Chemical Restrictions

By Shamash, Jack

An EU directive regulating pesticide use could strongly affect amenity services, says Jack Shamash

Within the next two years the European Commission (EC) is expected to produce a directive that will place restrictions on the way pesticides can be used. The move is designed to protect the environment and the population. However, the horticulture industry is concerned that the directive is impractical and will make it almost impossible to control weeds or common pests.

The move was initiated by the EC, which set a number of environmental themes that it wanted to tackle. As part of this programme, it wants the EU to create a “thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides”.

The process of creating the new directive (see panel. p30) is immensely complicated and generates a huge amount of paperwork. However, the most important document is the proposed directive, which was published in July last year.

The directive covers “plant protection products”. The EU defines these products as anything that is intended to “protect plants against harmful organisms including weeds”. The new laws will thus legislate for things that affect plants – herbicides, sprays against fungi, plant bacteria and viruses – as well as products designed to kill insects that harm plants. It won’t cover sprays against animal tics or mosquitoes.

The directive points out that pesticides can be extremely useful. They can help growers maximise their yield and they can be immensely labour-saving. The use of pesticides means that weeds do not have to be physically removed from the ground.

However, as most people concede, there are problems with pesticide use. When sprayed from the air. pesticides can drift – potentially causing health problems for humans and animals. Pesticides can be a danger to the aquatic environment – they can get into the water table or leach into rivers. Once there, they can be absorbed by humans, fish and animals. In sensitive areas, where rare plants or birds are located, they can threaten the local habitat.

And they can be dangerous to humans either those who are handling them or those who happen to be in the neighbourhood.

Some common chemicals have been found in excessive levels in rivers. At the end of January, for example, the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) announced that the EU would be removing the commonly used residual herbicide Diuron from Annexe 1 the list of chemicals that can be routinely used. Diuron has been widely used to destroy weeds on hard surfaces. The EU committee that examines these issues found it did not meet the safety criteria. Although the full details will not be published until June, officials have made it clear that levels in rivers were exceeding the maximum admissible concentration. By November it will be withdrawn from sale, and a year later its general use will be prohibited.

The directive suggests a variety of measures to combat these problems. Anyone handling pesticides as part of their work will be required to have proper training. And any equipment used to spray or distribute pesticides will have to be regularly checked.

Aerial spraying will be banned, except in cases where there is no alternative and only under the most stringent conditions.

There are a large number of measures to prevent pesticides from polluting water courses. EU member states will have to ensure that pesticides posing a danger to the aquatic environment are not used near rivers or lakes. Special low-drift application equipment will have to be used in these areas.

There will have to be buffer zones, immediately adjacent to rivers or lakes, where pesticides cannot be used or stored.

Most significantly for British amenity companies, there will be new rules to prevent pesticide run-off from hard surfaces. Article 10 of the proposed directive states: “Member states shall ensure that the application of pesticides is reduced as far as possible or eliminated if appropriate on or along railway lines, very permeable surfaces or other infrastructure close to surface water or groundwater, or on sealed surfaces with high risk of run-off into surface water or sewage systems.” This means that pesticides would effectively be banned from use on railway tracks, pavements or the central reservations of roads.

The directive would also ban pesticides in what are termed “sensitive areas”. Article 11 of the directive states: “The use of pesticides shall be prohibited or restricted to the minimum necessary in areas used by the general public or by sensitive population, at least in parks, public gardens, sports grounds, school grounds and playgrounds.” Obviously, this measure would have an enormous impact on local authorities, which would have to find new ways of dealing with weeds in parks, schools and other areas.

In addition the use of pesticides would be banned or severely restricted in special conservation areas or in other protected areas identified by EU directives.

The directive encourages methods of growing that require less pesticide. Article 13 says member states should “promote low- pesticide-input farming” and ensure that there is a shift towards more environmentally friendly use of crop-protection measures. The directive gives member states until 2013 to start this process.

The directive has received a mixed response from the amenity horticulture industry. There is a general recognition that pesticides have been used too freely and this had led to problems with pollution. There is also a general admission that the industry is not blameless. Amenity Forum chairman Jon Allbutt explains: “A lot of the problem is due to local authorities. They give contracts based on poor specification to contractors who are not properly skilled or supervised. It’s terrible that we’ve had to lose Diuron. If it’s used responsibly, this is a good product. But if it’s used excessively, it gets into the wat er.”

He says he agrees with most of the EU directive. But he feels that articles 10 and 11 go too far and take an “overly ag gressive” tone. “This is contrary to the government policy of encouraging good stewardship and a voluntary approach.”

He suggests that it is unreasonable to expect local authorities to clear weeds by hand from parks and school grounds. He prefers a voluntary initiative under which responsible firms would accept a code of conduct. Only those firms bound by the code would be eligible for government contracts.

BALI director Neil Huck says: “This directive could have major repercussions. BALI has spoken to various contractors, and we estimate that the cost of contracts for dealing with hard surfaces could rise by between 40 and 60 per cent.”

He adds that the Highways Agency is already looking at alternatives to chemical pesticides. These include the use of flame throwers and wire brushes.

Huck points out that in Denmark and the Netherlands, where there are already severe restrictions on pesticide use, it has become almost impossible to eradicate fungal infections from golf courses or to weed playgrounds and public squares.

Many criticisms of the proposals have already been posted on the EU website.The Agricultural Industries Confederation, for example, has stressed the cost implications of the measures.

During the next few months there will be a great deal of discussion and wrangling. The result of these negotiations could radically change the way in which amenity firms and landscapers operate in the future.

Spraying: “buffer zones” would ban use of pesticides adjacent to rivers or lakes

“A lot of the problem is due to local authorities giving contracts to contractors who are not properly skilled or supervised”

Jon Alibutt, chairman, Amenity Forum

“This directive could have major repercussions. The cost of contracts for dealing with hard surfaces could rise by 40 to 60 per cent”

Neil Huck, director, BALl

THE LEGAL PROCESS

As always with the EU, the system for producing laws is immensely complex. The initial proposal, which is produced by the European Commission, has already gone to the European Council and to the EU Parliament. The EU Parliament is due to discuss the measure in September.

In addition, the proposal is being consulted on by the various member states. The UK government’s European Scrutiny Committee has already looked at it and there was also a consultation process, which ended in December.

The EU Parliament and the European Council have to agree on any new directive. This process is known as co-decision. Once the parliament and the council have agreed, the council will issue a directive. Officials at the Pesticides Safety Directorate estimate that this process will take around two years.

It is up to the individual member states to decide how they implement the directive. However, if the states fail to implement it properly, they face a series of possible sanctions and fines. The member states would also have to meet a strict timetable for implementation.

RESTRICTIONS

Under the European directive, pesticides would be banned or severely restricted for the following uses:

* Aerial spraying

* Use near rivers and lakes

* Use on hard surfaces including roads and railways tracks

* Use in parks, playgrounds and schools

* Use in conservation or environmentally sensitive areas

Copyright Haymarket Business Publications Ltd. Mar 22, 2007

(c) 2007 Horticulture Week. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.