Magazine - Act Now - Europe is planning a ban on all Plant Protection Products
SEARCH
POPULAR ARTICLES
NEWS ALERTS
Want to get news alerts delivered direct to your inbox?
Edit your email preferences.
RECENT COMMENTS
By Paul Cawood in Industry on 28th Sep 2007 9:00
A proposal has been put before the European Parliament to amend the current legislation that governs how and where plant protection products can be used. In the UK we know exactly who, how and where the herbicides fungicides and insecticides that help us create playing surfaces are used thanks to clear legislation, a good statutory code of practice and product labeling. We know that the products that are approved based on a rigorous evaluation of scientific data that takes account of safety to the environment, the user and the grass.
The DEFRA agency that approves pesticide products, PSD is a world leading authority on evaluating the effectiveness and safety of pesticide products. Thanks to them we can be sure that when used as directed by the label, we will achieve the results we desire without harming ourselves or the environment. We know who can apply these tools competently and safely thanks to the NPTC training modules (PA1, PA2 and PA6 etc) needed to apply pesticides legally.
Professional advice on the use and sale of plant protection products can only be given by professionals that hold the BASIS certificate. So it is clear in the UK who can use, who can advise and where the tools that control weeds, diseases and pests can be used.
We can be assured that thanks to the product approval, training and education process that the users and advisors of plant protection products go through, the UK is well served to preserve our man made environments and minimise our impact on nature. This education and training based approach, with users that are aware of the risks to the environment and to health and safety can and should be described as sustainable.
In other countries in Europe there is no system that compares to ours. In most countries pesticide stores do not need to be registered or inspected. Advisors or sales staff do not require a formal professional qualification (like BASIS) to advise on the best use and most appropriate cultural practice or product to achieve the desired result.
To address this lack of control over how pesticide products are used in some other EU states, a proposal has been put before the European parliament "to withdraw the use of pesticides in all public amenity areas", under the heading of "Proposals for a Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides and a Regulation on Pesticide Authorisations". This is a dry title to say the least, but if the European parliament votes in favour of it, it will have a catastrophic effect on sports turf and urban space management.
As a Greenkeeper or Groundsman how will your ability to manage your greens, fairways, training pitches or match pitch be affected if you cannot treat the weeds, cannot suppress Fusarium flare ups or prevent leather jackets eating your hard work? This can happen. It is being considered by the European parliament right now, and is due to be voted on in October.
This issue goes way beyond the availability of tools to effectively manage the superb golf courses and sports pitches the UK is famous for the world over. It affects how weeds will be controlled in the streets. It affects how vegetation will be controlled in areas where safety is a critical issue such as the highways and railways and other industrial areas depending on how "public and amenity area" is defined.
By removing the ability to control weeds and unwanted vegetation effectively (by effectively I mean in a reasonable amount of time and at a cost that is affordable) what would be the legal remaining options?
In the world of well groomed grass there is one. Hand weeding. Is it realistic to expect grounds staff to hand weed the grass areas they manage? Some premiership football clubs have up to twelve training pitches. Can they afford the time and labour it would take to walk over every pitch to carefully tease out the plants that have grown in the wrong place?
In an urban environment there are alternatives. Infra red equipment - or flamers (propane burning) can toast the weeds. The carbon footprint of this method may draw some attention, as well as the potential to singe the odd garden fence. Wire brushes can be mounted on street sweeping equipment to scrape the top off weeds. As we all know this may lead to the perennial ones coming back roughly two weeks later.
This method has also been known to cause damage to the pavement itself, which then means that the repairs need to be paid for. Weeds can be treated with steam too. This again involves large amounts of energy and water, and some impressive sized tackle to generate the steam by burning diesel. None of these methods are as effective or affordable as the current method of treating with glyphosate.
The ridiculous part of this proposal, if it is successful, is that as a private home owner, you could still use a home and garden product containing Dicamba, MCPA or glyphosate to treat your weeds at home, but as a professional grounds manager these usefull actives would no longer be available to you to use at work.
In Europe the lack of availability of solutions to turf problems has lead to grounds managers taking steps that go outside of what is permitted. Products that do not hold approval in Germany but can be purchased in Italy to treat Fusarium have been used on night time spraying missions to try and save greens that have been ravaged by severe disease flare ups.
There are other examples of agricultural products being used on pitches and golf courses due to the lack of effective solutions with turf approval in EU states with more draconian approaches to approving plant protection products in managed turf situations. The key point here is that under pressure, agricultural products and even home and garden products could be used illegally, even at night to relieve the problems that we have safe effective solutions for at present. This is a situation that no one would welcome.
What next?
Lobby your MEP. The website www.europarl.org.uk will tell you who your MEP is. For your MEP to represent your views they must first know them. Write to them or email them and tell them how as a professional your ability to provide and maintain your course or pitches will be affected if this proposal to ban the public use if pesticides is voted through in the EU parliament.
If as an industry we don't make our views as professionals known, then our ability to provide the world class grass that we have worked so hard to create will be made impossible by ill conceived, poorly thought out, one shoes fits all legislation that takes no account of the UK's leading position in terms of training, education and professionalism.
Read more articles in Industry,
by Paul Cawood
or from September 2007.
There are 24 comments on this article
28 Sep 2007 by jlawrence
Paul, Before I start asking questions of MEP's do you have a link to the actual proposal. I can't find anything on the PSD website nor on the pan-europe website.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
28 Sep 2007 by Phil Rusted
Paul,
Could not agree with you more, however, there may be little we can do to stop this legislation.
Would we be better searching for exemptions to be granted??
Philip Rusted
28 Sep 2007 by Tom Bals
The history of the Thematic Strategy can be seen at ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/home.htm. There are many negative (science and/or reality based )comments from the UK, particularly the Agricultural Engineers Association and sprayer manufacturers (including ourselves), that were simply ignored in reaching the EC Communication put out in July 2006 (the consultancy study on the likely economic impact, for example, is a joke). Some of the UK objections are on this website.
However, the proposals became even worse once amended by the EC Environment Committee in April this year (which ignored more sensible amendments proposed by the Agriculture Committee - although even these did not rectify many of the faults). It is an Environment Committee amendment that proposes the ban on all applications in some areas used by the public. The Environment Committee meeting which I think includes the document with the proposed amendments ( see Breyer Parts 1 and 2) was on 11/9/07 (but also see 10/4/07) and can be accessed (I hope) via http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/organes.envi/envi_meetingslist.htm
If not look for the EC Environment Committee on the EC website to try and access the relevant meetings/documents.
I do think MEPs need to be made aware of the practical concerns we have since they are not specialists in this area and unless objections are made may well not be aware of the potential problems - which are massive!null
Good luck. Tom Bals, Micron Sprayers Ltd, Bromyard, Herefordshire
28 Sep 2007 by Phil Rusted
Thank you for that Tom. I will ensure that everyone in the company gets a link to this so we can all have a look. Much appreciated
Phil Rusted - tcm
28 Sep 2007 by PNCawood
Hi There,
Firstly - thanks for taking the time to respond.
Phil. There may be some latitude around interpretation and implemetation at State competant body level if I read the proposal correctly. But exemptionshavent been mentioned even for the more eveloved nationals with regulatory and training structures like the UK.
Jlawrence - I'd like to thank Tom for covering that one,
Tom - The MEPs DO need to be made aware - we all as industry profesionals need to stand up and be counted. Apathy could see us all out of work IF we dont let them know the consequesnces of this ill conceived proposal.
Lobby your MEP. Let them know your views and what the consequences for you and your business are if the proposed ban is enacted.
The Europariliment environment commitee is biased towards the more fervent environmetalists who think only a ban will satisfy their ideals. Pragmatism has no place in their pursuit of a clear anti plant protection product agenda, so we need our MEP's to undersatnd the issues.
A weed is a plant whose virtue is yet to be dicovered.
28 Sep 2007 by GaryA
Forget Bigga / IOG mergers or Synthetic versus grass pitches - THIS is without doubt the single biggest issue we have to face up to as groundsmen and greenkeepers.
If WE do not react to this and actually do something i.e. write to, email, phone our MEPs then it will be a disgrace!
Ask your family and friends what they think - don't use the word 'pesticides' as this immediately conjurs prejudiced, media-driven bullshitty perceptions.
Ask them how they would feel if their favourite football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket team could not use the products needed in able to produce the quality of surface they play on now?
I seriously hope the powers that be in our industry go on the 'front foot' to use that wonderful football managers' phrase and get the media involved. If regular sports fans are told their favourite teams' playing surfaces could well be extremely poor in comparrison to what they are now I'm sure they won't be happy. What about the media people - they won't like it when surfaces look crap on telly.
This is the time when WE must stand up and be counted. Doing nothing is NOT an option. Find you local MEPs and get in touch with them. I have located them all for the north west and it's interesting to see that a few of them are avid sports fans so this must be utilised.
I write this as an enthusiastic part time bowling green keeper and for those of you on here who know/know of me I am not on here representing the (wondeful) firm of weedkiller manufacturer/supplier I work for as my 'day job' !!
Gary Andrews
Be Just and Fear Not
2 Oct 2007 by gregevans
Hi Paul
I got this email back from my local MEP earlier:
Dear Mr Evans,
Thank you for your email concerning the proposed EU framework directive for sustainable use of pesticides.
As this is a “framework” directive, its aim is to set out general guidelines for Member States to follow whilst leaving certain flexibility and scope to the Member States when implementing it into national legislation. Therefore the UK, which already has high standards, will not struggle to implement it.
I believe that this package of proposals is necessary and contains many worthy proposals to ensure pesticide application equipment is safe and that users, producers and retailers are well-trained and informed. I agree with that pesticides are a vital tool for agriculture and related businesses and the key is to find the right balance to ensure that those which are used are safe, proportionate, correctly used, stored and disposed of in order to minimise risk to both public health and the environment.
I am sympathetic to many of the points being made to me by individual farmers and by the National Farmers Union (NFU), and can confirm that neither I nor other Labour MEPs will be supporting some of the more “radical” amendments, such as those calling for arbitrary percentage cuts in pesticide use of up to 50%.
Nevertheless, I will certainly raise your concerns ahead of the first reading vote in plenary (the full European Parliament vote), which is due to take place soon, in October.
Please feel free to contact me if you require further information.
Yours sincerely,
---
Claude Moraes MEP
Labour MEP for London
What do you think?
Greg
2 Oct 2007 by Phil Rusted
Sounds OK to me, definitely better than the complete ban that has been mentioned.
Mind you, countries such as Germany and Belgium have much stricter legislation and recommendations than the UK when it comes to pesticides, although I am unsure about the grounds maintenance sector.
However, the new member states are still some way behind the majority. This is where legislation is required and should be carried out to a radical extent. This will pull them in line with the members such as the UK etc.
I think the reply from teh MEP is a good one and we can rest easy. We all know the consequenses of poor pesticide application.......
Lets make it good and keep ourselves ahead of hte game. We can take positives from this and should do so.
I will post the replies i get from teh MEP as and when they reply.
Many thanks
Phil Rusted
3 Oct 2007 by PNCawood
Hi There,
Thanks to Phil, Greg, Gary et al,
The reply from Claude Morales is the same as ones I and others have had regarding this issue. It's pragmatic, and suggests that the rest of the EU are adopting standards for sales, storage and training for all sectors including ours, this is to be comended, and is after all what we have. The more radical proposals from the politicians that have a single issue agenda are the ones we NEED to counter with common sense and pragmatism.
Thanks for all the lobbying - Gary is right - this issue is the biggest one we will ever face and we need to have our say. PLEASE make you views known to your MEP. They are emplyed to represent YOU in the EU and need your views to do this.
Let them know about the impact on your ability to manage your grounds / course etc. The effect on jobs. The effect on safety - in pavements weeds are a trip hazard and without effective control there will be a flood of litigation for injury claims.
THIS WILL HAPPEN UNLESS WE ACT!
A weed is a plant whose virtue is yet to be dicovered.
4 Oct 2007 by GaryA
Something to bear in mind here folks is that it's not just a case of winning over our own MEP's - it's what the other ones, across the water will do that is worrying bit. Yes we have very srtict legislations, codes of practice, voluntary initiatives etc but some of the European countries such as Germany, Holland, Denmark are way ahead of where we are.
I am lead to believe that following on from yesterday's conference in York that the time scale is more than we first thought what with consultation periods, drawing up the actual plan, implementing it - probably the best part of 4 years if it is to be voted in.
Get lobbying people - we need all our MEP's on our side.
GA
Be Just and Fear Not
4 Oct 2007 by MrC
I attach below a reply to my e-mail from a MEP to add to this debate.....
Thank you for your email dated 3rd October 2007, addressed to Jeffrey Titford MEP. Mr Titford has asked me to reply on his behalf.
Mr Titford has had no personal involvement in the setting up of the proposed EU legislation on pesticides, although he remains very concerned about it. He has received a wide ranging postbag on this subject and is very well aware of the consequences for farmers and other businesses in the UK. You may rest assured that he will be examining this legislation in detail and will vigorously oppose it, if he believes it to be against the best interests of the British people.
As you may know, he and the other UKIP MEPs were elected on a platform of withdrawal from the EU. They believe that the only way to put a stop to the EU’s endless interference in the way we run our country, is for Britain to regain its independence. Politically and economically, independence offers our country a much better future.
5 Oct 2007 by Phil Rusted
It was a shame that the conference this week in York was no publicised till too late and then I was refused entry?? Perhaps they know me afterall.
Anyway, it would seem that Mr Titford, MEP, has a standard reply for this as I have received the same one as above.
Is there any minutes or notes available from teh PSD meeting this week? Would love to see them if possible.
Many thanks
Philip Rusted
5 Oct 2007 by MrC
I don't think this is a standard reply,
Thanks for your email. Yes, and of course, we in UKIP will be opposing this, as indeed we oppose the vast majority of legislation that erodes what we in Britain have.
Simply, the EU seeks to control everything. That other countries have decided not to do something was their decision, but of course, they are/were backward. Thus we have to have a common platform. Harmonise everything, rebuild everything from ground zero, and do it this way. It is a soviet paradise. No one is accountable, they care not what damage they do n route, as long as everyone is the same!
I recently visited a company in D****, just down the road from you, that will soon be forced out of business, simply to comply with EU diktats. They repair barometers and, in so doing, use mercury. The only dangerous part of that is when you heat it, it gives off poisonous vapours. The loss of a unique business is but a small price to pay. Try telling that to the bank manager!
Recent history suggests that they pick on one small part of society and change that - irreparably - before moving on to another. Indeed, a certain Pastor Niemoller said in respect of the Nazis .. ( there are many versions of this)
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The only way to protect ourselves is to leave the clutches of this failing artificial political construct is to leave it! We can be very successful outside it.
UKIP is the only party advocating this - and from recent media hype, we may get the chance sooner than later!
If you would like more details, please contact me again.
Best regards
Tom
5 Oct 2007 by Phil Rusted
Interesting reply, but shall we avoid turning this into an anti europe forum or one that is overtly political. We do that when we vote, not when we are discussing pesticides. It will go through the EU of that I have little doubt. It is not for us to class them all as raving communists, nazis or otherwise. Lets just put some pressure on the MEP's (whom are there for our benfit) and make sure that we get exemptions or otherwise as required. We are part of the EU and long may it remain so. Lets make it our position to be the leaders in this and not dragging along at the back kicking and screaming like a bullied kid in the playground!
Phil Rusted
5 Oct 2007 by Dave
Phil,
Your pro Europe answer is as political as the previous anti-Europe!
5 Oct 2007 by MrC
Phil
The point of publishing the MEP's reply is to keep the focus on this topic and for the reader to gain a view of what the MEP's are thinking. I wrote to all of the MEP's in my area, and have only had two replies to date, coincidently, both were UKIP.
I think this is where i type...the views expressed by the MEP's are their personal views and may, or may not reflect the view of the poster.....sorted
5 Oct 2007 by Phil Rusted
Fair point made by Dave and Tom.
Apologies for being political whilst criticising the political reply.
Hope no offence has been caused, if so then it was not intentional.
Many thanks
Phil Rusted
5 Oct 2007 by Dave
No offence taken at all Phil, I was merely offering a tongue in cheek response. :)
9 Oct 2007 by MrC Last edited 9 Oct 2007
I hope the fence this guy is sitting on is comfortable...another reply from a MEP
I certainly share your view that on environmental issues we need to be guided by the science. I am therefore always pleased to receive well-informed information from people like yourself.
The problem, of course, is that on many issues it is difficult to be sure just where the science is pointing, since both sides in an argument produce “scientific” arguments. This is perhaps the reason why the Environment Committee has difficulty in producing balanced proposals. I think its members do, on the whole, try to take a balanced view between the competing claims and pressures, but it would be amazing if they were to always achieve it. Which is why it is important that MEPs such as myself, who will eventually have to vote on these matters, are kept informed by our constituents.
I shall consider the points you make with great care before voting on these issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Marshall
Casework Officer to Andrew Duff
Liberal Democrat MEP
9 Oct 2007 by PNCawood
Its great to see so many respnses - again thanks to you all.
It seems we have a clear case of politicians syndrome, commenting on everything and commiting to nothing.
I have had some good discussions with MEP's recently, they all have no real idea of the consequences of the more extreme proposals in the framework directive. They dont understand the science (as illustrated by the Lib Dem chap above) and so we need to work hard to bring the reality home to them.
The rugby world cup is a good example. Is it realistic to hand weed all the tournament pitches? Every MEP i have put that too has agreed it is realy pretty silly.
This should not be a politics forum re the fors and againsts of Europe. It is about our ability as professionals to lend our expertise to providing superb grounds and a pleasing environment.
Tell your MEP about the pit falls of the proposed ban.
Keep up the momentum - they have to listen to us!
A weed is a plant whose virtue is yet to be dicovered.
10 Oct 2007 by GaryA
Response I got from Sir Robert Atkins, Conservative:
Dear Mr Andrews
Many thanks for your letter regarding the EU Directive on the use of sustainable pesticides.
I share your concerns about the likely negative impact of this Directive and agree that, if adopted, it would lead to some completely nonsensical outcomes.
Whilst we must support efforts to protect our environment and our public health, the Directive's proposals are not supported by scientific evidence and totally disregard the needs and demands of modern British society.
The Reports have been delayed and will now be voted on in plenary at the end of this month.
Please be assured that the Conservative MEPs are working extremely hard to ensure that the interests of your industry are represented and that no undue burdens or restrictions are placed upon it.
In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
Yours sincerely.
The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Atkins MEP
Be Just and Fear Not
10 Oct 2007 by GaryA
Response I got from John Whittaker's PA, UKIP:
Thank you for your message.
The decision by the Environment Committee overules the more pragmatic - and some would say - realistic approach of the Agricultural Committee. It seems that the motives of the Environment Committee are as much, or possibly more, driven by idealistic and political dogma from the green movement as they are by economic and scientific considerations.
We agree with your analysis of the situation and the fact that the problems which you highlight resulting from this approach will have serious implications on a much wider public than just the effects on agriculture and horticulture where it will also have significant repercussions. The proposal for a complete ban on pesticides/herbicides in Public Amenity Areas (although as yet there is not a precise definition of what this means) will have a supeficially attractive appeal - protecing our Little Ones from nasty chemicals when they play in the local park, for example. Indeed this is a genuine and worthwhile motive and one on which the driving lobby would like to focus most of the attention without acknowledging the control regimes which already exist in this country. In reality however the impact will be much wider as you have pointed out in the examples that you have listed.
John Whittaker and his colleagues are trying to raise awareness of the whole picture here, so that the public at large know about the impact these proposals will have. Our press department are trying to get publicity about this matter into the public arena so that people are more fully aware of what is going on and what it means - and, it is to be hoped, will ask their Wesminster MPs why they (the WestminsterMPs that is ) have given away the right for such matters to be decided by our own Parliament.
In addition you can be assured that we will be working on this matter in the European Parliament but I fear success is not guaranteed. The fact is that the UK has only 78 out 738 MEPs so even if they all agree a common position (which is unlikely because some UK MEPs - especially the LibDems - are so enamoured of "The Great Project" that they very rarely see any wrong in its actions) they stand no chance of defeating these proposals alone.It will need the support of members from other member states, some of whom may welcome these proposals as imposing a regime and discipline on their own countries which they, in contrast to the well regulated regime in that exists in the UK, are unable to achieve for themselves. The politics of their domestic situation often make it much easier for them to say "the EU wants it and as you know the EU is the source of much largesse for us so we must do what it says"
Also within the Europarliament there is frequently horse-trading where support for, or lack of opposition to, a totally unrelated matter, can have as much influence over decisions being taken as do the real merits of the case. So support from the MEPs of some states on how to deal with this issue might well be conditional on that state's allocation of support funds for its agricultural programme. For instance are you aware that alongside its health education activities on smoking and it's regulation of adverts and warnings on packets, one of the biggest single items of expenditure under the Common Agricultural Policy is the support and subsidy of EU tobacco growers - such subsidies cannot be maintained on the merits of the case and their existence relies on their value as bargaining chips in the wider scheme of things! Or perhaps the siting of some new and prestigious EU quango and the jobs and kudos that goes with it is at stake and can command support from the MEPs of contesting states.
We hope we will be able to succeed
Gerald Kelley
PA to John Whittaker MEP - UK Independence Party
Be Just and Fear Not
12 Oct 2007 by Steve63
A selection of answers, any chance that you could offer the questions that you have put to your MEP's
It maybe helpful towards angling at a slightly different pitch, Sorry, no pun intended.
Would pressure from our employers be of more substance, for instance the premiership chairmen/women, the R&A, the ECB etc. by lobbying your own boss or favorite football club and invite them to defend against these proposals.
Regards
Steve
Don't talk to me about Contractors Wonka, I am one myself......
Want to post a comment in response to this article?
Login now, or register if you are not a Pitchcare member.
