Red tape goes wild

Eric Crampton, a man who knows stupid government when he sees it or at least when he reads about it, sent me a link to an article in the Economist on The wood for the trees. The article says

WHAT could be more relaxing than to amble through an ancient wood, pausing to rest beneath a gnarled old tree or even to hug one? Where some see rest and relaxation, though, others see danger and an opportunity for red tape. BSI British Standards, an official setter of benchmarks, is drafting guidelines on safety inspections for trees that cast a very different light on these venerable denizens and the hidden dangers of “branch shedding” (falling branches, to the layman) and even “whole-tree failure” that they pose. It suggests they should all be scrutinised once a year by their owners. Trained inspectors should beat them with mallets and prod them with probes every two years or so and still more expert folk assess the risk they pose to ambling, snoozing or tree-hugging passers-by every five years.

With such a draconian standard proposed, one could be forgiven for thinking that trees pose a grave threat to life and limb, one surely magnified by the fact that these seemingly ferocious specimens cover some 12% of Britain. Yet, according to the best available data, kamikaze trees crush only some six people to death a year (though more die after driving into fallen trees or branches). In contrast, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents reckons that more than 4,000 are killed each year in accidents in their own homes.

A possible explanation for this stupidity comes at the end of the article.

Rick Haythornthwaite, the chairman of the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council, which gives independent guidance to the government, reckons the attempt to over-regulate trees reveals two trends. The first is the tendency for small risks to become magnified in the public mind and provoke disproportionate responses. The second is the growing involvement of special-interest groups in campaigning for tougher regulation. It is surely no coincidence, he points out, that among the most active proponents of the new standard are the tree professionals who stand to gain most from a more burdensome inspection regime.

But what are the incentives here? By raising the cost to tree owners of having trees don't these regulations give very incentive to simply cut down trees to avoid said costs? And then what of the many benefits of trees, not least in ameliorating the great Satan that is climate change. As the article itself notes, such incentives

... would exacerbate an existing trend: some public bodies are already cutting down trees rather than risk getting sued if one causes harm.

Would it not be better to use the resources that would be wasted because of these tree regulations on preventing some of the 4000 deaths that occur in people's own home? Yet again regulators are not thinking things through.