NEWS
Gordon Moir recognised
Lifetime Achievement Award presented to Gordon Moir at the 2019 Golf Environment Awards
A Lifetime Achievement Award was presented to Gordon Moir, retired Director of Greenkeeping at St Andrews Links Trust, for his services to the turfcare industry.
STRI head of ecology, Bob Taylor, said: “It was a real pleasure to be able to honour Gordon with a Lifetime Achievement Award, giving recognition to his dedication to ecology and environmental sustainability, and all that he has achieved during his illustrious career spanning over twenty-seven years at the St Andrews Links Trust.”
The winners of the four main categories were:
Environmental Golf Course of the Year 2019 - Aldeburgh Golf Club
Creating what many thought to be impossible, an almost perfect blend of course and ecology to the point where it is hard to tell where one begins and another stops. All without sacrificing the playability of the course.
Gordon Moir (centre) with Bob Taylor and Rowan Rumball
Conservation Greenkeeper of the Year 2019 - Phil Stain, Notts Golf Club (Hollinwell)
Phil and his team’s knowledge of ecological practice to maintain a course that is in keeping with the surrounding countryside and create great community engagement.
Outstanding Environmental Project of the Year 2019 - Wylihof Golf Club
An innovative new design of ecological enhancement shows that we still have a lot to learn. Conservation is a young science and there is still plenty of room for new ideas.
Operation Pollinator 2019 - Corhampton GC
The club has shown that you have to be brave when it comes to habitat management, but the results of their efforts are well worth it, creating big new expanses of habitat for pollinators.
STRI ecology consultant, Rowan Rumball, said: “Huge congratulations to the winners and finalists of this year's awards. We have been amazed by the work that golf clubs and greenkeepers are doing for the ecological and environmental wellbeing of their courses and within the local community.”
“Environmental best practice is an important part of all golf clubs’ working remit and, through the introduction of next year’s Home Nations awards, we hope more clubs will be encouraged to enter the 2020 GEAs.”
Pesticides post-Brexit
The Government has been accused of trying to bury a major report about the potential dangers of global warming to Britain - including the doubling of the deaths during heatwaves, a “significant risk” to supplies of food and the prospect of infrastructure damage from flooding.
The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Report, which by law has to be produced every five years, was published with little fanfare on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA) website on 18 January.
But, despite its undoubted importance, Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom made no speech and did not issue her own statement, and even the DEFRA Twitter account was silent. No mainstream media organisation covered the report.
One leading climate expert accused the Government of “trying to sneak it out” without people noticing, saying he was “astonished” at the way its publication was handled.
In the report, the Government admitted there were a number of “urgent priorities” that needed to be addressed.
It said it largely agreed with experts’ warnings about the effects of climate change on the UK.
10 PC February/March 2019 New Government guidance issued on pesticides post-Brexit
The Government has issued guidance to manufacturers and users of Plant Protection Products (PPPs) on what action they need to take now to minimise any disruption once the UK leaves the EU.
It says the high scientific standard to which decisions on the use of pesticides are made will not change and that it will continue to be guided by the most up-to-date scientific assessment of the risks to animals and the environment.
If the UK leaves the EU on March 29 without a deal, pesticides currently available in the UK at the point of exit will continue to be so, allowing products to be marketed and used as normal, it says.
The Government says future PPP applications for use and renewals in the UK will continue to be considered by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), on behalf of the UK Government (DEFRA) and the devolved administrations. It is said the format and data requirements for new applications will remain the same as they do now, minimising disruption for businesses.
The key change would be that, if a business wishes to place a new pesticide on the EU market, it will need to make a separate
application to the EU, a process which could take up to three years.
Farming Minister George Eustice says: “Delivering a negotiated deal with the EU remains the Government’s top priority, but it is our job to responsibly ensure we are prepared for all scenarios, including no deal.”
“If the UK leaves the EU with a deal, there will be an Implementation Period (IP) during which the UK will continue to follow decisions made by the EU on pesticide approvals and Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs).”
“The key difference for businesses is that, during the IP, the UK will not be able to act as a ‘leading authority’ under the EU regime and the HSE will be unable to conduct active substance or MRL evaluations. Therefore, businesses wishing to supply new pesticides to the UK and/or EU markets would need to make an application to a competent authority in an EU Member State.”
Businesses that may be affected by either scenarios are advised they should read the latest guidance on the UK regulation of pesticides after the UK leaves the EU.
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 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148
