THE VALUE OF A TREE: Nothing or Something!?
To whoever this may concern,
Apropos a telephone conversation yesterday I undertook to provide some internet references to contextualise the proposition I was putting given that we were for whatever reason very during that conversation we were often speaking at cross purposes relative to place placemaking, CULTURALlandscaping and my research.
Make of this information what you will as I will in regard to assertions made to me – essentially intuition based so far as I can tell. The antithesis to “monitorisation” of trees is an interesting idea albeit that that wasn’t and isn’t the point I was attempting to promote. Yes, I was suggesting that it is possible to put a dollar value on a tree but that is not at all the same thing as “monitorisation”. Value relative to a standard gives a subjective value based on other factors as it is with gold.
Anyway, anyone may well glean something from the information provided here and I trust that they are able to.
What is of real interest here in the case of this DA the assessments made have essentially been made in a vacuum and the outcome is surprising to the extent that without a ‘standard’ to work to the deliberation turned out as it did and without SECTION 65 of thec Localn Govt. Act being fulsomely complied with.
It is strange what can be achieved by subtraction.
https://onetreeaustralia.blogspot.com/p/stategic-plan.html
GO TO https://woodblasted.blogspot.com/
CLICK HERE TO SEE MORE
A CULTURAL LANDSCAPING STRATEGY
PURPOSE
To acknowledge trees in their places and the part they play in cultural landscaping and environmental viability … ONEtree at a time.
OBJECTIVES
• To respectfully honour trees, ONEtree at a time, within an ECOnetwork and the circumstances within which humanity now exists while looking ahead in a changing world.
• To build, develop and assist in sustaining trees in places, in context of their ecosystems and in their CULTURALlandscapes – urban, rural, industrial and in 'natural environments'.
• To initiate projects and programs that belong to and in places that honour and celebrate the important contributions trees make to cult CULTURALlandscapes and the communities that shape and make them and belong to and in them.
• To commission 'makers' , cultural producers and/or networks of makers, to realise a work/s work collaboratively or cooperatively relative to a ONEtree initiative.
• To generate and seek funding and in-kind support for ONEtree initiates within CULTURALlandscapes – local, regional, national.
• To publish, promote and market ONEtree initiates in CULTURALlandscapes to the Communities of Ownership and Interest relative to ONEtree initiates and the cultural discourses that give such projects sustenance.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Notwithstanding that open question that has been hanging in the air forever to do with 'placedness' and CULTURALlandscapes being the imperative that shapes and makes 'human cultural realities' – albeit that there is indeed another way to think about all this.
Alternatively, communities might see it as being that it is 'human cultural realities' that ultimately determines 'placedness' and thus it is their placedness that is the 'shaping mechanism' in CULTURALlandscapes.
Whatever it is, currently humanity is faced with dynamic change largely of its own making and there is no escaping that reality. – ideologically, politically socially and culturally.
When trees are imagined as a 'resource' – just so much wood – trees become vulnerable, sometimes expendable, often valueless – typically so and all too often. Importantly, in the context of a cultural landscaping where 'places' are understood to belong to 'people' rather than people and communities belonging to, and in, their cultural landscape, their places, this can become a point of conflict relative to the imperatives embedded in value systems and a place’s placedness.
It is particularly so in the context of:
• Dynamic change relative to impending climate change; and
• Cultural change relative to emerging and evolving technologies; and
• The increasing likelihood of virulent global pandemics; and consequently
• Cultural realities are faced with managing 'their place' in evolving and sustainable economies and in ecosystems within which 'trees' as 'carbon sinks and climate modifiers' play an important part.
ONEtree at a time, these things might well be addressed in yet to be realised ways working from old and largely redundant knowledge and value systems. Moreover, in the context of what might be imagined as NEWtechnologies in a post(?) pandemic crisis and the as yet to be discovered unanticipated consequences of 'change' where trees’ values shift and collectively trees.
Sadly, what humanity is doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what much of humanity is haplessly doing to doing to itself and to one another. Because of a long and purposeful life Sir David Attenborough has observed that “ancient trees are precious. There is little else on Earth that plays host to such a rich community of life within a single living organism.” So, the trees we encountered while out on a stroll reveal a lot about a places’ value, its soul, its realities, its deep histories. In reality any culture is no more valuable than any of its trees.
ONEtree at a time, every tree we honour and value, we invest in our placedness, and we add value to our in CULTURALlandscapes. The stock market is filled with individuals who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing. We need to understand the underlying value of our investment in our CULTURALlandscapes rather than just focusing on its NOWprice. This highlights the need for a fundamental analysis of operational value systems and a focus on a place’ long-term potential and value – and by extension a place’s trees.
A TREE VALUING STRATEGY.
• Deem that a tree in an urban landscape has a dollar vale based on its volume in litres; and
• Deem that the dollar value can be determined subjectively relative to environmental, social, cultural factors per litre with minimum being $1 per litre and the maximum $10 per litre.
• Deem that tree’s ‘value’ – dollar, environmental, social, and cultural – will be assessed by an independent ‘e4xpert’ at arm’s length; and
• Deem that if a tree is to be removed from a cultural landscape the value of its loss will be offset by an agreed compensatory strategy – fiscal, technical, heritage, cultural, whatever – that is commensurate with the circumstance and relative to a tree’s or community of trees ‘deemed value/s’.
GO TO https://tazmuze7250.blogspot.com/p/ylork-park-elm-da.html
REPRESENTATION: I submit here my objection to the ill-considered removal of this significant tree located at York Park 2 Invermay Road Invermay and I do so having considered a number of issues. Notably I contacted the named planning officer for the DA seeking further information relevant to the determination that this tree in this place and was unsuccessful in receiving any further information beyond the scant and subjective information embodied in the Development Application.
Curiously, I was directed to the CEO should I wish to gain further information relevant to this DA and I have not done so under the current circumstances. However, it needs to be said that this DA bears all the hallmarks of being put together in the absence of any significant community consultation. In addition, there is no apparent evidence that there has been any attempt to place a ‘value’ of any kind on this significant tree situated as it is on a heritage site.
That is concerning in the light of the city’s ‘GREENING LAUNCESTON POLICY’ and Council’s 2019 decollation of a CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
In the here and now it needs to be said that at every opportunity trees need to be valued and likewise appropriately evaluated by professionals with the skills, experience and domain knowledge . There is no evidence than any attempt has been made give this tree a value and then determine what needs to be determined in the light of the value ascribed. The attitude adopted at the beginning of a task, more than anything else, will affect its successful outcome or otherwise.
So, what values can be ascribed to this tree?
In May in Adelaide the State Govt set some benchmarks for ‘valuing’ trees in Adelaide – see notes below. This is more than interesting when considered against discussions elsewhere about placing a monetary value on a tree. This has now been done in Adelaide.
There have also been discussions about establishing a formular for ascribing a dollar value to a tree. Given that it is possible to calculate the volume a tree occupies it is relatively simple task ascribe a value per litre of volume of canopy.
Say a litre of volume is given the value of $1, and a tree’s canopy is calculated as being 1,000 litres its value will be $1,000. If it were 10,000 litres its assigned value would be $10,000. If as is the case in Adelaide this sum is dedicated to offsetting the loss of canopy via the planting of other trees towards canopy restoration, real world pragmatic accountability becomes a possibility. There is no evidence of this class of thinking reflected in the proposition that this tree can and should be removed without consequence.
- This elm’s canopy value has not been ascribed and that is concerning!
- The tree’s carbon sequestration – current and potential – has not been evaluated in any way and that too is concerning!
- Council’s planners have made a determination – apparently in isolation – that this tree impedes the design process for the development and no evidence as to how or why this subjective assessment has been arrived at, and that too is concerning!
- There has not been any apparent consideration given to what happens to the wood/timber in this tree in the event the tree is felled, and that too is concerning!
- There is now evidence that this tree’s heritage values have been considered in the architect’s brief, and that too is concerning!
- Moreover, given York Park’s extensive Community of Ownership and Interest (COI), there is no evidence on show that talks about taking the COI’s concerns, sensibilities or cultural values into account in reference to the overall development and/or this tree’s significance, and that too is concerning given that what is at hand is an exercise in placemaking!
In the light of all this I submit that the case for this tree’s removal has NOT been made and thus every effort must now be made and every step taken to preserve it despite the officer’s subjective and one dimensional assessment – essentially made in isolation.
Ray Norman
Cultural Producer, Cultural Geographer & Researcher
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
eMAIL: raynorman7250@gmail.com
TREE VALUE REFERENCE
PREMIER: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peter_Malinauskas
The South Australian Government is taking immediate action to better protect Adelaide’s urban tree canopy and safeguard large, mature trees from destruction.
New planning regulations have been introduced to protect a greater number of trees, delivering on the government’s commitment to implement Australia’s best practice tree protections.
Taking immediate effect, the new regulations will protect trees with a smaller trunk circumference. The trunk size for regulated trees will be reduced from two metres to one metre, while significant trees will go from three metres to two.
Exemptions for trees based on distance from homes and pools has also been reduced. Now only trees within three metres from a home or pool will be able to be removed without approval, whereas the old regulations allowed the removal of trees within 10 metres.
The new regulations place pruning limits on regulated and significant trees allowing only 30 percent of the tree’s canopy to be removed every five years.
The changes also provide flexibility to adapt the exempt species list to local needs and community views through a notice on the PlanSA website.
Fees for destroying or removing protected trees will also increase, better reflecting the cost of tree replacement. Offset fees for a regulated tree increase from $326 to $1000 and from $489 to $1500 for a significant tree.
The money collected from the removal of trees goes into either local councils’ urban tree funds or into the State Government’s Planning and Development Fund. The money is used to either plant, establish and maintain trees, or to purchase land to preserve or accommodate the planting of new trees.
These actions recognise the important role Adelaide’s mature trees play in promoting community wellbeing, supporting biodiversity and reducing the urban heat effect.
These changes were guided by bipartisan recommendations from the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of Parliament which had been asked for advice on further tree protections following their Inquiry into the Urban Forest.
The new regulations were also developed with advice from the State Planning Commission, based on University of Adelaide research, and recommendations from the Expert Panel reviewing the implementation of South Australia’s planning system.
The Minister for Planning has also requested that the State Planning Commission:
· Prepare a design standard to provide minimum urban tree planting and maintenance requirements for public areas in greenfield developments.
· Amend planning rules to also consider a tree’s urban canopy contribution as part of assessing whether it can be removed.
· Strengthen planning rules to support design innovation and flexibility to retain large trees.
· Investigate ways to fast-track approvals for tree removal within three metres of a dwelling or swimming pool where offset fees are paid.
· Extend urban tree canopy protections to greenfield developments in ‘Master Planned Neighbourhood Zones’ and townships.
· Extend regulated and significant tree protections to townships, capturing urban areas beyond metropolitan Adelaide.
Existing development applications and approvals will have 12 months to be actioned before being impacted by these changes.
A table outlining some of the key changes can be found below and for further information visit the PlanSA website(external site).
Quotes
Attributable to Nick Champion
South Australia will go from having the weakest tree protection policies in the country to the most comprehensive, as we deliver on our commitment to protect and improve our urban canopy.
Tree protection is the number one issue that is raised with me, and these new policy additions means a greater number of trees in this state will be protected from the chop.
These changes support work to create the first urban greening strategy for Adelaide and help deliver the government’s commitment to increase greening in our neighbourhoods, improve urban biodiversity and address the loss of mature trees.
The new regulations will come into effect immediately to safeguard all trees that are protected under these changes.
Attributable to Joanna Wells, Conservation SA Outreach Coordinator
Conservation SA congratulates the State Government on delivering these much-needed tree laws to all South Australians. They represent a significant body of work, by community members, the conservation sector, and the government.
Conservation SA is pleased that South Australia now has tree protections that recognise the need to protect existing canopy.
Tree canopy and biodiversity is recognised as significant contributors to both mental and physical health: when our trees win, we all win. This is indeed a huge win for the people of South Australia, on so many fronts and across so many portfolios.
These are significant improvements on current legislation and the further work required of the State Planning Commission will see creative thinking to enable the retention of even more trees become 'business as usual' for developers.
We're pleased that the government has embraced the evidence-based approach taken by this community campaign for tree protections and worked to halt the loss of canopy across Adelaide.
Attributable to Mayor Dean Johnson, Local Government Association President
These changes are a positive outcome toward better protecting trees across South Australia and are what the LGA has been calling for in our advocacy to government.
Councils have made it clear that under the current regulations, it was far too easy to remove trees or excessively prune them with little consequence. These amendments take meaningful steps to close these loopholes.
To achieve the tree canopy cover target outlined in the Greater Adelaide 30-Year Plan and the Urban Greening Strategy, it's critical we increase tree plantings on both public and private land.
The local government sector looks forward to continuing working alongside the State Government to achieve this.
Ray Norman
Cultural Producer, Cultural Geographer & Researcher
<zingHOUSEunlimited>
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
eMAIL: raynorman7250@gmail.com
