?THE ACT government's approach to maintaining the capital's urban forest has been criticised as reactive by a leading tree expert.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Associate professor of urban forestry at the Australian National University Cris Brack said the government needed to be realistic about spending money on failing trees.
"I'm worried that by simply being reactive and waiting for unsafe or dead trees and getting rid of that one tree, we will gradually lose this whole planned treescape," Dr Brack said.
"The big problem with Canberra is 700,000 trees: are they all equally important? And where do you draw the line between the cost of replacing the tree and the cost of keeping it going? It's not the tree dying, it's the major branches in the crown failing that is going to be a problem for Canberra in terms of safety."
The senior lecturer said the longer the government delayed making a decision about block replanting the more tired the streets would look. ?A recent United States study by the Forest Service found mature trees could increase property values by as much as 10 per cent.
"People have moved into streets because they have lovely looking mature street trees," Dr Brack said.
He said the concept of a safe life for a tree was its safety for humans and cars underneath, not the biological age.
"The biological age of the tree is much older. Oaks can live multiple centuries and they do have a reasonably stable crown. But trees are natural living things and they do die . . . it's a balancing act. If there are trees in Canberra that it is important to keep safe and alive, you can do it but it will cost you a lot of money.
Director of city services Fleur Flanery said community consultation was at the centre of the governments tree program.
"The community was so alarmed at any trees being taken out, so we really had to think, if this is an issue, how can we work with the community, what can we do first to bring them on board," Ms Flanery said.
But the directorate's work is constrained by funding. This week's budget kept the tree maintenance budget stable at $1 million.
Ms Flanery said about $600,000 was spent on general maintenance, while the rest was allocated to removal, replanting and watering.
?