Search for sustainability

Britain uses more pesticides in forestry than many other European countries. Anna Jenkins and Simon Pryor report on research to improve this situation through their work for the Forest Stewardship Council.

Knapsack application - Forestry Commission

Since Britain signed up to the Forest Principles at the Earth Summit in Rio, committing themselves to pursuing 'sustainable forestry', there has been endless debate on what this commitment means. It soon became clear that there was going to be a different approach to the use of pesticides between the government's UK Forestry Standard and the Forest Stewardship Council(1) (FSC) UK Working Group  Standards. The government Standard stated that operators should "Use fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides according to the specific needs of the site." In contrast the FSC started with a presumption against any use of chemicals. In the light of this debate the FSC UK Working Group commissioned a report Chemical Use in UK Forestry by the authors on pesticides and fertilisers used in UK forestry(2). 
    The report looked at the pesticides used in the greatest quantities by the Forestry Commission (usage figures for the private sector as a whole are not available). Herbicides are the most frequently used chemicals, (glyphosate, asulam, atrazine, propyzamide, 2,4-D, imazapyr, triclopyr and ammonium sul-phamate) with  application mainly confined to the first three to five years of forest establishment. Other pesticides include: the insecticides permethrin (synthetic pyrethroid) and  carbosulfan (carbamate); warfarin, an anticoagulant rodenticide; and urea, used not as a crop fertiliser, but to encourage benign saprophytic fungi rather than pathological ones to colonise tree stumps.

Data gaps
It was a surprise to find how little information was available on many common pesticides. 
    Environmental impact information was frequently needed in greater detail, as were better methods of monitoring and analysis. Imazapyr for example is persistent and highly mobile in soil with a potential to leach into groundwater. It has been found in water bodies but the method of analysis for its detection in water is not considered satisfactory. Information on this herbicide is very limited; almost no information is available on its possible effect on the environment, despite the fact that a residual action in the soil may be maintained for two years. As a result the report concluded that imazapyr was best avoided. Other pesticides researched that had an alarmingly small amount of environmental information available included ammonium sulphate, 2,4-D, propyzamide and carbosulfan.
    Warfarin, a non-specific anticoagulant mammalian poison listed by the WHO as 'highly hazardous' to humans was a particular problem for the FSC as it is the standard method of controlling grey squirrels. The report found that alternative chemicals to second generation anticoagulants could have even wider negative effects, particularly on birds for example, and that shooting or trapping was too costly and often ineffective in larger forests.

A conflict of interests
Those contributing to the FSC Standards were pulled in opposite directions on the use of asulam to control bracken. On sites where hand cutting is the only alternative to asulam should an operator walk through stands hand cutting with a hook, and breathing in the carcinogenic spores? Or should aerial spraying, hardly the image of sustainable forestry be allowed? The study reported that, where terrain allows, crushing the bracken with a tractor mounted with a ridged roller proved to be 60-80% effective.

Comparison with Europe
As part of the process of harmonising across Europe the FSC held a meeting to compare the evolving standards. It became clear that Britain was accepting a higher use of pesticides than several other European countries. In the draft Belgian, Danish and Swedish FSC standards virtually all pesticides were banned, except when establishing plantations on agricultural land. In Sweden foresters have been working with a government pesticides reduction policy for some time and had useful experiences to add to the report.  In Denmark, the government pays a premium rate or grant for afforestation projects that avoid the use of any pesticides and fertilisers.

Future developments
Part of the reason for the higher pesticide use in the UK includes the presence of exotic pests such as the grey squirrel and the mild, wet climate that gives high weed growth. There is growing interest in alternative approaches within both the Forestry Commission (FC) and the wider UK forestry sector and it is clear that a method similar to the COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988) assessment is needed to ensure environmental health and safety. Such an assessment would promote better practices that considered environmental and non-target effects. 
    The FC is also changing to practices that move away from pesticide use in some cases. It is, for example, developing an integrated pest management technique to control the great pine weevil Hylobius abietes using biological control with nematode worms. There is unfortunately a time lag between research findings and availability of practical advice and information to the forest manager.
    Following intense discussion of both FSC and FC Standards covering the use of pesticides and other contentious 'sustainability' issues such as use of exotic species, it became clear that there was a desire to produce a bridging document between the two Standards, a Joint Audit Protocol (JAP). A meeting held in March resulted in a draft JAP and the FC offered its commitment to produce a Decision Support Framework 12 months after its completion.
    The text in the current draft, (yet to be finalised) has many bones of contention with some groups not happy with the implication that all chemicals are always environmentally harmful and that they need to be reduced until no chemicals are used. The JAP states that: "Management systems shall promote the development and adoption of environmentally friendly non-chemical methods of pest and crop management and strive to avoid the use of chemical pesticides. Pesticides... can be used only where there is no practical alternative that does not entail excessive cost."
    Despite the gap that still exists between the stakeholder groups, progress made on this issue has been substantial and unprecedented in UK forestry. Before a forest can be certified as complying with the JAP, forest managers will be required to look at problems on a case by case basis, carefully justifying any use of chemicals through a formal appraisal of impacts and alternatives. This questioning approach is likely to lead to an immediate reduction in pesticide usage, but in the longer term should also result in alternatives being developed.

1. The Forest Stewardship Council in an international non-profit, non-governmental organisation. It aims to bridge the gap between responsible producers and consumers of forest products worldwide through the use of the FSC label. 
2. Anna Jenkins and Simon Pryor, Chemicals in UK Forestry, FSC UK, Fax  01686 412176, £105, 73pp, also available at: www.fsc-uk.demon.co.uk

Organisations that support the FSC include the Woodland Trust, Friends of the Earth, some individual foresters and most of the major DIY retailers and superstores. A full list is available.

Anna Jenkins is a consultant for the FSC and Simon Pryor works for the Oxford Forestry Institute.

 [This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 41, September 1998, page 14]