Page 1304 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the value of our urban forest. In terms of the value of the asset, I am not quite sure what modelling was used but the value of the asset according to TAMS is in excess of $1 billion. It has also been assessed that our urban forest has an economic benefit to the ACT of somewhere in the order of $15 million a year.
There are about 734,000 urban trees under the control of the Department of Territory and Municipal Services. Of those, more than 550,000 are located in streets and in maintained parks. About 175,000 are maintained in semi-natural open space. Together, there are just on three-quarters of a million trees that are maintained by the Department of Territory and Municipal Services.
In addition to that, there are about 40,000 other trees, most particularly in school grounds, within the CIT and on ACT government housing properties. So they are not maintained by the Department of Territory and Municipal Services; they are maintained by Housing ACT and by the department of education. So, in fact, the territory maintains close to 800,000 trees within the ACT which, when compared with other jurisdictions of this size, is a massive number of trees. On a pro-rata basis, and even just on a straight statistical comparison, not even on a pro-rata basis, it is a stunningly high number of trees.
Suffice to say, with that background, in her report the commissioner makes 12 recommendations. It is a detailed report. It is rigorous. It does suggest a new focus, a new way forward. It suggests that our focus, as a government and as a community, rather than being on removal and replacement as a first option, should be on maintenance and support of ageing trees.
The commissioner finds that some of the assumptions underlined in earlier discussions on the issue are not soundly based. She believes that perhaps the worst-case scenario previously painted is not nearly as severe as it has been painted. Her recommendation—I think this is the first and most significant of her high-priority recommendations—is that the government replace the urban forest renewal program, which was a draft program, with comprehensive and integrated tree protection and management that is focused on the care and maintenance of the landscape and, indeed, on individual trees.
She also recommends as high priorities that we establish an ACT tree curator to provide a focal point for community issues about urban tree-related issues. The commissioner is essentially recommending that this is an issue of such importance and significance to residents that it should be vested in an individual person—a person with a reputation and who would be acknowledged as an expert. I think it is fair to say, without suggesting that we could necessarily replicate Charles Weston, Robert Boden or Lindsay Prior, that in major tree planting phases of this city’s development there have been very significant individuals associated with the treescape, starting with Charles Weston and then, over the last century, moving through a whole range of highly regarded experts. The commissioner is suggesting that we use that experience as a model.
She also recommends that there needs to be a clear strategy agreed between the ACT government and the National Capital Authority. Indeed, she recommends that there be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video