What prompted Southwark to embark on
the process of developing a pesticides strategy or pest management policy?
Southwark Council has had a commitment to becoming a greener and
environmentally friendly borough which involves a more pro-active approach to
the protection of the environment and our desire to meet the concerns of the
community regarding the use of pesticides in our parks and open spaces.
The pesticide strategy will constitute a significant
contribution to aims of sustainable development within Southwark and the
development of Local Agenda 21 issues. Our public consultations supported the
view that pesticide use should be reduced or eliminated.
What options have been explored in
developing and implementing the policy?
Having identified that a policy was needed we initially gathered
information from any source which had something to offer. This included the
British Agrochemicals Association, ADAS, the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK], various
pesticide manufacturers and manufacturers of alternative pest control
products. We also approached neighbouring authorities to see if any had gone
through similar processes, but none had.
If the whole process of developing a pest management policy
and implementing it could have been carried out in house, we would have done
that. However, we realised that we needed unbiased expertise and chose to work
with the Pesticides Trust Local Authorities Project. This offered advice
which came closest to what we were trying to achieve, and we believe that
information and advice from The Trust is truly independent.
Since the process of developing a
pest management policy started, what measures have been implemented?
Initially we tightened the existing contract specification in order to
allow us greater control over contractors use of pesticides. With tighter
controls it became easier to monitor use, certification of applicators,
equipment etc.
We then looked at
alternative ways of specifying weed control, which is the major use of
pesticides in our contracts. The most recent step was to remove all scheduled
use of pesticides from the contract and issue it under our own control. That
means that a contractor must bid for the contract on the understanding that
work will be carried out without using pesticides.
Interestingly, this also provided a measure of the quality
of the contractor. Those that could not propose any alternative control
methods would probably not show a great deal of initiative in other areas;
those who thought about the contract and suggested alternative strategies were
clearly more enlightened and receptive to our ideas.
To help in advancing the process, we also organised
demonstrations of alternative control products such as the Waipuna hot water
weed control system (see PN 28 p.6). This demonstrated to our own officers as
well as to contractors that alternatives to chemicals were available. However,
we didn’t specify any of the alternatives in our contract because that would
tie us to relatively unproven systems with all their benefits as well as any
faults which might emerge.
We also identified training as a requirement and sent
officers on courses relevant to their work including NPTC Pesticide
Application Certificates and the British Agrochemical Standards Inspection
Scheme (BASIS) courses.
Did the ‘no pesticides’
requirement of the new grounds maintenance contract create any problems with
contractors?
The reaction from contractors was one of surprise having
never come across such a specification before, but other than that there
didn’t seem to be any problems.
In terms of the cost of the contract, it’s difficult to
say whether the exclusion of pesticides significantly added to the overall
cost. The contract is for grounds maintenance and requires certain standards
to be set. In excluding pesticides we did not change the range of work or the
required standards. However, where spraying activities are no longer
permitted, they have been replaced with hoeing, sweeping, or manual weeding.
So savings in one area are replaced by increases in another.
It may also be that contractors changed the costings of
certain types of activity, or are undercutting each other because competition
is fierce. Whatever the reasons, the overall cost of the contract without
pesticides this year is only about 10 percent higher than the cost for the
same contract with pesticides use. That 10% could quite easily be accounted
for by inflation or increased costs in areas other than weed control.
We also have contracts which are still running which had to
be varied to accommodate the new ‘no pesticides’ requirement.
A practical problem has arisen because of the extra
sweeping to control weeds on hard surfaces in our parks. Many of these
surfaces are not in a good state of repair; weeds grow through cracks and
broken surface areas and more sweeping is needed to keep them under control.
The additional sweeping however, is breaking up the damaged surfaces even more
and so adding to the problem. We need to invest in resurfacing to provide a
viable long term solution.
What else would you like to achieve
from this process?
Ultimately we would like to expand the strategy which we have
developed for parks to other departments in the council which use pesticides.
Where there are specific areas where pesticides have to be used we must
introduce procedures for reviewing, recording and monitoring their use.
Alternative, non-pesticide controls also need to be
reviewed to judge their success and make changes where necessary, so we need
to establish the necessary mechanisms. We would also like to explore other
options. For example, we know that some members of the public have no problem
with weeds in parks, so perhaps we could stop treatment altogether.
This is a new contract and it is too early to say how
successful the new strategies will be. Some problems have already arisen and
we need to address those. The hard surfaces example is one, another is the
maintenance of fine turf areas. There don’t seem to be any viable
alternatives to pesticides for the selective control of weeds and worm control
on areas such as bowling greens.
With public support and the political support of the
Council we feel confident that this strategy will work and that it will expand
in Southwark and hopefully into neighbouring authorities too.
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 31,March 1996, page 10]