Our industry

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Amazing, do a search for national forestry output and nothing! all i can find is stuff relating to the discussion that a monetary value must be assigned to natural resources if it is to be incorporated in revenue acounting!

 

Am I to believe theres no data?

 

I heard it stated that there are 10,000 approx people employed withing arboriculture?

 

i asume this is not including forestry?

 

there must be figures for the forestry sector somehwere.

[skyhuck]

 

I heard it stated that there are 10,000 approx people employed withing arboriculture?

 

.

 

Surely its far more than that???

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

the FC

 

Cares for 827,000 hectares of sustainably managed woods and forests - thats more than 1.4 billion trees

 

Plants more than 17 million trees every year.

 

Employs more 3,000 people - most of them in rural areas

Produces more than 5 million tonnes of timber every year. That is almost 44% of UK wood production or 300 forty-tonne truckloads of timber every day

 

Welcomes more than 50 million visitors every year

 

Provides 2,600 km of cycle trails

 

Has 55 visitor centres, almost 500 car parks, and 155 easy access trails

 

Provides 109 forest classrooms or educational facilities

 

Maintains 24,000 km of forest roads – seven times the total amount of motorway in Britain. If it were possible to put them together, they would stretch more than halfway around the world.

 

 

Welcomes more than 100,000 per year to our concerts in the forest

 

Maintains more than 2,300 bridges

 

Helped expand Britain's woodlands by an area more than three times the size of greater London in the last 20 years

[Bundle 2]

And so it is that you begin to see why the F'C' receives the level of funding that it does...

They are the foremost recognised professional"organisation". Not just as seen by govt but I wouldnt mind betting, Jo public also?

It makes a considerable amount of sense for the the govt to look to this body ...if only from a "value for money" viewpoint with the issues at hand currently.

Certainly from a climate change mitigation point of view, you,d think so. They are custodians to the largest area mass of tree cover. Well, at least they know what they got on the books!

It also makes administrative sense for the commission to be required to work outside its remit . Imagine how disorganised it could become with obscure little pressure groups here and there pushing agendas borne of a variety of disciplines. All arguably fall under the the same broad subject...Its not as said, an exercise in academic progress but more a crisis of unity and agreement!!

Its hard to get my head around how it is the commission seem so happy to take on a committment falling outside their skillbase.

As said, a time for involvement. We have a head start and need to make the most of it in some way>

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Are they really the custodians of the largest area/mass of tree cover?

 

or is there more on private land and public land overall?

 

and who deals with those trees? us, like you say they know what they have on thier books!

[Bundle 2]

Yeah..thats my fault Hama. I was being a bit sarcy or cynnical maybe. I think cynnical is a bit strong however. You may have read my comments about the reservations I have as to the way the data was collected for TIT2.

L.A 's are are infact a second part of a three point pie, private ownership being the third (F.C,L.A's & Landowners )

The data variation seen over the whole in relation to area distribution of trees is an interesting fact. This was collected via satelite imagery. Im not sure how uptodate this was and I would question the detail...blagh blah...Reckon its pretty dodgy mate. Add to that , to extrapolate an accurate estimation of the actual area "treed" requires good numbers...dodgy in=dodgy out....It makes coming up with the right answer impossible.

At least not without actually making and upkeeping a record.

[Frimsley]

Ecology is an interesting parallel though, there are even more rules and regs but from my perspective Ecologists are treated as useful professionals - would you agree? What's different?

 

A clear career structure, a single professional body with a clear entry scheme comparable to other 'professions'. And a lot of legislative clout these days.

 

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.

 

To Tony's original questions:

• Do we have a overinflated sense of our own importance as part of the wider picture?
  

 

Sometimes. We are important, but we also one part of a much bigger picture, and too few arbs see that.

 

• Do non-arbs manage trees adequately without us?
  

 

No. Which is why arb input into the bigger picture is so important. However, I do suspect that a lot of arbs tend to over manage trees.

 

• 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...
  

 

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.

[Bundle 2]

Good post Frimsley....

[skyhuck]

Are they really the custodians of the largest area/mass of tree cover?

 

 

They control ALL substantial felling, even on private land (other than gardens and other exemptions)

Edited January 2, 2010 by skyhuck

[skyhuck]

. Forestry purely for the sake of producing timber is no longer. .

 

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.

 

Many wood lands are so remote they will never really be of any great amenity value.

 

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.