europeantrees

Looking for pictures or video of arbs's or foresters at work who work in this area for a publication. Full copyright and credits given. Many thanks in advance if anyone can help? Pip Howard

I'm posting this link to a petition for the Rio + 20 summit, happening next week: Rio Forest Certification Declaration 'I/we support the Rio Forest Certification Declaration and call on governments and other leaders to take their responsibilities in protecting the world's forests seriously. Rio+20 must make forests a priority, and agree on frameworks such as the Declaration to better support the work of tried and tested mechanisms such as forest certification.' The importance of recognising those who work in the industry is included within the text of the principles, (and you can promote your business name when signing!) Thanks

Old Mill Trees - thats good to know, just as well I haven't attempted it. Unless regulations have changed since sept' last year (no info to say otherwise on website) then Eurostar info is tried and tested and the weight restrictions allow a lot more than any plane anyhow.

On Eurostar the saw has to have the guidebar & chain taken off and packed separately. Absolutely no fuel or oil in the saw (no petrol or oil containers are allowed - but sachets of 2 stroke are okay). All other equipment should be fine. Have been told on a plane it is the same, but the saw and equipment need to be in a separate bag for storage in hold.

Very much a universal problem. Further more the peripheral and media sectors of the horticultural industry are very much culpable of perpetuating the spread of pests and pathogens by way of ignoring the fact that horticultural trade is guilty of introducing many of these new pests and pathogens into the landscape - worse still I recently heard a gardening journalist state 'the forestry industry must be held to account for not stopping the spread of threats [P. ramorum] to the garden heritage of England'!?! Pip Howard European Trees

Thank you Gerrit, you have confirmed my personal thoughts. The problem being that a particular designer had dragged some academic text from the internet to back up his 'urban woodland design'. The worsening scenario we have with regards urban planting is the designer - 90% of the time we can work side by side, but occasionally the plans come through via a third person, the client themselves, who have been sold a wonderful and utopian image which we simply cannot realise - when this is referred to the client and they seek an explanation from the designer (increasingly we are seeing less well qualified designers - landscape architects are being shunned in favour with those who can simply talk the talk and draw a pretty picture!) and the designer can download any form of academic (sometimes dubious) reference material to win his argument with not much hunting around on google. I picked up on your thread with regards mychorrizae in which you challenged someone who had fallen into the same trap and am grateful for a back up here. For me the idea of clump planting or any mimic of progressive rural planting is not a good idea in the urban environment particularly when the soil, (if you can even call it that), will change dramatically in such a small space - usually from cement to 'canine' effluent in the space of 2 metres. Pip Howard European Trees

Great thread and I am very grateful for what Gerrit has been saying. This ties in closely with a lot of the work I have seen in France; whilst we have been using a mychorrizal based product in urban tree planting to success it has largely been the result of a good fertiliser mix. We will continue to use in post industrial urban situations until a new suitable product arrives, the cost is a huge factor and the mychorrizal product we have so far used is significantly cheaper than any thing else available. A long time ago a UK forester told me never to use mychorrizal supplementary products in a rural or non fragmented soil situation. I have always stuck to this rigidly. Pip Howard European Trees

Having been asked about introducing clump planting patterns in the design of a peri urban planting project, I was told that this helped ease the spread of pests and pathogens, the latter is arguably a misconception but there is research to suggest that clump planting patterns can actually prevent rapid succession of pests - in particular processionary moth. Is this yet a great problem in the UK? Landscape aesthetics aside is there anyone here who can help me with this one - is there any experience in the UK or elsewhere to suggest that clump planting will if nothing else help with future management of new planting. I have not made up my mind and am still dubious about close planting of trees in an urban environment - thanks Pip Howard European Trees

Or worse, when I was working in UK always remember that woods near main roads had a variety of unpleasant unwantables, dog mess being the least unpleasant. Gabriel Hemery has just published the following on his blog, which given his role on the ginger panel at least means that some measure of real progressive forestry will be considered - More forest plantations less green fuzz

I agree, it is a common situation here on the continent and works well particularly when the timber sales are via a cooperative. But the over inflated price of much of the UK forest estate would cut out many smaller operatives. wouldn't it?

Woodland Trust leasing forests is strange, but I am sure they are positioning themselves to get more involved in carbon credits and possible planning credits market, thus many smaller woodlands will be treated as nothing more than long term assets. The more I think about the idea of forester syndicats taking on responsibility for their local forest as discussed in the forestry sell off thread on here, it seems a cracking idea and ticks all the boxes that the panel, defra and campaigners are searching for. When some of the miners took over their mines as a cooperative their salaries increased dramtically, with forestry which has such a strong future it will cut out all the middle tier spongers and lead to just wages and respect for those in the profession and on the ground.

The panel members are what concern me also, but the news this week that an alternative panel will be confronting the panel is slightly more heartening. There is still no real voice from the industry or practitioners though. Our Forests Panel My worry is that forestry will become flooded with volunteers, I wouldnt put it past the Woodland Trust to train up old grannies to operate harvesters.

I realise and have read the existing threads on the forestry sell off, but wanted to guage opinion as to what the views are now considering we are all being given the chance to put our opinions to the independent forestry panel. Are there any worries about whether the Woodland Trust or NT taking large portions of public forest estate? Are the practitioners left out of the picture too much and should be given a chance to have voice on the panel? I have read the idea that it might be good for the practitioners to form syndicates and therefore make the most amount of money from possible future sales, this sounds good to me? Any thoughts would be great, or if this has been discussed elsewhere point me in the right direction, thanks

Hi John Burgess, and thanks for your reply - I am no position to know the realities of what the FC are actually like on the ground and don't dispute your comments. Even with an ineffectual FC and the fact that the lions share of funding come from their timber sales allows them the position to be able to avoid to commit to European and International obligations without costing the taxpayer more than the 30p a year at present. Some money also comes by way of the EU, who won't be too happy to then pay for any shortfall in funds to Forest Research or the Forest Authority. The Forest Enterprise under these plans will almost certainly disappear and for some potential clients the difference between an ex FC contractor and another will initially make no difference in choice - indeed it may well swing in favour of Ex FC if not simply for sympathy? I dont know. But I am trying to complete the consultation paper taking all sides of the argument into account and at present the finances on all levels and possibilities do not add up, particularly with 50% of UK timber sales going direct to the FC when they have a much smaller percentage of land cover. The status quo is certainly not brilliant but there does'nt appear to be a decent alternative and as such these sales are not good.

I'm new to Arb Talk and am somewhat removed from the UK industry having moved to work and live in France. From initially believing the sell of to be relatively harmless my stance has changed considerably, particularly afetr being enlightened by some European based practitoners, As such the wider implications of this sale are really scary and hope anyone can alleviate my concerns with regards the following: Avoiding the arguments with regards the ‘Public Bodies Bill’, the concerns about access and other mainstream issues, which are the current base of opposition to the plans principally from public or political quarters, there remain four very serious wider reaching issues that will result in collateral damage to the industry as a whole: Existing guidelines and management techniques will become void. The diminishment of the FC has to occur in some form to allow the proposals to become more accountable financially when its major income source is sold. Not only will any reference to values of trees in ecological, environmental, amenity value, which allow for continued research, be removed by the sole recognition of trees for timber value alone based on the proposed sales but also all of the work by the FC and others will be simply discredited and thus a complete halt in progress towards ‘sustainable forest management’ in the UK will occur. The ideals of Sustainable Forest Management are borne out of international liaison, the subsequent treaties and obligations were then ratified by the UK. Read any documentation, guidelines and principles with regards global forestry and the fact that sustainable forest management is only achievable with community interaction or ownership, is regularly quoted. State funded forestry provides the example for a sustainable structure to proceed in all forest management, be it plantation or primeval. State funded forestry allows for a secondary income which aids the internal timber market as well as allowing for all relevant sustainable factors to be achieved by self financing. The UK parliament will be allowing England to become the ‘miscreant’ example – the exact opposite model to the ideals established after over 20 years of intensive global academic research, (which the UK contributed to funding). It is a fact that whoever purchases ex FC woodland, from NGO through to International business, will reduce management and maintenance. Not only will this reduce the biodiversity recognised in well managed woodlands. It will produce a large surplus of qualified personnel into an already disenfranchised private land based management industry. There is simply not enough work for these practitioners and the overspill into horticulture and other sectors will be difficult for all existing practitioners. Many of those that have worked in public estate will have been able to gain the most up to date qualifications and certification against those in the private sector, who have had to pay for updates. This imbalance will have drastic consequences for the incumbent private sector The reduction of future management and maintenance comes at a time of extreme pressure on the natural ecology of our landscape from various ‘introduced’ threats: Grey Squirrels, Deer, Rhododendron & Other non native plants and last but most significantly the emergence of Phytophthora and other diseases. There is little doubt that the spread of forest pests will become an increasingly significant issue and will assuredly isolate the UK timber industry further and increase demand for imported timbers. Measures to ban timber from non sustainable resources or even illegally felled timber have not been adopted by either the UK or the EU to date. Timber prices will thus be prone to foreign influence beyond the control of the relatively UK timber industry. Anybody working in land based industry will have to re position themselves and adopt a protectionist measures over their business interests at a time when the private land based industry sector is already suffering from the financial crisis and low esteem from a deflated image of the industry as a whole, (further compounded by public critics of the forest sales targeting private industry as being in the ‘Pro’ camp). This will eventually lead into a reduction of taxes through revenue from the private industry, thus further reducing the economic benefits of the ‘disposal of public forest estate’. European Trees