New EU legislation and the impact on the amenity market
Is this legislation another nail in the coffin of chemical amenity weed control, or a tool that ensures continuing high standards are achieved in our industry? Mark De’Ath of Headland Amenity, and member of the Amenity Forum, tries to shed some light
THE 14th of January saw the final vote in the European Parliament to introduce several pieces of legislation that will have a major impact on the use of pesticides in our market (as well as agriculture and horticulture). I have, over the last two years or so, as a member of the Amenity Forum (along with other distributor members, contractors and many organisations ranging from the CPA, BIGGA, IOG, BALI and government departments and agencies such as PSD and the EA), gained a good insight into this legislation. It is likely that this legislation will be
introduced around 2011, and it can be broken down into two basic aspects. The first piece of regulatory legislation of
particular interest deals with the availability of a number of amenity pesticides. The second relates to the use and monitoring of pesticide applications in amenity areas. With regard to the availability of certain
products, a list of twenty-two active ingredients has been circulated, containing the details of those that may be banned over the next five years or so. There may, however, be extensions to the approval of some active ingredients after five years, depending on whether use is essential or not. The EU, much against the advice and arguments of many in the scientific community, has decided to introduce a system which looks at the hazards when assessing an active ingredient, rather than sticking with the present method, which understands the hazards but assesses the risk to humans and the environment by considering the manner in which it is to be used. The outcomes can be very different. The
former assumes that, if there is a hazard within laid down criteria, the active ingredient is banned. The latter takes into account how an active ingredient will be used and looks at the risks. Remember, most things can be dangerous if used at too high a rate but can pose a negligible risk at lower amounts, or when used in a safe manner. Take common salt for example. Used normally - say sprinkled on your chips - the risk is negligible, but taken at high rates it could kill you. Now, I have to say at this point, that it is
not yet clearly understood exactly which active ingredients will end up on the list. I have seen two lists, one which has been outlined by the Pesticide Safety Directive (PSD) and one from the Swedish Chemical Agency. They do differ, so why the difference? I believe it is because the EU have adopted hazard criteria for assessment
for which there are no internationally defined guidelines, and so different agencies are coming up with different interpretations. PSD presented a list of chemicals at BTME which they believe would fall under this hazard based system. I know, speaking to them, that this may alter because of the difficulties of the hazard criteria. Their list includes important active ingredients such as iprodione, a number of triazole fungicides, 2,4- D amine, picloram, ioxynil and carbendazim.
Whilst most of these products would not be withdrawn for five years or so, the Swedish list suggests that carbendazim will be withdrawn this year. However, I will point out that we will have
to wait a while for clarification on this list. The second area relates to the Sustainable Use Directive, which will cover National Action Plans, on-going training and certificates for users, distributors and advisers, sprayer testing, the adoption of integrated management (cultural practices combined with chemical methods) and the protection of water and other environmentally sensitive areas.
methods to achieve the above goal, and will not be looking at total bans. I would say that the use of pesticides in public areas will be the most challenging aspect of this legislation. We will have to work hard to ensure that we, as an industry, can achieve high standards of integrated pest management, observing buffer and ‘no spray’ zones and other strategies which will ensure a reduction in the exposure to pesticides.
The reason I say this, is that our compliance will be monitored at both UK and EU levels and, after five years, there will be a review of each member state’s level of compliance. At present, the exact details of this part of the legislation is not known, so it is difficult to be certain what effect this will have on users and distributors of products. However, we could have been looking at a total ban, so I think this is a reasonably acceptable compromise
So, is this legislation another nail in the
coffin of chemical amenity weed control, or a tool that ensures continuing high standards are achieved in our industry? I would like to
There are various introduction dates for each of the above, with the last date looking like 2014.
Whilst this appears to be a big task for the amenity industry, we are quite a long way down the track already. We have had our National Action Plan running for two years now under the lead of the Amenity Forum and, for many years, we have had certification. Quite a number of contractors are engaged in voluntary sprayer testing through the NSTS and additional training and maybe certification will help comply with integrated management methods. One area which initially concerned many people was the banning, or the minimising, of all pesticide use in public areas including sports facilities and public parks. Importantly, within this framework document, it gives the member state the option of banning or minimising. It is my understanding that PSD will be looking to proportionate and practical ways and
think that this is an opportunity to increase standards and working practices, building on many of the good aspects of our industry. The devil is in the detail and it will be a little while yet before all the pieces of the jigsaw fall into place. One thing I know is that chemicals provide
a safe, cost effective way of weed and pest control in the amenity sector. Let’s hope that the EU understands that point because, without these key tools, our towns and cities, parks and gardens, sports and recreation facilities will never again look as well kept as they do now. Importantly, we know in our industry that this can be achieved at a realistic cost to the local taxpayers and users of amenity and sports facilities.
Mark De’Ath is Operations Director for Headland Amenity Limited. The company markets chemicals and fertilisers to a broad range of amenity users.
3
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124