Barking up the right tree

The drive for replacement planting, according to Małgorzata Dębicka, a lawyer in the environmental protection and natural resources practice of law firm Dentons, really got underway in Poland due to the passing of the nature protection act of 1991, which stipulated that trees and shrubs that had been removed had to be replaced with new plantings, and these regulations were later amended by another act in 2004. However, both the Polish constitution and international law make it clear that development should be sustainable and that if damage is done to the environment, action should be taken to compensate for this. “Planting trees and shrubs to compensate for the damage people do to the environment requires the number of trees and shrubs planted to be no less than those removed. What this entails is that the negative effects of human action resulting from, for example, preparing a development for construction, are at least to some extent reduced,” explains Karol Szymańczyk, a lawyer in the environmental protection and natural resources practice of Dentons. The responsibilities of a developer or any other entity that fells trees don’t end with just planting new ones. They must care for the saplings for three years or lose the deposit they had to pay for permission to remove the original trees in the first place. Only once the authorities are satisfied that these responsibilities have been met, will they grant the necessary permissions.

Could be better in practice

Małgorzata Dębicka believes that this is a good system, but how effectively it works is entirely dependent on the local authorities responsible for verifying that replacements have been planted. “One of the weaknesses of the current system is that it always follows the principle of ‘a tree for a tree’ with no legal requirement to take into account the age or size of the tree that is planted – and there’s no continuous monitoring of the replacement trees, while the responsibilities that follow from the administrative decisions granted are not always met,” she admits. Moreover, residents often don’t see the result of these measures, since trees can disappear from in front of their homes and reappear somewhere completely different. In practice, when there is nowhere on the plot to plant the trees, the authorities will allocate some other plot for planting these trees. It might be one owned by the developer, the local authorities themselves, or some completely different company or individual. “This can be a very complicated situation because the right to use such a property must be properly obtained by the entity that has to plant the replacement trees and shrubs,” points out Karol Szymańczyk. However, it is clearly crucial for the replacement trees to be planted as close as possible to the development. “When we speak to the local authorities, we ask them to allocate land to plant the replacement trees right next to our projects, then the local residents not only see the trees being removed but also the replacements being planted,” insists Konrad Płochocki, the managing director of the Polish Association of Developers (PFZD).

In practice, local policy regarding the planting of replacement trees varies greatly. Some councils adopt a very systematic approach when it comes to planting replacement trees. “They work with the appropriate specialists not only to establish how many and where the trees should be planted, but also what type. This is important for maintaining the consistency of the natural landscape and ensuring that the trees take hold in their new locations,” says Małgorzata Dębicka.

According to Dariusz Nowak, the director of health and safety and environmental protection at Echo Investment: “We can clearly see that cities are becoming more inclined to increase the number of replacement plantings than to impose higher fees.” However, since this is not a mandatory system, what happens generally depends on the preferences of the local authorities. For the developer, it’s much better financially to plant replacement trees than to pay the fees, whereas for the authorities it’s the other way around – pocketing the fees often seems more tempting. “Small cities and towns are happier to take money from developers than demand the planting of replacement trees,” admits Konrad Płochocki. As a result, for over five years the PZFD has been lobbying for replacement plantings to become the standard, with fees only being collected in cases where there is no possibility for replacements.

A change in mentality

In truth, even if there were no system of compensating for environmental damage, it isn’t difficult to persuade developers to plant trees and it’s much easier than going through the local authorities. This is a trend that is being dictated by the market. According to a survey by the PZFD, home buyers value greenery and trees next to their buildings more than solar panels or retention tanks. It’s the same with office workers, who occasionally want to take a break and a moment’s stroll through green surroundings. “Currently, an old and crooked self-seeded tree is valued more highly by most people than a neatly-trimmed hedge. Just a few years ago, leaving a tree in place that was of a species considered unattractive was unthinkable. These days such trees are regarded as one of the main features of the development,” claims Konrad Płochocki. As a result, a large number of saplings are being planted. “In large cities, developers of their own accord are planting three trees on average for each one they cut down, which is much more than is required by the legislation,” he adds.

The same point is echoed by Echo Investment: “Last year we managed to plant three times more trees than we were forced to cut down. Of the trees we felled, 14 were in such a condition that they posed a safety risk and five were cut down at the request of the authorities to make way for road improvements next to our developments,” reveals Dariusz Nowak. In total, the developer planted 300 trees in 2020, of which 130 were replacements, while the rest were planted at its own initiative.

If you want to assess how much developers value greenery (even if it is partly for how this benefits their image), you only have to look at how often old trees are replanted. Last year, Finnish developer YIT moved 21 old trees for its Aroma Park project in Warsaw, including lime, sycamore and ash trees. Some of these trees together with their roots weighed around 30 tonnes. The developer hasn’t revealed how much this cost, but the entire operation took a week to complete and required not only a heavy crane but a team on the ground of several dozen people.

Win-win-win

According to Karol Szymańczyk of Dentons, every-one stands to gain from replacement plantings – developers, the authorities and local residents. Nevertheless, he believes that the regulations still need to be tightened up, especially over the minimum age and size of the trees; he believes that expert advice should be sought to decide what species of tree should be planted; and has also has concerns for the continuing care of the saplings. “You don’t need to break down an unlocked door. Many local authorities with years of experience behind them have already established adequate procedures for themselves and we can draw up regulations based on these to cover the whole of Poland,” believes Karol Szymańczyk.