Supported by the Arborcentre

UKTC Archive

tree-care.info for tree advice

Re: ICF/RICS

Subject: Re: ICF/RICS
From: Scott Cullen
Date: Mar 07 2005 15:52:36
ASCA has a very comprehensive Standards of Professional Practice intended
for consultants. ASCA has had to back away from enforcement becuase it is a
big administrative burden and risk. ISA introduced a new practice code for
BCMA and has committed to enforcement.
The pattern I'm seeing in terms of arb CPD at least here in US is that there
are way more offereings than anyone who needs to work can actually attend.
CAS had me do two UK CPD events in 2003. Has offered to do more on any
topics of interest getting appropriate faculty. And what I'm hearing is
that the issue is insufficient demand.
So these may be issues that ICF will find solved moving to RICS, but it is
not clear to me the same problems exist for arboriculture. Admittedly I'm
viewing this from afar. 

SC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Barrell" <Jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk> 
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: ICF/RICS


I don't think ICF is giving up.  I think they are acknowledging that
they are not able to provide the level of service that the larger
professional bodies are managing.  Specific examples that spring to mind
are an inadequate code of ethics and professional conduct procedures,
inadequate CPD services, limited best practice guidance, very limited
facilities for supported publications, poor delivery of training,
variable effectiveness at representing the Profession (quite effective
for forestry and about zilch for arboriculture, which is probably a
staffing issue rather than any intent), etc. 

--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/

Current thread