One by one they disappear
Figure 1: City Streets like cathedrals - The Adalbertstraße in Hamburg - as it once looked like.
"I don't understand how you can walk past a tree and not be happy to see it."
Fyodor Dostoevsky
I was blessed with living in the privileged western suburbs of Hamburg for a while, enjoying on one of the greenest and tree rich, yet well city linked, places in the world. Thanks to the gardening passion of the wealthy founding generation during Hamburg’s golden age - and of course because, some centuries of have passed by now – you may walk for kilometres under the canopy of huge old trees through quiet residential streets over here.
But this picture seems to change dramatically now. Returning there after having spent some years abroad, I but had to recognise some disturbing changes going on. And they even accelerated during recent years. The treasure trove of big and hundreds of years old trees in this urban living space for those who can afford it, was looted gradually but conceivably year by year.
What has happened? Why do the citizens of Hamburg so thoughtlessly discard their irreplaceable natural riches? Aren’t we living in times when we should value the “beechen green, and shadows numberless”[i]even more than ever? Shouldn’t we be grateful for having these natural means of carbon sequestration next to us on our ever-heating planet?
Hamburg also a windy region and we are used to occasional heavy storms. Last year in autumn not very surprisingly one of these storms blew across the country. Twigs and branches poured down on to streets, gardens and parking cars. Some trees even fell and caused damages.
So, for the following weeks the air was filled with the noise of chainsaws and even heavier equipment to clear the mess. While this could have been expected and had happened before, to my surprise they did not stop there. Large, healthy, magnificent trees that had yet survived this violent storm had to breathe out their lives in a long row during the following months.
So, what was going on there?
The dark side of the German soul
To come closer to an answer, we have to dig a bit deeper - deeper into the collective German soul. We Germans have an obsession: everything must be ordered and under control. Especially for everything that could happen, someone must be responsible. There must be someone to blame for, to be guilty. And he has to pay.
When potholes bloom on the road andour cargets damagedbecause we carelessly ran into some of them, we are entitled tosuethe city council with a decent chance of being successful.
When in winter times house owners or residents fail to fulfil their obligation to clear the pavement from snow and ice and / or to strew sand or salt and the postman breaks his leg, the delinquent will be liable to pay compensation.
And of course, the same principle has to apply, when a tree falls down, causing some damage.
Well, as damages occurred, someone has to pay compensation to someone. It is surely not acceptable to cite force majeure here. After all we pay our taxes to the state as if we wanted to buy ourselves out of all risks and all personal responsibility. In return, we expect an all-round carefree package.
Hamburg’s new tree protection ordinance
Compared to other cities and municipalities, Hamburg still has one of the most progressive tree protection ordinances in terms of the preservation of the existing trees and hedges in Hamburg's territory. By 28 February 2023 the Senate of Hamburg even replaced its old tree protection ordinance dating back to 1948 (which by the way was Germany’s first one) now containing more precise regulations[ii].
According to these, trees are protected as landscape features if they have a trunk circumference of 80 cm or more at a height of 1.30 meters. The waiver of a height limit for hedges between neighbouring properties seems downright revolutionary, since interfering in the neighbour's garden design is one of the favourite German - and probably internationally widespread - traits and one of the most frequent causes of the usual socially typical neighbourly disputes.
The new ordinance makes administrative action much more transparent and further standardized. For tree felling, replacement plantings must be carried out. The replacement requirement for felling a tree is determined in detail according to a point scheme based on tree type, trunk circumference, crown diameter and condition, taking into account possible surcharges and deductions.
No permit is required for the obvious, for example, the removal of fallen trees, keeping public paths free of overgrowing hedges, keeping the walls of buildings free of branches and twigs, as well as traffic safety measures on railway facilities.
Nevertheless, exceptions and loophole remain. Thus, felling permits are issued if, for example, the tree or hedge is diseased or if the stability or breakage safety of the tree or hedge is no longer given and the resulting dangers to persons or property of considerable value cannot be remedied by other means with reasonable effort. There is obviously considerable scope for subjective assessments here.
It remains to be seen whether this ordinance will be able to stop the creeping deforestation of the otherwise so green city.
After all Hamburg is known for its green spaces, including numerous parks, gardens, and the famous man-made Alster Lakes right in the middle of the city. The city has implemented a number of environmental initiatives and was even named the European Green Capital in 2011 by the European Commission.
Figure 2: After storm damage has been removed, the carnage begins in the first place.
Does being insured mean assurance as well?
There are in addition two major adverse factors driving towards the opposite direction: the unholy influence of insurance companies and the influx of staunchly anti-nature rural folks.
Let’s take insurance companies first. In principle not godfather or any other higher divine power is liable for damages caused by trees standing on the landowners’ property, but he himself. As trees or parts of them may crash cars parked next to the landowner’s ground and given the common German predilection for expensive cars, refunding these damages might hurt the financial status of those who have to pay.
Luckily however, some insurance companies offer financial coverage for these unforeseeable misfortunes. There is a catch however. Insurance companies are most successful and profitable if they manage to sell their policies but find ways not to be liable covering the damage, once it occurs.
For example, the insurance may be obliged to pay only if the tree fell due to a storm and not if it did due to old age or illness. But how do you know?
First of all, what insurances might offer coverage? Well, there are …
- Home Building Insurances, which might step n once a tree or a branch fall on your home or another structure (like a garage) and causes damage, your home building insurance might cover the damage.
- Home Contents Insurances on the other hand could compensate for damages, if personal items are damaged by falling trees or branches.
- If a tree or a branch however causes damage on a neighbour’s property or injures someone, the Property Owner's Liability Insurance could cover the associated costs.
- In some cases, there may be special insurances that specifically pertain to trees or large plants on your property. These could compensate for damages caused by falling trees or dropping branches.
Below let’s have a look to the caveats, as the insurance policy can have many different conditions and exclusions, varying depending on the specific policy or the country you are living in. Some common conditions and exclusions might be ...
- Regular care and maintenance: Often landowners or tree owners are expected to check and maintain their trees regularly. This could mean making sure that the trees are healthy and stable and that they show no obvious signs of disease or damage that could cause them to fall over. If the owner neglects these duties, the insurance company could refuse to cover any damage caused by a falling tree.
- Act of nature: Many policies cover damage caused by "acts of nature", such as storms or floods. However, if the tree or branch falls due to natural ageing or disease rather than a specific event, the insurance might not pay.
- Negligence: if the landowner or tree owner is negligent and this leads to the damage, the insurance company could potentially refuse to pay. Negligence could mean, for example, that the owner knew the tree was unstable but did nothing to remove or stabilise it.
- Force majeure: Some policies might have an exclusion for damage due to force majeure, such as war, terrorism or certain types of natural disasters.
So, when the landowner agrees to obediently fulfil the obligations incurred to him by the insurance contract, he still to deliver proof that he has complied with the contractual obligations e.g. by ...
- Maintenance records: He has to keep regular maintenance records for his trees. This may include records of regular inspections, work done (such as pruning, treating diseases, etc.), and discussions with professionals.
- Photographs: He might be well advised regularly taking Photographs of his trees to document their condition. This can be particularly helpful if there is visible evidence that you have taken steps to address potential problems (such as removing an infested branch).
- Professionals: To consult professionals such as arborists or tree experts to assess the condition of his trees and recommend measures for their care or treatment counts as another precautionary activity.
- Documentation: Keeping records of experts’ consultations and any work carried out in order to properly document the care and maintenance of his trees handy is a common advice too. This could be invoices for tree care, reports from professionals, purchase receipts for equipment or materials, etc.
The key is to carefully keep records and show that you have been proactive in caring for and monitoring your trees. Running a crocodile farm on your ground probably couldn’t be regarded as being of higher risk.
Depending on the type of inspection, the size and number of trees or the type of tree care, the costs for preventive monitoring and maintenance measures can vary greatly. In any case, they are not low.
In Germany, the costs of a tree inspection can range from 50 to 200 euros per tree, depending on the scope and complexity of the inspection. Tree maintenance itself may cost between 100 and several thousand euros, depending on the scope of the work. For example, felling a large tree can cost more than 1000 euros.
In view of the variety of threats, obligations and requirements, and the high annual costs, many a landowner in his distress may make the desperate decision to simply remove all trees, freely following the manner of the Dutch tree philistine in Portugal, that a tree may not grow much taller than a man.
The approach to remove all trees from your property could certainly eliminate some of the risks associated with falling trees or branches. However, it is important to also consider the potential disadvantages or problems that could be associated with this action:
- Environmental impact: Very obviously trees play an important role in the ecosystem, even the urban one. They absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, provide habitat for animals and contribute to soil stability. Their removal will negatively impact the environment.
- Aesthetic values: The frightened may not see I, but trees often contribute to the beauty and attractiveness of a property. Removing trees can affect the appearance and attractiveness of the veery property and possibly reduce its value.
- Legal requirements: In some areas like in Hamburg, laws or ordinances may restrict the cutting of trees. You may need a permit to remove trees, especially if they are of a certain size or are a protected species. Failure to comply with these regulations may result in harsh penalties.
- Climatic impact: Trees provide shade, which can help lower temperatures in and around your home during the warmer months. Without them, it will get hotter.
- Cost: Finally, removing trees can be expensive too, especially if they are large or difficult to access.
Those who, like the fearless seafaring merchants of Hamburg 200 to 300 years ago, were not accustomed to living with risks all their lives, may be struck by pusillanimity and despondency here at the latest.
The influence of the staunchly anti-nature rural folks
TheSecondinfluence can be attributed to a changing demographic: country folks moving to the metropoles in search of jobs and entertainment are now going to deforest the cities too after they vastly succeeded out there in the countryside.
Did you ever ask yourself the question why animals tend to move to the cities, when they should have much better conditions out there in the field and woods? Well, there must be reasons for that.
Some point at the food availability, as urban areas can provide a steady and easily accessible food source for some animals. Trash bins, dumpsters, and discarded food in cities can be attractive to certain species, such as scavengers like foxes, wild boars, raccoons (yes, they meanwhile aren’t uncommon any longer in Germany) or pigeons.
Others, less convincingly, hint at modified landscapes with parks, gardens, and green spaces. Yes, these areas can provide refuge and resources for wildlife. A stronger argument might be the absence of otherwise ubiquitous hunters within densely populated areas. And in addition, some animal species possess or developed the ability to adapt and thrive in urban environments. They cope with human presence, noise, and pollution. They may also have the ability to exploit urban resources efficiently.
The main reason however is habitat loss. As agricultural land is exploited more intensively, railway embankments and roadsides become desolate and ecologically useless through herbicide use, and villages strive to give themselves an urban character, wildlife finds less and less habitat, food and shelter there. This loss of natural habitat forces animals to seek alternative environments, including urban areas, in search of food, shelter, and survival.
Even if we prefer to ignore reality and instead enjoy the fact that we now have to clean the windows of our vehicles of smashed insects much less often than we remember from our childhood, the truth is that the 6th great and global extinction of species has long been in full swing outside the gates of our cities in the now ecologically largely devastated countryside.
Tree “maintenance”
So-called tree maintenance is a sham measure that ostensibly serves to protect the trees, but in reality, is there to avoid having to take responsibility for damage in any case.
The battle cry here is "infested. Trees that harbour a rich ecosystem of small creatures are often particularly valuable ecologically. They provide habitats for a variety of organisms, including birds, insects, bats and a wide range of microorganisms. Indeed, the diversity and abundance of living organisms that a single tree can harbour can be astonishing.
This recognition of its ecological value, however, is at the same time its death sentence. Who wants to guarantee or even be liable for is vote that these cute little micro-organisms, which may represent the starting point of an entire food chain, do not end up in a particular type of pest or disease that potentially threatens its health or stability. Out of sheer caution that particular tree might rather be considered as 'infested' and is thus already doomed.
The balancing act of navigating between protecting the health and safety of people and buildings versus preserving ecologically valuable trees is irredeemably tilted towards not taking responsibility. Notwithstanding the fact that in many cases it is possible to treat or manage trees affected by pests or diseases without removing them completely, in many cases, human pusillanimity usually wins out. The trees will be felled by fear.
So, year after year, municipal saw crews equipped with impressive tools set out to keep the street green in check. As a testimony to the fact that they have been active after all, they remove at least one larger branch from each tree year after year. In doing so, they remove more than would have had the chance to grow back during that period of time. As a result, all street trees, and also those on private property, regardless of their natural growth shape, are remodelled into characteristic mushroom appearance over time. As they also become more and more unsightly and end up standing like lonely paintbrushes in the landscape, the "tree caretakers" eventually take pity on them and remove them altogether.
It would be more honest to call tree maintenance tree mutilation. In any case, it leads to the creeping death of our green companions.
.jpg)
Figure 3: Suddenly it was gone, the tree. An angry citizen asked "Warum" (Why)?
Big trees for the bravehearted - small things amuse small minds[iii]
In general, the attitude towards trees is largely determined by the environment this particular group of people traditionally used to live in. In wooded Austria or Bavaria, for example, it was traditional to first cut a clearing in the forest before building a house. The buildable area had to be wrested hard from nature. In the middle of this area, "cleared" of all vegetation, a piece of civilisation was then placed, one's own house. No wonder, then, that the fighting morale of the seemingly eternal conflict of man against nature seems to be deeply ingrained in the genes of the indigenous population in these regions. Therefore, it is still unthinkable there to live in a house in the shade of tall trees.
In other places, in Lower Saxony for example the big old farms in were usually surrounded by massive, old oak trees. Beyond that inner barn area however not may trees had survived.
The original owners of the noble villas in Hamburg's Elbe suburbs were once bold sailors, daring merchants or fearless pioneers. The last thing that could have frightened them were the trees in their garden. Inspired by the art of English landscape gardens, they had already incorporated the character trees on the site into the overall composition when they built the main house. Later, they brought seeds or seedlings from distant parts of the world and tried to make them native to the banks of the Elbe.
Lamentably, neither their grandchildren nor the raw country people who have moved in have this stature. They are afraid of anything that towers slightly above them. They are constantly on the lookout for opportunities to eliminate this perceived threat.
I encountered a harrowing example in a completely different place. This gave me the nagging suspicion that I was dealing with a global phenomenon of human small-mindedness. A Dutchman in Praia da Luz, Portugal who had inherited a veritable "paradise" of fruit trees, palms and fountains near to the seaside from his aunt, found to my horror: A tree must not grow taller than a man - hostility to nature from the land of tulip monocultures. When I returned there a year later, I was deeply saddened to find that there were already gaping holes in what had once been such a dense and soothingly shady grove of trees. If, according to legend, Adam and Eve had to be forcibly expelled from their paradise, this brute of a colleague had taken up the axe himself.
One might get the audacious idea that we are better off in Germany, the land of forests? Yet there are hardly any forests left in Germany in their original sense. Trees worth mentioning are only found in wood plantations - monocultures - mostly conifers that are mostly even not well adapted to their location - often spruces, regionally often also called Prussian trees (e.g. in the region around Aachen).
Obviously, a lot of intensive awareness-raising is still needed to turn tree-phobic narrow minds into civilised, sovereign citizens.
Replanting requirements as a poor substitute
In cases when trees cannot be preserved against the pressing lobby of interested parties, claiming a superior public need or other compelling forces, at times a replanting order is issued.
For several reasons however this is a poor substitute for old growth trees.
First of all, for decades a replanted tree unfolds only a fraction of the benefits of an old tree, let’s say, a 300-years old oak tree. After all, it’s just a sapling at best and not a tree yet.
Second, there is a generational mismatch to be taken into account. Before a tree has grown big enough to be called a tree, its environment has usually already been remodelled, reshaped and rebuilt three times – mostly through the use of chainsaws and bulldozers. Hardly any tree ever outgrows its juvenile stage in this man-made hustle and bustle.
Third, nursery-grown “large trees” can only be delivered after their branches and roots have been severely trimmed. Often, they are already cultivated in the nurseries to have a very compact root bale. Provided the appropriate big machinery is at hand, bale-sized holes are drilled into the compacted city ground, filled-up with the dugout and – that’s it. The old gardener's rule "dig a 5-dollar hole for a 1-dollar plant" is regularly disregarded in this process.
Fourth, the stoked root bales with their spherical or cylindrical shape, as a look for example at the pedunculate oak (Quercus Robur[iv]) in the root atlas confirms, do not do justice to the naturally developing root shape. Plus, often, plants develop their deep-rooted sinkers only in their early youth and not later on.
And fifth, it can be said with some confidence that even professional nurseries have so far paid little attention to the symbiosis between tree roots, soil and the fungal networks, the mycelium, that mediates between them, which is largely hidden deep underground.
This mutually beneficial relationship between trees and mycelium, which is made up of a thread-like structure of fungi, also known as mycorrhiza, occurs in two main forms, ectomycorrhizae and endomycorrhizae. It represents a fundamental ecological association that plays a crucial role in forest ecosystems, is however poorly understood and largely ignored by the caretakers of city green.
All five impeding factors may result in poor growth results. There is hence a multitude of reasons why replanted trees will in many cases never equal the old stand of trees that had to be removed for some purported compelling reason.
So, in reality the replanting obligation turns out to be a faint disguise of a creeping deforestation.
The value of trees
Can’t the obvious benefits of trees outweigh the risks involved? While according to a study[v]50-80% of the oxygen production on earth originated from the oceans, where in turn the majority is produced by oceanic plankton i.e. drifting plants, algae, and some bacteria that can photosynthesize, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that a tree absorbs from the atmosphere and sequesters should net be neglected.
According to the U.S. Forest Service, an average mature tree can absorb approximately around 22 kilograms (~48 pounds) of CO2 per year. Additionally, old trees often have rich ecosystems associated with them (moss, lichens, insects, birds, etc.) that contribute to carbon sequestration.
While this looks like quite a minor contribution to the haunting task of sequestering the about 36.4 billion metric tons total of CO2 emissions globally (as of 2021), large old trees can have a significant impact on temperatures in cities, especially during hot summer days. This phenomenon is known as the "urban heat effect", where cities tend to be warmer than surrounding rural areas, partly due to the amount of concrete and asphalt that absorbs and retains heat.
Trees and vegetation can mitigate this effect in two ways:
- Shade: Large trees can cast shade, preventing direct sunlight from reaching buildings and other surfaces, thereby reducing surface temperatures and preventing the environment from heating up.
- Evaporative cooling: Trees release water into the atmosphere through transpiration. When the water evaporates, it removes heat from the environment, which cools the air.
Tree stands in urban areas can reduce the temperature by several degrees Celsius, which can make a significant difference to the comfort and quality of life of residents. In addition, the presence of trees can also help to reduce energy consumption, as buildings require less cooling.
However, well-planned and maintained tree cover in cities can contribute significantly to reducing urban heat and improving the quality of life in cities. Reported effects include stress reduction, improved mood and reduced depression, increased concentration and cognitive function, feelings of connectedness and continuity, and even therapeutic effects - not all of which should be considered esoteric.
As Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman, a renowned psychologist, aptly demonstrates in his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow", our "System No. 1" unconsciously steers us towards avoiding potential losses rather than betting on potential gains. Risks are rated higher than opportunities - that is our nature.
The essence
Trees in urban areas complement the work of man. Whether in residential streets, on public squares or on private properties, or even above car parking spaces as a mercy for the notoriously wimpy shade parkers; it is their presence that makes the city emotionally complete.
And yet, unlike in forests, where damage caused by trees is considered an "force majeure" and thus a risk to be borne personally, in our cities we always need someone responsible to pay for any damage.
Unlike for suppose creator of all things, this is a burden for the individual citizen of the earth that can hardly be shouldered. Driven by pure panic, his thumb will usually point downwards when he is asked to give a risk assessment.
If I were to take the picture of Adalbertstraße in Hamburg shown at the beginning again today, it would no longer look like the interior of a green sparkling cathedral. Huge gaps open up a view of profane buildings and show where man's journey is to go. We can't seem to get rid of our mental heritage as children of the steppe.
Trees are not felled by the axe, but by fear, inertia and pusillanimity.
