UKTC Archive

RE: query

Subject: RE: query
From: Addison, Gilbert
Date: Mar 19 2009 08:23:04
John - There is the matter of the Habitats Regulations which we failed
to implement as originally intended and it took a European Court
decision against the UK to bring us into line. 

Gilbert Addison | Tree and Countryside Officer |Breckland Council
Office: 01362 XXXXXX Fax: 01362 XXXXXX 
DDI:   01362 XXXXXX | Mobile: na
Elizabeth House, Walpole Loke, Dereham NR19 1EE |



-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Heuch [] 
Sent: 18 March 2009 16:45
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: query

This is a repeating pattern across the EU system. Once a policy has been
agreed as a Directive then there is little that the UK would do except
look at how to absorb it into UK legislation.  This has quitely gone on
for years and years, most people think it has the legislation has been
born in the UK when in fact is has come from the EU.


I am afraid to say that you sound as if you have been reading the 
Mail or something similar. EC Directives do not come out of nowhere.
They get discussed AND AGREED by member states long before they appear
in public.
The idea that a member state has to reluctantly legislate for a
directive imposed on it against its will is unlikely, although the
workings of majority voting now make this possible.


This arrangement is not secret and has only been going on "quietly"
because it works reasonably well and to our benefit. Nothing "comes from
the EU" out of the blue and many initiatives have "UK" fingerprints all
over them.


There are many more examples just in environmental policy. If it were
not for some very broad minded people in 

the EU we would not have SR Coppice


?? Well the UK was working on this in the early 1980s if not before 
as a
result of the 1970s oil crisis. The EC provided some research funds for
coordination, but the UK government through ETSU I think it was called
was a prime funder..long before the EU even existed.


I think having seen some of the excelent research coming out of parts of

Eastern Europe over the last 20 years that to disregard their ability is

narrow minded.


I worked with a Polish post grad in the early 80s. He was appalled at

poor lab facilities. I made no reference to institutional or individual
ability. The relevance of data involving tree risk from Eastern Europe
to UK conditions however has to be questioned.


 The point about EU policy is that it would undoubtedly redress the
balance in the argument more towards the tree and would put risk in the
correct context.


I don't see why this should be so automatically. It is not 
legislation that is causing us to consider the need to manage risks
associated with trees, and as stated above any resulting EU policy would
have to be agreed by the UK government in committee before it surfaced.



If the EU set the balance correctly between environmental benefit and
risk half our gripes and arguments would go away. 


Like the debate on chemicals in the EU parliament? But more 
is the balance really that far out? As many commentators have observed
the "problem" (if there is a problem) is in part because of developments
and knowledge in the arboriculture industry and arb consultants covering
their posterior. It has little to do with legislation or policy - that
is one of the key conclusions from the Poll v Barth case.


Trees are probably the most global issue there is.


I didn't realise that "trees" were an issue! 


If our own government is unable to deal with the problem


Perhaps you could remind me what the problem is? I thought we were
dealing with tree risk?


Take a step back and ask, why have the Ancient Tree Form and others gone
to the EU?


Please tell us but, like most people I expect they are looking for a 
of cash


but in Brussels these boundaries are less complex so it would be easier
to get something workable that will balance 

the arguments. 


Have you ever been in DG Environment? Ever been to an EU committee? 
Complex? Easier? Are you joking? When it takes at least 3 months for an
Agenda to get to a meeting as it has to be translated into the EU
languages and then distributed to Member States I can't think of a more
complex way of doing things. Any meeting has to take on board views from
all member states the only thing that can be guaranteed is that the
resulting document will be about as bland a compromise as any
international committee will produce.  


I was reminded of one meeting where the German rep started off by saying
that the first thing the committee needed to do was establish the rules;
a southern European replied saying "rules? Who needs rules?". There are
some great cultural divergences across Europe in terms of attitudes
towards what they expect from Brussels.  


A BS could do this, UK government policy could do this, EU policy could
do this.


A BS is very different from either a UK or an EU policy. I personally

against a BS as the inflated price of a typical BS makes it inaccessible
for the general public and alternative means of production and
distribution exist that are in control of the industry. The rigidity of
approach, whilst commendable for some things, also gives me doubts.



Jon Heuch 


Tel:      01233 XXX XXX

mob: 07810 XXX XXX



The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre


Unless expressly stated otherwise, the contents of this e-mail are 
confidential, represent only the views of the sender expressed only
to the intended recipient and are not intended to impose any legal
obligation upon Breckland Council. 

If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to notify the
sender and delete the message as soon as possible.


The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre