to be comparable to woodland field layer

cornfield annuals 2,323 2,323 2,323 2,323 2,323 2,323 2,323 2,323 2,323 2,323 2,323 Source: RBG Kew, from Salisbury, E. J (1942), the Reproductive Capacity of Plants; takes into


woodland field layer 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 Source: RBG Kew, from Salisbury, E. J (1942), the Reproductive Capacity of Plants; takes into


agrochemical sector 2,113 2,113 2,113 2,113 2,113 2,113 2,113 2,113 2,113 2,113 2,113 Assumed to be combination of species rich grassland and cornfield annual species.

Mean seed weight (g)

species rich grassland 0.00186 0 00186 0.00186 0 00186 0 00186 0.00186 0.00186 0 00186 0.00186 0 00186 0.00186 Source: RBG Kew, from Salisbury, E. J (1942), the Reproductive Capacity of Plants

heathland 0.00430 0 00430 0.00430 0 00430 0 00430 0.00430 0.00430 0 00430 0.00430 0 00430 0.00430 Source: RBG Kew, from Hodgson & Mackey (1986) The Ecological Specialisation of

Dicotyledonous Families within a Local Flora

wetland vegetation 0.00320 0 00320 0.00320 0 00320 0 00320 0.00320 0.00320 0 00320 0.00320 0 00320 0.00320 Source: RBG Kew, from Hodgson & Mackey (1986) The Ecological Specialisation of


cornfield annuals 0.00132 0 00132 0.00132 0 00132 0 00132 0.00132 0.00132 0 00132 0.00132 0 00132 0.00132 Source: RBG Kew, from Hodgson & Mackey (1986) The Ecological Specialisation of


woodland field layer 0.01132 0 01132 0.01132 0 01132 0 01132 0.01132 0.01132 0 01132 0.01132 0 01132 0.01132 Source: RBG Kew, from Salisbury, E. J (1942), the Reproductive Capacity of Plants

agrochemical sector 0.00159 0 00159 0.00159 0 00159 0 00159 0.00159 0.00159 0 00159 0.00159 0 00159 0.00159 Assumed to be combination of species rich grassland and cornfield annual species.

Average weight of seed/plant (kg)

species rich grassland 0 0035 0.0035 0 0035 0.0035 0.0035 0 0035 0.0035 0.0035 0 0035 0.0035 0 0035

heathland 0 0082 0.0082 0 0082 0.0082 0.0082 0 0082 0.0082 0.0082 0 0082 0.0082 0 0082

wetland vegetation 0 0007 0.0007 0 0007 0.0007 0.0007 0 0007 0.0007 0.0007 0 0007 0.0007 0 0007

cornfield annuals 0 0031 0.0031 0 0031 0.0031 0.0031 0 0031 0.0031 0.0031 0 0031 0.0031 0 0031

woodland field layer 0 0025 0.0025 0 0025 0.0025 0.0025 0 0025 0.0025 0.0025 0 0025 0.0025 0 0025

agrochemical sector 0 0034 0.0034 0 0034 0.0034 0.0034 0 0034 0.0034 0.0034 0 0034 0.0034 0 0034

Seeds harvested for species rich grassland

% of plants that harvest in 1 year 60% Source: RBG Kew, reflecting anticipated harvest associated with 4 year Esmee Fairbairn project;

% of plants that harvest in 2 years 40% Source: RBG Kew, reflecting anticipated harvest associated with 4 year Esmee Fairbairn project;

Seeds harvested for agrochemical sector

% of plants that harvest in 1 year 50%

% of plants that harvest in 2 years 50%

Total weight of seeds produced (kg)

species rich grassland 0 18 47 81 103 126 152 174 192 206 216 Takes into account 1-2 year production cycle

heathland 0 0 0 0 28 63 84 105 126 148 169 Takes into account 2 year production cycle

wetland vegetation 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 6 7 9 Takes into account 2 year production cycle

cornfield annuals 0 0 0 0 8 12 17 24 31 39 47 Takes into account 1 year production cycle

woodland field layer 0 0 0 0 9 19 29 40 52 66 82 Takes into account 2 year production cycle

agrochemical sector 0 0 1 4 7 11 14 17 20 23 26 Takes into account 1-2 year production cycle

Total 0 18 49 85 155 233 299 364 427 489 549

Total number of seeds produced

species rich grassland 0 9,865,152 25,320,557 43,318,979 55,537,152 67,581,772 81,709,035 93,637,952 103,368,524 110,900,750 116,234,631

heathland 0 0 0 0 6,421,483 14,578,502 19,524,780 24,471,058 29,417,335 34,363,613 39,309,890

wetland vegetation 0 0 0 0 0 572,006 893,760 1,280,205 1,731,341 2,247,168 2,827,686

cornfield annuals 0 0 0 0 5,932,013 9,268,770 13,276,410 17,954,932 23,304,336 29,324,623 36,015,792

woodland field layer 0 0 0 0 755,866 1,716,019 2,553,600 3,520,563 4,616,909 5,842,637 7,197,747

agrochemical sector 0 0 912 816 2 789 160 4 716 216 6 643 272 8 570 328 10 497 384 12 424 440 14 351 496 16 278 552

Total 0 9,865,152 26,233,373 46,108,139 73,362,730 100,360,342 126,527,912 151,362,094 174,862,885 197,030,287 217,864,299

% of weight of seeds produced that are sold to the

market

% weight of species rich grassland seeds produced 0% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

% weight of heathland seeds produced 0% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

% weight of wetland vegetation seeds produced 0% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

% weight of cornfield annuals seeds produced 0% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

% weight of woodland field layer seeds produced 0% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

% weight of agrochemical sector seeds produced 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% assumed that there is limited value in keeping back seeds associated with this market segment

Total weight of seeds sold (kg)

species rich grassland 0 17 42 73 93 113 137 157 173 186 195

heathland 0 0 0 0 25 56 76 95 114 133 152

wetland vegetation 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 8

cornfield annuals 0 0 0 0 7 11 16 21 28 35 43


agrochemical sector 0 0 1 4 7 11 14 17 20 23 26

Total 0 17 44 77 140 210 270 329 386 442 497

If new species are focused on each year, then assumption is that each year there will be

requirement for some seeds to go into collection; also reflects potential for not all seeds to be sold

in a given year

Current baseline average market price/kg of seeds

(£)

Based on average prices provided through key players questionnaire in task 1

species rich grassland £120 £120 £120 £120 £120 £120 £120 £120 £120 £120 £120 Does not include grass component of commercial mixes

heathland £116 £116 £116 £116 £116 £116 £116 £116 £116 £116 £116

wetland vegetation £55 £55 £55 £55 £55 £55 £55 £55 £55 £55 £55

cornfield annuals £60 £60 £60 £60 £60 £60 £60 £60 £60 £60 £60

woodland field layer £46 £46 £46 £46 £46 £46 £46 £46 £46 £46 £46

agrochemical sector £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 Herbiseed website has prices averaging at c. £300-400/kg

Potential RBG Kew increase on baseline average

species rich grassland 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

heathland 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%


cornfield annuals 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

woodland field layer 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

agrochemical sector 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Increase on baseline average price reflects the fact that these are available in the market already,

but that RBG Kew offers better quality/more guaranteed priming

Potential RBG Kew average price/kg of seeds (£)

species rich grassland £180 £180 £180 £180 £180 £180 £180 £180 £180 £180 £180

heathland £174 £174 £174 £174 £174 £174 £174 £174 £174 £174 £174


cornfield annuals £90 £90 £90 £90 £90 £90 £90 £90 £90 £90 £90

woodland field layer £69 £69 £69 £69 £69 £69 £69 £69 £69 £69 £69

agrochemical sector £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420

Value of seed produced

species rich grassland £0 £2,976 £7,638 £13,067 £16,752 £20,386 £24,647 £28,245 £31,180 £33,453 £35,061

heathland £0 £0 £0 £0 £4,324 £9,817 £13,148 £16,478 £19,809 £23,140 £26,470


cornfield annuals £0 £0 £0 £0 £632 £987 £1,414 £1,912 £2,482 £3,124 £3,836

woodland field layer £0 £0 £0 £0 £531 £1,207 £1,796 £2,476 £3,246 £4,108 £5,061

agrochemical sector £0 £0 £609 £1 861 £3 147 £4 432 £5 718 £7 004 £8 289 £9 575 £10 861

Total £0 £2,976 £8,247 £14,928 £25,386 £36,965 £46,935 £56,419 £65,419 £73,933 £81,962

RBG Kew increase against baseline average market prices reflects the fact that RBG Kew will

focus on the most challenging species/species that need treatment, and invest time and scientific

expertise. Increase also potentially takes into account future sales by primary producers of these

difficult species

UK Native Seed Hub - Other Income Assumptions

blue = inputs; black = calculations

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Comments

Collected agrochemical sector

seed provision

Number of seeds collected 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 To maximise efficiency of collecting, assumes that more

seeds are collected than needed in a given year

Mean seed weight (g) 0.00159 0.00159 0 00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 Assumed to be combination of species rich grassland and

cornfield annual species.

Weight of seed collected,

cleaned, tested and primed

(kg)

0.00000 0.00159 0 00159 0.00159 0.00318 0.00318 0.00318 0.00318 0.00477 0.00477 0.00477

% of seed collected that is sold 0% 50% 100% 150% 50% 100% 125% 125% 50% 100% 150% Reflects the fact that collections have been made for future

as well as current use

Total weight of seed sold (kg) 0 0.00079 0 00159 0.00238 0.00159 0.00318 0.00397 0.00397 0.00238 0.00477 0.00715

Total weight of seed sold (g) 0 00 0.79 1.59 2.38 1.59 3.18 3 97 3.97 2.38 4.77 7.15

Current baseline average

market price/kg of seeds (£)

£350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 Herbiseed website has prices averaging at c. £300-400/kg

Potential increase against

baseline average market price

20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Increase against baseline average market price reflects the

fact that these are available in the market already, but that

RBG Kew offers better quality/more guaranteed priming

Potential RBG Kew average

price/kg of seeds (£)

£420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420 £420

Value of seed produced £0 £0.33 £1 £1 £0.67 £1 £2 £2 £1 £2 £3

Retail market seed provision

Number of RBG Kew packets

of seed sold

0 0 0 6,250 12,500 18,750 25,000 31,250 37,500 43,750 50,000 Go Native' project aims to distribute 1 million packets of

seeds - although this is likely to be drastically scaled down;

2011 YTD sales of RBG Kew Collection Flowers and

Ornamental (through Thompson and Morgan) are [WITHELD,

S43 FOIA]; Retail seed provision delayed until year 3 to allow

a focus on 'Go Native' project first, and assumes that sales

will build on experiences and relationships developed through

'Go Native'

Number of species sold 20 20 20 30 30 30 40 40

Average price/packet (£) £0.00 £0.00 £0 00 £2.35 £2.35 £2.35 £2.48 £2.61 £2.74 £2.87 £3.00 RBG Kew Collection Flowers and Ornamental (through

Thompson and Morgan) currently averages £2.35/packet;

assumed that increased general awareness around value of

UK native seeds will enable RBG Kew to achieve higher

average price/packet by Year 10

RBG Kew % license fee/packet

This section is redacted. Exempt under S43 FOIA.

Annual Income from retail

market seed provision

Provision of training and

technical advice

Number of courses each year 2 4 5 7 8 10 12 13 15 16 18 Each training session assumed to be 0 5 days in total;

assumes a mix of Flora locale organised training + training for

specific primary producers on a one to one basis; by Year 10,

assumes also that 1 full week's worth of training will be

provided for a primary producer; RBG Kew ran 1 full day

training course in 2011 for Flora locale, merging a number of

themes; Prior to this, RBG Kew provided a week's worth of

training for [WITHELD]

Fee/course(£) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Fee per half day training session; [WITHELD}

Annual Income from provision

of Training and Technical

Advice

£400 £720 £1,040 £1,360 £1,680 £2,000 £2,320 £2,640 £2,960 £3,280 £3,600

Provision of other

facilities/services - viability

testing

Number of projects which may

want seeds tested

0 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 Assumed that these projects are largely exemplar projects

Average number of species

tested/project

30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Average seed mix (as per Emorsgate) has 20-30 species.

Assuming at least 2 mixes/project, and a focus on testing 60-

65% of species

Cost of delivering viability

testing/species (£)

£49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 As calculated in the staff cost assumptions spreadsheet

Profit margin for viability testing 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Cost of delivering viability test seems in line with market

price, so no profit margin assumed

Project Testing fee/species (£) £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49

Income from Project Testing

services

£0 £1,474 £2,947 £4,421 £5,895 £7,368 £7,368 £7,368 £7,368 £7,368 £7,368

number of suppliers who want

their seeds tested

0 0 1 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 key primary producers and 11 other primary producers

identified in task 2

average number of species

tested for each supplier

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Primary producers offer approx 100 species. Assuming that

10% of these are tested

Cost of delivering viability

testing/species (£)


Profit margin for viability testing 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Current cost of delivering viability test seems high, therefore

no profit margin assumed

Supplier testing fee/species £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49 £49

Income from Supplier Testing

services

£0.00 £0 £491 £982 £982 £1,965 £1,965 £1,965 £1,965 £1,965 £1,965

Provision of other

facilities/services - cleaning

and storage

Number of projects which may

want seed cleaning and

storage facilities

0 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 Assumed that these projects are largely exemplar projects

Average weight of

seeds/project (kg)

125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 200kg of seeds were used for the Olympic Park project

Cost of cleaning/storage per kg

of seed (£)


Profit margin for

cleaning/storage

25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

Cleaning/storage fee per Kg of

seed (£)

£53 £53 £53 £53 £53 £53 £53 £53 £53 £53 £53 Doesn't take into account electricity etc costs, but assumed to

be minimal

Annual Income from provision

of cleaning and storage

facilities/services

£0 £6,579 £13,158 £19,737 £26,316 £32,895 £32,895 £32,895 £32,895 £32,895 £32,895

Provision of other

facilities/services - consultancy

services

Number of consultancy projects 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 Assumed that these projects are largely exemplar projects

Average staff days/consultancy

project

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 As calculated in the staff cost assumptions spreadsheet

total staff days 20 40 60 80 100 100 100 100 100 100

Cost of delivery of average

consultancy project (£)


Profit margin for consultancy

services

60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%

Av. daily rate for average

consultancy project (£)

£467 £467 £467 £467 £467 £467 £467 £467 £467 £467 £467 [WITHELD: S43 FOIA]

Annual Income from

Consultancy Services (£)

£0 £9,346 £18,692 £28,038 £37,384 £46,730 £46,730 £46,730 £46,730 £46,730 £46,730

Research

Cost associated with band C

research officer (£)

£0 £25,000 £25,000 £25,000 £25,000 £25,000 £25,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 Source: RBG Kew. Assumption that can get grants sufficient

to recruit a Band C Research Officer for 2 periods of 3 years

On-costs 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Source: RBG Kew

Total costs associated with

Band C research officer (£)

£0 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £0 £0 £0 £0

Total grants associated with

research (£)

£0 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £0 £0 £0 £0

UK NATIVE SEED HUB STAFF RESOURCE ASSUMPTIONS

REC Restoration Ecology Coordinator C&TPS C&T Processing Supervisor HWP Head of Wakehurst Place LM Logistics Manager

UKCC UK Collecting Coordinator HCTS Head of Conservation and Technology Section WT Wakehurst/RBG Kew Website Team TLPPC Team Leader Plant Prop & Conservation Unit

HCNSS Head of Collecting and Network Support Section HHEM Head of Horticulture and Estate Management PT Wakehurst/RBG Kew Publications Team LO Logitsics Operatives

BH Botanical Horticulturalist GN new post associatedwith Go Native' project WPIO Wakehurst Place Interpretation Officer

MPPC Manager Plant Propagation and Conservation KET Kew Enterprises Team FILT Formal and Informal Learning Team

CWM Conservation and Woodland Manager GS Germination Specialist VT Wakehurst Place/ RBG Kew Volunteer Team

HT Harvesting Team SCS Sandwich Course Student MPRT Wakehurst Place/RBG Kew Marketing/PR Team

C&TPA C&T Processing Assistant HSC Head of Seed Conservation BDM Business Development Manager

Offer

Area

Products/Service

s

REC UKCC HCNSS BH MPPC CWM HT C&TPA C&TPS HCTS HHEM GN KET GS SCS HSC HWP WT PT WPIO FILT VT MPRT BDM LM TLPPC LO TOTAL Key Parameters/Assumptions

# staff involved in activity

Seed

provision

Conservation

market - Missing

species, rare

species and

schedule 8

species, local/multi

origin, high qua ity

founder stocks

5 35 10 150 10 0 50 58 11 5 5 30 0 1 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 22 492 £60,054 Assumes 1ha of land being used for seed production overa l; Assumes

UKCC collects seed from the wild (mainly June - Sept), and HT harvests

seeds from plants grown on the seed production bed; assumes that any

commercial arrangements would be finalised by the BDM . BH assumes

inputs from other members of PPCU team to de iver plants to seed

production stage; includes staff time required to process seeds (including

cleaning/storage and viability testing)

16

Agrochemical

sector - provision of

grown seeds

0 1 0 15 1 0 5 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 36 £4,632 Assumes 1ha of land being used for seed production overa l, with 5%

allocated to plants relevant for agrochemical sector

10

Agrochemical

sector - provision of

collected and

primed seeds

0 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 11 £1,714 assumes 1000 seeds are collected 5

Retail market 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4.5 2 0 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 56.5 £8,391 Assumes that the offer here builds on the success of 'Go Native', and

focuses on designing, branding and viabil ty testing a reta l offer, bu king

up/de ivery through primary producer; assumes offer includes both

mixtures and single species; assumes that c. 30 species would be used

in total, with all species undergoing viability testing; assumes close liaison

with Kew Enterprises, particularly the licensing team; assumes that any

commercial arrangements would be finalised by the BDM

7

Seed viability 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 6 0 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 41 £8,341 Assumes 1 training course on this topic, as we l as development of

guidance notes/advice etc

7

Seed cleaning and

storage

0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 £5,057 Assumes 1 training course on this topic, as we l as development of


4

Horticu tural skills 6 0 0 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 £6,781 Assumes 1 training course on this topic, as we l as development of

protocols/guidance notes/advice etc

5

Viabil ty testing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 £491 Assumes 10 species are being tested; includes lab-based germination of

seeds for nursery production; assumes that three different tests would

need to be set up on each species to reach a conclusion

1

Cleaning and

storage

fac lities/services

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 £4,211 Assumes 100kg of seed are being stored, with a single co lection

comprising a batch of 1kg

1

Consu tancy/

trusted advisor

5 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 £5,841 Assumes 1 consultancy project 7

Researc

h

Seed estab ishment

and habitat

creation; climate

change, local origin

and sustainability

20 10 15 20 6 4 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 10 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 £23,628 Assumes production of 2-3 scient fic papers 10

Increased

regulation

0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 30 £6,078 Assumes partnership working with Flora locale 5

Increased self-

regulation

5 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 30 £9,212 Time allocations associated with developing (but not monitoring) a more

robust code of practice within a year time frame. Assumes partnership

working with Flora locale; assumes HCNSS takes the lead, given existing

relationship with Flora locale, with content input from REC and GS, and

content input and support in working with Flora locale and key industry

players from HCTS

4

End users and

spec fiers

8 5 10 13 0 8 0 3 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 155 £15,227 Only focuses on end users and specifiers - training and practical

guidance notes/manuals for primary producers is covered in provision of

training and technical advice offer area above; pub ication of research

articles is covered in research offer area above. Staff time allocations

assume 1 training programme, participation at 3 conferences,

educational opportun ty associated w th 1 land management course, 2

articles ( inked into research or work already undertaken), general

networking, and development of UK Native Seed Hub Initiative

micros te/dedicated web pages

11

Primary producers

and other key

players

0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 10 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 85 £13,577 General networking. Training and practical guidance notes/manuals

covered in provision of training and technical advice offer area above;

Includes support / networking role for GN post.

5

Retail

market/private

individuals

5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 10 0 0 0 0 5 5 10 10 10 2 10 20 0 0 0 112 £10,415 Assumes development of fixed interpretation (with external consultants to

design and install panels), development of retail component of

micros te/dedicated web pages, development of formal and informal

learning activities to include emphasis on relevant topics, development of

relevant volunteer activities, 1 general interest publication, emphasis on

mass media; Includes support / networking role for GN post.

15

Steering Team

meetings

4 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 48 £7,361 Assumes quarterly Steering Team meetings to monitor progress, with

some prep/follow up time; assumes current Steering Team continues,

with addition of BDM, and potentially with addition of KIU member;

assumes BDM takes the lead in preparing material for the Steering Team

meetings

8

Operating Team

meetings

4 4 0 4 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 36 £4,512 Assumes quarterly Operating Team meetings , w th some prep/follow up

time; assumes current Operating Team continues, w th addition of BDM

8

Total days 67 70 94 215 35 24 55 126.5 23.5 78 25 90 5 19 220 5 24 15 10 10 10 2 10 214 4 24 22 1497 £195,524

Days in Year Staff

Cost/

Offer

Provision

of

training

and

technical

advice

Regulatio

n and

Standard

s of

Practice

Awarene

ss

building

and

demand/

business

developm

ent

Provision

of other

facilities/

services

Total working

days (stripping

out public

holidays, annual

leave, sick leave

etc)

220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 Doesn't include sick leave

Time utilisation 30% 32% 43% 98% 16% 11% 25% 58% 11% 35% 11% 41% 2% 9% 100% 2% 11% 7% 5% 5% 5% 1% 5% 97% 2% 11% 10%

T me util sat on

ident fied for 4 year

EF project

10% 35% 5% 100% 10% 5% 50% 10% 5% 5% 100% 5% 10%

Salary scales

UKNSH Staff cost

(salaries)

Cost of

employment

UKNSH Staff cost

(incl.cost of

employment @ +

25%)

This section

is redacted.

Exempt

under S40

FOIA.

UK NATIVE SEED HUB - NEW STAFF RESOURCE ASSUMPTIONS

BH: Botanical Horticulturalist

GN: new post associatedwith 'Go Native' project

This section is redacted. Exempt under S43 FOIA.

Offer Area Products/Services BH GN TOTAL Key Parameters/Assumptions

Seed

provision

Conservation market -

Missing species, rare species

and schedule 8 species,

local/multi origin, high quality

founder stocks

150 30 180 Assumes 1ha of land being used for seed production overall; Assumes

UKCC collects seed from the wild (mainly June - Sept), and HT harvests

seeds from plants grown on the seed production bed; assumes that any

commercial arrangements would be finalised by the BDM . BH assumes

inputs from other members of PPCU team to deliver plants to seed

production stage; includes staff time required to process seeds (including

cleaning/storage and viability testing)

Agrochemical sector -

provision of grown seeds

15 0 15 Assumes 1ha of land being used for seed production overall, with 5%

allocated to plants relevant for agrochemical sector

Agrochemical sector -

provision of collected and

primed seeds

0 0 0 assumes 1000 seeds are collected

Retail market 0 20 20 Assumes that the offer here builds on the success of 'Go Native', and

focuses on designing, branding and viability testing a retail offer, bulking

up/delivery through primary producer; assumes offer includes both

mixtures and single species; assumes that c. 30 species would be used in

total, with all species undergoing viability testing; assumes close liaison

with Kew Enterprises, particularly the licensing team; assumes that any

commercial arrangements would be finalised by the BDM

Provision

of training

and

technical

advice

Seed viability 0 10 10 Assumes 1 training course on this topic, as well as development of


Seed cleaning and storage 0 10 10 Assumes 1 training course on this topic, as well as development of


Horticultural skills 6 0 6 Assumes 1 training course on this topic, as well as development of

protocols/guidance notes/advice etc

Provision

of other

facilities/

services

Viability testing 0 0 0 Assumes 10 species are being tested; includes lab-based germination of

seeds for nursery production; assumes that three different tests would

need to be set up on each species to reach a conclusion

Cleaning and storage

facilities/services

0 0 0 Assumes 100kg of seed are being stored, with a single collection

comprising a batch of 1kg

Consultancy/trusted advisor 2 0 2 Assumes 1 consultancy project

Research Seed establishment and

habitat creation; climate

change, local origin and

sustainability

20 0 20 Assumes production of 2-3 scientific papers

Regulation

and

Standards

of Practice

Increased regulation 0 0 0 Assumes partnership working with Flora locale

Increased self-regulation 0 0 0 Time allocations associated with developing (but not monitoring) a more

robust code of practice within a year time frame. Assumes partnership

working with Flora locale; assumes HCNSS takes the lead, given existing

relationship with Flora locale, with content input from REC and GS, and

content input and support in working with Flora locale and key industry

players from HCTS

Awareness

building

and

demand/bu

siness

developme

nt

End users and specifiers 13 0 13 Only focuses on end users and specifiers - training and practical guidance

notes/manuals for primary producers is covered in provision of training and

technical advice offer area above; publication of research articles is

covered in research offer area above. Staff time allocations assume: 1

training programme, participation at 3 conferences, educational opportunity

associated with 1 land management course, 2 articles (linked into research

or work already undertaken), general networking, and development of UK

Native Seed Hub Initiative microsite/dedicated web pages

Primary producers and other

key players

0 10 10 General networking. Training and practical guidance notes/manuals

covered in provision of training and technical advice offer area above;

Includes support / networking role for GN post.

Retail market/private

individuals

5 10 15 Assumes: development of fixed interpretation (with external consultants to

design and install panels), development of retail component of

microsite/dedicated web pages, development of formal and informal

learning activities to include emphasis on relevant topics, development of

relevant volunteer activities, 1 general interest publication, emphasis on

mass media; Includes support / networking role for GN post.

Steering Team meetings 0 0 0 Assumes quarterly Steering Team meetings to monitor progress, with

some prep/follow up time; assumes current Steering Team continues, with

addition of BDM, and potentially with addition of KIU member; assumes

BDM takes the lead in preparing material for the Steering Team meetings

Operating Team meetings 4 0 4 Assumes quarterly Operating Team meetings , with some prep/follow up

time; assumes current Operating Team continues, with addition of BDM

Total days 215 90 305

Total working days

(stripping out public

holidays, annual leave, sick

leave etc)

220 220 Doesn't include sick leave

Time utilisation 98% 41%

Time utilisation identified for 4

year EF project

100%

Parameter Value Sources / Comments

YIELD FACTORS:

Yields from Seed Provision

Wakehurst Place growing area (ha.):

Wakehurst Place growing area Year 0 (ha.) 0.00











% of land given to growing plants (less access routes, storage

areas etc):% of land given to growing plants (less access routes, storage areas etc)

Year 00%

% of land given to growing plants (less access routes, storage areas etc)

Year 180%


Year 280%


Year 380%


Year 480%


Year 580%


Year 680%


Year 780%


Year 880%



Year 980%


Year1080%

% of net available land used for plants that benefit nature conservation

(less income generation plant area) Year 00%

% of net available land used for income generation plants (eg to

support agrochemical sector):% of net available land used for income generation plants (eg to support

agrochemical sector) Year 00%

% of net available land used for income generation plants (eg to support




















% land used for seed groups:

% land used for species rich grassland Year 0 0%












% land used for heathland Year 0 0%











% land used for wetland vegetation Year 0 0%











% land used for cornfield annuals Year 0 0%












% land used for woodland field layer Year 0 0%











Number of plants/sqm: 12.00

Average number of seeds/plants from one plant:

Av.number of seeds/plants from a species rich grassland plant 1,903

Av.number of seeds/plants from a heathland plant 1,903

Av.number of seeds/plants from a wetland vegetation plant 224

Av.number of seeds/plants from a cornfield annuals plant 2,323

Av.number of seeds/plants from a woodland field layer plant 224

Av.number of seeds/plants from an agrochemical sector plant 2,113

Mean seed weight of seed:

Mean seed weight (grams) of species rich grassland seed 0.001862

Mean seed weight (grams) of heathland seed 0.004300

Mean seed weight (grams) of wetland vegetation seed 0.003200

Mean seed weight (grams) of cornfield annuals seed 0.001315

Mean seed weight (grams) of woodland field layer seed 0.011323

Mean seed weight (grams) of agrochemical sector seed 0.001589

Seeds harvested for species rich grassland




Seeds harvested for agrochemical sector



% weight of seeds produced that are sold to the market:

% weight of species rich grassland seeds produced Year 0 0%











% weight of heathland seeds produced Year 0 0%











% weight of cornfield annuals seeds produced Year 0 0%












% weight of wetland vegetation seeds produced Year 0 0%











% weight of woodland field seeds layer produced Year 0 0%

% weight of woodland field layer seeds produced Year 1 90%










% weight of agrochemical sector seeds produced Year 0 0%












Current baseline average market price/Kg of seed groups:

Current av. market price/kg of species rich grassland seeds £120.00

Current av. market price/kg of heathland seeds £116.00

Current av. market price/kg of wetland vegetation seeds £55.00

Current av. market price/kg of cornfield annuals seeds £60.00

Current av. market price/kg of woodland field layer seeds £46.00

Current av. market price/kg of agrochemical sector seeds £350.00

Potential RBG Kew increase on baseline average

Potential increase for species rich grassland seeds 50%

Potential increase for heathland seeds 50%

Potential increase for wetland vegetation seeds 50%

Potential increase for cornfield annuals seeds 50%

Potential increase for woodland field layer seeds 50%

Potential increase for agrochemical sector seeds 20%

Growing period for seed types (years):

Growing period for seed types except Cornfield Annuals (years) 2

Growing period for Cornfield Annuals (years) 1

Collected agrochemical sector seed provision:

Number of seeds collected pa. Years 1-3 1,000



% of seed collected that is sold Year 0 0%












Yields from Retail market seed provision

Number of species sold Years 3-5 20



Price per packet of seeds Years 0-2 £0.00

Price per packet of seeds Years 3-5 £2.35

Price per packet of seeds Years 6 £2.48





% licence fee Years 1-3 This section is redacted. Exempt under S43 FOIA.

% licence fee Years 4-10

No. of packets sold Year 0-2 0

No. of packets sold Year 3 6,250








Yields from provision of Training and Technical Advice

Number of courses Years 0 2












Fee/course (£) £200.00

Yields from provision of Viability Testing

Number of projects which may want seeds tested Year 0 0





Number of projects which may want seeds tested Years 5-10 5

Av. number of species tested/project 30

Cost of delivering viability testing/species (£) £49

Profit margin for viability testing 0%

Fee for delivering viability testing/species (£) £49

Number of suppliers who want their seeds tested Year 0 0





Number of suppliers who want their seeds tested Years 5-10 4

Av. number of species tested for each supplier 10

Yields from provision of Cleaning and Storage facilities/services

Number of projects which may want seed cleaning and storage

facilities/services Year 00










facilities/services Years 5-105

Av. weight of seeds/project (Kg) 125

Cost of cleaning/storage per Kg of seed £42

Profit margin for cleaning/storage 25%


Fee for cleaning/storage/kg of seed (£) £53

Yields from provision of Consultancy Services

Number of consultancy projects pa. Year 0 0











Average staff days/consultancy project 20

Av. daily cost of delivering consultancy services £292

Profit margin on consultancy services 60%

Av. daily rate charged to client £467

Yields from Research Grants

Annual cost associated with band C research officer for 6 years £25,000

On-costs pa. 25%

Total grants associated with research pa. £31,250

EXPENDITURE

Staff Days - Seed Provision: Conservation Market

REC: Restoration Ecology Coordinator (Kate H) 5.0

UKCC: UK Collecting Coordinator (Steph M) 35.0

HCNSS: Head of Collecting and Network Support Section (Michael W) 10.0

BH: Botanical Horticulturalist (Vicky F) 150.0

MPPC: Manager Plant Propagation and Conservation (Jo W) 10.0

CWM: Conservation and Woodland Manager (Ian P)


HT: Harvesting Team 50.0

C&TPA: C&T Processing Assistant 58.0

C&TPS: C&T Processing Supervisor (?) 11.0

HCTS: Head of Conservation and Technology Section (Robin P) 5.0

HHEM: Head of Horticulture and Estate Management (David H) 5.0

GN: new post associated with 'Go Native' project 30.0

KET: Kew Enterprises Team

GS: Germination Specialist 1.0

SCS: Sandwich Course Student 60.0

HSC: Head of Seed Conservation?

HWP: Head of Wakehurst Place (Andy J)

WT: Wakehurst/RBG Kew Website Team

PT: Wakehurst/RBG Kew Publications Team

WPIO: Wakehurst Place Interpretation Officer (Astrid K)

FILT: Formal and Informal Learning Team

VT: Wakehurst Place/ RBG Kew Volunteer Team

MPRT: Wakehurst Place/RBG Kew Marketing/PR Team

BDM: Business Development Manager 20.0

LM: Logistics Manager

TLPPC: Team Leader Plant Prop & Conservation Unit 20.0

LO: Logitsics Operatives 22.0

Staff Days - Seed Provision: Agrochemical Sector: provision of

grown seedsREC: Restoration Ecology Coordinator (Kate H)


HCNSS: Head of Collecting and Network Support Section (Michael W)

BH: Botanical Horticulturalist (Vicky F) 15.0

MPPC: Manager Plant Propagation and Conservation (Jo W) 1.0


HT: Harvesting Team 5.0


C&TPS: C&T Processing Supervisor (?) 1.0

HCTS: Head of Conservation and Technology Section (Robin P) 1.0

HHEM: Head of Horticulture and Estate Management (David H) 1.0

GN: new post associated with 'Go Native' project




SCS: Sandwich Course Student











TLPPC: Team Leader Plant Prop & Conservation Unit

LO: Logitsics Operatives

Staff Days - Seed Provision: Agrochemical Sector: provision of

collected and primed seedsREC: Restoration Ecology Coordinator (Kate H)


HCNSS: Head of Collecting and Network Support Section (Michael W) 1.0

BH: Botanical Horticulturalist (Vicky F)

MPPC: Manager Plant Propagation and Conservation (Jo W)


HT: Harvesting Team


C&TPS: C&T Processing Supervisor (?)

HCTS: Head of Conservation and Technology Section (Robin P)

HHEM: Head of Horticulture and Estate Management (David H)

GN: new post associated with 'Go Native' project



SCS: Sandwich Course Student












TLPPC: Team Leader Plant Prop & Conservation Unit

LO: Logitsics Operatives

Staff Days - Seed Provision: Retail Market

REC: Restoration Ecology Coordinator (Kate H) 5.0

UKCC: UK Collecting Coordinator (Steph M)

HCNSS: Head of Collecting and Network Support Section (Michael W)

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Project Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

Sensitivities: Calendar Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Income £52,345 £75,826 £103,655 £134,769 £167,986 £181,864 £164,332 £177,888 £191,286 £204,523

Surplus (-

Deficit): All

Staff

-£226,669 -£217,114 -£256,693 -£293,389 -£287,950 -£309,359 -£391,820 -£401,354 -£432,642 -£451,568

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

S ff l

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£14,662 -£19,498 £4,841 £2,583 -£62,939 -£53,172 -£65,309 -£67,296

Income £52,345 £75,826 £101,160 £127,771 £155,802 £164,983 £142,976 £152,282 £161,653 £171,087

Surplus (-

-£229,749 -£216,006 -£247,403 -£277,249 -£265,790 -£280,759 -£356,625 -£359,406 -£383,786 -£401,275

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£49,387 -£9,672 -£8,857 -£10,327 £16,547 £17,245 -£45,166 -£32,131 -£40,845 -£44,878

Income £52,345 £75,826 £108,288 £147,765 £190,614 £213,216 £203,992 £225,441 £246,317 £266,618

Surplus (-

-£223,158 -£218,532 -£269,546 -£314,710 -£316,304 -£345,577 -£436,243 -£454,318 -£494,486 -£516,084

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£42,796 -£12,198 -£21,044 -£27,877 -£4,100 -£7,752 -£75,006 -£67,309 -£81,856 -£80,043

Income £52,345 £75,826 £103,655 £134,769 £169,023 £184,219 £168,405 £184,081 £200,000 £216,160

Surplus (-

-£226,669 -£217,114 -£256,693 -£294,110 -£288,125 -£308,771 -£390,133 -£398,230 -£427,743 -£443,747

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£14,662 -£20,219 £4,666 £3,170 -£61,252 -£50,047 -£60,410 -£59,474

Income £51,022 £72,127 £96,917 £123,311 £151,312 £160,687 £138,867 £148,352 £157,894 £167,492

Surplus (-

-£227,992 -£220,813 -£263,431 -£304,847 -£304,625 -£330,536 -£417,285 -£430,890 -£466,033 -£488,599

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£47,630 -£14,479 -£21,400 -£30,956 -£11,833 -£18,595 -£88,404 -£82,707 -£98,700 -£104,327

Income £52,675 £76,675 £105,106 £137,240 £171,601 £186,444 £169,822 £184,236 £198,436 £212,423

Surplus (-

-£226,338 -£216,265 -£255,241 -£290,918 -£284,335 -£304,779 -£386,330 -£395,006 -£425,491 -£443,668

Basic Financial Model

Area of land allocated for seed

production beds (ha) – reduced from

1.7ha in Year 10 to 1 ha

Area of land allocated for seed

production beds (ha) – increased

from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 3 ha

% relevant seed production bed land

used for species rich grassland –

increased from 40% in Year 10 to 70%

% weight of all seeds produced that

are sold to the market – reduced from

90% to 50%

% weight of conservation seeds

produced that are sold to the market

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£45,977 -£9,932 -£13,210 -£17,027 £8,456 £7,162 -£57,449 -£46,824 -£58,158 -£59,396

Income £51,353 £73,178 £98,989 £126,831 £156,403 £167,172 £146,692 £157,463 £168,237 £179,012

Surplus (-

-£227,661 -£219,761 -£261,359 -£301,327 -£299,533 -£324,051 -£409,460 -£421,779 -£455,690 -£477,079

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£47,299 -£13,428 -£19,328 -£27,436 -£6,742 -£12,110 -£80,579 -£73,597 -£88,358 -£92,807

Income £53,337 £78,372 £108,010 £142,182 £178,831 £195,603 £180,804 £196,931 £212,738 £228,223

Surplus (- -£225,677 -£214,568 -£252,337 -£285,976 -£277,106 -£295,620 -£375,349 -£382,311 -£411,189 -£427,868

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£45,315 -£8,234 -£10,306 -£12,085 £15,686 £16,321 -£46,467 -£34,129 -£43,856 -£43,596

Income £71,191 £124,199 £186,412 £240,868 £297,095 £337,962 £343,219 £375,364 £403,152 £426,579

Surplus (- -£207,823 -£168,741 -£173,936 -£187,290 -£158,841 -£153,261 -£212,933 -£203,878 -£220,775 -£229,512

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£27,461 £37,592 £68,095 £86,601 £133,950 £158,680 £115,948 £144,305 £146,557 £154,760

Income £52,345 £75,826 £103,655 £134,769 £167,986 £181,864 £164,332 £177,897 £191,304 £204,550

Surplus (- -£226,669 -£217,114 -£256,693 -£293,389 -£287,950 -£309,359 -£391,820 -£465,105 -£496,383 -£515,301

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£14,662 -£19,498 £4,841 £2,583 -£62,939 -£53,163 -£65,291 -£67,269

Income £52,345 £75,826 £102,186 £131,832 £163,580 £175,664 £156,175 £167,613 £178,729 £189,523

Surplus (-

-£226,669 -£217,114 -£258,162 -£296,326 -£292,356 -£315,559 -£399,977 -£411,629 -£445,198 -£466,568

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£16,131 -£22,436 £435 -£3,617 -£71,096 -£63,447 -£77,865 -£82,296

Income £52,345 £75,826 £105,123 £137,707 £172,393 £188,064 £172,488 £188,163 £203,842 £219,523

Surplus (-

-£226,669 -£217,114 -£255,224 -£290,451 -£283,543 -£303,159 -£383,664 -£391,079 -£420,085 -£436,568

– increased from 90% to 100%

Potential average RBG Kew price of

conservation seeds – decreased from

a 50% to 0% increase on the baseline

market average

Potential average RBG Kew price of

conservation seeds – increased from

a 50% to 100% increase on the

baseline market average

Potential RBG Kew average price of

species rich grassland conservation

seeds – increased from £180/kg to

£1,320/kg (from a 50% to 1,000%

increase on the baseline market

average)

Number of agrochemical sector seeds

collected from semi-natural

populations for cleaning/priming and

distribution (without bulking up) –

increased from 3,000 in Year 10 to

Number of RBG Kew retail packets of

seed sold – decreased from 50,000 in

Year 10 to 25,000

Number of RBG Kew retail packets of

seed sold – increased from 50,000 in

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£13,193 -£16,561 £9,248 £8,783 -£54,783 -£42,897 -£52,753 -£52,296

Income £52,345 £75,826 £102,186 £131,832 £163,580 £175,664 £156,175 £167,613 £178,729 £189,523

Surplus (- -£226,669 -£217,114 -£258,162 -£296,326 -£292,356 -£315,559 -£399,977 -£411,629 -£445,198 -£466,568

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£16,131 -£22,436 £435 -£3,617 -£71,096 -£63,447 -£77,865 -£82,296

Income £52,345 £75,826 £105,123 £137,707 £172,393 £188,064 £172,488 £188,163 £203,842 £219,523

Surplus (- -£226,669 -£217,114 -£255,224 -£290,451 -£283,543 -£303,159 -£383,664 -£391,079 -£420,085 -£436,568

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£13,193 -£16,561 £9,248 £8,783 -£54,783 -£42,897 -£52,753 -£52,296

Income £52,713 £76,686 £105,005 £136,488 £170,320 £184,198 £166,665 £180,221 £193,619 £206,856

Surplus (-

Deficit): All

Staff

-£226,301 -£216,254 -£255,342 -£291,670 -£285,616 -£307,025 -£389,487 -£399,021 -£430,308 -£449,235

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£45,939 -£9,921 -£13,311 -£17,779 £7,175 £4,916 -£60,606 -£50,838 -£62,976 -£64,963

Income £47,672 £66,480 £89,636 £116,077 £144,622 £158,500 £140,967 £154,523 £167,921 £181,158

Surplus (-

Deficit): All

Staff

-£228,188 -£220,151 -£261,249 -£299,464 -£295,543 -£316,952 -£399,414 -£408,948 -£440,235 -£459,162

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£50,737 -£19,639 -£27,950 -£37,215 -£17,305 -£19,564 -£85,086 -£75,318 -£87,456 -£89,442

Income £57,018 £85,172 £117,673 £153,461 £191,351 £205,229 £187,696 £201,253 £214,650 £227,888

Surplus (-

Deficit): All

Staff

-£225,150 -£214,076 -£252,137 -£287,314 -£280,356 -£301,765 -£384,227 -£393,761 -£425,048 -£443,975

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£41,878 -£1,922 -£1,374 -£1,781 £26,988 £24,729 -£40,793 -£31,025 -£43,163 -£45,149

Year 10 to 75,000

RBG Kew license fee/retail packet of

seeds – decreased from 20% to 10%

RBG Kew license fee/packet retail

packet of seeds – increased from 20%

to 30%

Fee for delivering viability

testing/species (£) – increased from

0% profit margin to 25% profit margin

Total staff days for consultancy

project – decreased from 100 days in

Year 10 to 50

Total staff days for consultancy

project – increased from 100 days in

Year 10 to 150

Income £56,142 £83,420 £115,045 £149,956 £186,970 £200,848 £183,315 £196,872 £210,269 £223,507

Surplus (-

Deficit): All

Staff

-£223,062 -£209,900 -£245,872 -£278,961 -£269,915 -£291,324 -£373,786 -£383,320 -£414,607 -£433,534

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£42,700 -£3,567 -£3,841 -£5,070 £22,876 £20,617 -£44,905 -£35,137 -£47,274 -£49,261

Income £47,995 £67,004 £90,360 £117,125 £145,747 £159,625 £142,092 £155,648 £169,046 £182,283

Surplus (-

Deficit): All

Staff

-£182,062 -£169,425 -£202,512 -£234,026 -£226,891 -£241,830 -£318,612 -£321,876 -£346,694 -£359,941

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£42,563 -£6,097 -£8,060 -£11,451 £14,333 £13,756 -£50,321 -£39,109 -£49,564 -£50,106

Achieving operating surplus scenarios

Income £66,842 £115,377 £173,117 £223,224 £283,353 £341,750 £371,238 £434,316 £499,737 £567,499

Surplus (-

Deficit): All

Staff

-£163,215 -£121,053 -£119,755 -£128,648 -£90,496 -£61,472 -£91,852 -£46,276 -£19,818 £21,459

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£27,949 £33,687 £61,753 £76,750 £129,072 £172,459 £154,784 £214,836 £255,656 £309,639

Income £79,546 £140,786 £211,231 £274,042 £343,997 £396,956 £418,991 £472,600 £526,535 £580,796

Surplus (-

Deficit): All

Staff

-£153,337 -£101,295 -£90,119 -£88,817 -£43,775 -£20,434 -£58,651 -£23,065 -£8,748 £19,028

Average day rate for consultancy

project – increased from £467 to £657

25% reduction in staff costs

25% reduction in staff costs; increase

in RBG Kew average price of species

rich grassland conservation seeds

from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50%

to a 1,000% increase on the baseline

market average); % relevant seed

production bed land used for species

rich grassland increased from 40% in

Year 10 to 70%





Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£15,890 £57,806 £97,931 £125,303 £186,696 £224,399 £198,887 £248,949 £277,628 £318,109

Income £71,191 £124,199 £216,906 £309,897 £409,810 £504,722 £568,709 £664,270 £760,158 £856,371

Surplus (-

Deficit): All

Staff

-£204,311 -£170,159 -£160,928 -£153,075 -£98,375 -£56,384 -£75,161 -£20,726 £12,241 £66,556

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£23,949 £36,174 £87,575 £133,758 £213,830 £281,442 £286,075 £366,283 £424,871 £502,597

Income £66,842 £115,377 £215,341 £318,803 £418,088 £505,350 £551,453 £618,898 £676,436 £724,067

Surplus (-

Deficit): All

Staff

-£158,777 -£122,875 -£97,494 -£71,413 -£12,506 £27,143 -£4,702 £27,319 £28,135 £39,172

Surplus (-

Deficit): New

Staff only

-£23,510 £31,865 £90,734 £147,425 £227,222 £287,954 £275,533 £328,751 £350,649 £381,111


market average); % relevant seed

production bed land used for species

rich grassland increased from 40% in

Year 10 to 60%; increase in total

consultancy days from 100 in Year 10

to 150; increase in average

consultancy day rate to £657

increase in RBG Kew average price of

species rich grassland conservation

seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from

a 50% to a 1,000% increase on the

baseline market average); % relevant

seed production bed land used for

species rich grassland increased

from 40% in Year 10 to 60%; increase

in land used for seed production

beds from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 3 ha






market average); increase in land

used for seed production beds from

1.7ha in Year 10 to 3.5 ha


Financial Plan Paper Appendix E Final_Financial_Plan_Paper_FOI Request Chris Blandford Associates

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 KEY MESSAGES 2

3.0 OVERALL FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND MACRO ASSUMPTIONS 3

3.1 Overview 3

3.2 Overall Financial Performance 3

3.3 Key Macro Assumptions 4

4.0 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS BY AREA 6

4.1 Overview 6

4.2 Income 6

4.3 Staff Costs and Time 14

4.4 Other Expenditure 23

5.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY 27

5.1 Overview 27

5.2 Key Findings 27

6.0 RISKS AND COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIPS 34

6.1 Overview 34

6.2 Key Risks 34

6.3 Commercial Partnerships 34



1.0 INTRODUCTION














1.1.3 This document is the Financial Plan Paper associated with Task 5 (developing the financial plan). It

sets out a potential 10 year Income and Expenditure model for the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative,

and identifies whether, or how, the UK Native Seed Hub could be financially self-sustaining over the

long term. It also identifies the key risks associated with the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative, and

explores whether there would be value in developing commercial partnerships with selected

primary producers.

1.1.4 A draft of the document was issued to the Steering Team on 21st October 2011, and discussed at a

Steering Team meeting on 27th October 2011. This final document reflects comments made by the


information.



2.0 KEY MESSAGES

2.1.1 Based on current income and cost assumptions, the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative could potentially

generate a sizeable income (c.£205,000 in Year 10). However, at present it appears to generate a

significant deficit (-c.£450,000 in Year 10), which falls to -c.£70,000 when only new staff posts are

considered.

2.1.2 Staff costs are a key factor in the deficit. They comprise 70% of the entire cost base in Year 10, and

generate a staff cost/income margin of 220%. They are particularly an issue for provision of seeds

(both for the conservation market and for the agrochemical sector), and for provision of training and

technical advice.

2.1.3 At the same time, however, a review of market prices for species currently in production for the UK

Native Seed Hub Initiative suggests that there is potential for RBG Kew to secure much higher

prices for conservation seeds associated with species rich grassland than is currently anticipated in

the baseline model. The sensitivity analysis in Section 5 suggests that an increase in average RBG

Kew prices for species rich grassland conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg would

generate a £220,000 increase in income in Year 10 to £425,000, and would reduce the operating

deficit to -£230,000. If only new staff costs were considered, it would lead to a surplus of £155,000.

However, it is important to note that there is wide variance in market prices across the species

reviewed, from £235/kg to £3,100/kg for large packets, and the final price RBG Kew will achieve

for its species rich grassland conservation seeds will depend very much on the choice of species and

the relative allocation of seed production beds between these species.

2.1.4 If reduction in staff costs (whether through reducing the number of staff involved or reducing the

number of days spent) were combined with increased prices for conservation seeds associated with

species rich grassland, and with an increase in the weight of species rich grassland seeds produced,

then an income of £570,000 to £725,000 and an operating surplus of £20,000 to £40,000 could be

generated in Year 10.

2.1.5 The financial performance of the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative is driven in part by RBG Kew’s

desire to primarily focus on supporting aspirations around coherent, resilient ecological networks

and enhanced biodiversity, and to operate on a non competitive, not for profit basis rather than for

maximum commercial gain. This has led to a business model that focuses on opportunity areas

where there is a need in the market (eg for ‘missing’ species, or for higher viability rates), but where

demand is not yet established. Investment will therefore need to be made in developing demand,

both through improved regulation/self regulation if possible, and through awareness building

among the market players.

2.1.6 Emphasis on opportunity areas where demand is not yet established inevitably introduces

uncertainty, and therefore risk, around projected income and overall surplus/deficit levels. It will



therefore be important to take a gradualist approach, to ramp up activities (and, by association,

costs) gradually over time in response to demand. A project by project approach for at least some of

the offer areas, in particular in the early years, is likely to be a sensible business development

strategy. It will also be important to closely monitor performance against each of the income and

cost assumptions identified in Section 4, and to adjust approach, resources and investment

accordingly.

2.1.7 In addition to risks related to demand and to RBG Kew’s ability to deliver cost effectively, there are

also risks associated with intellectual property. Much of the income from the UK Native Seed Hub

initiative is predicated on RBG Kew’s unique skills and expertise (eg in unlocking

dormancy/germination). It will therefore be critically important for RBG Kew to find ways to

either retain this intellectual property, and therefore its value and income potential in the market, or

to develop commercial arrangements that take due account of its value.

2.1.8 While it will be important to maintain good relationships with the primary producers in the market,

it will also be critically important to build awareness among end users and specifiers. These end

users and specifiers both ultimately drive demand, and can also be an important direct source of

potential projects (and therefore income) for RBG Kew – as already demonstrated by the feedback

received from the launch of the UK Native Seed Hub. Recruiting the Business Development

Manager as soon as possible will be an important part of this.

2.1.9 Overall, the funding provided by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation provides RBG Kew with the

financial support to essentially pilot the Business Model over a multi-year period. Close monitoring

will allow RBG Kew to update the financial model and the projected financial performance with

actual data, and to build better understanding and greater confidence in the potential long term

performance of the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative. The end of the 4 year pilot project provides

RBG Kew with a natural decision point about whether to continue with the UK Native Seed Hub

Initiative or not – with a decision informed by 4 years of hard data. To ensure the effectiveness of

this approach, it is important that the 4 year Esmee Fairbairn Foundation funded project is fully

aligned with the Business Model agreed by the Steering Team through this process.

3.0 OVERALL FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND MACRO ASSUMPTIONS

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 This section sets out the overall potential financial performance of the UK Native Seed Hub

Initiative, together with the macro assumptions that have been made.

3.2 Overall Financial Performance



3.2.1 Assessment of the potential financial performance of the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative, in line with

the Business Model agreed at the Steering Team meeting on the 5th October, suggests that c.

£55,000 of income could be generated in Year 1 (calendar year 2012), rising to c. £205,000 in Year

10. The income is, however, offset by significant costs, resulting in a deficit of –c. £225,000 in Year

1, rising to –c.£450,000 in Year 10.

3.2.2 The majority of the costs (70% by Year 10) relate to staffing. The bulk of the staff costs relate to

staff that are already working for RBG Kew. If only the costs associated with new staff posts were

considered, staff costs would be much lower, and the deficit would fall to –c.£45,000 in Year 1, and

–c.£70,000 in Year 10 – although it is important to note that if some backfilling was required with

existing staff posts, this would in turn generate additional costs.

3.2.3 In the early years, the overall deficit can be partially offset against funding from the Esmee

Fairbairn Foundation. The Foundation awarded RBG Kew £750,000 for the UK Native Seed Hub

Initiative, of which £167,000 was allocated for capital costs. The remainder is assumed to be

divided equally among the 4 years of the project, with 2011 (Year 0) comprising the first year.

Funding from the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation would largely, but not entirely, offset the overall

deficit, and entirely offset it when only new staff posts are considered.


Year 1

2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Income £52,345 £75,826 £103,655 £134,769 £204,523 Staff Costs £195,360 £225,107 £268,499 £306,158 £453,132 Operating Costs £18,896 £32,162 £47,267 £71,897 £149,723 Marketing and PR £40,000 £15,000 £23,000 £32,000 £32,000 Expenses £24,758 £20,670 £21,582 £18,103 £21,236 Surplus/Deficit -£226,669 -£217,114 -£256,693 -£293,389 -£451,568 Staff Costs Associated with New Posts Only

£14,998 £18,774 £26,468 £32,267 £68,859

Surplus/Deficit When Only New Staff Posts are Considered

-£46,307 -£10,780 -£14,662 -£19,498 -£67,296

Income from Esmee Fairbairn Foundation Allocated to Revenue Funds (vs Capital Costs)

£145,750 £145,750 £145,750

3.3 Key Macro Assumptions

3.3.1 A number of macro assumptions have been made in assessing the potential financial performance of

the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative:



• The 10 year financial plan is developed in line with the Business Model agreed at the Steering

Team meeting on 5th October 2011;

• The 10 year financial plan reflects the findings and assumptions associated with the 4 year

Esmee Fairbairn Foundation funded project (2011-14). The first year of the Esmee Fairbairn

Foundation funded project comprises Year 0 of this plan, and this plan assumes that seeds are

sown in the nursery in 2011, ready for planting in the seed production beds in 2012;

• The UK Native Seed Hub Initiative is run as an initiative out of the Millennium Seed Bank, not

as a separate enterprise (whether commercial, social or not for profit);

• It is assumed, on the advice of RBG Kew, that the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative will not incur

any shared services or corporate overhead costs (including for heating, electricity, share of MSB

offices and facilities space, HR, finance and legal); and

• Inflation has not been included.



4.0 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS BY AREA

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 This section provides a breakdown of the income, staff costs, and other expenditure associated with

the UK Native Seed Hub. It also identifies the key assumptions that have been made for each of

these.

4.2 Income

Overview of Income Performance

4.2.1 As identified in Section 3, assessment of the potential financial performance of the UK Native Seed

Hub Initiative suggests that c. £55,000 of income could be generated in Year 1 (calendar year

2012), rising to c. £205,000 in Year 10. The breakdown of this total income into income streams is

set out in the table below. The income streams are structured around the offer areas and associated

products/services that were agreed at the Steering Team meeting on 5th October 2011.

4.2.2 A key income generator at present is provision of seeds to the conservation market (ie focusing on

‘missing’ species, rare species, local/multi origin seeds, and high quality seeds), which could

potentially generate c.35% of income by Year 10.

4.2.3 Provision of consultancy services could potentially generate 25% of income by Year 10, while

provision of cleaning and storage services and provision of seeds for the retail market (involving

designing, branding and viability testing of seeds) could each generate 15% of income in Year 10.

4.2.4 Provision of seeds for the agrochemical sector, provision of viability testing services, and provision

of training and technical advice are currently much more marginal, and together comprise less than

15% of total income in Year 10.

4.2.5 Although research was a significant income generator in Year 1, with research grants contributing

to 60% of total income, no grants are currently anticipated for Year 10. Other key changes over the

10 year period include a significant increase over time in the relative importance of provision of

founder stocks of seed for the conservation market, and a marked increase in the importance of seed

provision for the retail market.



2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Seed provision Missing species, rare species and Schedule 8 species, local/multi origin seeds, high

£2,976 £7,638 £13,067 £22,240 £71,101





2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

quality founder stocks Agrochemical sector £0 £610 £1,862 £3,147 £10,864 Retail market – design of offer, branding, viability testing, with seed production undertaken by primary producers

£0 £0 £2,938 £5,875 £30,000



£720 £1,040 £1,360 £1,680 £3,600




£31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £31,250 £0

TOTAL INCOME £52,345 £75,826 £103,655

£134,769

£204,523


Financial Plan Paper

Appendix E Final_Financial_Plan_Paper_FOI Request Chris Blandford Associates

Key Assumptions

4.2.6 The table below sets out the key assumptions that were used to calculate the income for each offer area and associated products/services. It also identifies how

those assumptions were arrived at. Many of these assumptions have already been shared and discussed with RBG Kew.

KEY INCOME ASSUMPTIONS

Products/

Services

Key Assumptions Parameter Year 1

2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments

Seed provision – missing species, rare species and Schedule 8 species, local/multi origin seeds, high quality founder stocks

Area of land allocated for seed production beds (ha)

0.09 0.18 0.37 0.56 1.7 Reflects a gradualist approach. Figures for Years 1-2 from RBG Kew, and reflect actual planting associated with 4 year Esmee Fairbairn project. Allocation of 1.7ha of land for seed production beds in year 10 identified in Landscape Masterplan

% of seed production beds given to growing plants (rather than paths etc)

80% 80% 80% 80% 80% Source: RBG Kew

% of seed production bed land used for conservation purposes (vs for agrochemical sector)

100% 95% 95% 95% 95% To reflect RBG Kew's overall aim for the UK native seed hub to support UK biodiversity

% relevant seed production bed land used for: species rich grassland heathland wetland vegetation cornfield annuals woodland field layer

100%

0%

0%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

0%

80%

10%

0%

0%

10%

60%

15%

5%

5%

15%

40%

15%

10%

10%

25%

Source: RBG Kew. Figures for years 1-2 reflect RBG Kew's current strengths around species rich grassland; Figures for year 10 represent a combination of current relative size of market segments and opportunities for RBG to help grow demand/the market (particularly for woodland field layer habitat types)





Products/

Services


2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments

Average number of plants/sqm 12 12 12 12 12 Source: RBG Kew. Average planned spacing between plants for 2012 target list species

Number of seeds/plants for: species rich grassland heathland wetland vegetation cornfield annuals woodland field layer

1,903

1,903

224

2,323

224

1,903

1,903

224

2,323

224

1,903

1,903

224

2,323

224

1,903

1,903

224

2,323

224

1,903

1,903

224

2,323

224

Source: RBG Kew, from Salisbury, E. J (1942), the Reproductive Capacity of Plants; takes into account empty/infested seeds (20% allowance made for this); seeds/plant for heathland assumed to be comparable to species rich grassland, and for wetland vegetation assumed to be comparable to woodland field layer

Mean seed weight (g) for: species rich grassland heathland wetland vegetation cornfield annuals woodland field layer

0.00186

0.00430

0.00320

0.00132

0.01132

0.00186

0.00430

0.00320

0.00132

0.01132

0.00186

0.00430

0.00320

0.00132

0.01132

0.00186

0.00430

0.00320

0.00132

0.01132

0.00186

0.00430

0.00320

0.00132

0.01132

Source: RBG Kew, from Salisbury, E. J (1942), the Reproductive Capacity of Plants, and from Hodgson & Mackey (1986) The Ecological Specialisation of Dicotyledonous Families within a Local Flora

% of plants that harvest in 1 year (vs 2 years) for: species rich grassland heathland wetland vegetation

60%

0%

0%

60%

0%

0%

60%

0%

0%

60%

0%

0%

60%

0%

0%

Source: RBG Kew, reflecting anticipated harvest associated with 4 year Esmee Fairbairn project





Products/

Services


2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments

cornfield annuals woodland field layer

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

% weight of seeds produced that are sold to the market: species rich grassland heathland wetland vegetation cornfield annuals woodland field layer

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

Assumes that as new species are focused on, there will be a requirement for some seeds to go into the MSB’s collection; also reflects potential for not all seeds to be sold in a given year

Total weight of seeds sold (kg) species rich grassland heathland wetland vegetation cornfield annuals woodland field layer

17

0

0

0

0

42

0

0

0

0

73

0

0

0

0

93

25

0

7

8

195

152

8

43

73

Calculated from above assumptions Total weight of seeds sold in Year 10 represents <1% share of wildflower market (excluding commercial grasses used in seed mixtures)

Current baseline average market price/kg of seeds (£): species rich grassland

£120

£120

£120

£120

£120

Based on average prices provided through key





Products/

Services


2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments

heathland wetland vegetation cornfield annuals woodland field layer

£116

£55

£60

£46

£116

£55

£60

£46

£116

£55

£60

£46

£116

£55

£60

£46

£116

£55

£60

£46

players questionnaire in task 1. Baseline average market price for species rich grassland excludes the grass component of commercial mixes

Potential RBG Kew increase on baseline average price: species rich grassland heathland wetland vegetation cornfield annuals woodland field layer

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

Increase against baseline average price reflects the fact that RBG Kew will focus on the most challenging species/species that need treatment, and invest time and scientific expertise. Increase also potentially takes into account future sales by primary producers of these difficult species

Seed provision – agrochemical sector

% of seed production bed land used for agrochemical sector (vs for conservation purpose)

0% 5% 5% 5% 5% To reflect RBG Kew's overall aim for the UK native seed hub to support UK biodiversity; Delay in introduction of agrochemical sector plants reflects the fact that no plants are being sown into the nursery this year for the agrochemical sector

Average number of plants/sqm 12 12 12 12 12 Source: RBG Kew. Average planned spacing between plants for 2012 target list species

Number of seeds/plants 2,113 2,113 2,113 2,113 2,113 Assumed to be combination of species rich grassland and cornfield annual species Mean seed weight (g) 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159 0.00159

% of plants that harvest in 1 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%





Products/

Services


2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments

year (vs 2 years) % weight of seeds produced

that are sold to the market

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Assumed that there is limited value in keeping back seeds associated with this market segment

Total weight of seeds sold (kg) 0 1 4 7 26 Calculated from above assumptions Current average market

price/kg of seeds (£) £350 £350 £350 £350 £350 Herbiseed website has prices averaging at c.

£300-400/kg Potential RBG Kew increase

against baseline average market price

20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Increase against baseline average market price reflects the fact that these seeds are available in the market already, but that RBG Kew offers better quality/more guaranteed priming

Number of seeds collected from semi-natural populations for cleaning/priming and distribution (without bulking up)

1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 Reflects the fact that agrochemical companies don’t need huge volumes of seeds

% of seed collected that is sold 50% 100% 150% 50% 150% Reflects the fact that collections have been made for future as well as current use

Seed provision – retail market

Number of RBG Kew packets of seed sold

0 0 6,250 12,500 50,000

'Go Native' project aims to distribute 1 million packets of seeds - although this is likely to be drastically scaled down; 2011 YTD sales of RBG Kew Collection Flowers and Ornamental (through Thompson and Morgan) are 9,958 packets; Retail seed provision delayed until year 3 to allow a focus on 'Go Native' project first, and assumes that sales will build on experiences and relationships developed through 'Go Native'

Number of species sold 20 20 40 Average seed mix has 20-30 species Average price/packet (£) £2.35 £2.35 £3.00 RBG Kew Collection Flowers and Ornamental





Products/

Services


2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments

(through Thompson and Morgan) currently averages £2.35/packet; assumed that increased general awareness around value of UK native seeds will enable RBG Kew to achieve higher average price/packet by Year 10

RBG Kew license fee/packet 20% 20% 20% To reflect RBG contribution around brand, design of offer, and seed viability testing; EDACTED TEXTs


Number of training courses 4 5 7 8 18 Each training session assumed to be 0.5 days in total; assumes a mix of Flora locale organised training + training for specific primary producers on a one to one basis; by Year 10, assumes also that 1 full week's worth of training will be provided for a primary producer; RBG Kew ran 1 full day training course in 2011 for Flora locale, merging a number of themes; Prior to this, RBG Kew provided a week's worth of training for REDACTED TEXT

Fee/course (£) £200 £200 £200 £200 £200 Fee per half day training session; REDACTED TEXT

Provision of other facilities/ services – viability testing

Number of projects which may want seeds tested

1 2 3 4 5 Assumed that these projects are largely exemplar projects

Average number of species tested/project

30 30 30 30 30 Average seed mix (as per Emorsgate) has 20-30 species. Assuming at least 2 mixes/project, and a focus on testing 60-65% of species

Cost of delivering viability testing/species (£)

£49 £49 £49 £49 £49 Calculated based on staff time required to deliver service

RBG Kew profit margin for viability testing

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Current cost of delivering viability test seems in line with market prices, therefore no profit





Products/

Services


2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments

margin assumed Provision of other facilities/ services – cleaning and storage facilities

Number of projects which may want cleaning and storage services

1 2 3 4 5 Assumed that these projects are largely exemplar projects

Average weight of seeds/project (kg)

125 125 125 125 125 200kg of seeds were used for the Olympic Park project

Cost of cleaning/storage per kg of seed (£)


RBG Kew profit margin for cleaning/storage services

25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

Provision of other facilities/ services – consultancy/ trusted advisor

Number of consultancy projects 1 2 3 4 5 Assumed that these projects are largely exemplar projects

Average staff days/ consultancy project

20 20 20 20 20 Calculated based on staff time required to deliver service

Cost of delivery for average consultancy project/day (£)


RBG Kew profit margin for consultancy project

60% 60% 60% 60% 60% Generates a lower average daily rate than KIU, but assumed that KIU projects are typically international and often associated with developments, thereby driving higher rates than UK native seed hub initiative is likely to achieve in the UK

Research Cost associated with Research Officer

£25,000 £25,000 £25,000 £25,000 £0 Source: RBG Kew. Assumption that can get grants sufficient to recruit a Band C Research Officer for 2 periods of 3 years

On costs associated with Research Officer

25% 25% 25% 25% Source: RBG Kew

4.3 Staff Costs and Time




Staff Costs by Offer Area

4.3.1 The table below sets out the staff costs associated with delivering each of the offer areas and associated products/services. These calculations are based on

assumptions about the amount of staff time required to deliver the products/services (see Staff Time section below), and the associated salary costs. On costs

(including for example National Insurance and pensions) have also been included, calculated at 25% of base salary. In line with RBG Kew advice, costs associated

with the Wakehurst Place Interpretation Officer are assumed to be outside the budget of the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative, and have therefore not been

included.

4.3.2 For some offer areas, such as seed provision, provision of training/technical advice, and provision of other facilities/services, staff costs are assumed to increase

over time – whether in line with land used for seed production beds, with the number of species sold, with the number of species tested, with weight of seeds

stored/cleaned, with the number of consultancy project days required, or with the number of training courses run. For other areas, such as research, and

awareness and demand building, staff time is assumed to be relatively constant over time, because these are activities that need to be maintained on an ongoing

basis to ensure demand for RBG Kew’s offer and to ensure RBG Kew continues to have the expertise and skills to deliver. In terms of staff time associated with

regulation and standards of practice, it is assumed that concerted efforts are made over a focused, short period of time to achieve improvements in these areas.

Beyond this, it is assumed either that goals have been achieved, in which case additional staff time won’t be required, or that goals are unlikely to be achieved, in

which case there is limited value in continuing to invest significant staff resources.

4.3.3 By Year 10, 50% of total staff costs are generated by just two areas – provision of training and technical advice (28% of total staff costs), and provision of

conservation market seeds (22% of total staff costs). Research and awareness building among end users and specifiers together generate 15% of total staff costs

in Year 10, while the remaining staff cost areas each generate 6% or less of total staff costs in Year 10.

4.3.4 Overall, the staff costs in Year 10 are significantly higher than the income generated, resulting in a staff cost/income margin of 220%. When only those staff

costs that are directly related to income generating activities are included (ie seed provision, provision of training and technical advice, provision of other

facilities/services, and research), the staff cost/income margin falls but, at 170%, it is still much greater than 100%.




4.3.5 There are four areas where the staff cost/income margin is higher than or equal to 100% in Year 10 - ie where the costs outweigh or match the income.

Provision of training and technical advice has by far the highest staff cost/income margin (at 3,545%). Provision of conservation market seeds has a staff

cost/income margin of 140%, while provision of seeds for the agrochemical sector and viability testing have more comparable staff cost/income margins, at

105% and 100% respectively. Those areas where the income generated outweighs the staff costs of delivery are the retail market (40% staff cost/income margin),

provision of consultancy services (60% staff cost/income margin) and provision of cleaning and storage facilities (80% staff cost/income margin).



2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments


£5,442 £10,340 £21,255 £32,170 £97,658 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with increase in area of land used for seed production for conservation species

Agrochemical sector £2,361 £2,804 £3,271 £6,099 £11,262 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with increase in area of land used for seed production for agrochemical species, and in line with increase in number of seeds collected

Retail market – design of offer, branding, viability testing, with seed production undertaken by primary producers

£0 £0 £6,314 £6,314 £12,628 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the number of species sold



£25,511 £36,849 £48,187 £59,525 £127,553 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the number of training courses run


Viability testing £1,474 £3,439 £5,404 £6,877 £9,333 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the number of species tested

Cleaning and storage facilities £5,263 £10,526 £15,790 £21,053 £26,316 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the weight of seeds stored/cleaned

Consultancy/trusted advisor £5,841 £11,682 £17,524 £23,365 £29,206 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the






2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments

number of consultancy project days required Research Seed establishment and habitat

creation, climate change, local origin and sustainability

£36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108 £36,108 Assumes research activities are relatively constant; assumes that research grant funds research activities carried out by existing staff and SCS, and does not fund a new research post.



£0 £0 £11,580 £11,580 £0 Assumes a focused effort to improve regulation over a short period of time, after efforts to improve self regulation have been undertaken


£10,291 £10,291 £0 £0 £0 Assumes a focused effort to improve self-regulation over a short period of time



£36,495 £36,495 £36,495 £36,495 £36,495 Assumes activities are relatively constant


£24,789 £24,789 £24,789 £24,789 £24,789


£21,144 £21,144 £21,144 £21,144 £21,144


£20,638 £20,638 £20,638 £20,638 £20,638

TOTAL STAFF COSTS £195,360

£225,107

£268,499

£306,158

£453,132

New Staff Costs by Offer Area

4.3.6 The table below sets out the staff costs for new staff posts only. New posts are assumed to be as follows:

• Botanical Horticulturalist;

• New post associated with ‘Go Native’ project.




4.3.7 By Year 10, 80% of total new staff costs is generated by just two areas - provision of conservation market seeds (50% of total new staff costs), and provision of

training and technical advice (30% of total new staff costs). A further 10% of total new staff costs is generated by provision of seeds to the retail market and

research.

4.3.8 Overall, total new staff costs in Year 10 are lower than the income generated, resulting in a new staff cost/income margin of 35%, falling to 30% when only

those new staff cost items that are directly related to income generating activities are included (ie seed provision, provision of training and technical advice,

provision of other facilities/services, and research).

4.3.9 Only one offer area generates a new staff cost/income margin greater than 100% - provision of training and technical advice (at 615% margin). In terms of the

remaining offer areas, provision of seeds to the agrochemical sector and provision of seeds to the retail market both have new staff cost/income margins of 15%,

while provision of conservation market seeds has a 45% new staff cost/income margins.

STAFF COSTS BY OFFER AREA – NEW STAFF ONLY


2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments


£1,823 £3,463 £7,118 £10,774 £32,706 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with increase in area of land used for seed production for conservation species

Agrochemical sector £0 £152 £312 £472 £1,432 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with increase in area of land used for seed production for agrochemical species, and in line with increase in number of seeds collected


£0 £0 £1,894 £1,894 £3,788 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the number of species sold

Provision of Seed viability, seed cleaning £4,420 £6,384 £8,348 £10,312 £22,089 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the




STAFF COSTS BY OFFER AREA – NEW STAFF ONLY


2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Comments

training and technical advice

and storage, horticultural skills number of training courses run


Viability testing £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the number of species tested

Cleaning and storage facilities £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the weight of seeds stored/cleaned

Consultancy/trusted advisor £20 £40 £60 £80 £100 Staff costs assumed to increase in line with the number of consultancy project days required


£2,807 £2,807 £2,807 £2,807 £2,807 Assumes research activities are relatively constant; assumes that research grant funds research activities carried out by existing staff and SCS, and does not fund a new research post.



£0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Assumes a focused effort to improve regulation over a short period of time, after efforts to improve self regulation have been undertaken


£0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Assumes a focused effort to improve self-regulation over a short period of time


End users and specifiers £1,825 £1,825 £1,825 £1,825 £1,825 Assumes activities are relatively constant Primary producers and other key players

£1,420 £1,420 £1,420 £1,420 £1,420


£2,122 £2,122 £2,122 £2,122 £2,122


£561 £561 £561 £561 £561

TOTAL STAFF COSTS – NEW STAFF ONLY

£14,998 £18,774 £26,468 £32,267 £68,859




Staff Time

4.3.10 The table below sets out the assumed total staff days in a year required to deliver the products/services for each offer area, in line with specific parameters. The parameters that underpin these staff time assumptions are set out below the table. Staff time assumptions

were developed with input from RBG Kew. The table below also sets out the implications in terms of staff utilisation rates – although it is important to note that, as parameters change from year to year, the table below does not necessarily reflect a specific year.

REC: Restoration Ecology Coordinator C&TPS: C&T Processing Supervisor HWP: Head of Wakehurst Place LM: Logistics Manager UKCC: UK Collecting Coordinator HCTS: Head of Conservation and Technology Section WT: Wakehurst/RBG Kew Website Team TLPPC: Team Leader Plant Prop & Conservation

Unit HCNSS: Head of Collecting and Network Support Section HHEM: Head of Horticulture and Estate Management PT: Wakehurst/RBG Kew Publications Team LO: Logitsics Operatives BH: Botanical Horticulturalist GN: new post associatedwith 'Go Native' project WPIO: Wakehurst Place Interpretation Officer MPPC: Manager Plant Propagation and Conservation KET: Kew Enterprises Team FILT: Formal and Informal Learning Team CWM: Conservation and Woodland Manager GS: Germination Specialist VT: Wakehurst Place/ RBG Kew Volunteer Team HT: Harvesting Team SCS: Sandwich Course Student MPRT: Wakehurst Place/RBG Kew Marketing/PR Team C&TPA: C&T Processing Assistant HSC: Head of Seed Conservation BDM: Business Development Manager

TOTAL STAFF DAYS REQUIRED IN A YEAR TO DELIVER PRODUCTS/SERVICES FOR EACH OFFER AREA, IN LINE WITH SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

Offer Area

Products/ Services

REC

UKCC HCNSS BH MPPC

CWM HT C&TPA

C&TPS

HCTS HHEM GN KET

GS SCS HSC HWP WT PT WPIO FILT

VT MPRT

BDM LM TLPPC LO TOTAL

DAYS

TOTAL STAFF COST

Seed provision

Conservation market - Missing species, rare species and schedule 8 species, local/multi origin, high quality founder stocks

5 35 10 150 10 50 58 11 5 5 30 1 60 20 20 22 492 £75,586

Agrochemical sector - provision of grown seeds

1 15 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 7 36 £6,143

Agrochemical sector - provision of collected and primed seeds

4 1 2 1 3 11 £2,361

Retail market 5 15 4.5 2 20 5 5 56.5 £9,471


Seed viability 6 6 2 6 10 6 5 41 £9,420


6 6 2 10 24 £5,057


6 6 6 6 6 30 £6,781


Viability testing 3.5 3.5 £491

Cleaning and storage facilities/services

30 30 £4,211

Consultancy/ trusted advisor

5 2 2 2 2 5 2 20 £5,841




TOTAL STAFF DAYS REQUIRED IN A YEAR TO DELIVER PRODUCTS/SERVICES FOR EACH OFFER AREA, IN LINE WITH SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

Offer Area

Products/ Services

REC

UKCC HCNSS BH MPPC

CWM HT C&TPA

C&TPS

HCTS HHEM GN KET

GS SCS HSC HWP WT PT WPIO FILT

VT MPRT

BDM LM TLPPC LO TOTAL

DAYS

TOTAL STAFF COST

Research Seed establishment and habitat creation; climate change, local origin and sustainability

20 10 15 20 6 4 10 2 10 160 257 £36,108



10 5 5 5 5 30 £11,580


5 15 5 5 30 £10,291

Awareness building and demand/ business development


8 5 10 13 8 3 3 10 5 10 80 155 £36,495


10 20 10 5 40 85 £24,789


5 5 5 5 5 5 10 5 5 10 10 10 2 10 20 112 £21,144

Steering Team meetings

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 20 48 £13,739

Operating Team meetings

4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 36 £6,899

Total days 67 70 94 215 35 24 55 126.5

23.5 78 25 90 5 19 220 5 24 15 10 10 10 2 10 214 4 24 22 1,497

Total working days (stripping out public holidays, annual leave, sick leave etc)

220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220

Time utilisation 30% 32% 43% 98% 16% 11% 25% 58% 11% 35% 11% 41% 2% 9% 100% 2% 11% 7% 5% 5% 5% 1% 5% 97% 2% 11% 10%




4.3.11 As identified above, the table below sets out the parameters that underpin the staff time assumptions. These parameters are then flexed on a year by year basis to

give annual staff costs.

TOTAL STAFF DAYS REQUIRED IN A YEAR TO DELIVER PRODUCTS/SERVICES FOR EACH OFFER AREA – KEY PARAMETERS/ASSUMPTIONS

Key Offer Area Products/Services Key Parameters/Assumptions Seed provision Missing species, rare species and

Schedule 8 species, local/multi origin seeds, high quality founder stocks

Assumes 1ha of land being used for seed production overall; Assumes UKCC collects seed from the wild (mainly June - Sept), and HT harvests seeds from plants grown on the seed production bed; assumes that any commercial arrangements would be finalised by the BDM. BH assumes inputs from other members of PPCU team to deliver plants to seed production stage. Includes staff time required to process seeds (including cleaning/storage and viability testing)

Agrochemical sector - provision of grown seeds

Assumes 1ha of land being used for seed production overall, with 5% allocated to plants relevant for agrochemical sector

Agrochemical sector - provision of collected and primed seeds

Assumes 1000 seeds are collected


Assumes that the offer here builds on the success of 'Go Native', and focuses on designing, branding and viability testing a retail offer, bulking up/delivery through primary producer; assumes offer includes both mixtures and single species; assumes that c. 30 species would be used in total, with all species undergoing viability testing; assumes close liaison with Kew Enterprises, particularly the licensing team; assumes that any commercial arrangements would be finalised by the BDM


Seed viability Assumes 1 training course on this topic, as well as development of guidance notes/advice etc Seed cleaning and storage Assumes 1 training course on this topic, as well as development of guidance notes/advice etc Horticultural skills Assumes 1 training course on this topic, as well as development of protocols/guidance notes/advice etc


Viability testing Assumes 10 species are being tested; includes lab-based germination of seeds for nursery production; assumes that three different tests would need to be set up on each species to reach a conclusion

Cleaning and storage facilities Assumes 100kg of seed are being stored, with a single collection comprising a batch of 1kg Consultancy/trusted advisor Assumes 1 consultancy project


Assumes production of 2-3 scientific papers


Increased regulation Assumes partnership working with Flora locale Increased self-regulation Time allocations associated with developing (but not monitoring) a more robust code of practice within a year




TOTAL STAFF DAYS REQUIRED IN A YEAR TO DELIVER PRODUCTS/SERVICES FOR EACH OFFER AREA – KEY PARAMETERS/ASSUMPTIONS

Key Offer Area Products/Services Key Parameters/Assumptions Practice time frame. Assumes partnership working with Flora locale; assumes HCNSS takes the lead, given existing

relationship with Flora locale, with content input from REC and GS, and content input and support in working with Flora locale and key industry players from HCTS



Only focuses on end users and specifiers - training and practical guidance notes/manuals for primary producers is covered in provision of training and technical advice offer area above; publication of research articles is covered in research offer area above. Staff time allocations assume: 1 training programme, participation at 3 conferences, educational opportunity associated with 1 land management course, 2 articles (linked into research or work already undertaken), general networking, and development of UK Native Seed Hub Initiative microsite/dedicated web pages


General networking. Training and practical guidance notes/manuals covered in provision of training and technical advice offer area above; Includes support / networking role for GN post.

Retail market/private individuals Assumes: development of fixed interpretation (with external consultants to design and install panels), development of retail component of microsite/dedicated web pages, development of formal and informal learning activities to include emphasis on relevant topics, development of relevant volunteer activities, 1 general interest publication, emphasis on mass media; Includes support / networking role for GN post.


Assumes quarterly Steering Team meetings to monitor progress, with some prep/follow up time; assumes current Steering Team continues, with addition of BDM, and potentially with addition of KIU member; assumes BDM takes the lead in preparing material for the Steering Team meetings

Operating Team meetings Assumes quarterly Operating Team meetings , with some prep/follow up time; assumes current Operating Team continues, with addition of BDM

4.4 Other Expenditure




4.4.1 The table below sets out a breakdown of the other expenditure for the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative, which comprises operating costs, marketing and PR costs,

and expenses. It also sets out the key assumptions that underpin these costs.

4.4.2 The operating costs have been discussed with RBG Kew. They are the most significant other expenditure cost, comprising 75% of total other expenditure in

Year 10, with an operating cost/income margin of 75% in the same year. Almost half of the costs comprise laboratory consumables. The costs are largely based

on the costs identified for the 4 year Esmee Fairbairn Foundation funded project. They are assumed to largely increase in line with the area of land used for seed

production beds, and also with the weight of seeds produced and tested, and they take into account costs associated with Year 0/2011 (Year 1 of the 4 year

Esmee Fairbairn Foundation funded project). They also assume acquisition of a polytunnel every 4 years.

4.4.3 The marketing and PR costs have been introduced by CBA, to reflect the need to invest financial resources as well as staff time in awareness building and

demand development. They essentially constitute a budget for the new Business Development Manager. The expenses costs are a combination of costs identified

for the 4 year Esmee Fairbairn Foundation funded project, and also additional costs introduced by CBA to support the different offer areas and associated

products/services.

OTHER EXPENDITURE Year 1

2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Key Assumptions/Comments

OPERATING COSTS

Isolation mesh/fleece/supports for beds

£2,531 £5,203 £7,875 £10,547 £23,906 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project spreadsheet identified £9,000 of costs over 3 years (including Year 0/2011); costs assumed to increase in line with area of land used for seed production beds (which in turn impacts amount of staff time involved)

Nursery equipment £2,531 £5,203 £7,875 £16,547 £23,906 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project spreadsheet identified £15,000 of costs over 3 years (including Year 0/2011); Assumes acquisition of polytunnel every 4 years; remaining costs assumed to increase in line with area of land used for seed production beds





2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021


(which in turn impacts amount of staff time involved) Soil, compost, fertiliser etc £3,000 £6,167 £9,333 £12,500 £28,333 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project spreadsheet identified

£20,000 of costs over 4 years (including Year 0/2011); costs assumed to increase in line with area of land used for seed production beds

Laboratory consumables £6,333 £11,089 £20,184 £30,304 £71,577 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project spreadsheet identified £40,000 of costs over 4 years (including Year 0/2011); costs assumed to increase in line with weight of seeds produced and tested

Interpretation/learning materials

£2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project spreadsheet; costs assumed to remain constant

Contribution to grassland restoration book

£2,500 £2,500 £0 £0 £0 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project spreadsheet

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS

£18,896 £32,162 £47,267 £71,897 £149,723

MARKETING AND PR COSTS

Entertainment Budget £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 To entertain key politicians/civil servants, end-users, specifiers, and primary producers

Photography £2,000 £0 £0 £2,000 £2,000 For brochures and exhibitions etc

Exhibition costs £8,000 £0 £8,000 £0 £0 For exhibition stands at conferences

Publications £10,000 £0 £0 £10,000 £10,000 Including brochures

Advertising £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 Includes placement of adverts in professional journals (equivalent to 20 adverts at £500 each)

Website £5,000 £0 £0 £5,000 £5,000

TOTOAL MARKETING £40,000 £15,000 £23,000 £32,000 £32,000





2012

Year 2

2013

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021


AND PR COSTS EXPENSES Volunteer travel costs and training benefits

£400 £400 £400 £400 £400 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project spreadsheet

UK travel (networking/ business development)

£7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500 £7,500 Equivalent to 10,000 miles at £0.5/mile, and also includes subsistence costs

UK travel (collecting) £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project spreadsheet Conferences external £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 Assuming 3 conferences/year, attended by 1-2 people @ £400 /

participant Training/technical guidance materials

£1,000 £1,444 £1,889 £2,333 £5,000 Source: RBG Kew

WMI Consultant (based on Band D average, 24 days per year)

£4,391 £4,391 £4,391 £0 £0 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project spreadsheet

Recruitment £5,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 Source: Esmee Fairbairn 4 Year Project spreadsheet Expenses associated with consultancy projects

£467 £935 £1,402 £1,869 £2,336 Assumed to be approximately 5% of consultancy fee

General admin £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 TOTAL EXPENSES £24,758 £20,670 £21,582 £18,103 £21,236




5.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

5.1 Overview

5.1.1 This section sets out the results of the sensitivity analysis that was run on various income and cost assumptions for the UK Native Seed Hub. It also identifies

scenarios where financial sustainability could be achieved.

5.2 Key Findings

5.2.1 Sensitivity analysis of a number of the income and cost assumptions used in the financial model was carried out, to assess how much impact the different

elements have on the overall financial performance of the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative. The results of this analysis are set out in the table below.

5.2.2 Overall, the two individual elements which exert the greatest impact on the overall financial performance of the UK Native Seed Hub are the RBG Kew increase

on the baseline average market price for conservation seeds associated with species rich grassland habitats, and staff costs. At present, the baseline average

market price for conservation seeds associated with species rich grassland habitats is £120/kg of seed (excluding the grass component of commercial mixes),

and it is assumed that RBG Kew’s focus on ‘missing’/challenging/rare species and on high quality seeds would see it achieve an average price of £180/kg of

seed, 50% higher than the baseline market average. However, examination of market prices for some of the species that are currently in production for the UK

Native Seed Hub Initiative suggest that the potential upside could be much greater. Indeed, examination of market prices for Cardamine pratensis, Potentilla

erecta (not currently in production), Succisa pratensis, Serratula tinctoria, Campanula rotundifolia, Ajuga reptans and Genista tinctoria yields a market average

price of £1,500/kg for large packets, and £6,700/kg for small packets – although it should be noted that there is wide variance in market price across the

species identified above, from £235/kg to £3,100/kg for large packets. If RBG Kew were to achieve a price of £1,320/kg of seed (a 1,000% increase on the

baseline market average), this would increase income in Year 10 by £220,000 to £425,000, and reduce the operating deficit to -£230,000. If only new staff costs

were considered, it would generate a surplus of £155,000.

5.2.3 As identified earlier, staff costs associated with the different offer areas would seem to be very high, and significantly outweigh income generated from staff

involvement – they comprise 70% of the entire cost base in Year 10, and generate a staff cost/income margin of 220%. This reflects in part the large number of




staff members involved in delivering the different offer areas (including 16 different staff members involved in providing seeds for the conservation market, 15 in

providing seeds for the retail market, 11 in awareness building and demand development among end users and specifiers, 10 in providing seeds for the

agrochemical sector, and 10 in research), as well as significant involvement of senior (and therefore expensive) staff members. A general reduction in staff costs

across all offer areas by 25% (by reducing the number of people involved in delivering activities and/or reducing the amount of days they spend) would see the

overall deficit in Year 10 fall from –c.£450,000 to - c.£360,000.

5.2.4 Apart from the above elements, the greatest impact on income comes from changing the weight of seed produced and therefore sold. An increase in the area of

land used for seed production beds in Year 10, from 1.7ha to 3ha, causes income to rise by c.£60,000, from c.£205,000 to c.£265,000. However, this increase in

income conversely also leads to an increase in deficit, from -c.£450,000 to -c.£515,000. This reflects the 140% staff cost/income margin identified in Section 4

for the provision of conservation market seeds, as well as the additional other costs (primarily operational costs) that are also associated with the provision of

these seeds. This means that an increase in income for this offer area is accompanied by an even greater increase in costs, and therefore an increase in deficit. It

also explains why the deficit actually decreases when the area of land allocated for seed production beds is reduced from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 1ha.

5.2.5 The same issue also affects provision of seeds for the agrochemical sector. The cost of collecting, priming and distributing seeds for the agrochemical sector far

outweighs the income generated, and so a significant increase in the number of seeds collected, from 3,000 to 30,000 in Year 10, leads to a significant increase in

deficit from -c.£450,000 to -c.£515,000.

5.2.6 Beyond the areas identified above, the next greatest impact on income and operating deficit comes from the share of seeds produced that are sold, from provision

of consultancy services, and from provision of seeds to the retail market. However, none of these elements individually generate a particularly significant impact.

If only 50% of seeds produced were sold in Year 10, the deficit would worsen by £35,000 to -£490,000. An increase in the average day rate for consultancy

projects, from £467 to £657 in Year 10, sees a £20,000 improvement in both income and deficit, while a 50% increase or decrease in total consultancy days

(from 100 days in Year 10 to 150 or 50 days) has a £25,000 impact on income and a £10,000 impact on the deficit in Year 10. A 50% increase or decrease in the

number of RBG Kew packets of retail seed sold (from 50,000 in Year 10 to 75,000 or 25,000) has a £15,000 impact on both income and deficit, as does a 50%

increase or decrease on the license fee/retail seed packet (from 20% in Year 10 to 30% or 10%).




5.2.7 Given the findings above, it becomes evident that a combination of elements would be required to achieve an operating surplus. Potential options, which include

much higher than baseline average market prices for species rich grassland conservation seeds and/or reduction in staff costs for maximum impact, are set out

below:

• 25% reduction in staff costs, increase in average RBG Kew price of species rich grassland conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to

1,000% increase on the baseline market average), and increase in percentage of relevant seed production bed land used for species rich grassland from 40% in

Year 10 to 70% – which would generate an income of £570,000 and an operating surplus of £20,000 in Year 10;

• 25% reduction in staff costs, increase in average RBG Kew price of species rich grassland conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to a

1,000% increase on the baseline market average), increase in percentage of relevant seed production bed land used for species rich grassland from 40% in

Year 10 to 60%, increase in total consultancy days from 100 in Year 10 to 150, and increase in average consultancy day rate to £657 – which would generate

an income of £580,000 and an operating surplus of £20,000 in Year 10;

• 25% reduction in staff costs, increase in average RBG Kew price of species rich grassland conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to a

1,000% increase on the baseline market average), and increase in land used for seed production beds from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 3.5 ha – which would generate

an income of £725,000 and an operating surplus of £40,000 in Year 10; and

• Increase in average RBG Kew price of species rich grassland conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to a 1,000% increase on the

baseline market average), increase in percentage of relevant seed production bed land used for species rich grassland from 40% in Year 10 to 60%, and

increase in land used for seed production beds from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 3 ha – which would generate an income of £855,000 and an operating surplus of

£65,000 in Year 10.

Products/

Services

Key Sensitivity Financial Performance Year 1

2012

Year 2

2013n

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Baseline model Baseline model Income £52,345 £75,826 £103,655 £134,769 £204,523 Surplus/Deficit (all staff) -£226,669 -£217,114 -£256,693 -£293,389 -£451,568 Surplus/Deficit (new staff only) -£46,307 -£10,780 -£14,662 -£19,498 -£67,296

Seed provision – missing species, rare species and Schedule 8 species,

Area of land allocated for seed production beds (ha) – reduced from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 1 ha

Income £52,345 £75,826 £101,160 £127,771 £171,087 Surplus/Deficit (all staff) -£229,749 -£216,006 -£247,403 -£277,249 -£401,275 Surplus/Deficit (new staff only) -£49,387 -£9,672 -£8,857 -£10,327 -£44,878

Area of land allocated for seed Income £52,345 £75,826 £108,288 £147,765 £266,618




Products/

Services


2012

Year 2

2013n

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

local/multi origin seeds, high quality founder stocks

production beds (ha) – increased from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 3 ha

Surplus/Deficit (all staff) -£223,158 -£218,532 -£269,546 -£314,710 -£516,084 Surplus/Deficit (new staff only) -£42,796 -£12,198 -£21,044 -£27,877 -£80,043

% relevant seed production bed land used for species rich grassland – increased from 40% in Year 10 to 70%


% weight of all seeds produced that are sold to the market – reduced from 90% to 50%


% weight of conservation seeds produced that are sold to the market – increased from 90% to 100%


Potential average RBG Kew price of conservation seeds – decreased from a 50% to 0% increase on the baseline market average


Potential average RBG Kew price of conservation seeds – increased from a 50% to 100% increase on the baseline market average


Potential RBG Kew average price of species rich grassland conservation seeds – increased from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to 1,000% increase on the baseline market average)

Income £71,191 £124,199 £186,412 £240,868 £426,579 Surplus/Deficit (all staff) -£207,823 -£168,741 -£173,936 -£187,290 -£229,512 Surplus/Deficit (new staff only) -£27,461 £37,592 £68,095 £86,601 £154,760

Seed provision – agrochemical sector

Number of seeds collected from semi-natural populations for cleaning/priming and distribution (without bulking up) – increased





Products/

Services


2012

Year 2

2013n

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

from 3,000 in Year 10 to 30,000 Seed provision – retail market

Number of RBG Kew packets of seed sold – decreased from 50,000 in Year 10 to 25,000


Number of RBG Kew packets of seed sold – increased from 50,000 in Year 10 to 75,000


RBG Kew license fee/packet – decreased from 20% to 10%


RBG Kew license fee/packet – increased from 20% to 30%


Provision of other facilities/ services – viability testing

Fee for delivering viability testing/species (£) – increase from 0% profit margin to 25% profit margin


Provision of other facilities/ services – consultancy/ trusted advisor

Total staff days for consultancy project – decreased from 100 days in Year 10 to 50


Total staff days for consultancy project – increased from 100 days in Year 10 to 150


Average day rate for consultancy project – increased from £467 to £657


Staff costs 25% reduction in staff costs Income £47,995 £67,004 £90,360 £117,125 £182,283 Surplus/Deficit (all staff) -£182,062 -£169,425 -£202,512 -£234,026 -£359,941 Surplus/Deficit (new staff only) -£46,796 -£14,685 -£21,004 -£28,628 -£71,762




Products/

Services


2012

Year 2

2013n

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

Achieving operating surplus

25% reduction in staff costs; increase in RBG Kew average price of species rich grassland conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to a 1,000% increase on the baseline market average); % relevant seed production bed land used for species rich grassland increased from 40% in Year 10 to 70%

Income £66,842 £115,377 £173,117 £223,224 £567,499 Surplus/Deficit (all staff) -£163,215 -£121,053 -£119,755 -£128,648 £21,459 Surplus/Deficit (new staff only) -£27,949 £33,687 £61,753 £76,750 £309,639

25% reduction in staff costs; increase in RBG Kew average price of species rich grassland conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to a 1,000% increase on the baseline market average); % relevant seed production bed land used for species rich grassland increased from 40% in Year 10 to 60%; increase in total consultancy days from 100 in Year 10 to 150; increase in average consultancy day rate to £657


25% reduction in staff costs; increase in RBG Kew average price of species rich grassland conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to a 1,000% increase on the baseline market average); increase in land used for seed production beds from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 3.5 ha


increase in RBG Kew average price Income £71,191 £124,199 £216,906 £309,897 £856,371




Products/

Services


2012

Year 2

2013n

Year 3

2014

Year 4

2015

Year 10

2021

of species rich grassland conservation seeds from £180/kg to £1,320/kg (from a 50% to a 1,000% increase on the baseline market average); % relevant seed production bed land used for species rich grassland increased from 40% in Year 10 to 60%; increase in land used for seed production beds from 1.7ha in Year 10 to 3 ha

Surplus/Deficit (all staff) -£204,311 -£170,159 -£160,928 -£153,075 £66,556 Surplus/Deficit (new staff only) -£23,949 £36,174 £87,575 £133,758 £502,597




6.0 RISKS AND COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIPS

6.1 Overview

6.1.1 This section identifies the key risks associated with the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative. It also

assesses the potential value of commercial partnerships with primary producers.

6.2 Key Risks

6.2.1 The focus on opportunity areas where there is market need but where demand has not yet been

established introduces a key risk to the financial performance of the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative

– it assumes that demand can be built by RBG Kew over time, through forging new relationships

with new types of organisations (eg with end users and specifiers), and through redefining existing

relationships (eg with Defra, Flora locale and primary producers). The uncertainty comes around

how much demand RBG Kew can build, at what market price, and at what cost. The findings on

potential market fee and RBG Kew delivery costs for viability testing are an important case in point

here. As part of building demand, it is also important to note that any marketing must be closely

followed by high quality delivery – otherwise RBG Kew’s credibility is immediately undermined.

6.2.2 An additional key risk relates to intellectual property. The income associated with provision of

seeds to the conservation market (particularly ‘missing’ species) is predicated on RBG Kew’s unique

expertise in unlocking germination or other difficulties associated with these species. If RBG Kew

surrenders this intellectual property by providing founder stocks to primary producers to bulk up,

then it undermines its future value to the market and therefore income potential. To combat this, it

needs to either provide commercial quantities of these species (assuming that commercial quantities

are relatively low and therefore within RBG Kew’s capacity), to provide founder stocks whilst at the

same time withholding dormancy/germination protocols, or to develop a commercial arrangement

with primary producers that involves some form of licensing/copyright payment on future sales of

these species.

6.3 Commercial Partnerships

6.3.1 At the Steering Team meeting on 5th October 2011 to discuss the Business Model, the question of

potentially establishing commercial partnerships with a select small group of primary producers

was raised. The benefit of this approach is that it could provide RBG Kew with a direct line into

market supply (and therefore demand) and, if the appropriate primary producers were selected, it

could provide access to the majority of the UK native seed market through engaging with only a

small number of players.




6.3.2 At the same time, however, such commercial partnerships raise a number of issues. They restrict

RBG Kew’s access to the whole of the UK native seed market, and therefore potentially reduce RBG

Kew’s contribution to UK biodiversity. Depending on who the partnerships were set up with, RBG

Kew’s access may even be limited to less than half of the market. Furthermore, partnership with

only a small number of primary producers (out of at least 9 key players and at least 11 others), could

be seen by the remaining players as giving unfair commercial advantage and competitive edge to the

selected few, and as an inappropriate approach by a publicly funded not for profit organisation. This

could undermine RBG Kew’s overall position as an impartial but authoritative player in the market,

and therefore undermine its other activities (including around self-regulation and regulation) and

other offer areas. In addition, a partnership that involves RBG Kew providing founder stocks and

associated intellectual property to primary producers who then bulk up to commercial quantities

potentially places limitations on RBG Kew’s income potential from these activities – particularly if

commercial quantities associated with these niche species are in fact relatively low.

6.3.3 An exclusive focus on primary producers also undermines the value of engaging with end users and

specifiers. To build demand for its offer, it is critical that RBG Kew builds awareness among end

users and specifiers of the services it can offer, and why they are important. End users are also an

important direct source of potential projects and therefore income for RBG Kew. In the potential

financial performance of the UK Native Seed Hub Initiative, all income associated with provision of

consultancy advice and with provision of cleaning/storage facilities could be associated with

exemplar projects, which are likely to be driven by end users. In addition, provision of seeds for the

conservation market could also be driven by relationships with end users and specifiers, with

specifiers identifying specific species that RBG Kew could provide. This approach is already starting

to be validated by the response to RBG Kew’s launch of the UK Native Seed Hub – REDACTED

TEXT

6.3.4 On balance, therefore, there would be value in RBG Kew focusing first on producing commercial

quantities of these conservation species, assuming quantities required were within RBG Kew’s

capacity to deliver, and offering them to the full range of primary producers in the market (and

potentially also seed merchants), who could add them in to their seed mixes as required. In doing so,

RBG Kew would not be competing with existing primary producers, at least initially, since these

‘missing’ species are by definition not currently widely offered in the market. Finalisation of specific

species needs to be based on research into which are the missing species, and also based on

conversations with end users, specifiers and primary producers to determine which species are

required by the market.

6.3.5 If/when the commercial quantities required outstripped RBG Kew’s capacity for delivery, then

there would be value in RBG Kew providing founder stocks for primary producers to bulk up.

However, instead of developing exclusive partnerships with 2/3 primary producers, there would be

greater value, both for RBG Kew and also for UK biodiversity, in RBG Kew offering founder stocks




to all primary producers, whether on a license/copyright arrangement that saw RBG Kew

compensated for its intellectual property, or with the necessary germination/other protocols

withheld, to protect the financial value of RBG Kew’s intellectual property and safeguard future

income streams.

Documents

This report was commissioned by RBG Kew and written by ... Native Seed Hub 10 Year... · RBG Kew takes no liability for the use of the data, ... • Flora Locale operate a voluntary