Dead Stumps at Burra?
Using Heritage Charters in Urban Tree Management

S. Reed

(Talk given to Urban Trees Seminar, 18-19 May 2005, AILA/RBG/Heritage Office seminar Australian Technology Park, Redfern)

The Burra Charter of Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments & Sites) and the Australian Natural Heritage Charter adapted from it to apply to natural environments, both recommend the same process and basically identical principles as guidelines to identifying and working through managing heritage places, be those natural or cultural.

I don't propose to go over these documents in any detail in 30 minutes, but want to point out that what may look complex really isn't - the process recommended in both boils down to four steps, and none of these will be news to a place or an asset manager.

The steps are summarised in four key verbs: identify; assess; manage and monitor - and these should be familiar to writers and readers of plans of management, or assets - the same questions in different words perhaps: What is my asset? What's special about it? How do I look after that? What do I need to do? When? Why? And then what?

Language is the largest challenge in managing heritage places, and by this I mean finding a common language to get through to and be able to be understood by any stakeholder you need to deal with in managing the place. Jargon we all use can be a barrier to someone else understanding what is meant. To some extent finding a common set of terms to use that make sense to the person or group in question is the key challenge. Then you can actually get through, have a conversation, and make progress. For instance, in talking to a roads engineer about conflicts between trees in streets and services, what terms would be effective? Talking to State Government Treasury accountants seeking more funds for municipal tree surveys, GIS etc, what terminology would work? Talking to Councillors who are mostly property developers? And so on.

One unfortunate effect of 30 years of heritage management is that it has gone from a community issue to become an industry and a profession, which (as they all do) has sought to gain professional integrity, recognition of status as 'experts' and sought internally consistent standards and language - useful with other heritage 'experts', but sometimes a barrier to other groups including the community, who started the debates and fights that led to heritage legislation and protection in the first place, and who just want things kept and looked after! We need to work hard on language and break down these barriers, real or imagined.

So four key verbs: identify, assess, manage and monitor, and these form and inform the process outlined in both the Burra and Natural Heritage charters. And all are critical in writing and implementing plans of management, conservation management plans, and even asset management plans. The key is to gather all relevant information before taking a decision or action so that the right one is taken for the actual place, tree, or collection of trees, and they survive it and thrive.

In the overhead up now of the Burra Charter process, you can see 10 boxes which look complicated but fear not! Just look out for those key four verbs, and you soon see the 10 cluster into groups teasing out these four action verbs. Stuff you're probably doing already anyway.

STEP ONE: IDENTIFICATION

This means identifying what is the heritage values, the significance of this tree, this group of trees, this park, this place. There are a few steps or boxes but I just want to draw your attention to the underlying principle that all relevant information and stakeholders should be sought and involved in preparing a tree management plan or a conservation management plan for a collection or group of trees. This involves a participative or multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder way of working, which can be threatening to 'experts' used to desk top studies, alone, but is important in gaining ownership and thus implementation, vital in fact with trees in public places like cities.

These stakeholders for trees might include arborist and horticulturist advice on condition and age, parks or tree protection officers (on councils) input on management and legal protection or controls, ownership and management, recreation advice on any other demands on the place (eg: parks).

They also include gathering heritage information on the history of that tree/those trees/ that street planting or park - when, who planted it, in what style/with what species, why, whether any special associations go with it (planted by a notable person/group, in commemoration of a key event). This can be gained from local historical society, the National Trust of Australia (NSW), Council's heritage adviser or local heritage study, local environment or bush care groups, local residents, visitors and even tourists if trees are a reason they might visit or use the area.

A handout I'd like you all to take away is this two page table, an appendix from a 1990 NSW Department of Planning technical guideline publication: Street Trees in NSW - guidelines for their conservation and management'. These are tables outlining the situations in which street trees have been used over 200 years of colonialisation in NSW, and also what species was used when and changing fashions over time. They are I hope useful context in which to help assess a particular example you might be researching.

Another 'heritage' source is of course the Australian Garden History Society, of which I'm a Committee member. This is a national membership body with of about 1600 people, and is the leader in seeking the study, conservation and sustainable management of Australia's significant gardens, parks and cultural landscapes. More information on the society and its actions can be found on the internet at www.gardenhistorysociety.org.au. They put out a great journal five times a year and an annual conference, this year in Perth.

They also publish helpful books, such as the 2002 Oxford Companion to Australian Garden History, a major reference, and the 2003 Studies in Australian Garden History, a series of refereed academic papers, some very relevant to tree management, for example papers on the local pocket parks of Walter Burley and Marion Mahoney Griffin's suburb designs, the legacy of 'bush parks' designed and created in the 1960s and 1970s in Sydney by the first wave of landscape architects like Harry Howard and Bruce Rickard, some on degraded industrial sites on the harbour, and so successful that a later generation thinks they're 'original' and a new crop of post modern designers is putting them under threat with new works and proposals for more formal, paving heavy parks that fail to realise what is being swept away is itself an important cultural creation of recent origin. Another paper looks at WW1& 2 Honour Avenues in Western Australia, such as that in King's Park, Perth.

Technical input should be sought early on from Council engineers, planners, sitting Councillors and other relevant decision makers, utility companies like gas, water and electricity suppliers who might do street tree pruning, architects, urban designers, developers who might be planning changes to that land or adjacent land that could affect the trees in question.

This isn't easy or quick, unfortunate facts, but failing to seek input from stakeholders can only lead to problems in implementation, and trying to get stakeholders aware of conservation as a goal and thinking about how that interacts with their goals and actions, and getting their ownership of a plan of management or new 'tree' policy is surely a step in the right direction of it working.

STEP TWO: ASSESSMENT

What is a statement of significance and why bother with it? The importance of getting clarity on WHAT - the value(s) of a tree or group of trees or place is that this should inform and guide how best to manage it. Appropriate management should then mean the values it matters for are kept into the future. Failing to be clear can lead to unintentional damage or even loss of the very things that you thought you were setting out to manage and keep. This, as others have raised, might have to include financial or monetary value of a tree/trees, including replacement value, maintenance costs etc.
Not happy, Jan!

This is one place we often fall down on, failing to 'boil down' information gathered into pithy, short sentences anyone can understand that say what matters, and why we're seeking to do things to a tree, a park, a garden, a streetscape. Sadly most heritage place statements of significance have tended to focus only on the building or structures in it, even when the place is a park, or a suburb or includes a large garden full of rare trees!

Gap filling to make sure 'tree issues' are included and get management attention is thus vital. You can imagine how useful accurate, comprehensive statements of significance are in trying to calm down an angry resident, explain things to a community meeting, a Council meeting, a Land & Environment Court appeal involving subdivision, development meaning the destruction of trees etc.

WHO is it significant to is important too, being clear about values the whole community might hold, and those that groups or individuals within it hold too. This helps make decisions later, and to weigh up competing values or opinions when push comes to shove.

WHY is it significant - age? Beauty? Rarity? Typifying an era? Habitat value? Association with a community tragedy? The more specific you can be the clearer this becomes to others new to the tree, or the area. The NSW Heritage Manual Criteria (available on the internet via www.heritage.nsw.gov.au tease these out under themes, but these boil down to:

• historic
• aesthetic (remembering we have five senses, not just sight - all relevant to trees)
• scientific/ technical
• social/spiritual.

You'll notice that all heritage 'criteria' start to fall under one or more of these, even if the wording and emphasis vary between versions. Meredith Walker has noted that most trees have more than one value, and that values overlap and interact, and I strongly agree on both points. I won't go into more detail on criteria here, but I'm happy to discuss these if you have questions on them.

HOW significant is it, at what level? This question isn't universally popular since it requires more information gathering to make comparisons, and may mean trade offs when decisions on change or removal are needing to be made. It's also essential: knowing if your local government area or bioregion or NSW or Australia has 500 examples of a tree/a grove of trees, or only one, and that this is the last one, the best one, the largest or one with the greatest chance of self sustenance etc, surely helps you see its relative value, and thus to decide about change affecting it. Clarity that your tree is actually significant to the whole locality, region, to NSW or nationally is also useful 'ammunition' with which to defend it, if need be, against comers with other agendas.

All heritage items including trees will tend to have multiple 'values' or significance, and these can be conflicting, just as the heritage values of trees can conflict with other values such as the desire for views, solar access, double garages, flat, safe, traffic-fluid roads, footpaths etc. This is life, but decisions again can be more sensibly made if all the relevant information is on the table in front of the decision makers, and not just some information.

STEP THREE: MANAGEMENT BASED ON VALUES

Policy formulation is another area where management and conservation studies and plans tend to fall short and fail in practice. Often attention is focussed on information gathering and assessment, and not followed through into comprehensive, specific, achievable management policies that will ensure the tree/trees/park survives as intended. This is the area most plans need most work on.

I'd like to draw attention to the process diagram box saying "values should inform management" and add that they should inform aims or policies, strategies and actions. Clarity about actions will mean clear goals and actions to conserve them. And easier decision making. A clear goal or vision such as shady, mature, tree-lined streets; or maintaining a lushly planted Victorian 'paradise' style parkland with sunny and shady areas, are easier to plan for than no vision or goal, or a vaguely worded one.

If conflicting values or goals can be identified, then management policies to deal with them are again easier to derive and deal with. For example what may now be considered a 'weed' species, such as camphor laurel or coral trees in some areas of NSW, were not so in the past when they were enthusiastically imported, propagated and promoted for public planting, and in some situations, perhaps where propagation and 'spread' can be controlled (pollarding/pruning in fruiting season) are a legitimate compromise allowing both retention of examples with historic or aesthetic significance, and allaying fears of bush care groups or environmentalists that these are escaping into bushland.

To illustrate this I’ll go through four examples. If an avenue of street trees was in its time renowned for its pollarding (once in fashion, if not now)(Think of Paris), and yet has been 'let go' for 30 years and fruits spread by birds are causing problems in nearby bushland reserves, a conservation policy of increased Council (or utility company) budgets to reinstate regular pollarding or canopy reduction is a simple, if costly, way of addressing this issue, and keeping trees and their particular cultural significance. Of course this policy might be different for seedling camphor laurels or coral trees elsewhere/outside that avenue. And rightly so.

Another example is garden suburbs and street trees, particularly where these preceded the introduction of electricity and their original 'design concept' (sorry, jargon!) was for non-pruned, large street trees. Haberfield in inner western Sydney is a classic example, from 1902- the 1930s, a text book example of smart developer driven 'product' with brush box or camphor laurel (and other species) lined streets, trees in road shoulders, no wires, marketed as a garden suburb.

Today (ironically after 20-30 years of conservation battles to 'save' it) it is highly valued for its relative intactness, including street trees, although electricity wires have disfigured some streets. Haberfield is arguably at least of state heritage significance, in my view, this justifies a policy of undergrounding all its electricity wires, and letting the trees grow back again. This might require thought as to how best or where best to put trenching or ducting, and whether mistreated trees can be trained back into decent shapes or need replacing. Of course any replacements might be sensitive politically, but then again, so has recent pruning for power lines and 'safety'.

A third example is a senescing eucalypt in a local park, full of branch hollows supporting nesting cockatoos - let's assume these are some endangered species of cockatoo, not to mention populations of fungi and beetles, and birds and animals that eat these also. What policy should guide management of this tree? Removal for 'safety' reasons? Or 'preservation' ie: retention for longer than a SULE life expectancy ranking would suggest is wise, for other reasons?

I'd suggest the former, and fencing off the root zone or a larger area around it, restricting access close to the tree by park users. The latter to encourage (with planting/seed sowing to assist) redevelopment of an appropriate shrub and grass layer below the tree, and of course replacement seedlings of the same species put in before it does die, so that even when it does and that 'habitat' value is lost short term, there are replacements on the way and in time, this will be available again.

Pruning policies for these trees (or other examples of eucalypts in the park) to encourage branch hollows in future might be worth including, so that habitat is being provided on an ongoing basis. Signage or some form of public interpretation (eg workshops with residents or users) to explain what is sought and proposed are worth considering too, so that people can understand, and even 'adopt' and monitor bird use, tree condition, vandalism etc on a regular basis. "Park Care" or "Friends" groups...

A last example of policies guiding management. I've just been in Spain and visited Valencia's wonderful 1802 Botanic Gardens. Which as well as an original grid layout and marvellous tree collection some dating from that time, retains its original irrigation system, of flooding beds, fed by traditional Islamic water channels, and gates to control water direction.

Unfortunately a 1990s 'restoration' took the decision to replace the irrigation system with drip and sprinklers, and in some cases this has already, within 5 years, killed off some of the mature trees due to fungal attack, concentration of certain chemicals and impurities in the water etc. Any argument that this was saving water has been shown to be not true. So admitting that this was not a correct management decision, and reversing policy to re-use the (surviving) traditional irrigation channels and bed-flooding system, would seem eminently sensible before more trees die.

So management policies can have a very direct affect on conservation, or the reverse.

STEP 4 - MONITORING AND REVIEW.

One certainty in life is change, and accepting that nothing stands still. Technology, systems of funding, management, staffing, population mix or demographics. The same should of course apply to conservation plans, plans of management. The Heritage Council of NSW policy on conservation plans is that they should be reviewed every 5 years to make sure they are up to date, and are informed by new research, new information, changing public or other expectations.

This is of course not easy or popular with local government or owners, particularly where community consultation is required and this inevitably takes more time to finalise. It's also essential for good management - a document 10 or 15 years old is of decreasing relevance or use today, tomorrow.

Amazingly, some places listed on the State Heritage Register lack any sort of conservation or management plan, and have had management decisions being made about them for in some cases over 30 years, based on partial information, ad-hoc process and with predictably varying results. A key priority in recent years has been insisting on preparation of conservation management plans or at least policies, on statements of significance, so that decisions are based on sound thinking, and are explicable and justifiable, to owners, to the public, to councils, in court if need be.

Even when plans or policies have been done, their usefulness declines with increasing time, as whole suburbs have grown up around heritage farms, medium and high density housing has engulfed historic parks, factories and infrastructure projects have transformed growing environments.

Condition and health of trees for instance can change dramatically after 5 years of drought, or of no pruning or fertilising or mulching. Budget cuts in staff levels can mean dramatic changes in standard of maintenance, monitoring, presentation and condition. Dealing with living organisms like trees where all factors are interrelated doesn't help either. Approvals of medium density housing next to parks, new roads or car parks with increased stormwater runoff, fertiliser leaching, compaction, shading; storm damage etc - all these can quickly have an impact on the environment for a tree, and its prospects of surviving, or likely life term.

Increases in population density can mean parks get much heavier use, and soils are compacted, levels of vandalism may increase, etc. This might mean changing policy and restricting access around key trees or groups, to ensure they survive, while allowing for increased visitation elsewhere. This of course might need to be done sensitively, and after community consultation and explanation.

Australians on average sell house and move every 3-4 years so may well not know their local history or any details of past conservation battles, or particular local associations or stories around trees. Explaining these to new or recent residents or visitors is an ongoing task, and should be built into any management plan. A community that may have fought to keep street trees in a suburb may not be there in 20 years time when the trees need replacing. The new residents then may know nothing of past battles. These are challenges to a manager, and to 'keeping stories alive'.

Temporary management measures for conservation reasons should be built into tree management policies and plans. Some of these are predictable and can be built in from the start, others are not predictable, and will be reactive in response to freak events. Examples are fencing off the root zones of Moreton Bay fig trees liable to Summer Branch Drop Syndrome" in summers, or mature trees suffering the effects of prolonged drought or past poor management and liable to drop branches, within public parks or streets. Programs of soil aeration, watering, fertilising, mulching of root zones to recuperate trees should be similarly planned for when required.

Any such measures must be accompanied by prior community consultation and engagement to seek understanding and support, and avoid problems. A community that is on side and 'owning' its trees will of course fight for greater budgets and care for them if it is suitably aware and groomed to think that way. A 'Win-Win' outcome, surely?

As I mentioned I've just spent a time in Spain and it's illuminating to see another culture and the similarities and differences from your own. One observation is that problems and challenges in tree management are global - for example Barcelona and Valencia city councils are both undergoing rigorous programmes of GIS inventories of all street trees and public parks, noting species, location, condition, age etc. Both are experiencing public pressure for increased open and green space, particularly in working class suburbs with rehabilitated industrial sites. Both are seeking to respond to global movements like Agenda 21 and goals of greater environmental sustainability.

And yet Spain has suffered from 50 years of dictatorship and central control, and enjoyed only 20 years of nascent democracy and decentralisation to regional governments, who are all struggling with coming to terms with the jobs at hand, and decades of neglect. A community not used to being asked for input into public decision making and a small 'landscape' industry. Quite different circumstances to Australia, with high expectations of consultation, open government, accountability. One huge issue in Barcelona is street tree pruning which is actively pursued, in response to resident complaints, and yet people want trees at the same time. Changing aging tree stock and responding to challenges like Grafiosis fungus attacking their elms, Ulmus minor, has led to an assessment and trials of species that do well, matching species size to street size etc. Sound familiar?

You'll notice a lot of repetition in what I’ve said and what other speakers are saying and perhaps that's good - it reinforces important messages about tree management - but if nothing else I'd like you to walk away from this talk a little less mystified about heritage, and charters like the Burra or Natural Heritage Charter, and their relevance to your daily work managing trees.

I'd like to plug the latest version of the Burra Charter, which is called the Illustrated Burra Charter. It's full of practical examples with pictures teasing out what the words and principles mean in real situations.

It's $40 to buy, from Australia ICOMOS (try www. icomos.org.au/australia) and well worth having nearby. The Natural Heritage Charter can be got for free by contacting the Federal Department of Environment and Heritage on www.deh.gov.au or www.heritage.gov.au and giving them your postal address.

Really they boil down to thinking before we act, and to those four key verbs: identify, assess, manage and monitor. Familiar territory, yes?

back to top