Next to farmers, the biggest single group
of pesticide users are local authorities. As organisations they will purchase,
specify and use pesticides for virtually every purpose that pesticides are
designed and marketed for. The differences between most agricultural users of
pesticides and local authorities focus on two points: firstly they often apply
their pesticides in close proximity to large numbers of people and in the
environments which the public regularly uses; secondly local authorities, unlike
farming enterprises, are accountable to the public as providers of services and
as political servants.
The first point regarding the proximity to the public means
that a great many people actually see and potentially feel the effects of local
authority applied pesticides. Most councils will be familiar with complaints and
expressions of concern from members of the public relating to pesticide use. So,
even though farmers may apply much larger quantities of pesticides in the course
of their work it is very much a case of "what the eye doesn't see, the heart
doesn't grieve".
The second point regarding accountability leads local
authority officers and elected council members to take publicly voiced concerns
seriously. Disgruntled clients are also unhappy voters, and their opinions can
cost jobs. However, in a local authority context, public complaints are as
likely to be about lack of control exerted over pests such as street weeds or
rodents, as they are about over use of pesticides.
Local authorities have addressed these issues in a variety of
ways. Many have done nothing. Some have incorporated pesticides issues into
their corporate environmental strategy. A few have made an effort to address
pesticides specifically by adopting a policy which imposes some restrictions on
which pesticides are used. Only isolated councils have chosen to address the use
of pesticides throughout the organisation and developed a coherent and regularly
reviewed strategy to minimise the negative impact from pesticides. A number of
councils have also joined the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] Local Authorities Project in
order to reduce their pesticide use.
The importance of being earnest
Around the world local authorities face similar
problems. The pest organisms in Australia or California may differ from those
encountered in Canada or England, but the pressures are the same.
There are many examples of strategies and policies adopted to
control pesticides as well as pests. Of the countless state, regional and local
authorities who use pesticides to fulfil their duties we are aware of only very
few in Europe, US, Australia and Canada who have adopted formal policies. Even
this limited experience reveals enormous variation in approaches taken by
different authorities.
On the minimalist side are those councils which have chosen
to pay lip service to the issue. These will have declared their intention to use
pesticides safely, only to use pesticides registered by the authorities and to
abide by the laws regulating the sale and use of pesticides. Such policies are
comparable to declaring that only drivers with licenses will drive council
vehicles and that they will do so in accordance with the law.
Of the more progressive policies some common themes present
themselves:
A declared desire to reduce pesticides use. This is often the prime objective of the policy and may be supported by targets such as 50% reduction in pesticide volume used within three years.
Elimination of certain categories of pesticides. These might be particularly toxic pesticides, carcinogens, certain chemical groups such as organophosphates or those particularly harmful to the environment. Such decisions depend upon access to information about the pesticides which is not commonly made available by suppliers or government authorities.
Prioritisation of non-chemical pest control options over chemical pesticides. Many policies explicitly state that pesticides should only be used as a last resort option after all environmental, physical and biological options have been tried.
Monitoring pests. Pest control measures are only applied when pests reach levels at which the benefits of their control outweigh the costs and risks of the control measures. Too often control measures are applied at first sight of a pest when no control is necessary.
Review of the policy. In order to ensure that targets are being met and that the aims and objectives remain valid the policy should be reviewed regularly.
Integrated pest management (IPM). A common strategy which embraces most of the above themes. Although definitions of IPM vary, there is general agreement among most experienced and progressive bodies that a major aim of IPM is to reduce reliance and use of pesticides.
Some policy examples
San Francisco has taken its policy further than
any other US State or municipality. As well as defining IPM in great detail the
policy imposes a city wide ban on any pesticide classified as a Toxicity
Category I, or classified by the US EPA as a human carcinogen, probable human
carcinogen or possible human carcinogen. Pesticides listed by the California
Safe Drinking Water Act as causing cancer or as reproductive toxins are also
banned. In addition every City Department using two or more pesticides
must reduce the cumulative volume of pesticides used by 50% of 1996 usage by 1
January 1998 and by 100% by 1 January 2000(1,2).
Since the early 1980s the Parks and Public Recreations Bureau
of Portland in Oregon, US has developed and implemented a programme based
on IPM. Taking into account the environmental factors which affect pest
development the programme also encourages staff experimentation. The Bureau's
policy stresses the prevention of pest problems and control through non-chemical
means before resorting to chemicals(3).
In Eugene, Oregon, both the Parks Department
and the School District have adopted IPM policies through a process that started
in 1980. Effectively pesticide use is restricted to specific situations where
non-pesticidal control measures have failed. Pesticide use then has to be
specifically approved and used for spot treatment only. Interestingly the Parks
and Recreation Department developed their IPM strategy without the allocation of
any extra resources. On the contrary, the policy was implemented during a period
of 16% staff reductions and very restrictive budget guidelines(4).
In 1991 the State of Oregon passed the IPM Act. This
required all state agencies with pest control responsibilities to develop IPM
programmes within one year. The agencies included the Departments of
Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife, Forestry, Transportation (including highways and
Parks and Recreation), Corrections and the Division of State Lands. This
initiative at State level was to a large extent driven by initiatives developed
within local authorities(5).
One of the problems encountered in implementing Oregon's
IPM Act was the definition of IPM. In training programmes it emerged that some
participants believed that monitoring pest levels and then using pesticides to
eradicate the pests was IPM. Others felt that their restriction on the use of
certain chemicals was IPM.
According to the North West Coalition for Alternatives to
Pesticides (NCAP) the Oregon Act is very weak in its definition of IPM,
effectively requiring only that State personnel are trained in IPM techniques.
There is no requirement to place pesticides as a last resort option or to reduce
their use by a predefined target level. So weak is the Oregon definition that
apparently chemical companies are promoting it as a model policy to other States
and municipalities in order to ensure that their market for pesticides is secure(6).
Integrated roadside management
Several US States and municipalities have adopted
programmes which use IPM for the control and management of roadside weeds. In
1993 Washington State Department of Transport changed its strategy from one
which sterilised road verges by applying over 60 tonnes of herbicides in 1992,
to an IPM approach. Similarly the Governor's office of New York State issued
an order in 1993 requiring a phase in of IPM in all state buildings at a rate of
20% per year. However, at least one department, the Office of General Services
stopped spraying in all its property immediately.
Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin have all adopted programmes
which rely on IPM for the management of roadside weeds. The term coined for
these programmes is Integrated Roadside Management which involves the
introduction of native plants back into the roadside environment. These are able
to thrive and compete with the harmful weeds so that the need for their control
is minimised. At the same time herbicide use is virtually eliminated in order to
protect the native plantings(7).
Europe
Germany led the way in addressing pesticide use in
local and regional government. In the late 1970s the then City of West Berlin
banned the use of herbicides for weed control on roads and other hard surfaces.
This cold turkey approach seemed to be working well. When asked in the mid
1980s, a representative of the municipality claimed that not controlling weeds
was not creating any significant problems. However, after a decade it seemed
that unchecked weed growth in some areas was causing structural damage. Recently
the authorities have been investigating physical control options such as the
Waipuna hot water weed system in order to check weed growth on river banks and
roads where damage is appearing. The herbicide ban however, seems to be still in
place.
The German state of Baden-Württemberg also imposed a ban on
non-agricultural herbicide use in 1991. It extended this ban to many
insecticides, fungicides and other pesticides used in non-agricultural
situations, much to the frustration of the pesticide industry and many private
gardeners. Meanwhile the environmental organisation Bund was urging the
neighbouring state of Bavaria to impose similar bans(8).
An example of a municipal initiative from Denmark illustrates
the strength of public feeling on the issue of pesticide use in public areas. In
the town of Aalborg a questionnaire was sent to 2,400 residents. As many as 67%
of respondents indicated that they would like to do away with pesticide use in
parks and cemeteries even if they looked less well cared for as a result.
Other regions
Australia has examples of local initiatives to reduce
or eliminate pesticide use in non-agricultural situations. In the suburb of
Leichhardt, Sydney, residents are given the option of displaying a yellow dot to
prevent herbicides from being sprayed on their property. Although the council
continues to spray weeds, they will respect individual autonomy on this issue(9).
The Australian NGO, National Toxics Network developed a
Pesticide Reduction Program for local councils based on the precautionary
principle. The eight point programme requires councils to set targets for
reducing use of pesticides and to aim for an outright ban on their use in public
areas(10).
In Canada, several municipal departments and some entire
municipalities have imposed bans or restrictions on pesticide use. Hudson
and Ottawa have discontinued all pesticide use. In addition 11 boards of
education and six parks and recreation departments have discontinued pesticide
use(11).
UK experience
Avon County Council
This council worked with the Pesticides Trust Local
Authorities Project during 1993-94 and developed a comprehensive policy
governing pesticide use throughout the County and its departments. The main
elements of the policy were:
consider non-chemical alternatives to pesticides where practicable;
reduce pesticide use to a minimum;
use least harmful pesticides;
apply legislation including the Food and Environment Protection Act and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations;
provide information about pesticides in use by the council;
ensure pesticides are applied safely;
withdraw Red List and Black List hazardous pesticides;
withdraw pesticides posing unacceptable health risks(12).
Avon also established a Chemicals Working
Group that reviewed any chemicals proposed for use and decided whether they met
the criteria defined in the policy.
Avon's policy document was published as a booklet which
included several informative appendices. This document was a model for several
other local authority policies which were developed later. Unfortunately Avon
County Council was dismantled in the recent reorganisation of British local
government, but the pesticides policy work carried out remains a useful example
for others.
Brighton Council
In its Charter for the Environment it states that the
council should seek to replace pesticides with biological methods of control
where practicable(13). To an extent, Brighton has undersold itself since we know
that in many situations cultural and physical controls have replaced chemicals
and not just biological controls. Brighton has succeeded in eliminating
herbicide use from paved areas in the town centre by use of extensive sweeping,
and from its gardens by use of cultural controls and physical barriers. The
officers responsible for implementing the pest management policy have also
doggedly pursued each pesticide in use to determine whether its continued use is
acceptable.
Buckinghamshire Council|
Buckinghamshire County Council in its State of the
Environment Report asks: "What can local authorities in Buckinghamshire do to
reduce the amount of pesticides they use thereby minimising the impact of these
pesticides on the county?"(14) The answer is clearly, plenty.
London Borough of Southwark
In rewriting its grounds maintenance contract for
parks, Southwark broke new ground by specifying that pesticides should not be
used. Only in exceptional circumstances could contractors seek special approval
to use a chemical pesticide where no other method could achieve the necessary
ends.
Southwark's Education and Leisure Client Services have now
formulated a detailed strategy document which places the search for non-chemical
methods high on the agenda and seeks to set pesticide reduction targets for the
Council. The principles of IPM are also built into the strategy.
Colchester Council
In 1990 Colchester pre-empted many others by using physical weed control methods
where possible, and selecting least hazardous herbicides where no viable
alternatives were found.
An interesting point raised by Colchester was the apparent
conflict between reduced pesticides use and presentation of a 'beautiful'
environment. Colchester had been a winner of the Britain in Bloom award and was
concerned that reduced herbicide use would lead to more weeds for which they
would be penalised in future judging for the award. If this is the case it is an
issue which needs to be addressed(15).
Other policies
Local authorities including Fife Regional, Hampshire
County, Haringey Borough, Leicester City, Oxford City, Norwich City, Shropshire
County have policies in place or in advanced development.
But how much will it cost?
Perhaps one of the most interesting and progressive
policies developed recently is that of Southwark Education and Leisure Client
Services. The presumption in this policy is that pesticides will not be used,
and this is also written into the grounds maintenance contracts. In effect
the Council is exploiting the Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) process to
achieve its ends by placing the onus on the contractor to find non-chemical
solutions at reasonable cost.
The cost element is key to virtually all the policies we have
seen from UK authorities. A typical example can be found in Hampshire County
Council's aide-memoire on its pesticides policy:(16) "No pesticides should
be used where there is a suitable alternative method of pest control consistent
with good practice and reasonable cost."
This attitude is clearly contradicted by the experience of
Eugene, Oregon where, despite initial resistance, IPM was actually shown to save
money and became popular with staff.
The future
Too few local authorities in the UK and elsewhere have
addressed their own pesticide use adequately. Despite calls from government,
eminent scientific bodies, environmental groups and even the water industry, few
have looked seriously at options other than continued pesticide use. Even the
adoption of Agenda 21 strategies by most councils has not created a new wave of
pest management policies.
It may be that waiting for the political machine of local
government to generate policies is too slow and precarious a process. Action
without a policy being in place is possible and relatively common. In such cases
the ends are achieved, but the political kudos of being seen to be green is
missed.
On this basis it seems that the most productive way
forward in reducing local authority pesticide use is an intensified programme of
training, information provision, experience sharing and learning through
experimentation. The Pesticides Trust Local Authorities Project continues to be
the only forum we are aware of which can provide these services. We hope that
uptake of these services will continue to grow. (MD)