I heard on the BBC news the other day, that just under 4,000 people had trained as plumbers in Wales this year, but under 50 had actually managed to get the on the job experience required to be certified competent. The conclusion to the feature, was the real concern that trainees would be tempted to set up in business, without the required experience. Sound familiar?

We may not be fixing gas appliances that could kill many people, but we're hardly a low risk occupation either. In fact, the HSE consider climbing Arborists to run an annual risk of 1/120 of serious injury or death. Mathematicians consider 1/100 to be probability. But then it does depend on what you include as an Arborist; it would seem anyone who climbs a tree or uses a chainsaw as part of their occupation - no matter how occasionally it may be, or whether or not they have received appropriate training. And then agricultural statistics need to be considered, as farmers have been excluded of the requirement to hold a chainsaw certificate of competence under PUWER 98.

A good way to start improving this situation, would be an accurate appraisal and compilaton of accidents from professional arboricultural operations through credible expert witnesses and HSE; if we do not know what the real hazards and risks are, then we can hardly claim to be exercising effective control measures. Control measures that cost a lot of money!

One problem, is that Arboriculture is still chained to Forestry and Agriculture. But Agriculture and Forestry are dwindling industries, and Arboriculture is growing.

Not only is it growing, but in terms of inexperienced and under trained tree workers, it is growing out of control. But these same tree workers are certified competent, so what is the problem?

The current chainsaw training and certification scheme that is promoted by the charities that guide us, is inherited. It was originally designed for Forestry skills, and in that respect, in my opinion, the standards were on the whole very good. But these were developed alongside on the job experience and the forestry Commission (then a major government funded employer). A candidate was expected to consolidate skills for up to 6 months before taking a competency test. But these standards have been watered down; Candidates are now expected to be able to undertake 5 days training, and pass an NPTC CS 31 test soon afterwards. The chainsaw certification system is still forestry based, but not specific to forestry (?). Because no differentiation is made between different end users, the standards are set too high for one and not high enough for the other. And the need for experience to be competent has fallen by the wayside.

Compounding this problem, is candidates being trained to pass 'performance criteria' of assessments; It is important for training establishments to gain high pass rates, so that they can claim important government funding. If your pass rates are down, other training establishments with better pass rates may be awarded the regional funding instead; a strong incentive to maintain a high pass rate. Those training providers that aren't government or European funded, are under pressure for candidates to pass from the repeated higher costs of failure and re-test. Especially awkward if the training and assessment isn't focused specifically toward their job. Training is centred on passing performance criteria.

So we have many certificated operators that have passed performance criteria, but employers still can't find the skills they require. Hardly surprising; it isn't practicable to compress the skills required to undertake tree climbing tasks safely, into the performance criteria of a one day, one off assessment. Neither is it possible to train someone in a few days to be a safe tree climber. Why? Because the main requirement for safety in tree work, is tree knowledge. Not just the species climbed, but the pests, defects and diseases that may indicate your safety factors are compromised. And that is just the start. The complex knowledge required to select and use climbing systems with out back up takes a responsible attitude, education, supervised practice and time. The fact is, that tree work is inherently dangerous, and for the most part, control measures preferred by the WAHR are not implement able. This places emphasis on the qualities and abilities of the individual and alternative controls:

. As tree knowledge is so important to safety, appropriate, supervised experience and education is essential.

. Complex tasks typical to tree work take time to simulate safely; Structured education and training over a longer time frame 'on the job' is most effective.

. We use chainsaws and have no back up; Quality equipment should be chosen and maintained in good condition, to relevant EN standards, and replaced before it becomes questionable.

. The rigours of daily tree work can trigger very serious Repetitive Strain Injuries (RSI) and Muscular-Skeletal Disorders (MSDs) if not considered and prevented; Ergonomic and safe equipment and techniques based on modern concepts, rather than reliance on traditional systems, must be implemented to prevent these risks. It is very costly and time consuming to rehabilitate MSDs. Work systems should be planned to consider this, rotating heavy duties between staff.

Any long standing employer knows, that the typical term to raise a well rounded and safe climber is 3 to 5 years of on the job coaching with experienced operators. If this is mixed with academic study of tree biology, pests and diseases and bio-mechanics, a stable platform for future safety and professional development is established. Updates ensure previously unknown hazards and risks are controlled as practicably as reasonable.

Yet, it is currently perfectly possible, to have a fully certificated operator with only around 30 days formal training. Couple this with their trainer and assessor that may well lack appropriate skills and experience; Is this certified operator really competent to go it alone and dismantle or prune trees without experienced supervision guidance?

And now, basic chainsaw operators with no arboricultural knowledge or experience, can be trained and assessed to work in trees with a chainsaw from a MEWP. That's less than two weeks training and experience! Couple this with the fact that top handled chainsaws are allowed from MEWPS, and no restriction on the length or control of cut sections, and the writing is on the wall.

Consider the inappropriate use of MEWPS, cranes and rigging equipment; the public are at risk too. Just imagine a large machine going over, or large log rolling free in a built up area. And quite possibly both at the same time. It is wrong to suggest that MEWPS are THE safer option! They are an option that MAY be safer, in certain circumstances. A Tree climber falling doesn't have the same risks to the public. To put other access methods in place without adequately considering the risks thinking they are safer, is irresponsible. Appropriate pruning from MEWPS without further tree damage, and the ergonomic implications of operators reaching over safety rails with chainsaws, must also be considered.

With the advent of the chainsaw from a MEWP and pole pruner competencies, unknowledgable, inexperienced operators that know or care little for the principles and practices of arboriculture, now have the means to damage trees and put themselves and the public in hazardous situations that they do not understand.

This approach is great news for training and assessment sales though. Just think of all those large organisations that will be training up hundreds of operators. An easy side step around employing or training reputable Arborists.

The current training and education system is growing out of control and proportion, becoming self serving, rather than holding the best interests of this industry at heart. It is not helping:

1. the professional image of arboriculture,
2. the accident and injury statistics of arboriculture,
3. or the care of urban trees.

The truth is, it is wrong to say that all NPTC CS competencies and some others, are required to fulfil the training and certification requirements of PUWER and the HSAWA. Only CS 30,31, 38 and 39, are required to prove basic levels of competence to comply with PUWER. It is structured training in keeping with the National Occupational Standards and AFAG guidance that should be implemented, specifically tailored to systems of work and items of equipment actually used. This should be set out and justified in the company Health & Safety Policy, Generic Risk Assessment and Code of Safe Working Practices. Periodic audits will help highlight areas for improvement.

As for complying with the WAHR, unfortunately, there is insufficient industry guidance. The AA guide to good climbing practice is not a guide on fulfilling the requirements of the WAHR. Despite the review, it is a guide to typical tree climbing systems, many that do not comply with the WAHR, and some that are inappropriate. The onus rests with your in house risk assessments and codes of practice where MEWPS, double anchor and double line working are not practicable. Experience. education and training for specific tasks, equipment and techniques should be the focus of individual companies.

Relevant, guided and recorded experience is a qualification in itself.

The trouble is, because of the self promotion of the charities, employers of Arborist services, are conditioned in to thinking that chainsaw certificates of competence, and the use of MEWPS, qualifies people as professionals - Oh dear! Accidents still occur at the same rate, the HSE enforce more regulations, more certificates of competence keep appearing and we run around looking for guidance. Isn't it time to break the cycle?

As an old friend's father pointed out to me when I left school, "You see lad, you train monkeys and educate people"......We need to stop monkeying around and get our house in order, to protect our livelihood, the future of urban trees and the future of our industry.

One Vision? What Vision!

If you support the views in this article, or require guidance for on the job training, please contact Paolo or Tel: 0870 080 2973. Our industry can change if enough professionals want it to.