This paper considers a particular aspect of tree risk management, namely the risk to human lives from falling trees or parts of trees. At the time that the work was carried out this risk had, at least anecdotally, acquired a level of concern among practitioners that it was leading to unnecessary removal of valuable trees as the result of a fear of litigation under health and safety legislation. Initial research revealed that the overall risk was actually extremely low and there was very little apparent public concern, except perhaps locally in the immediate aftermath of a serious incident. Arboriculturists and land managers were confused as to what might be considered reasonable by the courts and the regulator (who of course had no expertise in tree safety management). Expert witnesses tended to focus on faults in the tree that had fallen and disputes about whether it was reasonable to expect that this should have been detected and dealt with.
There was therefore a need for clear and carefully considered guidelines and a stakeholder group (The National Tree Safety Group) was formed, which was a broad partnership of professional bodies, various groups representing landowners and managers with large tree holdings, and organisations with heritage or conservation interests. It produced guidance, Common sense risk management of trees, which advocated a risk/benefit assessment and provided a number of illustrated case study examples.
This paper discusses its approach to a number of issues that emerged:
- Different stakeholders had very different approaches towards the issue of tree retention
- In a number of situations routine industry practice would not suggest inspection of some or all of the trees, where they were only infrequently accessed by people.This was felt to need clear evaluation to justify its reasonableness if an incident happened.
- Context was key – which allowed tree management to be structured towards retaining and enhancing the benefits identified for particular trees at particular sites, incorporating an appropriate consideration of the proximity of ‘targets’ (people and property).
- Many of the benefits were societal (or at least shared by many stakeholders in an area) while the duty of care lay with individuals, which could potentially exacerbate risk aversion.