The case for a Tree Commission

Amenity trees are being neglected by government in favour of rural forests, despite the fact that thevast majority of the population live in urban areas. What's needed to address this is a new TreeCommission, argues John Flannigan.

Trees have a positive effect on quality of life for the entire UK population.

This is quite simply because tree attributes address people's needs on several layers includingimproving the landscape, ameliorating the effects of pollution, providing a habitat for wildlife,reducing some negative effects of the weather, countering global warming and providing mental andspiritual relief.

However, this happy coincidence, where tree attributes match our needs, is not sustainable foramenity trees, without adequate strategic management, which is only possible through theintervention of Government.

Who else should be interested in the well-being of the whole population if not the Government?

Government intervention is necessary because of the non-commercial nature of the central issuesrelating to amenity tree management. In other words who else would be motivated to resourceresearch and provide guidance that has no obvious financial payback and who else should beinterested in the well-being of the whole population? There is nothing else other than Government.

Academia can help address policy issues and provide practical help by sharing its research but thereare too few such establishments and academics in the UK to make this viable.

Arborists must therefore rely on the work of individuals or industry bodies for information eventhough both of which, naturally, tend to favour commercially relevant material.

The other option is to rely on research from elsewhere. This has merits in relation to biological

issues where tree cells are much the same the world over but is not reliable when considering treebenefits to humans. For example, most of the information relating to trees and pollution absorption,trees and property values and tree preference comes from the USA. Whilst the research is generallyof good quality cultural, climatic and geographical factors may render it inappropriate to the UK.

Despite these issues Government continues to undertake a largely non-interventionist role in respectof amenity trees in direct contrast to its approach to woodland trees. The extent of this separationcan be illustrated by the relative allocation of resources revealed in the table below.

Event

DCLG*

Forestry Commission

Annual budget

£250,000+

£82,344,000

Number of full time equivalent staff employed

6

592

Number of staff (FTE's) employed specifically to deal with forest policy/strategy.

0

7 (although these are now employed by DEFRA)

Staff employed in research

0

278

Annual research budget

£60,000

£13, 600, 000

*The Department for Communities and Local Government has responsibility for amenity trees.

+No figures are available and this amount relates mainly to estimated staffing costs

These figures are remarkable for several reasons:

They show that amenity trees are an extraordinarily low priority for Government in relation toForestry.

Urban living is eased by the presence of trees and yet the Government only spent £60,000 onamenity tree research. The Forestry Commission spent over £13.5 million more.

The Forestry Commission has a budget of over £82 million and yet the 90% of UK residents living inurban areas are assisted by a Government department dwarfed in resources by a massive 328 times.This is inequity writ large.

This disparity is even more remarkable when you think about the output of tree attributes. HerbSchroeder of the USA Forest Service shows that trees, whether growing as individual 'amenity trees'(urban trees), or in woodlands, provide many identical services for humans and the environment andrelate to:

Materials

Example: Timber or woodchips

Biophysical processes

Example: Reduced impacts of global warming due to carbon sequestration in a rural forest or fromthe urban forest

Person-environment interaction

Example: Enjoyment of mountain biking on a forest trail or walking in a park

Example: Aesthetic appreciation of a scenic rural or urban landscape

Example: Improved cardiovascular health as a result of time spent bicycling.

Example: Improved job performance as a result of recovery from mental fatigue.

Meanings

Example: Sense of place community identity

Example: Symbolic value of trees and woodlands

Notwithstanding these similarities, the imbalance in Governmental priorities means that we knowmore about woodlands than we do about amenity trees. If things continue this gap in knowledge willcontinue to widen impoverishing our urban lives. An obvious example of this growing divide is therecent "Trees, forests and woodland strategy". Don't be fooled by its title it was written to maintainthe status quo and amenity trees were clearly not part of its ultimate brief.

Government might argue that DCLG meets amenity tree needs primarily through its policy that treestrategies are best if they are prepared locally. I think this really means that the Government favourswoodlands and this policy keeps Arboriculture at arms length and avoids the need to foot any relatedcosts.

The significant difficulty in expecting Local Authorities to lead on amenity tree management throughthe preparation of local strategies is that core information is not available. There is simply notenough UK orientated data to support these strategies and it is unrealistic, and unfair, to expectLocal Authority Tree Officers to collect the necessary information.

The following example illustrates my point.

Effective tree management can be judged through a benefit-cost analysis. One key part of thisrelates to the tree attribute which enables trees to remove pollution from the atmosphere providingclear health benefits. This can only be calculated if pollution levels are known and this data is simplynot available. Sadly, under the current system Government clearly expects Arborists to somehow fixthis when in fact Government should be providing the tools to help Arborists. Furthermore, thisscenario of lack of supporting data plays out across each of the positive and negative columns of abenefit-cost approach.

Moreover, Government has excluded trees from the Key Performance Indicator process therebyrelegating them to the not very important list. I don't know why this is when you consider theirbenefits to the population but I suspect that they have fallen foul of the same problems faced byLocal Authority Tree Officers - lack of data to make informed decisions.

Local Authority Tree Officers are therefore expected to write their strategies in a vacuum. This is inmarked contrast with Foresters who have the benefit of seven full time members of staff (more thanthe total of amenity tree staff in the whole of DCLG) to focus on strategy. Hence, access andbiodiversity are now important objectives for Forestry owners because these issues benefit thepopulation. There appears to be no irony that Forestry is becoming more interested in amenity.

The country needs the Government to combine its resources - what the country needs is a TreeCommission.

It is my view that amenity tree benefits relate primarily to canopy cover and one strategic aim of the

Government should be to see an increase in canopy cover combined with adequate age rangemanagement. This simple but effective step would bring trees into the wider narrative of local andnational government and bring very real benefits to the population.

There is a straightforward resolution to these problems which requires the Government to unify treemanagement. To do so will involve the creation of a body capable of overseeing tree managementinto the 21st Century.

The country needs the Government to combine its resources - what the country needs is a TreeCommission.

A Tree Commission would provide strategic management ensuring the sustainability of this valuableresource.

A Tree Commission is vital to help maintain a high quality of life for our increasing urbanisation.

A Tree Commission would have the resources to provide tree managers throughout the UK with theknowledge and tools to manage their trees effectively ensuring that the population can reap therewards that trees and woodlands provide.

http://www.tree-care.info/cms/index.php?module=weblogmodule&action=view&id=3&src=@random4637b50063771