Arboriculture Audit 2006
24th April 2007
Firstly let me say that for me to finally have a chance to tell you all exactly what I see as right, but more importantly, what I see as wrong with this industry will be such a release, you cannot imagine.
I have become frustrated as I have worked within the ISA, but from that frustration of long standing has come a deep desire to actually do something meaningful about it and I hope, bring some insights, good ideas and more importantly, strategic goals.I’m not the kind of person who can work my niggles into a tight little bitter pill and choke it down.
No. That’s not healthy or good for anybody’s psyche. So this is the result. 22 years in the making a cathartic outpouring of my heart felt ideas and ambitions for this industry we call Arboriculture.Actually, that’s a good place to start. The word “Arboriculture”.
Cast your minds back 8 years. Some of you may remember my campaign to get the word better recognized and used. That followed an article in Hort Week which publicized the 1998 ISA International conference that we hosted in Birmingham . That article led directly to Yellow Pages and the other directories establishing a signpost “Arboriculture – See Tree Work”. It also led indirectly to me changing the name of my company from Cheshire Tree Surgeons to Cheshire Arboriculture after all (thank you Andrew Cowan) I had to be willing to lead by example. A long story in itself, and still on going.
Anywhat, in spite of all I and ISA could do, the word Arboriculture is still not being effectively promoted. Ask yourself this, if Gynecologists didn’t use and promote their collective noun, what would they be known as?
Even so the malaise persists. To illustrate, about 6 years ago I was discussing this common problem with a pivotal figure in the AA’s publicity committee. After explaining to him what I was doing and why in an attempt to make this an issue on which ISA and AA could have a joint and common initiative, we discussed the issues until I was stopped and stunned into silence by him saying (in defense of what was becoming clear as his lack of support for me) “but David my clients have trees in their gardens, not Arb’s.....”
Can you see why I was stunned silent?
While numerous retorts come to mind now, (goodness they queue up clamoring for airtime since I have had years to think about it), at the time nothing meaningful came out. I extracted myself from what was obviously a fruitless conversation with a banal shot to the effect “well why don’t you call your organisation the Tree Association then?”
There’s a problem here people, it is to do with our collective identity, or lack of it. That is perhaps a result of the maverick tendency strong in all of us related to the rigors of the job (or vocation) we have chosen and the characteristics that make us suitable for success in that difficult job.
As a group of strong individuals, independent spirits and characters we don’t always play well as a team. Apart from that, the word isn’t attractive and we have the onerous task of making it well known and well used by the public.
We need them to perceive Arboriculturists as professional Tree Surgeons. Whatever the problems, we have to overcome them and we have to become righteously proud of being professional Arboriculturists.
The B side is, if we can drive the word into the public psyche, it’s such an unusual word that it will become instantly iconic. That will only come through strong leadership working towards long term goals and that will only work if YOU demand better representation and a publicity effort placed in the right hands.
The barometer of whether that publicity effort has worked is already in place. It is the category heading “Arboriculture” in Yellow Pages. Presently it’s unused, but when Professional Arboriculturists populate that page and we have a signpost under “Professional Tree Work – See Arboriculture”, that is when this industry is showing signs of coming of age.
Personally I think we are ready. What do YOU think?
Another example of an industry coming of age and becoming a profession is how it designs its career structure. Starting with Careers advisors in schools, we don’t reach out as an industry to that influential group of people. I know some colleges do, Capel Manor are trying for example with their innovative ' Careers in Arboriculture Roadshow' which sees the Arboriculture & Countryside team visiting schools to introduce the pupils and careers officers to the opportunities a career in arboriculture would lead to via a hands on approach. Participants are introduced to climbing equipment, always popular, which is followed by a demonstration of tree climbing culminating with them having a go, but the industry as promoted by it’s representative bodies? No, nothing meaningful.
However, if ISA and AA do fully engage in such an initiative, as currently organised they would duplicate and no doubt try to negate the value of each other’s work so that neither are seen to be left behind, that’s what sometimes happens. Arboriculture is the victim, that means You if you are an arborist, again. However, even if they rise above this artificial rift and the two organisations collaborate creatively, and given the personalities involved that is so unlikely, even so, IF they do, what is a careers advisor likely to see? They are likely to see a dangerous, difficult, manual job with a burn out clause and no safety net (in the careers sense).
Why is that you might ask. Well I can tell you…Back in the early 90’s I became aware that there is a discrepancy in the taxation laws, or more specifically the ages at which certain professions could arrange their pensions to activate. The ability to draw a pension early is a specific dispensation for professions that are naturally short by virtue of the rigors they put on a person’s body or other stress. Such provisions can accommodate a mid life career change and facilitate that change by allowing the pension to cut in thereby smoothing the transition, re-training and a drop in income.
These pension arrangements apply to the Police, deep sea divers, footballers, airline pilots and numerous others all directly comparable to our profession in one way or another.
So, in investigating this and identifying the problem, I obviously came to talk to the Inland Revenue (IR). They were sympathetic and understood exactly what I was trying to establish. They thought it was a good case. However they could not do a thing about an individual enquirer. They wanted such cases to be presented by Industry Representative Bodies.
The only problem, they don’t see ISA or AA on their own as truly representative of the industry.
We Arboriculturists have as a result inadequate representation, so we have no strategically designed pension option negotiated on our behalf with the IR, so Arborists can’t draw a pension until they are 65.
That means that the “career” isn’t viable or recommendable to a schools career advisor because anybody entering that profession is likely to have to move from it after say 15-25 years, long before retirement.
Therefore, whatever Capel, other enlightened colleges, (or ISA or AA or ISA & AA for that matter) might do, careers advisors will quite understandably push school leavers to consider anything but Arboriculture. And who can blame them.
The crazy thing, as we all know, this is the best job in the world. Bar None!
We will never be automated out of a job as Foresters were by forest harvesters and every day a new challenge, a new location and a never ending learning curve. This is a job for life and I mean that in all its interpretations.
Now the industry has to make Arboriculture part of a viable career.So what is the solution? Well it’s obvious isn’t it, the arboricultural industry needs and deserves better representation and better leadership from a body that the IR will recognize and negotiate with.
I haven’t kept this under my hat, but since I exposed this problem back in 1994 what has happened? Nothing, that’s what.
What we have now is a classical 2 party system typical in UK politics, where each side watches and tries to outdo each other or undo the good of the other if they appear to get the advantage afforded by actually doing some good.
The duplication of effort is bad enough and unlike UK politics in the wider sense (funded by the ridiculously overtaxed taxpayer), we can’t afford it. The petty infighting and negativity is terrible and it dogs this industry by slowing its progress to a snails pace. The failure of the AA to creatively and meaningfully engage in the co-organisation of the ISA European conference which was scheduled for 2008 in Liverpool is a classic example.
We, (and by “We” I mean ISA and AA) have lost the plot and as a result we represent nobody but our own petty self interests and paranoia. We certainly don’t represent You and I will prove that to you next conclusively.
The problem was never more obvious than events have been demonstrated since the referendum that happened July 2003.
That referendum asked a simple question of AA and ISA Members. "Do you support the principle of the AA and the ISA (UK and I) becoming one new organisation to provide a unified democratic voice for British and Irish arboriculture, yes or no?"
What did you say? Anybody remember the result?
For a landslide it wasn’t well publicised at all. Strange that don’t you think. Indeed it may have been swept under the carpet for all the practical effect it has had. Perhaps the result wasn’t what certain people wanted?
I will remind you all of the result of that referendum now. 85.2% of AA members who voted said – Yes, AA and ISA should merge
80% of ISA members who voted said – Yes, AA and ISA should merge
That’s incredible. That’s insurmountable in its conclusion. The only interpretation being that the members of AA and the ISA said both organisations …… SHOULD MERGE!
Now over 3 years later on, it hasn’t happened. I can reveal to you in fact it isn’t even close. Doubt me? Check the AA’s recent “Notice of 2006 AGM, Agenda and Background Papers”. No mention whatsoever! It has actually slipped off their agenda.
Perhaps if the allegedly elected leadership of the AA ignore it, and the clear instructions of 85% of their members, it will all go away. Who exactly do they represent? That’s a travesty. That’s quite simply profoundly wrong. We have been told to do something by our members and we haven’t done it.WE COMITTEE MEMBERS OF ISA AND AA, HAVE FAILED OUR MEMBERS!
We have failed to merge, whatever that takes, nobody is interested in the problems, they are all to do with petty personality differences anyway, who cares, we failed.
As a direct result I represent only 20% of the ISA members in this regard. That is completely unacceptable to me. I want to represent the wishes and ambitions of 80% of my members and I will commit to try to win around the 20% by showing them real benefits that will accrue from merging.
This article is my attempt to represent 80%.
My opposite number in the AA is much worse off. He represents the expressed interests and ambitions of only 14.8% of his members in this regard.
While I can’t speak for him as to if that is acceptable to him or not, the whole thing is incredible.
You have spoken. Your weight of numbers and the polarity of your opinion demanded prompt action. You have been let down and I unreservedly apologise for that but this is no way for either organisation to act.
Until such ridiculous expression of petty self interest and prejudice are swept away, these associations are doomed to be seen as being weak and poorly representative of this sector of industry and our progress will be damned by this rift.
Now I am sure that the continued unprofessional representation is completely unacceptable to most real arborists, so may I suggest that we get on with the job of putting these two dynamic organisations on the same track so that you, and I and this industry are properly, creatively and consistently represented?
A simple question to all Arborists. Do you still want that? Answers should be shouted at your favorite organisation’s AGM (if you want results, lobby because obviously, polite reasoned arguments will be summarily ignored).
I hope that it is obvious that there is no lack of vision or willingness to compromise from the ISA side and a better opportunity for meaningful, creative dialogue leading to a conclusion never existed before now.
However based on my experience I suggest to all AA members that you will find deep seated resentment and resistance to genuine negotiations and that resistance will only be blown away by a groundswell of expressed opinions.
That resentment and resistance finds expression in the fact that, although there is an item in the AA AGM “liaison with other bodies” Jim Quaife the outgoing AA Chairman diligently, expertly and (I have to say it) Ostrich like, never once mentions ISA.
It has taken just over 3 years for them to wait until they hoped it could be quietly forgotten.
You spoke (well 85% and 80% of you did), your landslide instructed, they waited until they thought you forgot and it just slipped off the agenda.
Is that how you expect your votes/instructions to be actioned?
I ask again, who do the people who put together the AA AGM agenda really represent? Don’t you wonder? I can tell you, as an AA member of long standing myself, I wonder and I would like answers.I am afraid that you are going to have to be rude enough to demand that your wishes result in actions, but more importantly, you are going to have to shout en-masse if your wishes are going to result in actions that lead to a conclusion. Otherwise you will see a continuation of the lip service that has been paid to date to your expressed desires as conclusively measured in that referendum.
And what’s the conclusion that we should seek? Well it’s one organisation representing Arboriculture in this group of islands we call home. One organisation properly and responsibly representing YOU.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting.
You see, while the infighting, intrigue, petty self interest and frustrations resulting have really got me down, the opportunities that I have seen, opportunities held back by this ongoing malaise, are fantastic.
That’s why I am writing to you today, not from frustration, or at least not primarily but also and more significantly out of hope for a much better future.
Let’s look at a few issues that in modern business dialect would be called convergences.
We live in a heavily populated set of islands in a geographically unusually temperate zone at the end of a warm Atlantic oceanic current with consequentially high rainfall and few harsh winters.
Then there is the fact that global warming has sensitized the whole population to ecological issues.
We have a rich history with the most strategically important factor being the legacy of the British Empire, our seagoing explorers and most specifically, the plant hunters that traveled with them.
Those few convergences have given us an ideal environment with the widest possible mixture and distribution of the range of tree species collected from all corners of the globe, and this unique mixture has been established here over hundreds of years.
We have exotic species that we deal with every day. Consider and contrast if you will for example working in this industry in Florida . There 90% of your work would be on 3 species! Would you get the same job satisfaction, the same challenge and interest?
Then, as a result of many things, our planning laws are highly evolved. Yes they are covered in red tape and the vagaries of the local politics of the planning committee and are imperfect, but in terms of the Tree Protection element of our legislation, we lead the world and rightly so, after all, we have a living legacy of our rich history to protect and small typical plot sizes to squeeze them on to and a population that crave open aspects to the south to make the most of our brief (usually wet) summers.
Then there is a peculiar trait that we have. We are innovators. We create things as a nation, it’s something we are good at and it’s been recognised by lots of people and nations in history. Consider the value of that innovative gene on our history. The Spitfire, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the jet engine, Flemming there are many innovations and innovators. Our history is littered by them.
Commercially successful innovators though, are there anywhere near as many of them? You know, our equivalents of the Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie, Soichiro Honda, Steve Jobs etc?
No, there’s nowhere near as many are there? And look at the names I have chosen and think about the fields in which they made their fortunes (for themselves, and their country). Bell – telecommunications (wasn’t it a Scotsman that invented the phone), Honda – motorcycles (hmmm we had the dominant bike industry for a while didn’t we), Jobs – computers (and where was ENIAC, the first computer built? Go on, have a guess)?
That’s a shame. No, it’s far worse, that’s a result of many things but significantly including some nasty, self defeating and base instincts that I think we should all try to rise above.
Think about these as examples…..
1. Humility. Consider Frank Whittle. He didn’t feel that patenting his “Jet Engine” was something he should do. Not cricket n’all that. So in not protecting his birthright, his innovation and his Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) he gave an industry away to the rest of the world.
His altruistic gesture robbed him and this country of something that was his and perhaps also ours by right. The stable political and social systems that created a society within which free thinkers can get a fabulous education and express that education and that nurturing, stable society by actually creating value. Well perhaps that nurturing environment should be re-paid by those same innovators (and please Mr Brown I’m NOT suggesting a new Patent Tax). That protection of the environment that created and nurtured their skills and opportunities, needs to be fed so that future generations have the same opportunities and that co-lateral nurturing happens naturally if people protect their own IPR.
If we don’t value this innovation gene we will surely loose it. Then of course, as M Whittle was British it would be likely that he would set up here somewhere. Frank didn’t and as a result we all ride on planes with “jet” engines instead of “Whittle ®” engines (a good sprinkling of which would show,… “Made in Britain ”).
2. Jealousy and consequential failure to recognise and value innovators. We don’t as a nation hold the people who create value in high esteem. Quite the opposite in fact. If we see our peer’s and competitors innovating and getting ahead of us in business, is our first instinct to approach them, congratulate them on what you admire about what they are doing right and negotiate a license or other fee so that you can engage their innovation legitimately on your own and your clients behalf? Come on now, we all know our first instinct is to try to negate their advantage by plagiarising their innovation and re-inventing it as our own while pulling them down a peg or two.
I am hopefully also leading by example in my attempts to set in place mechanisms by which we can rise above our base instincts and evolve into a more competitive and more inclusive business model. Incidentally it’s a business model that cannot fail to light a fire under the pace of evolution and it’s a business model of which there is a practical example, it’s called the Consulting Arborist Society.
Quite simply, that organisation provides a path and practical help for people with innovations within the scope of consulting arboriculture so that they are encouraged to release their latest innovations. Then we protect their IPR and facilitate training events at which the product developer can deliver training on the proper use of his product to people capable of exploiting his innovations commercially.
The last part of that relationship is an ongoing one wherein the product user pays a license fee so that the innovator keeps him up to date with all new developments. That process establishes and then maintains the link between innovator and product user and keeps the results of that interaction (in CAS - tree reports) up to the latest developments and therefore keeps them legally adequate.
That model in itself could serve Arboriculture very well if broadly adapted and adopted.
Innovation is a national product and a bankable commodity if we choose to consider it as such. We have to cherish and reward innovation and innovators or give away something that gives our nations and our economies a well earned advantage.
By valuing and rewarding innovation, the people who do the research and push back the boundaries of knowledge including the practical application of that knowledge will have every reason to bring their best work out for us all to play with.
So, there are numerous convergences, historical, geographical, climactic, political genetic and in terms of the elements of the equation that have come along more recently AA, ISA, merger talks and better business models designed to serve the needs of the members served (CAS is an example).
All of these convergences give us immense potential to learn from what has gone before, blow out the cobwebs and to put something in place right now that will change how we do business as an industry for ever.
We have to evolve in sync with the new challenges that we can see coming, and those we can’t.
Those convergences and many of the strategic opportunities for our Industry on a world stage, are being squandered as we focus on in-fighting.
We need to stop and regain the horizon so we can reach our true potential..
So, what should this new entity be called?
Well certainly the name needs to have the word Arboriculture in it and we need to make best use of that word by making its use more common in the English language.
Arboriculture (noun) The professional establishment, maintenance and care of trees.
Everyone should know the word and it’s real meaning. That’s our first job as a serious industry. To drive the word and it’s meaning home and in doing so, make it our true home.
Given that, what name would satisfy or placate the stick-in-the-mud’s, allowing them to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new era? After all, they will like it once they get over their fear of change, so it has to be recognisable and have history. People here like lineage.
What name would reflect the fact that 2000 people favor AA with their membership and 500 favor ISA (and a fair few from each, me included, favor both with our membership).
Then there is the fact that the ISA represents an established pathway to the broader Arboricultural world via its 20,000 members, don’t forget that.
More importantly than all that though, what name could reflect a seed change in our attitude to our industry, our faith in our innovation and our products. What simple name would show that our focus is where it should be, on the horizon and on the future rather than our petty differences?
You see, we should be promoting, licensing, training, exporting and controlling our products, expertise, and the advanced nature of our industry so that those who come after us can build on our advances.
Please understand, I don’t mean “advanced nature of our industry” in any condescending or nationalistic way. No. I mean advanced simply as the practical expression of all of the convergences that I outlined before.
Those convergences are accidents of genetics and history that naturally favor Arboriculture here and we are the beneficiaries of those cumulative benefits, or at least we could be, if we could just get our house in order.
Well there is only one name that serves all of those purposes for me. It defines an outward looking ethos and would state for the records that UK Arboriculture has a champion and a facilitator capable of promoting and representing our industry.
It would say that this industry of ours has come of age, got its act together, mediated between the mavericks and the old guard and is ready to put its best foot forward.
It’s a name that in itself has the potential to inspire this industry and everybody in it as an expression of our ambition and our capabilities. The name…? :
The International Arboricultural Association
I will leave you with that thought for a while. At least, until the 85% and 80% have had their say.
David Lloyd-Jones
ISA UK+I President