Bigger voice for the industry?

[arb culture]

It seems that under current spending reviews the structure and focus of the Forestry Commission is to be substantially reviewed.

 

Might this be a good time to lobby for a more formal and properly acknowledged inclusion of arboriculture within the FC remit?

 

If so, it would be good to see AA, ISA and ICF (and others) working together on this.

 

Anyone have any thoughts?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

As you may be aware John Flannigan (N. Somerset DC) has always promoted the for a UK 'Tree Commission' as opposed to 'Forestry Commission' to allow access to some of the funding they receive for arb specific programs

 

That said after today there may not be any funds left to allocate.

 

The AA would welcome the opporttunity to be involved.

 

Regards..

Paul

[macthetree]

Hi

 

To be fair the tide is already turning. Here in the West Midlands the ISA and it's affiliated partner, the Midland Tree Officers Association alrerady have a good working relationship with the FC.

 

The WM FC divisions Director has had a job redesignation and is now responsible for "Urban Forestry" and is working with ISA and MTOA (as well as other partners) on delivering all sorts of programmes to benefit urban trees.

 

The research division of the FC is now looking far more at urban trees.

 

It may not be called a "Tree Commission" yet, but if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, does it matter what we call it?

 

We, ISA, are here doing what we can and would welcome the AA to jump on board and develop a unified voice.

 

Ian McDermott

ISA UK&I Chapter

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi

 

To be fair the tide is already turning. Here in the West Midlands the ISA and it's affiliated partner, the Midland Tree Officers Association alrerady have a good working relationship with the FC.

 

The WM FC divisions Director has had a job redesignation and is now responsible for "Urban Forestry" and is working with ISA and MTOA (as well as other partners) on delivering all sorts of programmes to benefit urban trees.

 

The research division of the FC is now looking far more at urban trees.

 

It may not be called a "Tree Commission" yet, but if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, does it matter what we call it?

 

We, ISA, are here doing what we can and would welcome the AA to jump on board and develop a unified voice.

 

Ian McDermott

ISA UK&I Chapter

 

 

Hello Ian,

 

Please bear the AA in mind if there's anything particular we can assist with, or if you would like to draw up some formal agreement so the Association also becomes an affiliated member to add it's weight to the plight of Urban Trees.

 

Best regards..

Paul

 

PS Please email me directly either throughthe AA Forum or '[email protected]' as I often don't get back to specific posting unfortunately...thank you.

[arb culture]

Firstly, this is brilliant - the AA and the ISA trying to work together, it's very good to see. And if this results in a some kind of formal arrangement, then that has got to be good for arboriculture.

 

Ian, I know the FC have a long, and very good, history of working with urban trees, but the problem is that there is no formal or properly acknowledged inclusion of arboriculture. I have a vague memory of funding being pulled from a major FC headed urban tree disease monitoring project - which was followed by a petition to 10 Downing street. The reply from Government was something along the lines that the FC should not be allocating its resources to amenity tree care. This reply would not have been possible if there was a formal inclusion of arboriculture in the FC's remit.

 

I agree with you that the name is not really important, the disciplines of arboriculture and forestry are highly interchangable, especially in urban areas. So although I share John's desire for a 'tree commission', I think changing the remit of the FC to include arboriculture would suffice.

 

Paul and Ian, I'm sure there are others who would be far better suited to the task, but if this is a cause you want to run with, I'd be happy to help. Paul, I'll send you an e-mail just in case you don't get this post.

[b101uk]

It would make more sense for arb to have nothing to do with the FC, as arb is horticultural and not forestry with respect to the law, the forestry lot have already disowned arb in many respects in the past, about the only commonality between the FC and arb is trees and the rest of arb is just glorified gardening on big plants!

 

As for the associations pushing for association with the FC and mentioning funding in the same breath its just a way to get there grubby little mitts on some money and to try and justify there existence, big them selves up and further there oblique policy of quasi backdoor unionism in an attempt to have a “closed shop” at the lucrative end of arb to line there own pockets and that of whoever pays them dues over time rather than have the free market pick and choose.

 

After all the AA and ISA etc don’t speak for the majority in arb but they are so up them selves they think they do.

[Pommie]

It would make more sense for arb to have nothing to do with the FC, as arb is horticultural and not forestry with respect to the law, the forestry lot have already disowned arb in many respects in the past, about the only commonality between the FC and arb is trees and the rest of arb is just glorified gardening on big plants!

 

As for the associations pushing for association with the FC and mentioning funding in the same breath its just a way to get there grubby little mitts on some money and to try and justify there existence, big them selves up and further there oblique policy of quasi backdoor unionism in an attempt to have a “closed shop” at the lucrative end of arb to line there own pockets and that of whoever pays them dues over time rather than have the free market pick and choose.

 

After all the AA and ISA etc don’t speak for the majority in arb but they are so up them selves they think they do.

 

No disrespect intended fella, i have stood outside the recognised bodies for years saying they are nothing more than old boys clubs, NO ONE LISTENS.

 

If you don t like it GET INVOLVED AND CHANGE IT FROM WITHIN.

 

How can they talk for the majority if your voice is not heard.

 

.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

It would make more sense for arb to have nothing to do with the FC, as arb is horticultural and not forestry with respect to the law, the forestry lot have already disowned arb in many respects in the past, about the only commonality between the FC and arb is trees and the rest of arb is just glorified gardening on big plants!

 

As for the associations pushing for association with the FC and mentioning funding in the same breath its just a way to get there grubby little mitts on some money and to try and justify there existence, big them selves up and further there oblique policy of quasi backdoor unionism in an attempt to have a “closed shop” at the lucrative end of arb to line there own pockets and that of whoever pays them dues over time rather than have the free market pick and choose.

 

After all the AA and ISA etc don’t speak for the majority in arb but they are so up them selves they think they do.

 

 

From the AAs point of view I agree...up to the very recent past that is.

 

We have purported to represent the industry but we have never been able to truely do so as we simply reprsentthe minority, hence the claim of elitism.

 

How do we / can we best represent the industry when so few seem to want to be 'included'? As the following contributoir states, get involved and change from within. We are looking at the current AC scheme and making it more accessible, both in terms of criteria & costs, to the 'smaller' contractor (further info very soon to be released). Further we are looking at membership, including releasing use of the AA logo, albeit with retaining and enhancing the 'AAAC' and 'AARC' logos, and how we can make it more appropriate / more attractive.

 

Bottom line, and I know we haven't done that great in the past (through ignorance not intention), the AA is currently managing to service it's memebrship and comitments but with more support, in terms of ACs/RCs & members, we could do so much more and with you involved ('the wider arb community') that could be in the areas you tell us are importnat rather than us just guessing.

 

Lastly, IF, by any remote chance the arb sector got the opportunity to access FC funding it would absolutely be directed at research and development to benefit the plight of urban trees.

 

Thanks for the post...and your honesty, it's imporatnt we/I have the opportunity to hear you rviews and respond.

 

Cheers..

paul

Edited October 21, 2010 by AA Teccie (Paul)

[skyhuck]

From the AAs point of view I agree...up to the very recent past that is.

 

We have purported to represent the industry but we have never been able to truely do so as we simply reprsentthe minority, hence the claim of elitism.

 

How do we / can we best represent the industry when so few seem to want to be 'included'? As the following contributoir states, get involved and change from within. We are looking at the current AC scheme and making it more accessible, both in terms of criteria & costs, to the 'smaller' contractor (further info very soon to be released). Further we are looking at membership, including releasing use of the AA logo, albeit with retaining and enhancing the 'AAAC' and 'AARC' logos, and how we can make it more appropriate / more attractive.

 

Bottom line, and I know we haven't done that great in the past (through ignorance not intention), the AA is currently managing to service it's memebrship and comitments but with more support, in terms of ACs/RCs & members, we could do so much more and with you involved ('the wider arb community') that could be in the areas you tell us are importnat rather than us just guessing.

 

Lastly, IF, by any remote chance the arb sector got the opportunity to access FC funding it would absolutely be directed at research and development to benefit the plight of urban trees.

 

Thanks for the post...and your honesty, it's imporatnt we/I have the opportunity to hear you rviews and respond.

 

Cheers..

paul

 

Good post Paul!!

 

I was concerned that things had ground to a halt, it great that you are still trying to get more of the industry involved and await launch the new "simplified" scheme

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Good post Paul!!

 

I was concerned that things had ground to a halt, it great that you are still trying to get more of the industry involved and await launch the new "simplified" scheme

 

 

Hey 'Skyhuck' good to hear from you!

 

Nope, things are well on and I'm afraid I've been nose to the grindstone bashingthings out.

 

As a quick pre-cursor to the official launch the major changes affect the smaller companies, i.e. 'less than 5 staff' (staff being direct employees + sub-contractors enaged on a regular basis, an average of 3 days per week or more....so now I guess no one engages subbies that often eh? ha!)

 

The scheme will be modular, 1-4 (1. worksite audit - sectional felling with rigging, 2. quality audits - tree planting & tree pruning, 3. office&customer care etc. and 4. h&S compliance / workplace audit), and will be achieveable over a longer period, prob 12-18 months (but ideally within 12months), BUT this option will work out considerably more expensive as it will incur more visits to the contractor.

 

Mod. 1 worksite audit = same for everyone and of all sizes

Mod. 2 quality audit & arb knowledge = as above (but where knowledge is lacking in some, as opposed to all, areas an agreed program of CPD will be required.)

Mod. 3 = basic procedures suitable to a small company, soi when you raed the standards and it talks about this 'doumented procedure' and that 'documented procedure' that won't be necessary. Just the basics, often with a note pad & diary, but the complaints system will need to be a little more formalised.

Mod. 4 = basic compliance (still requires a H&S policy so 'over & above' legilsation but we will supply a policy framework doc. 'FOC' if conatrctors don't have one so hopefully won't be major stumbling block and, in reality, most contractors have one) Workplace Audit, i.e. i) Stores & Workshop + ii) Yard, will be N/A to smaller contarctors (in reality its still likely to get a look over but won't formally be considered in outcome.)

 

Assessment cost is £495 (+VAT...sorry!), currently £870+VAT, and involves one assessor ideally covering all Mods. in the day (I've trialed this and it can be done but it does require much forward planning and coordination from the contractor). This also includes CHAS registration, or renewal if already registered and coincides with renewal date.

Annual subs is £260 (+VAT), currently £460+VAT, and includes webiste and Directory entry (we get many calls from people who wnat a reputable contarctor 'on their doorstep' but we can't currently supply as existing ACs too disperate!)

NB Above costs are subject to approval from the AA BoD.

 

The 'downside' is that the reassesments are reducced from current 5 years to 4 and include an interim audit at a cost of £295. If you go CHAS accredited via AA we can redo this for you annually at reduced cost of £75 (as opposed to £90).

 

Tooooo much information in obe go but hoepfully gives a good flavour of wheer we're heading/headed!

 

Just leaving Chelt now to drive home (S. Devon) so will check back tomorrow....or ring me on 01803 845140 (office at home on Fridays).

 

Cheers..

Paul