PESTICIDES NOTEBOOK COLIN PALMER
Pest and weed control in post-Brexit Britain The forestry sector can rightly claim that it uses very few pesticides, with less than 3% of the total crop receiving crop protection products in any one year. However, this use is now dominated by the use of two products – glyphosate for weed control, and acetamiprid (Gazelle SG) for hylobius. But how secure are these two products, and if they are withdrawn, are there alternatives? Worryingly, neither product can be regarded as secure, and glyphosate may be banned in Europe after 2022, with the UK being pressured to follow suit. The use of glyphosate on upland restock sites tends to be focused on scrub control for which there is no current herbicide alternative, although it may be possible in the future to have a triclopyr or fluroxypyr based option. On fertile sites, particularly in the lowland and on new plantings, then Kerb or Laser can be regarded as alternatives for grass control – but both are also far from secure, and non-chemical options are largely too expensive or impractical to implement. The branding of Gazelle as a neonicotinoid also gives cause for concern, despite not being classified as hazardous to bees, which in any case are rarely found on transplants. Cypermethrin (Forester) and alphacypermethrin (Alpha 6ED) are currently alternatives which are approved for use in the UK, but the future of these is also in some doubt. These concerns were recently raised by the Scottish Plant Health Centre, which rated glyphosate, urea, cypermethrin and asulam at high risk of loss, and Kerb, Laser, PG Suspension, Gazelle and Alpha 6ED at medium risk of loss.
Will Brexit have made it more, or less likely that these products will become unavailable? The UK has transferred the total package of EU pesticide regulation into UK law, so the assessment criteria remain the same, although these are now UK-specific and not directly influenced by pressures from other EU member states. This means that the political pressures on pesticide use in the UK, while serious, are not as powerful as those in the EC, and Ministers have been keen to emphasise that Government decisions are, and will be, based on science. CONFOR.ORG.UK
This does give hope for glyphosate, which ALL worldwide regulatory bodies have classified as non-hazardous and noncarcinogenic. Similarly, if science and not politics prevails, then Gazelle should pass its current re-assessment. We can only wait and see. Photo: Green-tech
Product security
Possible requirement for forest managers to have a pesticide qualification Part of the regulatory package adopted by the UK is to undertake a regularly updated National Action Plan (NAP) of strategies to minimise the use and hazards of pesticide use. The latest NAP has been forwarded to Confor for comment, and requested views provided by 27 questions on three basic areas: Goal 1 - Better Regulation Goal 2 - Promoting the Use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Goal 3 - Safe and Responsible Use In response, Confor made a number of suggestions to simplify and clarify the current regulatory procedure, and highlighted the importance of UKWAS as a voluntary means of promoting best practice including the use of IPM techniques. Also noted were forest strategies to minimise the use of single use plastics (tree tubes & guards as an alternative to herbicides and weevil insecticides), and investment to develop lure and kill options for hylobius control. However, it was in the “Safe & Responsible Use” section that a major change was indicated. Currently, in the UK, all spray operators need to carry PA1 & PA6 certification, and all those who sell, or store pesticides for sale or provision to final users must carry BASIS (British Agricultural Supply Industry Scheme) Agronomy or Storekeepers qualifications. However, unlike much of the rest of Europe, no qualification is currently required for those who advise on the use of pesticides, and it is this that Ministers are proposing to change. This has considerable ramifications for forest managers and consultants who advise clients and instruct contractors over pesticide use, as it is probable that they will need, in future, to demonstrate competence by carrying some form of qualification. Currently, the only qualification available is the BASIS, which is designed for
agronomists, consultants and others whose major focus is on pesticide use. This qualification requires a 28-day training course, an examination, and an annual CPD assessment, all of which is far in excess of the needs of forest practitioners who only spend a tiny amount of their workload on pesticides, and probably only ever refer to two products. However, the consultation document referred to a scheme which had been developed between the Crop Protection Association and the Horticultural Trades Association for those involved with the sales of amateur pesticides, largely for garden use. Confor noted this scheme and proposed that a similar scheme could be developed for the forest industry, which would be a light touch but nevertheless be able to demonstrate an appropriate level of competency. As a move towards this solution, a training webinar has been developed, and successfully piloted with one forest management company. Further details of this can be requested by emailing Colin Palmer at forestry@branchline.co.uk
MEMBER SERVICES
Pesticides helpline Pesticides helpline is a free service operated by Confor’s crop protection adviser Colin Palmer on behalf of Confor members. Colin can be contacted 8am to 8pm Mondays to Fridays on 01531 633500 (leave a message if necessary) or by email to: forestry@branchline.co.uk
FORESTRY & TIMBER NEWS • April 2021 63
