Our industry

[combined tree services]

Take Holden Hill just outside exeter for example , the harvesting of timber has trebled over the last 5 years , i went back up to have a look last week and was supprised to see just how much has been done and how much has been marked up for harvesting and this is not thinnings either they are now mainly flearfell sites

[Bundle 2]

"I really do not see how you think that to be true??"

I have been slammed for making sweeping statements that echo the sense conveyed here...I was reminded of the "thriving" industry that manages woodlands purely to produce carbon neutral heating fuel. All the pellet burning and so..I know. I worked the woods for a number of years and I got the bad back and empty bank account to prove it.....

 

"I do agree that there is going to be a very tricky task of balancing timber production (which often the best way to manage a woodland in any case) and amenity use."

Tricky. Must that they are managed however. Surely the problems arise when an agency (The F.C in this case ) is required to reinstate an industry to produce timber...The costs would be astronomical. And based on what? An encouraging market forecast?

 

"Take Holden Hill just outside exeter for example , the harvesting of timber has trebled over the last 5 years ...."

 

I hear what youre saying....I just dont think I am convinced that the little ol' isle of GB is gonna take the strain...I perceive too much pressure from development for one thing.

I dont know what the answer is. We talked about the "biomass" revolution years ago. The remit currently set the F.C . is another reason to find the reality of a forestry industry, like that of the past, a tad wishful.

 

All the more reason think that the F.C. are quite aware of the need to consult the Arb industry . They and the Arboricultural world would both be foolish not to recognise the need for such a collaboration.

Just me twopenth...

 

Edit..Oh and someone asked how are we to achieve this sorely needed introduction? I am still sat here lke a dumb@@@@ with me thumb in my **** wondering what to say....I wish I knew!!

Edited January 2, 2010 by Bundle 2

[Frimsley]

I really do not see how you think that to be true??

 

A few years ago, the cost of extraction was greater than the value of the timber, so your statement would have been more applicable, BUT I would argue that that has now changed and timber prices are only heading in one direction.

 

Well, it's a way from the main point of the thread a bit, but that's worth an answer.

 

Timber prices saw a sharp rise prior to the recession, partly as a result of China's hunger for timber. But in the last year they have again fallen. As an example, the average price received by the Forest Commission for the sale of standing timber in England was £11.71/m3 in 2006/7, £16.35 in 2007/8 and £12.37 in 2008/9. Even looking at a short period such as the last three years, it is far from clear that prices are "only heading in one direction". Prices are volatile, and over the economic life of a woodland it's anybody's guess.

 

Producing timber is still, and hopefully always will be, an important part of forest management. Wood as a fuel is also helping to keep that on the agenda. What I said was that forestry is no longer just about timber. It is about amenity, recreation, biodiversity, water quality, erosion and much more. The FC are having to diversify their interest and their skills. Look at the current grant offerings - they are focused on encouraging other priorities: access, woodland birds, restoration of PAWS.

[Amelanchier]

The problem is not just for arbs. The entire 'green' industry is afflicted. I need to find 'critical friends' to assist in developing a Green Infrastructure policy. Finding ecologists is easy. But GI is 'multifunctional'. Try finding a parks or recreation professional - they're just not sufficiently organised to be able to identify their existance. I suspect arbs are seen the same way from outside. Comments about lack of clear leadership and direction are certainly well founded.

 

A few other things have struck me in this thread. What have the FC got to gain from us? Well a lot actually. Their very existence. And they know it. Forestry purely for the sake of producing timber is no longer. The FC have diversified their focus considerably in recent years to take in recreation and social forestry. The Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests and its delivery plan give them a clear role in urban forestry and they are starting to move more into this area, particularly in London. The FC are showing some willingness and inclination to engage with arbs. Arbs are failing to engage with the FC, and this is a huge mistake. The FC have the remit, but they don't really have the expertise - they need arb input. This is probably more relevant to LA arbs and the professional / trade associations than it is to individual contractors, but unless arbs engage they will loose even the little influence they currently have.

 

A big driver is the climate change agenda, and what it's driving is an increasing understanding of the importance of 'green infrastructure'. Clearly trees are a hugely important part of the GI, but much GI development is currently led by ecologists and landscape architects. We are missing a trick here.

 

The FC, incidentally, is not a professional body, it is government agency. The main 'professional' bodies in arb in the UK are the AA and the ICF.

 

...

 

That's the really tricky one. Partly professional bitching. They're wood farmers, what have they got to do with us? But more, I suspect, to do with leadership. Initial engagement needs to come from so called industry leaders, whoever they are. And that is slow. Also, the FC are really feeling their way into urban forestry. They don't really know where to go or who to ask, so the way in for us isn't clear. It has to happen, and it isn't happening properly yet. How to join that up is a really big question.

 

I agree. It does seem disappointing that the delivery plan for the ETWF lists a plethora of Arb related targets/actions and the AA is seemingly signed up for only one of them!

 

CC 1.5.3 Develop urban tree canopy cover as an indicator of progress in climate change adaptation.

 

List of Actions

 

And what's going on? I've been a paid up member for some years now and don't remember reading anything about AA involvement in the delivery plan and I certainly haven't heard anything about how they propose to contribute?

 

So expanding on the affliction of the 'Green' industry Frimsley, what do you think about the CABE recommendations in Grey to Green?

 

1. green infrastructure skills should be recognised as critical in the national climate change adaptation strategy
   
2. a national green infrastructure taskforce should be established to champion and set an agenda for environmental policy and technical delivery.
   
3. a single national database of green assets should be developed.
   

 

Seems lovely but I'm not au fait with CABE's level of clout...

CABE grey-to-green.pdf

[Zenfordinner]

Going back a little: Ecology is popular. Perhaps there is more awareness of ecology, which became topical some decades ago, with various groups campaigning about the extinction of animals, the destructive effects of deforestation, such as landslides, and so on. A number of these organisations used ecology to support their case, such as the group responsible for increasing awareness of a decrease in numbers of the Spotted- Owl in the late '80s. This group (whose name I forget) outlined the link between habitat and species and the knock-on effects in terms of other species including plants, etc.

[Andy Clark]

I've been considering recently how we are percieved from outside and I guess we're a minority pressure group. Also, we're a bit lost really. Too many factions and associations, no direction no leadership. Importantly no presence and no marketing!

 

Now I know we sit broadly in two camps on the 'talk. Camp A are in the game for the benefit of trees and Camp B quite like trees but do it for the euros.

 

I'm in Camp A and I guess I'm addressing this to them (though not exclusively!).

 

• Do we have a overinflated sense of our own importance as part of the wider picture?
   
  
• Do non-arbs manage trees adequately without us?
   
  
• Why don't we get involved with the Forestry Commission? After all, they've got the money, they've got the national strategies for urban trees...
  

 

 

Ironically enough folks, i think the course of this tread has now kinda highlighted Tony's original points in his opening post.

 

I mean, 10 pages and 95ish posts later, and STILL no one can agree or give a definitive answer to the problem/solution.

 

Tony writes 'Do we have a overinflated sense of our own importance as part of the wider picture?'........... In hindsight, I think the answer is unfortunately now fairly evident.

[Andy Clark]

Been doing some leg-work today on another subject, but as part of it I came across a few figures that might put things into a better perspective............

 

 

The Woodland Trust - 194,000 members

 

ISA (worldwide) - 20,000+ members (UK & i chapter = 500ish)

 

The Tree Council - No figures on membership. 8,000 volunteer tree wardens

 

The Royal Forestry Society - 4,000+ members

 

Arbtalk - 3,977 members

 

Arboricultural Assoc. - 2,000 members

 

Institute of Chartered Foresters - 1,000+ members

 

UKTC Forum - 500+ members

 

AFAG Webcommunity - 277 members

 

AIE Forum - 247 members

 

National Association of Tree Officers - 64 member LAs

 

London Tree Officers Assoc. - 33 London Boroughs. 62 Associate members

 

 

The list can go on, depending how far diverse into other "related" areas, but it gives an idea as to the bigger picture.

[David Humphries]

That makes very interesting reading, thanks for posting Andy.

I knew a good few of those, but certainly not all.

 

 

Think I'm a member of 5 of them...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Monkey-D

[Andy Clark]

That makes very interesting reading, thanks for posting Andy.

I knew a good few of those, but certainly not all.

 

 

Think I'm a member of 5 of them...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

Haha.... i win! 6

[kipperfeet]

An interesting and intelligent thread that seems to be taking the industry head on. Good call that man.

 

Just to a follow up to the excellent bit of investigating in to the number of members of the many organisations supposedly representing our industry, Lantra (the Sector Skills Council for the envronmental and landbased sector, of which the trees and timber sector falls under) sums up the industry according to there 2007 skills assessment as follows: (just been redone in 2009 but i can't download the report for some reason!)

 

"The environmental and land-based sector comprises 17 industries across the UK,

representing in excess of 235,000 businesses and employing over 1 million people. Within

the trees and timber industry, it is estimated that there are over 10,000 businesses

employing around 30,000 people.

For the purposes of this document, the term ‘trees and timber industry’ includes the care

and management of trees, woodlands and forests and the production of wood and timber

products, and is comprised of many different types of businesses including arboricultural,

forestry establishments, forestry harvesting and timber processing. It should be noted

however, that a proportion of trees and timber businesses will be actively involved in more

than one area – for example, one business may predominantly undertake arboricultural

work but also be involved in forestry establishment operations. A survey of Scottish

forestry and arboricultural businesses published in 20031 indicated that around 10% of

companies worked in this way. Of the remainder, 60% worked solely in forestry and 30% in

arboriculture. Within England however, it is estimated by the Arboricultural Association that

some 15,000 are employed directly within arboriculture."

 

30,000 people working within the industry! What they have found is nearly 90 of the companies working employ, less that 9 people, an 40% employ no full time staff.

 

That means one heck of a lot of companies doing, pretty much the same thing!

 

I know alot has been said so far on the interactions between the vast amount of organisitions involved in Arb and forestry, but the simple fact is, the lack of communication and the inability of people to take responsibility for any positive action is failing to keep the industry a sustainable and economically viable option to work in. Which surely must lose us credability in the wider picture?

 

I, like others have a fairly diverse knowlege and experience of the industry but gained in a relatively short time (12 years) from dragging brash in jeans and trainers, climbing abroad, training, assessing and the retail and service provider side of things. None in Consultancy or L.A. although i also did do a foundation degree but just for the fun to keep me noggin working really!

 

The amount of people working in the industry, even in the short amount of time i have worked in it, seems to have increased masively. A scan down the yellow pages shows that, and all are out to make a living.

 

The root to keeping the industry viable, in my humble opinion, surely must be the youngsters. Those that are time served, self employed hard grafters are already making a good living and will never change thier opinions of those that write the rules. The many that set up small contracting companies will bicker and scrap for the same old work.

 

How many companies actually do replant, or try to pursuade a customer to replant after a tree is taken down unless it is protected?

 

The reason why the Woodland trust wins the massive share of members is because the majority are interested in looking after the land and not Arboriculture as an industry.

 

The problem that Lantra have had is actually engaging the normal Arbs (you and I) in working out what is best for the industry to take it forward.

 

No one is interested deep down, they are just interested in there own agenda's. (I speak for the masses, not the few on here!)

 

New legislation, NPTC, industry best practice documents, sector agreements and policies etc goes out for consultation and the few people that bother to respond either do so negatively or wait until it has been passed through and then have a good old winge when its too late.

 

Modern apprenticeships from larger companies, like the Forestry commission used to do all those years ago, would surely get rid of the need for all of these one man bands setting up now, chasing the big bucks, and under cutting the small amount of work there is.

 

Sure the colleges are bums on seats and will capitalize on it like 99.9% of everyone else, but they only do so because they feed a hunger from the youngsters for the fun we all desire.

 

It just isn't sustainable.

 

So in answer to the original questions - yes the industry does have an overinflated opinion of its self in the wider picture, because there are so many people pretending to do the job for the greater good but too caught up inthe little Arb world of politics to make a massive impresion on the real important wider picture.

 

Of course non arbs manage trees without us, we have gone round circle as to best practice on the actual health of trees (not H and S) in a hugely short space of time And the country has been managed according to the current needs for thousands of years. We are merely custodians and all that!

 

I think the Forestry commision is an organisation that should be involving The bigger companies that do the real essential work. Utilities and highways etc. They keep the country running quietly in the background and creme the profit for themselves, that has the nock on effect to the Arb and forestry contractors.

Quite why the Arb industry is not more involved in such a powerfull organisation is probably because no ones got any bollocks to do it, and thier to busy argueing amonst themselves.

Our local beat forester round here has a fantastic job and is doing wonders to regenerate a terrible FC strategy from years ago with monoculture forestry and terrible biodiversity in to an area worth living in.

 

Like he Humbly says " i can play god on the landscape and do it my way for my interests" How good a job is that?

 

Right, i'm off to Arbjobs to look for jobs in the Forestry commision!