CONSIDER the world's treescapes as a tapestry on which every thread tells its own story. Pull at one and there's a commercial conifer plantation, planted to meet growing – and increasingly incessant – demand for timber. Work your way down one side and you'll find the trees of the Platinum Jubilee, grown across the Commonwealth. Run your fingers along its edges and discover all those trees that stand tall in gardens from Adelaide to Lima, and every urban setting in-between. 

Whether it be for wood, recreational use, or just to add some green to a homely setting, you'd struggle to find a tree that hasn't been planted with at least some thinking having taken place (we won't open the Pandora's Box of whether or not those thoughts are always considered in this newsletter). Species, quantity, and the space needed to plant – while that's a simple reading of the process, it's one followed by foresters, arborists, site managers, tree officers, and landowners the world over. 

READ MORE: FCA publishes open letter to ask what FISA has given the forestry industry

But maybe we need to add a few more considerations to the (albeit brief) list. 

Last week, I attended the first day of the 55th National Amenity Arboriculture Conference in Loughborough, where thousands of tree professionals came together to ask themselves: "What is a Tree?" In trying to get to the bottom of that, a swathe of expert speakers took to the stage, from Ted Green to Kevin Frediani, each offering their own take on the tree's place in the world. 

However, three talks stood out, and certainly seemed to open more than a few eyes on the room. They came from Lorien Nesbitt and Jessica Quinton, Canadian academics, and Rhodes University's Nanamhla Gwedla. Relying on spoonfuls of paraphrasing, their arguments were as follows. 

Lorien and Jessica, a student of Lorien's, both provided evidence that treescapes across America and Canada are far from equal. The gist being that people from more impoverished backgrounds were far less likely to be surrounded by trees than those living in wealthier parts of town. 

Nanamhla, meanwhile, told delegates about the legacy of British imperialism and Apartheid in South Africa. Not only were Apartheid practices (for want of a better word) still being followed when it came to some tree decision-making, but housebuilding programmes in less affluent areas rarely considered trees, if at all. This was termed as 'Green Apartheid' by Nanamhla. 

The obvious response might be just to go into those areas that need trees and plant them – everyone wins, right? Well, not according to the three speakers. As Lorien and Jessica were at pains to point out, making areas more green without the input and consent of locals could have adverse effects. For instance, house prices could rise, becoming unaffordable, with people forced to move – aka 'Green Gentrification'. 

While Nanamhla showed how people in poorer areas were likely to be less accepting of trees, partly as a result of imperial legacy and partly because they could also be seen as something 'forced' onto them. 

There is, of course, a lot more to it and this is just a snippet of what all three had to say.

But it shows the challenges that lie in making our treescapes more equal. It could be daunting for tree professionals – but it's also an opportunity. 

This piece is an extract from today’s Forestry Features newsletter, which is emailed out at 4PM every Wednesday with a round-up of the week's top stories. 

To receive our full, free newsletter straight to your email inbox, click here.