Health and Safety Group

[agrimog]

welcome to the world of FISA, and a few BIG contractors pulling the strings.......you were warned!!!

[Andy Clark]

welcome to the world of FISA, and a few BIG contractors pulling the strings.......you were warned!!!

 

 

Were we though? In the Arb side I mean? I can find nothing, either in magazine format or on the big wide t'interweb, other than a few small print bottom of the page snippets, that mentions anything of this in relation to the Arb industry.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi Andy, AFAG has not been disbanded but is relatively inactive currently. In large part this is due to the industry liaisons with FISA regarding the revisions of their leaflets which cross the forestry and arb sectors. These will be jointly reviewed / revised and joint branded with the Arb Assoc.

 

Regarding the consultation I thought this was posted on the general AA website such that anybody in the industry could access it...provided of course they looked at the AA website.

 

I stand to be corrected here so will 'double-check' n get back to you.

 

Cheers Andy,

Paul

[Andy Clark]

Hi Paul,

 

You were right, busy man yesterday. Tried to collar you and say hi on the stand a few times, but always up to your eyes in it whenever I popped in. Hope you've managed to get some rest.

 

Been through trees.org, and a search of the site only returns 1 result bearing any sort of relation or mention towards FISA - and that was the announcement in '13 of the new Chair of FISA. (albeit I have just searched again, and that now result seems to have vanished.)

 

 

From the article in the most recent Arb Magazine, Simon does seem to state pretty clearly that the AA has been consulting with Members and Approved Contractors. I would have thought this would have read differently if the consultation was open industry wide.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Jaime, i'm not an AA member, nor AAAC, so have no idea or even knowledge of the survey monkey consultation until reading about it an hour ago in the complementary mag from yesterday.

 

A quick trawl of trees.org didn't turn up any info or links either.

 

Perhaps any AA members or AAAC that view this thread would be so kind as to share any info regarding the consultation. Thanks.

 

Hi Andy 'et al', apologies for my delay here.

 

So, AFAG as a group is still there and at the meeting in Nov. 2014 the arb industry representation was essentially multi-organisation as you've cited previous, e.g. AA / ISA / MTOA / UAG / LGA. At the last meeting was 12-May-2015 the arb representation was the same, essentially, albeit apologies from all but the AA were received.

 

Hopefully that answers that one.

 

RE-the FISA consultation, that closed 31-May-2015 and it was circulated by the AA to some 7,000 people (apparently) both AA members and non-members. However, it was not posted here which of course it should have been and that's down to me I'm afraid and I apologise (I'm disappointed in myself here as I'm the AA staff member primarily responsible for ARBTALK liaisons etc.)

 

Hopefully that answers that one, albeit not very satisfactorily.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Andy Clark]

Hi Andy 'et al', apologies for my delay here.

 

So, AFAG as a group is still there and at the meeting in Nov. 2014 the arb industry representation was essentially multi-organisation as you've cited previous, e.g. AA / ISA / MTOA / UAG / LGA. At the last meeting was 12-May-2015 the arb representation was the same, essentially, albeit apologies from all but the AA were received.

 

Hopefully that answers that one.

 

RE-the FISA consultation, that closed 31-May-2015 and it was circulated by the AA to some 7,000 people (apparently) both AA members and non-members. However, it was not posted here which of course it should have been and that's down to me I'm afraid and I apologise (I'm disappointed in myself here as I'm the AA staff member primarily responsible for ARBTALK liaisons etc.)

 

Hopefully that answers that one, albeit not very satisfactorily.

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

That seems to differ from the statements within the Arb Magazine article - in as far as Simon reports that reps from the AA had already met with FISA directly on 3rd March to begin collaboratively working.

 

That being said, if that process between FISA and the AA was already in place some 2 months prior to the AFAG meeting of the 12 May, one can certainly start to understand why no one else turned up. Would have been a pretty pointless meeting by the sound of it.

 

With regards the consultation, taken on board that in closed last week, but again from the article Simon clearly reports that the results of the consultation were to be presented at the next FISA/AA meeting at the end of May.

 

In which case, considering you say that the consultation closed on the last day of May, I'm struggling to even see how the results could have even been populated, even if the FISA/AA meeting was also on the same 31st May.

 

Nonetheless, the consolation has closed, and the results have been shared with FISA. The AA still don't seem to have made any effort with sharing those results with the rest of the Arb industry - bearing in mind that the results of the consultation are supposedly representative of the Arb Industry.

 

Another trawl of trees.org, and there is not even a mention of the consultation, let alone any information pertaining to the results.

 

 

All smelling very cloak and dagger I'm afraid.

 

I think the thing that needs to be taken on board is that the ramifications for this are MASSIVE for the industry. Like, astronomically HUGE! Some might say that the AA reporting now directly to FISA, goes to not only undermine, but actually UNDO everything that the AA was even set up to achieve 50 years ago - which was of course to promote the Arboriculture industry in it's own right and step out from under the umbrella of Forestry.

 

The FISA collaboration certainly appears, so far at least, to put us firmly back under it.

[Andy Clark]

Anyone?

 

Struggling to understand how there seems to be no information on such a massive change to the industry.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Anyone?

 

Struggling to understand how there seems to be no information on such a massive change to the industry.

 

Hi Andy, thanks for your post here.

 

There's absolutely no "cloak and dagger" at play, please, please let's not go backwards on this one.

 

Acknowledged the AA is perhaps overstretched with all the various activities and projects we are collectively involved with and, as is often the case (NOT to say its acceptable), communication suffers...and yes I / we are guilty of that in this instance, apologies (to all.)

 

When you cite such a massive change to the industry that's certainly not my take on the situation and, to be quite honest, I'm struggling a little to see where / how you arrive at this?

 

If you are suggesting that FISA will become the lead H&S Group for the ARB sector that's absolutely not the case, and indeed they have, in effect, stated as much previously. Regarding HSE / AFAG, who knows what the future holds with government cuts etc. and it may well be the AA has a more active role to play here.

 

IF this is the case I can assure you the AA will always seek the views of the wider industry (okay, not a great start perhaps) and will seek to work collaboratively with other organisations within the ARB sector.

 

I hope this to be an appropriate, and reassuring reply.

 

Best..

Paul

[Andy Clark]

Hi Andy, thanks for your post here.

 

There's absolutely no "cloak and dagger" at play, please, please let's not go backwards on this one.

 

Acknowledged the AA is perhaps overstretched with all the various activities and projects we are collectively involved with and, as is often the case (NOT to say its acceptable), communication suffers...and yes I / we are guilty of that in this instance, apologies (to all.)

 

When you cite such a massive change to the industry that's certainly not my take on the situation and, to be quite honest, I'm struggling a little to see where / how you arrive at this?

 

If you are suggesting that FISA will become the lead H&S Group for the ARB sector that's absolutely not the case, and indeed they have, in effect, stated as much previously. Regarding HSE / AFAG, who knows what the future holds with government cuts etc. and it may well be the AA has a more active role to play here.

 

IF this is the case I can assure you the AA will always seek the views of the wider industry (okay, not a great start perhaps) and will seek to work collaboratively with other organisations within the ARB sector.

 

I hope this to be an appropriate, and reassuring reply.

 

Best..

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

Ok, the cloak and dagger comment I'll concede. But I do think it pretty crystal clear that the rhetoric is greatly outweighing the detail on this subject - and that certainly does lead to an air of non transparency.

 

For example the results of the consultation have supposedly already been submitted to FISA - so where are they? Even with the AA's overstretched workload, I don't see it too time-consuming-a-task to upload already compiled and published data - if not per se to here, at least to the AA website.

 

Re the change to the industry -

 

Since time immemorial, the industry representation to the HSE and equally guidance on all things Health and Safety related, has always been joint. As in, the "Trees and Timber" industry as a whole. First with FASTCo, (the Forestry and Arboriculture Safety Training Council" then AFAG (the Arboriculture and Forestry Advisory Group.

 

This can pretty much be mirrored by the AA's own comments within the previous AFAG minutes, that are openly available for all to see, in as far "The AA confirmed that they would like to work with FISA and would not like a split to develop between arboriculture and forestry."

 

Ok, so what does the avoidance of this spilt actually look like at the moment -

SR reported that the AA and FISA had met to discuss the allocation and updating of the leaflets. It had been agreed that, as there was considerable overlap of interest in the 300 series of leaflets on chainsaws, it was not necessary for the arb industry to produce its own suite of leaflets. However they would be involved in the revision of the existing leaflets when this occurs.

 

and

4.6 Good liaison between AFAG and FISA will be necessary to ensure that work is either not delivered or duplicated. The Arb industry may need to be represented on FISA Working Groups (or vice versa) depending on the emphasis of the issue.

 

and

5.2 Reduce Accidents involving Chainsaws – FISA also have a group looking at chainsaw accidents and chainsaw accident statistics. This group is currently not particularly active, apart from the issue of refresher training.

 

5.2.1. AFAG needs to retain this project as FISA will not consider issues related to arboriculture.

 

The above are just snippets from the last handful of AFAG minutes, and, to be frank, it doesn't look good. There are a lot more comments from theminutes than the above, and they all mirror the same standpoint. A quick trawl of the FISA website, and there is zero mention of even the word "Arboriculture", let alone a nod to the industry or any form of joint working. Oh, other than the weblink to the AA, as the last on the list on FISA's weblinks page.

 

So start putting this all together and what do we appear to have -

 

The AA, reporting to FISA, an organisation focused purely on Forestry and the Forestry industry, for matters relating to health and safety where there is not an Arb specific bias.

 

I'm struggling to understand how you DON'T see this as a MASSIVE change to the industry! The implications for going from Arb reporting directly to the HSE's AIAC, to Arb now reporting to FISA, who will then predominantly do their own thing anyway, is HUGE! Especially given that FISA has zero interest in Arboriculture!

 

Take FISA's own standpoint on it's own training quals - those that don't have it, are asked to stop working. Hello? What happened to a free market place? What happens, again, as the AFAG minutes mention, when Arbs are asked to do work on a FISA site, without FISA quals? Are the Arbs going to be told to stop work? Is there scope and oppourtuinty for FISA to start calling the shots over chainsaw quals and dictate who must have what?

 

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way slating FISA what so ever. I think what they have done and how their own industry sectors have come together to create the group is very very admirable. But we do need to remember that FISA is a commercial forestry group, representing commercial forestry interests, by commercial forestry representatives, and if we think for one minute that they have Arb industry matters at heart, and will put Arb industry implications even beside their own interests, let alone ahead of, then I think a few peeps in The Malthouse are extremely disillusioned.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

welcome to the world of FISA, and a few BIG contractors pulling the strings.......you were warned!!!

 

 

Not in such detail, but the warning flags were being hoisted here:

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=83789