Tree report

[Chris at eden]

Hi

 

The following link will take you to a page on the Arb Associations web site giving advice on careers and qualifications. Of course it's not just about qualifications. Experience counts, as does keeping up to date.

 

If you were working as a consultant dealing with chartered town planners, engineers, landscape architects, surveyors etc then I'd say the route to have followed would be chartered status, and that means the ICF. Nothing wrong with the AA, but it's not the same. In a past life I was an AA Approved Contractor, and this is where I think the strength of the AA lies, with those at the cutting edge of arboriculture. (Over to you Paul S.).

 

For what its worth I'm a professional member of the AA and a chartered forester. I get value from, and value both.

 

http://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/files/5d/5d1f7bb0-68d0-4164-a65c-89e026ec71d7.pdf

 

Ed

 

Hi Ed

 

Are you comparing the professional membership of the AA and the ICF? If so I agree but the equivalent membership for AA of chartered arb must be reg consultant. I personally think that reg consultant is at least the same in terms of accreditation within the arb industry although its probably not as well known outside of the arb world.

 

Cheers

[Chris at eden]

They are not the same thing. The AA have over a number of years been aligning their membership levels in a way which reflects the qualifications and experience of the member. The requirements for AA Consultant status would probably be sufficient to meet chartered status with the ICF, and many AA Consultants are chartered. There are also many Chartered Arboriculturists who are not AA Consultants. But the AA is not incorporated by Royal charter, and being chartered is, amongst other things, a playing field leveller when it comes to dealing with other chartered professionals.

 

We all see our own route to professionalism, and that will depend on what we do and the other professions we interact with. For me working on a day to day basis with chartered town planners, landscape architects, civil engineers etc was the driving force for expressing my professional status via the chartered route. As I have said, I value being a member of the AA as well.

 

Ed

 

 

I know what you are saying in respect of the royal charter but in my experience in discussing with consultants who have both, they all say the AA reg consultant status is more difficult to achieve. The professional interview is twice as long apparently. I know a few chartered arbs who are no where near registered consultant level. I know a couple of really good arbs who have recently achieved chartered arb who's long term aim is reg consultant also.

 

I also often get called by mortgage companies who want an AA reg consultant but I am never asked the same question for chartered arb. Dave Dowson once told me he gets calls every week from people looking for a reg consultant. I personally think as a consultant you should be looking at getting both along with the Bond Solon expert witness accreditation. But that's just my opinion and everyone is different.

 

Cheers

[Jon Heuch]

I know what you are saying in respect of the royal charter but in my experience in discussing with consultants who have both, they all say the AA reg consultant status is more difficult to achieve. The professional interview is twice as long apparently. I know a few chartered arbs who are no where near registered consultant level. I know a couple of really good arbs who have recently achieved chartered arb who's long term aim is reg consultant also.

 

I also often get called by mortgage companies who want an AA reg consultant but I am never asked the same question for chartered arb. Dave Dowson once told me he gets calls every week from people looking for a reg consultant. I personally think as a consultant you should be looking at getting both along with the Bond Solon expert witness accreditation. But that's just my opinion and everyone is different.

 

There are different things going on here:

 

i) standard of the individual to get into the club

ii) promotional effectiveness of the scheme

 

There should be no doubt that becoming an AA RC requires more effort and a broader range of technical skills and experience than becoming a full member of the ICF. You only need to show 2 years experience to become a full member of the ICF.

 

For a variety of reasons the AA's scheme has a much higher profile than the ICF list.....so it is not surprising that both AA schemes - AC and RC - should get people in contact. Usefulness of both organisation's websites is also important and both are.....not exactly up to date with their accessibility. Searching to create a list is a little stone-age. A map/geographic search would now be the norm (see the CAS website).

 

Trouble with expert witness training is that it doesn't make experts out of non-experts; it teaches people how to be witnesses. You don't need to be a member of either the ICF or the AA (or any other body) to undertake expert witness training so we end up with "CUEW" who are not....experts!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It's really interesting watching the debate between experts (within the industry) about experts (within the industry!)

 

Makes me wonder what those outside the industry think is important - AA or ICF (depends on the working environment I guess?)

 

It's a shame there isn't a single body to bring it all together. Plumbers seem to manage different skill sets under one Charter - some are gas, some are oil, some RHI, some sewers & pipes etc etc.... but they all (if they choose to) can operate under the Chartered Institute of Plumbing & Heating Engineers.

 

It's hard enough for those of us within the industry to decide which route to take, heaven only knows how contemporary trades / professions view it....

[Jon Heuch]

.... which is a whole lot different to just showing you've been in a job for two years.

 

By the way Jon, I'm a long way from Gloucestershire before you suggest it. Is that just an easy cop out. Maybe. I need to think a bit more about it.

 

Ed, you're correct in the detail and of course the ICF requirement is far more than being in any job; my point however is that you have to show 2600 hours professional experience for full ICF membership. Working for 1600 hours a year (if you are lucky!) you can accumulate such experience over a two year period. If you have a job with some financial, personnel and planning responsibilities you can achieve this in the first half of your career. To be an AA RC, especially if you are an "expert" as in an expert witness, I would expect you to be in at least the second half of your career i.e. you've got quite a lot of experience.

 

You can still be an expert in some arboricultural competence areas without having the necessary experience to be an ICF member and may not be particularly useful at putting pen to paper. I can listen all day to people who work with trees every day, experience wildlife, know their fungi and all sorts of things I will never know.

 

I am afraid your comment about Gloucestershire is a bit too cryptic for my simple mind. Perhaps you can remind me what you need to think about??!!

[Jon Heuch]

the AA's lack of getting the word out to the wider world I should get involved in doing that, and I mean more so than just pointing people in the direction of Approved Contractors and Registered Consultants when asked to recommend someone. That could mean getting involved with AA committees, eg media and communications, which, I presume, meet at AA HQ.

 

I don't think you need to go that far; the message has been heard and progress is being made. An organisation that has 2500 members yet feels it is only able to promote the workings of a small proportion is strange. What the end result is, however, has not yet been determined.