europeantrees

An argument over the use of ‘leaf blowers’ has been raging in the US for a few years now, the primary objection to them being the noise level, which at 90 – 100 dB is damaging to hearing for the operative- but they are amongst all other machinery particularly annoying. In the UK there have been some restrictions on usage during summer months, close to schools etc. But asides these anti blower arguments there are a host of others, including risk to human health, particularly the operative themselves by way of inhaling the disturbed particles. The emissions from these machines are too high and partly destroy justifying the environmental or sustainable attributes of the landscaping, horticultural or green keeping industries where leaf blowers are now a standard tool in their arsenal.

The threat from existing pathogens and non native invasive species, the threat from climate change factors and the stresses placed upon trees, particularly urban trees by way of human detritus, including domestic pet excrement or urine is compounded by the use of these machines.

They spread fungal spores, excrement, urine saturated top layers, insects and a host of other nasties, (including inherent toxins occurring in the soils) about, particularly unto stems, getting trapped in bark and lower branches. We know on average that some trees in Paris have as much as 25litres per week of urine onto their basal area, the root systems are just about able to cope, but with extended dry periods lower stems are suffering badly. The cost of removing an urban tree is huge against the cost of fencing the tree off, a suggested answer in restricting day by day stresses to trees, but one that does not account for leaf blowers.

This year I inspected two sites and saw many more, where hedges had their bases scorched. The most striking was a beautiful mature Hornbeam hedge. Up to around 50cm in height had been exposed to extreme scorching, with the only option to remove the bottom branches, which destroyed the look and purpose of the hedge. The culprit was assuredly the leaf blower as many hedges suffer from being used as a store for the blown leaves, (this was witnessed at one site, where a municipal employee used the machine weekly, even during spring and summer). As with the movement of trees by vehicles there is a common disregard for the fact that scorching by winds, particularly during dry periods, (when perversely leaf drop occurs out of season and the machines are put into action), or cold periods can have a dramatic affect on foliage and ultimately kill trees or lead to their removal due to aesthetics.

The other problem is the disproportionate amount of leaf litter onto soil in urban and peri urban areas. The soil organisms struggle to cope with the sheer quantity of leaves and the rich partial compost levels and the host of fungi this attracts are regularly above the basal area of trees resulting in a weakening of the tree stem. The argument put forward by some that worms will quickly process the leaves leading to a much healthier soil is simply not true, even a very healthy population of worms are not that hungry!

In some parts of the Paris Banlieue the amount of trees is equal to or exceeds the stems / ha of a woodland, yet the available exposed soil is less than 10% of the surface area.

The French were slow to pick up on the removal of Horse Chestnut leaves to reduce the damage by leaf miner (Cameraria ohridella) and the leaves are still regularly blown about, lodging themselves under nearby hedges or fences, before the annual clear up and utterly destroying the worth of the efforts to contain leaf miner which has had such a dramatic effect on the landscape of Paris.

This is of course not just a problem confined to France and the problems of effective leaf management in the suburban garden landscape of the UK are not being realised. The overall disregard of the true costs of landscape maintenance are leading to much greater costs not that far into the future and threaten the survival of all new tree planting in the urban environment.

Leaves have little value at present asides their use in enrichening soil biodiversity for horticultural gain. But I watched one old boy in St Germain en Laye collecting up sackloads of leaves and after a difficult questioning, (he thought I was an official condemning his action), he explained his purpose. He had a little crushing gadget used for squashing the plethora of publicity leaflets the French are subjected to for burning in a conventional wood burning stove. He only used it for leaves and collected enough for 20 – 25 days of heating a year. He preferred this system because it reduced the resulting ash quantity considerably.

But certainly one solution is to accept the fact that we need to pay those charged with the maintenance of our landscapes more in order to ensure the landscape remains in the future.

Mark Twain said ‘’Buy land, they are not making it anymore’’. Certainly if you seek a guaranteed investment for your children or your children’s children, there can be no more secure investment than land purchase and planting it with trees, properly, can only increase its value.

The invention of modern silviculture by John Evelyn in the 17th century led to the invention of sustainable development. Land management in early economics was intrinsically linked to sustainability at a time when much development was far more sustainable than the boundaries of modern sustainable development permit now. Hanns Carl von Carlowitz would be surprised and certainly dismayed by the twisting of a basic concept to suit the vast array of interests of industry, government and society we see today.

Sustainable development is now subject to questioning because it has been allowed to be disseminated to ensure growth and energy consumption are not impeded at all.

The very thought that we should be starting to look at levelling off economic growth is too scary for most people and defies embedded economic and political ideals, which should really be put to bed now. Let’s leap frog backwards over Adam Smith and back to John Evelyn. This is where the future now lies.

The selfishness of an economic ‘gold rush’ mentality perpetuated by lacking minds in city thinktanks, who are simply too lazy to look beyond case studies in non renewable resource rich countries, listened to by short term politicians subject to a completely polarised lobbying system and then given credence by accountants in local and central government means that forestry and land management as a long term sustainable industry is simply ignored. Worse, the core of the industry is even ‘shut up’ in a manner which would impress the most despotic of dictators.

The selling of public forest estate, the sales of county council land and farms, the merging of the forestry commission to help fudge short term accounts as in Wales is not just selling off the family jewels but selling a sustainable future and the richest resources of government and the people it serves.

The continuing economic crisis is surely an apt time to start to invest into forestry; which has been kept alive by the Forestry Commission and private forestry companies. All relevant forestry voices are shouting the need for large scale afforestation. This is not simply to provide a habitat for wildlife or release the proven benefits of forests for people, but because it is the answer to sustainable development.

As we see the demand for timber rise, the greed and selfishness of the more short sighted financiers wins through to convince the government to fell trees to satisfy subsidised and peripheral pseudo sustainable initiatives. Allowing good quality trees to be processed for large scale biomass energy is a monumental waste and the stripping of an asset before it has even been realised.

Forestry sits there as an economic solution, which can fill a vast void created by ignoring its potential for so long and allowing for continued growth well beyond the life spans of all of us alive at present. Urban forestry has just as much worth – an educational and research resource, with health and biodiversity benefits surrounding the majority of the population.

The NGOs do not have the answers, for too long they have been part of the problem and now join the rest of the hyenas in trying tear apart the corpse of forestry and other land management to suit their desire for power. They have a role, we will need our ancient woodlands, and other natural and cultural heritage well protected. It is they who can shape the laws and determine the boundaries. But the corpse they are trying to feed on is not yet dead, it is still alive and kicking and could eventually grow very powerful as a city based economy continues to slide downwards and the need for sustainable resources increases.

Landscaping, horticulture and agriculture are in the same category, also at the frontier of sustainable development but shoved aside by hapless TV celebrities, gardening media and incumbent associations. Practitioners are stripped bare by a lack of real regulations and hindered by useless ones. Their inventions and ideas are regularly stolen and sold back to them, having been stamped with a logo, rewritten in patronising language – a PR campaign to make land management practitioners look stupid to the average layman and potential client.

But it is land management practitioners who people want and need if they marooned anywhere, including their own home. What good is a banker or politician in managing land to its maximum potential and value? None and we know only too well the uselessness of celebrities courtesy of ITV and the Australian jungle.

All land management practitioners have an opportunity to promote themselves and their industry. They hold the key to realising sustainable development for all other industries. The internet allows the chance to shout down those who have fed off the skills and knowledge contained within the industry to the point where it has almost been bled dry by useless, selfish suits whose only skill is manipulating PR or losing our money and diverting attention away from real issues.

It is time to go on the offensive. It is time for a collective voice from the practitioner base and the suppliers who supply it.

 It is time to use the label of sustainable, as we in land management are the only industry that can really lay claim to it.

A couple who have purchased their own land, lived and worked it so it supplemented their needs have been ordered off their property with a threat of imprisonment – Injunction to Move By the End of The Month

No other story clearly illustrates the misuse of existing guidelines and regulations. No other story highlights the huge chasm that needs to be bridged between Nimbyism within local government and realising a path towards true sustainability. No other story illustrates the need for an NPPF of real worth.

There are several hundred hectares of now ‘dormant’ land in rural Devon alone. The flow of those seeking a more sustainable lifestyle often falls flat following the realisation that the input required is huge. Do these predominantly ex professional new landowners get threatened with eviction because they cannot realise the aspirations of their land registered for agricultural purposes – No. Their houses remain separate to the needs of managing the land as it should be to maintain it as an important element of the English rural landscape and the issue of good land management is quietly forgotten to the detriment of the landscape and its biodiversity.

Sustainable development (SD) goes hand in hand with sustainable land management in a rural setting. Had the orchard been purchased by a development company with several new homes proposed incorporating SD into construction, easily done due to the fairly lax definitions in existence for SD, then would planning permission have been given?

This is the Kevin McCloud branded affordable housing estate – Kevin Mcclouds housing to be rolled out. Without commentating on the architectural design, there is one glaringly obvious omission – greenery. Gabion cages replace what could be a living hedge, a carpet of impermeable surfacing seals the soil and no trees have been planted to break up the inevitable visual monotony of terraced housing. It may be ‘good design’ but does this excuse a lack of landscaping or the chance to landscape by those who need to live in celebrity branded housing? The assumption that our lives gain more benefit from a celebrity stamp of approval over those gained from trees and green space is a frightening precedent to set.

Sustainable land management includes the fourth dimension of sustainable development; the cultural angle. Our cultural heritage is defined by a resourcefulness of our forebears in discovering methods of living within the confines of available land.

Mid Devon Council’s decision based on landscape character and rules with regards agricultural land use may well be justifiable. Dangerously for Mid Devon Council one can easily wonder that if the Mason’s had chosen to spent money shopping for their clothes at the local farmers cooperative at the same time they purchased the materials necessary for their smallholding whether this case would have ever reached the stage it has. This is because there are many, many similar cases in Devon alone which are dealt with in a very different manner.

This case highlights a need for new guidance and highlights a flaw in the system where such a case should be allowed to be challenged using common law, enabling a precedent to be created which could further sustainable land management, help in creating guidelines for new landowners and halt the increasing quantity of rural land that is lacking any management and thus reducing its benefits to us as humans and diminishing the biodiversity that is so reliant on it.

With regards the UK triple bottom line of sustainability Mid Devon Council fail: In economic terms, the decision by Mid Devon collapses; on social terms, the decision by Mid Devon collapses; on ecological terms the decision by Mid Devon collapses and culturally, bearing in mind the heritage of the rural landscape in this locality the decision by Mid Devon collapses.

This decision makes Mid Devon Council look like they are manipulating the image of not only their landscape, the way it is managed, but even those who live in it. This is hinting towards landscape management which not only ignores the European Landscape Convention completely but is more in line with the mindset of those who shaped land policy at the time of the Enclosure Acts.

Are we to just accept that Sustainable Development is limited to mass affordable housing, which can be sold to masses by a TV name. A furthering of a two tier system, where any attempt to break the mould will be smashed using the guise of agricultural and landscape guidelines which are little used as they should be.

I would suggest that Mid Devon Council need to really look at this decision and their comments in regards to it, because at present it displays them in a very bad light indeed.

A British cultural factor with regards land management has spread across the channel. The division of land in the UK was born out of historic controversial policies, in particular the Enclosure Acts, which have installed field and property boundaries as a quintessential element of the British rural landscape and is particularly noticeable with regards forest and woodland design due to their naturally imposing stature in the landscape.

When a field is planted with trees, it remains a field planted with trees.

The continuing obsession with equal spacing, equal height canopy is likely to remain installed in the British mindset for many years to come. Such a pattern of planting fragments the biodiversity of the landscape leaving only hedgerows and chance natural regeneration to fill the voids. Massive new planting schemes such as the National Forest help to dispel this, but are still beholden to an approach which is unavoidably based on a parcel by parcel delivery system with a hope that one day all the fields of trees will interlink, although the field boundaries will remain a visual line of force well after the trees reach maturity. This is inherent now and will define the visual aesthetics of UK woodland for many generations to come.

But what cannot be allowed and what is causing concern in France and Spain is that British expats, which number in their hundreds of thousands, are happily exporting land management practices which do not fit in with the cultural landscape to which they have moved to. The firmly rooted ideals of using often newly defined property boundaries installed by a system to cater towards the expat £ to define the limits of their chosen land management system have disturbed the landscape, its biodiversity and the social and cultural aspects of rural landscapes which were so appealing in the first place to the British seeking a new lifestyle.

The differences are becoming all too obvious now and when considering the significant amount of land that has been acquired by expats abroad the problem is a large one. What is clearly acceptable and normal for the British, (after all even mature conifer plantations are now deemed aesthetically pleasing by large amounts of a predominantly urban British, particularly English population) does not work in a foreign landscape.

When I first started in forestry the technique in designing a forest was still stuck in the days of using an OS map displaying the obvious property boundaries, and simply marking the species selection based on percentages to suit FC guidelines or as in the case of native broadleaf new planting to match a similar ‘case study’ ASNW nearby.

As the work of Simon Bell started to influence the Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) criteria for design, scalloped edges and asides considerations for broadleaved riparian strips required a much more lateral approach, a viewpoint was needed and this view point was the definitive point from which to map out and survey new planting and felling to allow for broadleaf planting to soften the edges of block monoculture conifers. Surveying in a young conifer plantation the boundary where the conifers would meet the broadleaves was a test of skill with regards using a compass and translating the difference of land incurred when transposing a percentage created by a map onto what was often steep sloped resulted in visibly scarce broadleaved planting compared to the neighbouring conifers. The resulting image, although a huge improvement, was noticeably unnatural and the glaringly obvious boundary lines remained far too visible.
This is Haldon Forest, near Exeter:

It is easy to see the imprint in the conifer plantation in the background of the historic field boundaries creating distinctive parcels of enclosed land remaining within the forest. Historic management field by field resulted in changes to the soil which affect the tree growth, however subtly and will remain as the trees reach maturity are felled and even the second generation will be affected.
This is a photo of a forest landscape in Limousin:

Here the differences in tree planting follow natural lines in the landscape, contours, streams, escarpments etc., these lines were also property boundaries. The cultural history of rural French land ownership, as with most other European states, used natural boundaries as an easy method to define the boundary. Although land with a similar pattern to that in the UK is found in France and elsewhere, the ‘bocage’ landscape in particular, it still bases major landscape features such as large scale forestry on using patterns defined by the more traditional natural lines.

I am not suggesting a change to the now generic method of woodland design in the UK, one where we now accept the boundary lines and with often measured spacing between even new native mixed planting. But this system does highlight still further the difference between remnant ASNW and post Evelyn planting. Furthermore it inevitably leaves a scar following clearfell, despite the best efforts of retention lines, which the public clearly dislike. We cannot tolerate the export of such planting patterns. And when any British expat tells me they are planting up their fields with trees, however much this should be appreciated, the resulting cacophony of species in dead straight lines is hardly an appropriate new addition to the landscape in which they have settled and the French are increasingly concerned when this is combined with another favoured technique of the British expat and other new landowners who are keen to stress their boundaries by fencing. Unregulated tree planting is not always a good thing.

However as the British increasingly use French urban planting as a template for new urban planting, we do need to realise that this system is currently being re thought in France, because such systems are highly susceptible to disease spread and threats from climate change. Interestingly the ideals advocated by Simon Bell & others are now being introduced into new urban planting more and more in France, to some stunning visual effect.

And I wonder how much better a forest designed using the French system would be in combating the threat poised by pests, diseases and non natives? If proven to be more effective how quickly can the UK step out of their comfort zone box to adapt forest design to meet these threats and introduce planting that transcends boundaries, if indeed possible at all?

The need for knowledge transfer across European boundaries is vital in coming years to help defend against pests, diseases and climate change threats. But we must be very careful as what should be exported and what should not. As modern times are defined by fashions, including within the world of forestry, we need to take careful stock of the cultural ties with the landscape and their effects on design which in turn effects modern perception of design even for a forest landscape.

Following a journey into the multifunctional forest landscape of deep Limousin countryside, (blog to come), it was heartening to read several reports on my return with regards UK forestry.

2 are yet to be published, but one pleasantly surprised me and showed a promising change of direction by the Woodland Trust, (as hinted at by Gabriel Hemery in the last blog post comments thread here).

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/about-us/publications/Documents/state-of-the-uks-forest-report-4865.pdf

Collaboration and talking across the broad spectrum of interests is not as original as described by the WT’s Sian Atkinson’ accompanying blog, the original Save Our Woods (SOW) team having used this technique to forage out the axioms with regards UK forestry and one of the reasons I was attracted to helping them with many others.  But this is a faultless report and very useful.

There is more on the horizon, including in March, 2012, important information with regards urban trees, their current state and future proposals, (making up for the lack of much information on this vital topic thus far integrated into publications, reports and elsewhere).

The independent Forestry Panel preliminary findings are due out at the end of next week and I actually look forward to reading them.

I do fear an over emphasis on new planting will belay the risks associated with planting in diverse and complex locations as found in the UK, but then this is a secondary issue to securing the initial challenge of finding the funding for protecting existing trees let alone funding new planting. But some of the ongoing work underway by SOW and others is set to help with this, including one very exciting project to be unveiled soon, which will go some way in redressing the balance with regards the present lack of a decent voice from UK land management practitioners.

For the first time in this International Year of Forests, I feel optimism for the trees and woodlands of the UK as well as for the security of the Forestry and Arboricultural industry itself, despite the recent, rather daft decision by the Welsh Assembly to create a super Quango out of the FC Wales, EA Wales and CC Wales, which is likely to affect funding for the industry itself and possibly channel much needed resources away from Forest Research.

Please download the survey results here - FOREST COMMUNICATION IN THE UK SURVEY November 12th

The survey was only open for 1 week in the end. We received 225 responses.

Whilst the survey was placed on the Landscape Juice Network forum, as well as the Arbtalk forum, (and of course here), it gained most response from twitter, using the hash tags #saveourforests and #IYF2011. This was therefore a somewhat targeted audience, an audience either seeking forest and tree information and  / or involved in the industry.

However the responses are interesting and the comments tow the same line has mentioned here and elsewhere, which is general shift in perception from a couple of years ago and one the NGOs need to keep an eye on in my opinion.

For me I was particularly buoyed up by the over whelming interest in pests, diseases and non native invasive species – as well as comments re climate change and many stating the need to sort this issue out before turning to other issues.

The other really interesting fact is that it is clear that members of the general public are using practitioner forums to get hold of information.

We have not finished a proper analysis as yet and I will post this up together with what we intend to use the survey results for later on.

One thing is absolutely clear, the Forestry Commission website is still far and away the most essential tool or online resource in the UK.

I was going to entitle this blog Tree Wise, but it is the name and a very apt one of at least 2 arboricultural companies in the UK alone. As ‘Street Wise’ is a term to define a general knowledge, an aptitude of living an urban life, there exists the same sort of sixth sense with regards working with trees or in forests.

I know an Apple Tree Man, whose knowledge is inaccessible if you attempted to write it down or even illustrate or film. He has a connection with an apple tree which when it comes to pruning is unfathomable to a student at first but which 100% of the time works. Watch and listen and eventually you will get it, it isn’t rocket science but it is one of the most rewarding things in your life to finally grasp.

I know many people who simply know their trees, they know what their needs are and no textbook could illustrate why. Described in horticultural mythology as being ‘greenfingered’ I have had to come around to simply accepting that these people have a gift, how or why is impossible to ascertain, but they do. The only common trait I have found is that they usually remain all their lives in one particular landscape.

Indeed if you are of a sporting nature and fancy a stake in a forthcoming village vegetable show yet it is impossible to study form, the best bet is a visit to the parish records to discover who was born there and never moved, better still whose parents were born there and never moved also. They will assuredly beat the likes of Alan Titchmarsh, Chris Beardshaw and Monty Don combined.

So why in policies regarding forestry and the landscape itself do we ignore the wisdom on the ground in favour of yet another as cleverly titled as a Sun headline, glossy, beautifully illustrated brochure / pdf, from a Quango or NGO? Have they been into the woods and chatted at length with ‘Old Bob’ with the ancient chainsaw that seems to be a part of him and whose possible invite into the local houses scares the children into obedience – Of course they haven’t, but Old Bob’s knowledge is literally invaluable.

Traditional skills and knowledge are disappearing as rapidly as Hedgehogs, is there not a link?

Conservationists are knowledgeable, vital assets to the continuation of our landscapes and all contained within it, but they have continued down a line which has disconnected them still further from those they need to speak to, and this is largely due to a belief in the self importance of their expertise, accentuated by PR. The money flowing into NGOs has created corporate identity and there is nothing worse to a farmer, forester or many locals than to see a heavily logo emblazoned, clean 4X4 heading down the narrow lane towards them. Comparable situations of the outsider arriving in a landscape are found in the books of Thomas Hardy, yet the NGO brochures and surreptitiously placed ‘chicklit’ or ‘lads mag’ literature have largely replaced any reading of worth on the coffee tables of the new wave of ‘countryside professionals. I once listened at length to a Quango employee that his job was made impossible because of the ‘language’ barrier, he being unable to understand the local deep regional accent, himself possessing another deep regional accent, but that wasn’t important to him as he lived in the centre of the nearest City, where ‘thank goodness’ there were people who could talk to. It was however very important, how much insightful and vital information about the landscape he was purporting to be in custodianship of had he ignored due a lost in translation scenario?

Every forest, woodland and tree is unique, be they in a Sitka spruce plantation or in an ancient semi-natural woodland, and not in the same way that a fingerprint is subtly unique, the differences are enormous. Every square metre in a varied landscape like the UK is different to the next.

Forestry is not a science it is a combination of the knowledge of many sciences contained within a landscape and landscapes cannot be understood without understanding the locals who live in it as they are why it is a landscape.

Every time I hear the words ‘expert led’ or ‘expert driven’ I fear the image in my mind is not that of wise old local sage with real knowledge, but a 30 something graduate who has managed to attain the right to wear a logo’d fleece.

Learn something from the British Army, learn to take off your sunglasses and listen, truly listen without interruption to those in the landscape you trespass on.

Earlier I posted, as part of a wee project with Save Our Woods, a Forest Communication Survey on twitter.

It takes less than a minute to complete and is very basic, but should allow us an insight into the current situation with regards Forest Communication at the moment, particularly via the internet.

Please follow this link to complete the survey – Forest Communication Survey

As of 10 minutes ago we had already recieved almost 80 responses. If you want to find out the results, there is a space to leave your email address on the survey.The results and analysis will probably be posted either here or the Save Our Woods site in about a month’s time. If the responses keep following the trend that they were when I last looked in it will be a very interesting result.

The Western regions of the British Isles and France share a wealth of prehistoric monuments. Quite how these standing stones, dolmens and even temples endured the religious hysteria that prevailed over most of the intervening periods of time is testament to their extraordinary presence in our landscapes.

In Britain, I am amongst many others who are slightly dismayed at the chosen method of managing historic cultural sites; the strimmed grass swaths and obligatory ‘garden’ shed / shop /heritage centre for the till, bears absolutely no relevance to the landscape as it was at the time these monuments and other heritage sites were used. I wish that more castle grounds, WWII sites etc., had gardens which represented the horticultural and farming at the time of occupation. And for prehistoric sites it would be nice to see woodland exactly representative in species mix and management as of the time.

In France for the major heritage sites the preservation of the gardens as they were, is considered one of the most important factors in interpreting the site and as such are now internationally recognised but the many small prehistoric sites benefitted from a simple fact that they were often on land of little value and thus the landscape as at the time has never needed to be exploited. It leaves a clear insight into why certain plants are associated with our ancient ancestors and their beliefs. Many Dolmens are situated on the great Paris Basin, which stretches from Poitiers in the West to Caen, East to Calais and South East to Saarbrücken, in Germany.

The huge quantity of prehistoric sites is probably the result of the relative ease, (compared to the heavy geology in West Britain), in using the light limestone, often already weathered into perfect flat rectangles. The limestone cliffs, usually no more than 25 metres high which form the banks of the slow, deep and rich rivers contain many caves and therefore an ideal habitat for humans to live in from prehistoric time’s right up to the present in some places. The geology even allows for pockets of deep rich soil – ‘swallow hole’ prehistoric allotments and even natural field boundaries and when a site is simply useless for any other purpose asides a natural solid base as a travelling route, the construction of a Dolmen is inevitable.

The surrounding ancient woodland to these sites can often be less than a metre high, but interspersed with trees which have found cracks or holes in the limestone plateau. Long lines of Ancient Oak and Small leaved Limes now form field boundaries, but are in fact ancient semi natural woodland following a fault or crevice in the limestone, and strange perfectly circular clumps of trees, enjoying the deep soil of a swallow hole, extend several metres above their neighbours, who are the same age and species, but bonsai trees and woodland, growth restricted due to a lack of soil and pruned by browsing mammals.

By matching times of relevance in the Celtic people’s calendar, (continued into the Christian calendar by way of hefty PR from the Church, altering the dates meaning to match biblical history), it is easy to understand how certain trees and plants become such important symbols to the Celts & Gauls of this great European plateau.   

To stand in the landscape in May as the dwarf hawthorn creates a blanket of white blossom it’s relevance in the celebration of Beltane is evident. During the winter months, the evergreen and strongly scented Juniper is assured a place in the celebrating of nature by our ancestors. And the luminescence of Mistletoe on a grey day, when all other trees have lost their colour is enough to convince anyone of a magic to the plant which now almost defines plant mythology and the ancient druidic religion we have so little knowledge of and which is at risk of being completely based on myth.

As increasing consciousness of the relevance of plants and trees to our forefathers allows for increased funding for research, we as custodians of both the natural and cultural heritage of our land must take more care in connecting the two and thus archaeology becomes a vital element of forest knowledge. The mythology may have taken a stronger foothold than the true history, a history which is likely to be far more interesting as well as absolutely relevant in managing landscapes when faced with increased threats by climate change, which whilst not as rapid, had occurred during the times many of these monuments were part of everyday society.

Last week saw one of the most significant events in land management in recent years for the UK. It was widely advertised but its significance would have been largely lost on many people and indeed deliberately ignored by some. The Creating Landscapes show was born out of the Landscape Juice Network a project run by Philip Voice and which has irreversibly changed the landscape industry for the better.

Land management has historically and remains mainly composed of small, often one man businesses. There are numerous accreditation groups and trader schemes to which a landscaper can affiliate to, but few can affiliate to all of them if any because of the costs involved. For forestry and arboriculture it is slightly more gentlemanly and one can argue the presence of the Forestry Commission, along with more focussed attention on the needs (and safety) of the practitioner by the ICF, RFS and Arb Assoc’ rather than the client, has laid a safety net under the tree professional, (as well as of course a lack of media intervention which has done so much harm to the landscaping industry).

The importance of the Creating Landscapes show and the Landscape Juice Network is that it is practitioner based, their voice seeking what they want and in doing so shaping the industry themselves. It will be a long uphill battle, but as demonstrated by ‘mumsnet’ the power of the voice of the previously disenfranchised being able to question everything in regards to their interests via the internet will have repercussions much more revolutionary than the occupy protests but in the same vein, a subtle approach to questioning corporate power by pure online transparency.

Over 15 years ago I attended a conference with a number of others working in land industry, I forget the title but it was to do with stabilising a company in a bad financial climate. The key note speaker was a city whizz kid, clearly ill at ease in a relatively remote highland hotel but who persevered against the increasing dissent of the audience to advocate the use of withholding contractor payments, being able to discover non existent flaws in their work etc., It was the first insight I had into the new mechanisms of corporate UK and it was distasteful. He was largely oblivious to a fact that both government and unfortunately even those on the periphery of land industry, including NGO staff, also ignore; that nobody enters the land management industry to make money. It is either: a) an inherited profession or b) a love of working outdoors and a lifestyle choice – and thus a desire to protect landscapes and their biodiversity is an inherent desire.

The knowledge and skills needed to become a good arborist or landscaper requires considerable and expensive training, combined with: the huge material and equipment costs, very expensive insurance, a mountain of regulations to adhere to, a lack of any real protection from the continual influx of rogue traders or the non paying clients and a general ignorance of the merits of a practitioner by both media and policy makers – it is easy to see why many assume we are simply insane. Certainly why have we not seen a significant shift towards larger, more corporate landscaping firms? Instead many new small outfits start up annually simply due to the love of working outdoors. Many of the larger firms are increasingly dependent on an untrained workforce and maybe there is a stalemate where in reality the clients know that they are usually getting a highly professional service for the least amount of money by using the smaller outfits. The practitioner is determined to work in their chosen environment, because they cannot work in any other interior environment. But it has not meant escape from that middle management fog which regularly churns out policy, PR, and guidelines which do nothing more than slow procedure up.

The industry from an outsider seems to be dominated by the Quangos’ and land owning NGOs who have embraced corporate imagery therefore to believe that practitioners cannot be trusted is an easy opinion to form. The internet allows practitioners for the first time to tell their side of the story and it is uncomfortable reading for some who retaliate by calling them ‘mischievous’.

Simply replace the job titles of those watching Andre with a list of Quango and NGO names, (all of which of course contain the job titles prescribed) in this picture and you will get the idea of what the practitioner is up against:

Can you swap Andre’s role by a volunteer? Absolutely not but in land industry it has been consistently tried and is certainly seen as being part of a solution for sustainable forest management and land management in the UK, even going so far as to take the ludicrous step to suggest that this fulfils the social element in the triple bottom line of sustainable development.

The internet has a massive role in providing a voice for the disenfranchised and will increase as policy makers continue to close the door. And as the LJN has proved the real corporate world associated with the industry have realised this and started to endorse and even sponsor the transparent practitioner sites. When will those who mimic the corporations follow this new lead and finally learn about the industry they seek to control.