National Tree Safety Group - Tree Management for Public Safety
TEP organised this landmark conference on behalf of the National Tree Safety Group (TSG), an inclusive association of stakeholders concerned with tree care, ownership, management and advice, formed with strong leadership from the Forestry Commission. Its intention is to develop an industry statement to guide all concerned.
The conference brought together a representative sample of some 300 people involved with trees. Speakers provided ten-minute presentations from the perspective of risk and tree professionals, governmental and non-governmental agencies, local authorities, the concerned citizen, the insurance industry, the legal sector and environmental science.
The key sessions focussed on what it means to be a stakeholder, balancing the benefits and enjoyment of trees with managing an acceptable level of risk. The structure of the conference allowed each speaker to make a statement from their respective stakeholder position. This brought out certain issues where, through clarification, debate and engaging an ever-widening group of stakeholders, there is potential for arriving at a national industry statement that will help the courts and assist managers, landowners and advisers to make risk management decisions for the benefit of a sustainable tree population.
At the end of each session a voting system was used to draw out particular threads relating to reasons for tree management and concerns associated with different sectors. This data will be considered by Prof. David Ball in a research project into the real and perceived aspects of tree risk, as a basis for informing future guidance for those involved in managing trees for public safety.
Please feel free to comment on the conference and its issues using comments below.
 |
 |
 |
 |
I thought the event was well worth while, though it took a while to liven up. The early sessions were very simple and basic, but were perhaps a matter of ensuring everyone was at teh same understanding. The questions posed at the end of each session were at times leading, and at times needed an answer of n/a or similar to express no preference. The most illuminating and useful aspects were from David Adams regarding the risk averse society. the least helpful was from BSI, who I found to be secretive, defensive and seemingly at odds with the wider concern of major landowners around the UK. The BS development in its current form could, if adopted, see many owners of roadside trees in our rural landscape just removing them rather than face the barrage of inspections currently proposed.
Comment by Andy Stokes — 19 June 2008 @ 1:57 pm
I understand that there is a suggestion that everybody who has a tree on their land should be forced to pay have it inspected regularly, in the interests of public safety.
It seems to me that there are serious objections to this idea.
1. The cost of the scheme would be likely to far outweigh the current costs of compensation for damage done by trees.
2. There would not be enough independent experts to carry out the inspections, as happened with the HIPs housing inspection scheme.
3. It could be cheaper to fell trees subject to the scheme, rather than keep them, resulting in reduction of the tree stock and consequent damage to the environment.
4. The best way of judging whether such a scheme would be worthwhile would be to make insurance companies responsible for the survey fees. This would ensure that the risk assessment would be cost effective. After all it is the insurance companies that have to pay the compensation.
5. There is a strong possibility that this would lead to the sort of rip off that has affected the public over HIP surveyors and Independent Financial Advisers.
This has all the smell of another nanny state protection racket to me!
Comment by Michael Organe — 21 June 2008 @ 7:59 pm
If this became law Woods for All would have to stop planting trees and buying up woodland.
Comment by Gary Moore — 31 July 2008 @ 5:29 pm
I wanted to research this subject and write a paper. Your post what a thousand words would not. Nice job.
Comment by incorgoacquig — 22 September 2008 @ 6:54 am