Analysis: the Anne Frank tree under the microscope
In November 2006, the Amsterdam City Centre Borough announced that the tree was so diseased that it had to be cut. Strange to say, this conclusion was solely based on an inspection by the tree management company Pius Floris Amsterdam that worked for the Borough. Requests for a second opinion by various parties were resolutely turned down and later even obstructed. This led to doubts about the tree’s actual health and rumours about hidden agendas that favour its felling.
The working committee “Support Anne Frank Tree” took the initiative to carry out second opinion inspections. The tree proves to be remarkably more vital than the studies carried out for the Borough suggest. This page provides a survey of the second opinion inspections and a number of conclusions.
Second opinion inspections
The Anne Frank tree is a lot sturdier than the Borough’s experts claim. English ancient tree expert Neville Fay confirms that the tree is affected by fungi, but goes on to observe that the tree is quite vital for its age and species. It does not need to be cut. The tree may be preserved if the necessary measures are taken. However, this does require the development of a long-term plan, the anchoring of the tree and the continued monitoring of its condition: “"This tree may yet survive us all!”
The report by O.B.T.A. De Linde, the Frits Gielissen company, confirms this impression. Gielissen subjected the tree to a detailed inspection, using more refined inspection methods than Pius Floris. His inspection shows that the tree’s wood quality is adequate and that it is sufficiently vital to be spared. Premature cutting is not required and the tree may be subjected to the planned pulling test without any risk.