Next
summer up to 50 English public parks will be awarded the first Green Flag Park
Awards. Mark Davis reports that the awards will be made in recognition of
high standards of environmental protection and enhancement. They will also take
account of community involvement and the quality of landscapes. The Victorians developed parks as the
'green lungs' of their cities. The local park was central to the needs of
the community and served a wide range of needs such as active recreational
space, meeting place, event venue and more. Recent years have seen severe cuts
in public spending, and parks have suffered particularly badly because their
provision is not a statutory function of local authorities or any other body. To
some extent, the services which parks were originally designed to provide have
been replaced by more modern equivalents. Indoor sports centres, greater
mobility, television and other forms of entertainment have significantly
reduced the numbers of people using parks and the time spent in them.
However, the public is not ready to abandon parks.
The scheme is supported by the Department of the
Environment's Environment Action Fund, the Esmée Fariburn Charitable Foundation
and Waipuna (Europe). It is an irreplaceable resource where children play,
dogs are walked, people relax and meet. Moreover, parks now have roles to play
which may not have existed previously. They can provide wildlife habitats in a
greater environment where these habitats have been largely destroyed; they
provide increasingly rare traffic free areas; they are free in a culture where a
price is put on everything; they often contain historically significant
structures or landscape features on land which is protected from development.
What does it have to do with pesticides?
It may not be immediately obvious why the Pesticides
Trust [now PAN UK] has become involved in an award scheme for good parks. But the origins of
the scheme lie in the work of the Trust in helping local authorities to reduce
their pesticides use. Pesticide use in parks is not usually particularly heavy,
largely because councils tend to minimise spending in parks and therefore do not
demand particularly high standards of maintenance. However, pesticides are used
in parks for a variety of purposes.
Pesticide use on grass areas varies according to the use of
the area: fine turf areas such as bowling greens and cricket pitches are often
heavily dosed with selective herbicides against broad leaved weeds, insecticides
against soil dwelling insect larvae, lumbricides against earthworms and
fungicides to control the many fungal diseases which can attack turf grasses;
sports pitches which can tolerate the battering of regular hockey, football or
rugby games generally require less manicuring but may be sprayed with selective
herbicides and occasionally with fungicides or insecticides; turfed areas for
general use may not require any chemical treatments, but that depends on the
approach taken by those who maintain it.
The range of chemical pesticides used for pest and disease
control on turf is not particularly large, but includes a number of pesticides
of particular concern in terms of the health and environmental hazards they
present. The selective herbicides 2,4-D and MCPA are widely used and are both
classified as possible human carcinogens by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer. 2,4-D is an endocrine disruptor, a water contaminant and is
toxic to fish. Insecticides recommended for use against chafer grubs,
leatherjackets and other soil dwelling insects include lindane, carbaryl and
thiophanate methyl. Lindane is a possible human carcinogen, an endocrine
disruptor, water contaminant and toxic to wildlife (see PN28 p28-29); carbaryl
has recently been restricted for use in the UK because of its potential for
causing cancer (see PN31 p20-21). It is also an endocrine disruptor. Thiophanate
methyl has been classified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a
possible human carcinogen. Of the fungicides used on turf, chlorothalonil is a
severe eye irritant and possible human carcinogen and carbendazim is an
endocrine disruptor and is toxic to fish.
Pesticides used elsewhere in parks present a similarly bleak
picture. Weed control on shrub beds often relies on residual herbicides such as
diuron which is a water contaminant, or contact herbicides such as paraquat
which is highly toxic. Even simazine which has been banned for most
non-agricultural uses because of its high potential for water contamination, can
be used on rose beds.
Parks are the places where children play on the grass, dogs
run free, summer picnics are held and players of field sports spend at least
some of the time in contact with the grass. Pesticide use in parks should
therefore be of major concern.
Carrots rather than sticks
Rather than browbeat local authority grounds
maintenance managers by showering them with the negative facts about pesticides,
we decided to try and provide an incentive for change. The idea of an award for
environmentally sensitive grounds management was born in early 1993. However,
using less pesticides does not necessarily imply that local flora and fauna are
properly protected; recycling plant waste generated during maintenance work does
not ensure that litter and dog mess is appropriately dealt with; using cultural
methods for turf maintenance instead of relying on chemicals does not
necessarily ensure that a park is a safe place for all members of the community.
It would be self defeating to present an award for environmentally sound grounds
maintenance if park users were to complain that other aspects of the park are
severely neglected.
Since the wider aspects of park management lie beyond the
expertise of the Pesticides Trust, other organisations were approached early on
in order to develop the award scheme with their assistance. The Institute
of Leisure and Amenity Management (ILAM) is the leading professional
organisation representing parks managers in the UK. ILAM is keen to raise the
profile of public parks and ensure that they are given the recognition and
resources that they deserve after years of neglect. English Nature runs an urban
programme which promotes the conservation and enhancement of natural flora and
fauna in our cities. They have an interest in encouraging the use of parks as
natural havens in an otherwise largely hostile environment. Both organisations
joined the steering group for what quickly became known as the Green Flag Park
Award scheme.
Is yours a Green Flag Park?
After much planning, discussion and fundraising, the
Green Flag Park Award scheme was launched at the ILAM Parks Seminar held in
Bedford in September 1996. The scheme is now open for applications from
organisations who manage parks which they believe meet the criteria of the
scheme.
The criteria were drafted by the steering group but were not
finalised until a broad consultation exercise took place with nearly 50
organisations who have an interest in some aspect of parks. The criteria cover
access, health and safety, cleanliness and maintenance, environmental aspects of
management, conservation, community involvement, promotion of understanding and
overall management. Parks which are judged to meet the criteria to sufficiently
high standards will be eligible for an award.
The judging process is designed to recognise and acknowledge
innovation and efforts made to attain high standards. The organisers are
particularly keen to draw parks with limited resources into the scheme rather
than restricting it to well funded parks.
In the first year the budget allows for up to 50 flags to be
awarded. The intention is that the scheme will develop quickly into a
nationally, and ultimately internationally recognised quality mark for public
parks. And if ultimately the scheme brings about significant changes in the way
public open spaces are managed, with fewer pesticides, or none at all, then the
Pesticides Trust will have succeeded in its initial aims by rewarding park
managers for their efforts.
[This
article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 34,
December 1996, page 11]