AA Conference 2010 - an overview

[David Humphries]

Think the proposal here is that the presentations will only be made available to delegates who attended the conference by using a password, to be issued, to access them....probably then to the 'highest Arbtalk bidder?', ha!

 

Doubtless some of them will end up as papers published in the Arb Journal in the near future...fingers crossed!

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

 

 

Spent part of a wet afternoon going over Swartz trichoderma presentation (from the link Tiff sent through), with the troops today.

 

Suprissed my notes from the day were actually quite acurate, that doesn't normally happen

 

 

 

.

[Arborist]

Thanks Monkey D, I had read in the post that OPM was slow to spread and thought that they cant be that slow if they have got to Sheffield! Didn't realise that this new out break was from imported trees.

[Frank]

Didn't realise that this new out break was from imported trees.

 

Its them bloomin Dutch again.

[Amelanchier]

I need a life. Meanwhile;

 

Tuesday

Jim Smith of the Forestry Commission kicked off the morning session, discussing the position of the FC in relation to the wider strategic goals of the Coalition Govt. He explained that the implementation of the current Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests (SETWF) is on ice pending the ongoing reforms to the planning system legislation (and even the PPS documents) as directed by the Coalition Govt. Having been sad enough to have read the Lib-Con agreement just after it was issued, I am continually amazed by the furore in the news media as each of the policies are announced – its all in the agreement and has been available since May!

 

Richard Nicholson gave us an inside view into the mechanics of the reality of trying to implement the laudable goals of tree strategies. After describing a number of techniques used as leverage with reticent councillors (such as allowing them to realise the actual results of their preference for one aspect of work as a reduction in the capacity to complete the rest), he discussed the idea that proactive and reactive tree work should be seen as a continuum (or perhaps an analogue) rather than a black/white (binary?) process. He also noted something that I’d realised a while back – that spending resources dealing with the vocal minority of residents represents extremely bad value for money for those residents who don’t complain!

 

Giorgio Catena presented an overview of the application of Thermal Imaging to arboriculture; indicating its role within tree management and definitively defending its application. Using a number of case studies, he maintained that no specialist software is needed to interpret the images and vociferously distanced his method from that presented within well known UK proprietary systems (who he reminded us - were not representing thermal imaging at the conference). As he noted, he is not a salesman! This should be food for thought given Giorgio’s familiarity with the technology and standing within the international thermal imaging community. (Giorgio, if I have any of that wrong I’m sure you will let me know! )

 

Dave Dowson explained some of the upcoming changes to arboricultural education as we know it - in short, the modularisation and standardisation (within the QCF) of the RFS Certificate, AA Tech Cert and the RFS Diploma. He also warned of our industries apathy toward supporting its qualifications, revealing that of all the LANTRA subject areas, we are renowned for our indifference! It was also pointed out that costs can be expected to rise as the various bodies involved seek to pass their own growing burden onto the end user.

 

David Nowak gave us an introduction to iTree; free US forestry service software that can be used to calculate both the structural value of trees (i.e., what the physical material is worth) as well as the functional value (what that physical material can do – cool surfaces, intercept precipitation, remove airbourne pollutants). After running us through the sampling methodology and summarising the data cruching he revealed that we might see a UK beta version (albeit limited) out this autumn after the creases have been ironed out with the UK trial team.

 

Adam Hollis and Charles Cowap followed on from this theme of valuation by introducing the newly published RICS guidance note “Valuation of trees for amenity and related non-timber uses”. Catchy huh? This is a deceptively important step in tree valuation as it represents an international standard and helps to put valuation into the wider context of a chartered Surveyors remit. Interestingly, it seems that the courts (Bryant & Anor v Macklin [2005] EWCA Civ 762 – I’m too good to you all ) have recently dismissed the replacement cost approach (as favoured by CAVAT) in favour of lower values based around property costs and ‘willingness-to-pay’ (a.k.a. WTP). I haven’t got round to reading the case yet but a precedent is a precedent…

 

You never know - I might have wednesday sorted by next year!

[David Humphries]

We are simply not worthy of the time you have graciously volunteered, to give us this fine rendition of proceedings Mr Sorensen

 

 

 

Thanks for the update Tony, you are "indeed", a star

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Bundle 2]

Tony said "Interestingly, it seems that the courts (Bryant & Anor v Macklin [2005] EWCA Civ 762 – I’m too good to you all ) have recently dismissed the replacement cost approach (as favoured by CAVAT) in favour of lower values based around property costs and ‘willingness-to-pay’ (a.k.a. WTP)...."

 

Not exactly as I understand it Tony. I am not familiar with CAVAT but a replacement cost form the basis of award( in this case). This value though, is arrived at by a notion of what is "reasonable". This is linked to property value/amenity loss...in such a way as to confer the lower of replacement scenario values...This is linked to WTP...but that , to me , is "reasonable" in another guise only.

Not a riveting read exactly but what a mess. Imagine getting shocked by an electric fence so violently you are thrown to the ground! Thats gotta be worth a few bob!

[Bundle 2]

Tony said "Interestingly, it seems that the courts (Bryant & Anor v Macklin [2005] EWCA Civ 762 – I’m too good to you all ) have recently dismissed the replacement cost approach (as favoured by CAVAT) in favour of lower values based around property costs and ‘willingness-to-pay’ (a.k.a. WTP)...."

 

Oopppsss ...I guess I should have read it a bit more carefully!!

 

I can perhaps see the importance of a recognized benchmark structure for valuation. It would be regrettable to see trees in the landscape being "tiptoed" around for fear of unrealistic values being attached to them !

Edited October 8, 2010 by Bundle 2

[TTHman]

Dear Tony,

thank you for your summary. I would only like to add a short comment. Rather than reminding people that the companies that present TI in the UK were not representing TI at the conference, I was surprised of their absence. It is true that I am not a salesman, I do not sell apparatuses and I haven’t filled my website with prices and costs for my services, but if someone wants to follow a course (as the two Australian Arborists) or do a refresher, I have no difficulty to oblige, against payment, of course.

[armybloke]

The arb Conference notes are firmly posted on the AA website for all to see

[Bundle 2]

I can only find an article relating to iTree. Can you post a link to the article reviews the AA conference on the AA website mate?