Disaster Named “Czech National Arboricultural Standards”

 

Disaster Named “Czech National Arboricultural Standards”

 

Politicization of Professional Standards – A Risk for Arboriculture

The field of tree care (arboriculture) is a relatively narrow specialization followed by only a small group of interested experts. However, when this purely practical and professional topic enters broader societal debate, there’s a genuine risk that politicians—and at worst, state officials—begin to take notice. This often leads to politicization of an issue that should remain purely professional and pragmatic. Unfortunately, the Czech National Standards (Standards of Nature and Landscape Care - SPPK) serve as a prime example of how state intervention can damage what began as a well-intentioned professional initiative.

SPPK was conceived as recommended practices establishing output parameters and technical descriptions for activities in nature and landscape care. Published by the state Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic (AOPK ČR), in collaboration with selected academic institutions and other expert authorities, the original concept was commendable—unifying terminology and practices across the field, improving practice quality, and ensuring clarity among designers, contractors, investors, and authorities. Had the standards remained strictly professional, they could have significantly benefited both trees and arborists.

Promising Beginnings of SPPK (2011–2016)

When I approached AOPK ČR in 2011 with a project for developing sector-specific standards, I naively believed that anchoring these standards within a state agency would lead to rapid practical implementation and wide adoption, particularly among landowners and those responsible for trees. Initially, this appeared promising. By 2016, the first twelve arboricultural standards (series A) had been created, quickly becoming the basis for pricing guides, specialized software for tree assessments, and educational programs ranging from certification courses to academia. For instance, AOPK ČR incorporated newly defined pruning methods into its official price lists for typical interventions, standardizing terminology nationwide.

Importantly, the initial development of these standards was transparent and open. Coordination was provided by an academic institution (the Arboricultural Laboratory at MENDELU at the time), and any representative interested in specific issues could join the development committee. Practically, experts of various perspectives gathered at the same table, refining terminology and clarifying priorities. These first published standards were positively received by public administration, the business sector, and professional associations. Arboriculture in the Czech Republic finally seemed to have clear and universally supported quality practices.

State Intervention and Expert Selection

However, this idyllic situation did not last long. Around 2016, the state directly intervened—AOPK ČR took over coordination, appointing a civil servant to lead the process. The consequences quickly followed: members not aligning with the new leader’s personal preferences were promptly excluded. Ironically, the current standards development team lacks representatives from major arboricultural education and certification institutions in the Czech Republic.

Even more serious were subsequent content changes. Standards that had successfully guided practice for nearly a decade began to undergo “innovation.” While occasional updates are legitimate due to evolving knowledge and technology, the manner and extent of these changes became problematic.

Consistency and Compatibility: Principles Ignored in Innovations

Updating professional standards must preserve certain boundaries and protocols. At least two key principles should be respected:

• Consistency: Established rules and principles codified after extensive agreement should not change merely because new team members have “their own opinion.” Established and practically verified rules cannot be arbitrarily rewritten—this has far-reaching consequences. Arboricultural practices solidified over the past decade cannot suddenly be annulled due to the whims of officials who might not fully comprehend the practical implications for arborists.
• Compatibility: Standards must represent a set of high-quality practice principles based on current knowledge and international experiences. The arboricultural community is international, sharing best practices across countries. Currently, the best expression of international expertise is the European Arboricultural Standards, developed by the European Arboricultural Council (EAC) with participation from numerous countries. These standards, funded by the EU since 2019, aim to produce unified technical standards by 2025 and are now gradually implemented in over 30 countries, viewed as authoritative in the field.

Unfortunately, recent SPPK developments have entirely disregarded these principles. Innovations proceeded without respect for rule continuity or alignment with internationally recognized practices.

Controversial Changes in SPPK Standards (Examples)

Key problematic changes include:

• Redefinition of core tree pruning definitions (SPPK A02 002): Updated versions altered fundamental technical categories, causing incompatibility with past projects. Millions of trees assessed or pruned between 2012–2024 would be incompatible with new definitions from 2025 onwards, causing chaos in practice.
• Legalizing deliberate damage to valuable trees (SPPK E02 005): Czech standards now permit intentional tree damage (“veteranization”), even for highly valuable or monumental trees, a practice internationally considered experimental and never codified as routine.
• Tolerance of poor-quality planting material (SPPK A02 001 and A02 002): Updated standards legitimize planting technologically flawed nursery stock, suggesting post-planting severe crown reduction, contrary to European standards advocating for quality initial material without drastic post-planting interventions.

Practical Implications: Arborists between State Hammer and Anvil

Due to this unfortunate politicization, the Czech Republic is increasingly isolated from mainstream professional arboriculture. Professionals now face an unpleasant dilemma:

• Conformity vs. Expertise: Either comply with state-approved yet problematic standards, ignoring current scientific insights and international best practices, or follow modern research privately while outwardly adhering to flawed standards to avoid bureaucratic repercussions.

This predicament places arborists in a challenging position—forced to practice professionally either covertly or compromise openly. Many tree owners, including major municipalities, who previously developed management plans based on the earlier standards, now face impossible expectations to update their practices according to incompatible new guidelines. This undermines the authority of the updated SPPK and creates confusion.

Let’s Not Be Discouraged: Lessons and Future Outlook

Despite painting a grim picture, I hope this isn’t seen as an ultimate defeat. History shows that professional correctness eventually prevails, albeit sometimes against state resistance. Around 2000, the same state agency recommended now-discredited practices, which professionals gradually abandoned despite official guidelines. Eventually, even authorities adapted to new insights.

Similarly, the Czech Republic will inevitably return to internationally recognized and proven practices, driven by the widespread acceptance of the European Arboricultural Standards. Hopefully, minimal damage occurs in the meantime.

Finally, a personal note and lesson: I apologize to the arboricultural community for my previous naivety in placing SPPK in state hands. This experience taught me that good intentions must be safeguarded carefully from political influences. I share this story particularly as a warning to colleagues in other countries currently implementing European standards: be cautious and avoid entrusting your developing standards entirely to state agencies. Official acceptance is sufficient—direct regulation can often cause more harm than good.

 

(The author is an experienced arborist who initiated the SPPK project and continues active professional and educational work in the field.)

 

資料來源:

Jaroslav Kolarik

Arborista konzultant ve společnosti Safe Trees, s.r.o.