The City of London Ontario's IPM Pesticide "Bylaw" is a Failure!
Take note Ottawa -- don't accept IPM!:
Dated: Monday, July 25 2005
Prepared by: Sean Hurley
LCAP. Source.
The following is intended as an easy to follow Q/A primer on London's Environment and Transportation Committee's (ETC) recommendation before council this afternoon.
Q) Does the ETC recommendation on pesticides restrict the use of non-essential pesticides?
A) No. It states, "12. (18a) That the following actions be taken ... to regulate the use of non-essential pesticides ... 12.(18a)(a) ... without restricting pesticides ...;
Clearly the intent of the by-law is not to restrict non-essential pesticides.
Q) Would IPM accreditation be required to spray lawn chemicals in London?
A) No. IPM accreditation would only be required to be listed on the City's IPM registry. Not becoming IPM accredited will have no impact on a lawn sprayer's ability to continue business as prior to the enactment of the proposed by-law. The utility of this registry is dubious, at best. There is no known user analysis to suggest it would be consulted by consumers before, in addition to, or in substitution of, any other marketing vehicles such as the Yellow Pages, TV and radio or direct marketing.
Q) Is it possible to monitor pesticide use of IPM accredited companies?
A) No. There is no transparency. IPM accredited companies are required to undergo annual "desk audits", but the results of those audits are considered private and are never available for public scrutiny.
Q) Can only IPM accredited companies market their products as IPM?
A) No. Any lawn care operator can advertise and promote itself as being IPM even when not accredited.
Q) Can organic and/or natural lawn care companies become IPM accredited?
A) Not likely. IPM is founded on the use of chemical pesticides. It is an industry program created in response to municipalities beginning to exert their rights to ban the non-essential use of pesticides. When asked if lawn care operators could become IPM accredited, the response has been, to paraphrase, "we don't know, but give it a try". It is doubtful any non-chemical lawn care operator would invest the money, time and resources without any guarantees.
Q) Does the recommendation propose any concrete tools with which the city can demonstrably control and reduce the use of non-essential pesticides?
A) No.
Background:
Date: Friday, July 22 2005 @ 06:00 PM EDT
Prepared by: Sean Hurley
LCAP. Source.
Not only is it not a by-law ... it's just plain stupid
But wait, now! Hold on! It says "the monitoring of compliance with the IPM Policy." Doesn't that mean anything?
The Environment and Transportation Committee report is out, and we can finally read exactly what is the recommendation on pesticides. Ready?
12. (I8a) That the following actions be taken with respect to a proposed bylaw to regulate the use of non-essential pesticides within the City of London:
(a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to draft a by-law that promotes Integrated Pest Management and Plant Health Care methods, without restricting pesticides for its consideration at the Environment and Transportation Committee meeting to be held on September 12, 2005;
the present Council approved IPM-PHC educational/promotional policy and pesticide applicator registry BE CONTINUED; and that IPM accreditation BE MANDATORY for a pesticide applicator to be included in the aforementioned registry;
the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on educational opportunities on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Plant Health Care methods for citizens of London and the monitoring of compliance with the IPM Policy; and
(d) a communications program BE UNDERTAKEN to apprise property owners and pesticide applicators relative to the requirements of any by-law adopted resulting from clause (a) above.
Can you spot the immediate contradiction?
How about, "actions be taken with respect to a proposed bylaw to regulate the use of non-essential pesticides" followed immediately by "without restricting pesticides." Which is it? They can't make up their mind. You can't both regulate and not restrict. Not restricting means not regulating. Is that rocket science?
But wait, now! Hold on! It says "the monitoring of compliance with the IPM Policy." Doesn't that mean anything?
Well, okay, what are they monitoring? Ensuring that it is only IPM accredited companies that are on their blessed registry that will get maybe five hits a year? Or, that IPM practices as defined by Landscape Ontario are being practiced?
Let's assume they are not quite so stupid and that they mean the latter.
IPM accreditation while it calls for annual "desk audits" is neither accountable nor transparent. The city will never know the record of any company that is accredited. How do I know? Because unlike the ETC who get their marching orders from the industry, I asked.
Julie Vanmol of Ridgetown College at the University of Guelph, which manages IPM accreditation, tells me no company has ever had accreditation revoked. To do so would require failing to maintain all IPM requirements. Further, she told me, "because of privacy regulations, we are not able to disclose information contained in the Desk Review Audit."
In other words, we will never know how any given company is faring with regard to reducing the amount of chemicals being applied.
So they are going to monitor what, exactly?
These guys are running your city and you let them.
UPDATE: June 13 2006 - The City of London has, since the above article was written, wisely rejected IPM (Integrated Pest Management), and has now implemented a much stronger pesticide bylaw. Details here.
Community Web.
