CAA (Professionals) — Why HK is always cutting down big trees? (為何 香港的大樹 經常被砍掉？)
國內和台灣的朋友, 請查閱 www.chinaarbor.com 或 “臉書” Facebook (帳號是 “中華樹藝師學會” https://www.facebook.com/chinaarbor?skip_nax_wizard=true ) 以取得其他文章。 由於 “臉書” Facebook不受送出量限制，本會在那裡發表的文章較多及頻繁。 本會已發表的文章都已放棄版權, 任何人可以自由轉載作為教育目的, 但不能出售作為商業盈利。 任何人都可以申請加入本會, 會費全免, 會員名單從不公開。 有意者請將真實姓名、年齡、單位、職銜、最高學歷、電郵地址、和手機號, 電郵到 egc@netvigator.com , 或傳真到+ 852-2679-5338 等待處理。 本會所發表的一切內容, 謹供參考, 並不接受任何法律責任, 敬請留意。
會員們:
自 樹木辦 成立以來，香港市區最少被砍走十萬棵大樹，當中包括珍貴的 ‘古樹名木’ ， 和富有本土特色的 ‘石牆樹’ ，非常令人傷感。 以香港市區從高空鳥瞰下去只見到高樓大廈，差不多見不到半點綠色，這樣子的大量砍樹，真不知道是為了什麼。
香港砍大樹的理由不外是為了所謂 ‘公眾安全’ ，而 ‘樹木風險評估’(Tree risk assessment) 的通用規格是採用由 樹木辦 設計出來的 ‘表格二’ (http://www.chinaarbor.com/caa-professionals-tra-form-2-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E7%9A%84-%E6%A8%B9%E6%9C%A8%E9%A2%A8%E9%9A%AA%E8%A9%95%E4%BC%B0%E8%A1%A8%E6%A0%BC2/ ) ，填表的人以只考過200條選擇題的 ‘註冊樹藝士/師’(臺灣有人叫 ‘認證樹藝師’) ，或接受 ‘本地訓練’ (http://www.chinaarbor.com/caa-professionals-a-comparison-of-hk-local-tree-management-courses-with-international-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%9C%AC%E5%9C%9F%E7%9A%84%E6%89%80%E8%AC%82-%E6%A8%B9%E6%9C%A8%E7%AE%A1/ ) 的人員為大部分，共同促成大量砍樹，令香港成為亞洲首屈一指的 ‘砍樹之都’ ，震驚中外 。
‘表格二’ 在之前已經詳述過是問題多多，其中重點的有：
1. 這表格使用國際上早已經拼棄的 ‘計分制度’ ，但沒有說明得分是代表什麼，所以經常出現低分數的被要求移除 ( e.g. 6分) ，但高分數的則被要求修剪 (e.g. 10分) ，完全失去道理邏輯，看上去像是從心所欲，迷失方向。
2. 無論平台上的新種小樹 (胸徑10 cm以上) ，或者是馬路邊的蒼天古木 (e.g. 石牆樹 和 古樹名木) ，都是使用同一規格的 ‘表格二’ 來做檢查。 這等如對剛出生的嬰兒或者是八十歲的老人，都是採用同一規格的 ‘體檢表格’ 來做身體檢查，合情合理嗎？
3. ‘評後建議’(Mitigation measure) 可以說是完全隨心所欲，沒有明確標準訂明在什麼情況之下應該作出移除、拉纜、用藥、修剪等等，做什麼完全是憑填表人的良心和知識水平，極不科學，也難以追究責任。
香港的大樹經過 樹木辦 的所謂‘風險評估’ 後，特別是位於人多車多地方的胸徑超過750 mm的大樹，在 ‘表格二’ 的第三版 ‘危害評估’ (Hazard Rating) 裡，容易得分很高，因為：
1. 位於繁忙道路或屋邨商場，人流車流量很高，所以 ‘目標評估’(Target rating) 部分得到4分。
2. 750 mm以上的樹幹，有樹皮擦破或蟲蛀產生樹洞，所以缺陷 ‘部位大小’ (Size of part) 部分得到4分。
3. 假如750+ mm的樹幹上有樹皮擦破，少量破裂，或產生樹洞， ‘倒下的可能性’(Failure potential) 部分最少要給1分。 但填表人為了保障自己以防萬一，大多情願多給1分或 2分，有些怕死的乾脆打個3分；實行有殺錯，沒放過。
4. 所以在決定大樹應該如何處理的 ‘危害評估’ 計算表裡， ‘倒塌可能 + 部位大小 + 目標評估’ 變成 ‘2分 + 4分 + 4分 = 10分’ 的高分‘危害評估’ ，而表格二的最高得分是12分。
這就是說，表格二的 ‘危害評估’ 把一棵750+ mm胸徑，但可能只有幾公分直徑樹洞，或一小點破裂的健康良好大樹，打了一個極高的10分高 ‘樹木風險評估’。 那麼管樹的人就理你那麼多，看到分數高就給你蓋個 ‘砍樹令’ ，一刀砍走就可以皆大歡喜，沒樹就沒風險嘛，少一棵樹就少一個煩惱，做法也完全符合 樹木辦 的要求，何樂而不為？
所以，香港天天在砍樹，路邊、屋邨、商場的大樹死的不明不白，砍樹的人有生意做就什麼都看不到，誰來問津？
香港的大量砍樹，也從來沒有聽過本地或洋人的所謂 ‘樹藝組織’ ， 對如此做法提出反對抗議。 似乎是牌照考、班照開、鈔票滾滾而來，那就完全無所謂。
國內和臺灣看到香港在這樣子處理樹木，不知道會怎麼想？ 會否學習香港做法來照抄照搬？ 誰又會是最大得益者？ ‘樹木管理’(http://www.chinaarbor.com/caa-professionals-tree-care-not-tree-management-%E6%98%AF-%E6%A8%B9%E6%9C%A8%E8%AD%B7%E7%90%86-%E8%80%8C%E4%B8%8D%E6%98%AF-%E6%A8%B9%E6%9C%A8%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86-2016-6-23/ ) 是否就是大量砍樹？
各位愛樹人加油!
謹此致意!
中華樹藝師學會 會長 (www.chinaarbor.com)
歐永森
ASCA 美洲顧問樹藝師學會顧問樹藝師號 RCA#497 (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2010/12/isa-hkchina-rac-in-asia.html)
IACA 澳洲顧問樹藝師學會顧問樹藝師號 ACM 0412011 (www.iaca.org.au)
CAS 英國顧問樹藝師學會 專業會員 (http://www.tree-expert-finder.co.uk/)
ISA 資深樹藝師/註冊攀樹師號 HK-0174BT (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2011/03/isa-hkchina-frist-bcma-in-asia.html)
ISA HK/China 執業樹藝師號 IPA-010908 (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2010/04/isa-hkchina-tree-news-1441-report.html)
ISA 認證“樹木風險評估員” (www.isa-arbor.com )
SCMN 專業調解及談判學會註冊調解員號 CM-0044 (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2012/01/isa-hkchina-mediation.html)
“如果樹木在設計和種植時犯錯，其護養必然昂貴，而最終也會變成"不定時炸彈" 。 ”
“速成出來的樹木評估員, 只能作出低質量的猜測。 大自然會決定成敗。 ”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
国内和台湾的朋友, 请查阅 www.chinaarbor.com 或 “脸书” Facebook (帐号是 “中华树艺师学会” https://www.facebook.com/chinaarbor?skip_nax_wizard=true ) 以取得其他文章。 由于 “脸书” Facebook不受送出量限制，本会在那里发表的文章较多及频繁。 本会已发表的文章都已放弃版权, 任何人可以自由转载作为教育目的, 但不能出售作为商业盈利。 任何人都可以申请加入本会, 会费全免, 会员名单从不公开。 有意者请将真实姓名、年龄、单位、职衔、最高学历、电邮地址、和手机号, 电邮到 egc@netvigator.com , 或传真到+ 852-2679-5338 等待处理。 本会所发表的一切内容, 谨供参考, 并不接受任何法律责任, 敬请留意。
会员们:
自 树木办 成立以来，香港市区最少被砍走十万棵大树，当中包括珍贵的 ‘古树名木’ ， 和富有本土特色的 ‘石墙树’ ，非常令人伤感。以香港市区从高空鸟瞰下去只见到高楼大厦，差不多见不到半点绿色，这样子的大量砍树，真不知道是为了什么。
香港砍大树的理由不外是为了所谓 ‘公众安全' ，而 ‘树木风险评估'(Tree risk assessment) 的通用规格是采用由树木办设计出来的'表格二' (http://www.chinaarbor. com/caa-professionals-tra-form-2-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E7%9A%84-%E6%A8%B9%E6%9C%A8%E9%A2%A8% E9%9A%AA%E8%A9%95%E4%BC%B0%E8%A1%A8%E6%A0%BC2/ ) ，填表的人以只考过200条选择题的'注册树艺士/师'(台湾有人叫'认证树艺师') ，或接受'本地训练' (http://www.chinaarbor.com/caa-professionals-a-comparison-of-hk-local-tree-management- courses-with-international-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%9C%AC%E5%9C%9F%E7%9A%84%E6%89%80%E8%AC%82-% E6%A8%B9%E6%9C%A8%E7%AE%A1/ ) 的人员为大部分，共同促成大量砍树，令香港成为亚洲首屈一指的'砍树之都' ，震惊中外。
‘表格二’ 在之前已经详述过是问题多多，其中重点的有：
1. 这表格使用国际上早已经拼弃的 ‘计分制度' ，但没有说明得分是代表什么，所以经常出现低分数的被要求移除(e.g. 6分) ，但高分数的则被要求修剪(e.g. 10分) ，完全失去道理逻辑，看上去像是从心所欲，迷失方向。
2. 无论平台上的新种小树 (胸径10 cm以上) ，或者是马路边的苍天古木 (e.g. 石墙树 和 古树名木) ，都是使用同一规格的 ‘表格二’ 来做检查。这等如对刚出生的婴儿或者是八十岁的老人，都是采用同一规格的 ‘体检表格’ 来做身体检查，合情合理吗？
3. ‘评后建议'(Mitigation measure) 可以说是完全随心所欲，没有明确标准订明在什么情况之下应该作出移除、拉缆、用药、修剪等等，做什么完全是凭填表人的良心和知识水平，极不科学，也难以追究责任。
香港的大树经过树木办的所谓'风险评估' 后，特别是位于人多车多地方的胸径超过750 mm的大树，在 ‘表格二' 的第三版 ‘危害评估' (Hazard Rating) 里，容易得分很高，因为：
1. 位于繁忙道路或屋村商场，人流车流量很高，所以 ‘目标评估’(Target rating) 部分得到4分。
2. 750 mm以上的树干，有树皮擦破或虫蛀产生树洞，所以缺陷 ‘部位大小’ (Size of part) 部分得到4分。
3. 假如750+ mm的树干上有树皮擦破，少量破裂，或产生树洞， ‘倒下的可能性’(Failure potential) 部分最少要给1分。但填表人为了保障自己以防万一，大多情愿多给1分或2分，有些怕死的干脆打个3分；实行有杀错，没放过。
4. 所以在决定大树应该如何处理的 ‘危害评估' 计算表里， ‘倒塌可能+ 部位大小+ 目标评估' 变成 ‘2分+ 4分+ 4分= 10分' 的高分'危害评估' ，而表格二的最高得分是12分。
这就是说，表格二的 ‘危害评估' 把一棵750+ mm胸径，但可能只有几公分直径树洞，或一小点破裂的健康良好大树，打了一个极高的10分高'树木风险评估'。那么管树的人就理你那么多，看到分数高就给你盖个 ‘砍树令' ，一刀砍走就可以皆大欢喜，没树就没风险嘛，少一棵树就少一个烦恼，做法也完全符合树木办的要求，何乐而不为？
所以，香港天天在砍树，路边、屋村、商场的大树死的不明不白，砍树的人有生意做就什么都看不到，谁来问津？
香港的大量砍树，也从来没有听过本地或洋人的所谓 ‘树艺组织’ ， 对如此做法提出反对抗议。 似乎是牌照考、班照开、钞票滚滚而来，那就完全无所谓。
国内和台湾看到香港在这样子处理树木，不知道会怎么想？ 会否学习香港做法来照抄照搬？ 谁又会是最大得益者？ ‘树木管理'(http://www.chinaarbor.com/caa-professionals-tree-care-not-tree-management-%E6%98%AF-%E6%A8%B9%E6%9C%A8%E8 %AD%B7%E7%90%86-%E8%80%8C%E4%B8%8D%E6%98%AF-%E6%A8%B9%E6%9C%A8%E7%AE%A1%E7 %90%86-2016-6-23/ ) 是否就是大量砍树？
各位爱树人加油!
谨此致意!
中华树艺师学会 会长 (www.chinaarbor.com)
欧永森
ASCA美洲顾问树艺师学会 顾问树艺师号 RCA#497 (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2010/12/isa-hkchina-rac-in-asia.html)
IACA澳洲顾问树艺师学会 顾问树艺师号 ACM 0412011 (www.iaca.org.au)
CAS英國顧問樹藝師學會 專業會員 (http://www.tree-expert-finder.co.uk/ )
ISA资深树艺师/注册攀树师号 HK-0174BT (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2011/03/isa-hkchina-frist-bcma-in-asia.html)
ISA认证 “樹木风险评估员” (www.isa-arbor.com)
ISA HK/CHINA执业树艺师号 IPA-010908 (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2010/04/isa-hkchina-tree-news-1441-report.html)
SCMN专业调解及谈判学会 注册调解员号 CM-0044 (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2012/01/isa-hkchina-mediation.html)
“如果树木在设计和种植时犯错，其护养必然昂贵，而最终也会变成 "不定时炸弹" 。 ”
“速成出来的树木评估员, 只能作出低质量的猜測。 大自然会决定成败。 ”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Our Station Mail is for the information of our Members only, but it has given up copyright & can be freely circulated. For administrative reasons, comments from outsiders are usually not entertained, & may be circulated within our system locally & overseas. Anyone can join China Arborist Association by providing their full name, age group, employer/organization, position, highest education, email & mobile no. to egc@netvigator.com . Joining is free & withdrawal is at an email notice. Membership is never publicly disclosed by laws of Hong Kong. Please visit our website of www.chinaarbor.com for other good information, or on Facebook at “China Arborist Association”, https://www.facebook.com/chinaarbor?skip_nax_wizard=true. Our Facebook messages are much more frequent due to no restriction in sending. All our information is given for reference only without any legal commitment or liabilities. ***
Dear Station Members,
Ever since the Tree Management Office (TMO) in HK was established in 2010, it is estimated that more than 100,000 trees have been cut down in the name of ‘Public Safety’. People are wondering why the trees in HK are so unsafe, & who designed them in the first place?
Most of the trees so cut down went through a so-called ‘Tree Risk Assessment, TRA’ process of the TMO. The common inspection form used is the infamous ‘TRA Form 2’ (http://www.chinaarbor.com/caa-professionals-tra-form-2-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E7%9A%84-%E6%A8%B9%E6%9C%A8%E9%A2%A8%E9%9A%AA%E8%A9%95%E4%BC%B0%E8%A1%A8%E6%A0%BC2/).
Form 2 works on a numeric system abandoned by the western world to evaluate tree risk, but there is no direction given to the numbersso obtained after the TRA, which then becomes rather meaningless. It frequently appears that a lower number obtained, e.g. 8, would be recommended for removal, but a higher number obtained, e.g. 9, would be recommended for pruning. This is defeating common logic & has led to administrative chaos in many accounts.
Another drawback of Form 2 is that it is used for every & any tree, no matter what size & age of the tree, & growing under whatever location. That means a newly planted four-inch tree on a podium would use it, as well as the Old & Valuable Trees & Wall Trees of over a hundred years old would use it too. This is like to say the exact same Health Inspection Form would be used upon a new born baby, as well as for an eighty year old patient. Is this scientifically fair & reasonable?
The ‘Mitigation Measure’ after TRA in Form 2 is rather based upon the conscience of the tree inspector, rather than on scientific basis & justifications. No exact guideline is given to instruct when a tree needs to be removed, pruned or for anything else. The numbers obtained from ‘Risk Evaluation’ do not cross-reference to any recommendation. This has led to massive confusion, & hence leading to unnecessary felling at the end.
The numeric system for Hazard Rating has pointed the way for disaster for big trees (DBH over 750 mm) growing in populated area or busy streets of HK. In page 3 of the Form 2 where Hazard Rating is given, we give an example as below:
1. For a 750+ mm DBH tree growing on a busy street, in a public square, or in a commercial area of HK, the ‘Target rating’ portion would be the maximum no. 4.
2. Say, there is a cavity of 100 mm in the trunk, the ‘Size of part’ portion which is the trunk would be gaining a risk of the maximum no. 4.
3. For the ‘Failure potential’ portion, the minimum number to put down would be 1. However, most inspector protect himself against unexpected accident, & would elevate this value to, say, 2, or 3.
4. Then for the final outcome, Hazard Rating = 4 + 4 + 2 = 10, which is just 2 points below the maximum of 12.
Therefore, it would appear to the tree inspector that this mature tree is recommended for removal. After all, it has such a high ‘risk rating’.
When the tree owner or management looks at this very high risk value of 10, tree removal would be a logical decision to accept. After all, no tree, no risk, & why should they bother? And everything is complying with the guidelines of TMO as well. Nobody would have any administrative fault.
In this manner, big & mature trees, as long as it has a minor defect, they would be doomed for felling. Big trees are being cut down everywhere in HK. Nobody seems to say much about it.
If Arboriculture is a science, & science should give facts & truth. CAA exposes this as we have been deemed a black leg of the industry by many others. We are not bothered. We are good Arborists, & it is our duty to protect our trees. Let those who crave for power & money do their dirty work. We won’t follow.
HK is going the political way to develop Arboriculture, & the rest of China Region should not take HK as an example. We are now studying the merits to advise Government Seniors to transfer TMO from the Development Bureau to Environment Bureau, where in there constant tree felling would be seen as a scandal.
Would HK take the risk to massively cutting trees for the so-called ‘development’ by a Government environmental agency? Would that not be an international joke?
More information on this proposal will be released in future.
best regards,
Sammy Au
President (Station Manager) of China Arborist Association (www.chinaarbor.com)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist no. RCA#497 (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2010/12/isa-hkchina-first-rca-in-asia.html)
IACA Institute of Australian Consulting Arboriculturists Accredited Member no. ACM 0412011 (www.iaca.org.au)
CAS Consulting Arborist Society of the UK, Professional Member (http://www.tree-expert-finder.co.uk/ )
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist / Certified Tree Worker no. HK-0174BT (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2011/03/isa-hkchina-first-bcma-in-asia.html)
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (www.isa-arbor.com)
ISA HK/China Independent Practicing Arborist no. IPA-010908 (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2010/04/isa-hkchina-hk-tree-news-14410-report.html)
SCMN Certified Mediator no. CM-0044 (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2012/01/isa-hkchina-mediation.html)
"Providing treatment without in-depth diagnosis & research support is professional misconduct. "
"Casual tree assessor delivers wanton tree assessment. Mother Nature makes the rules."
[…] […]