Vancouver City Council

POLICY REPORT
PLANNING AND OPERATIONS

Date: October 21, 2003
Author: P.Rutgers

Phone No: 604.257.8463

RTS No.: 03673

CC File No.: 3501
Meeting date: January 15, 2004

TO: Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM: General Manager of Parks and Recreation and the Director of Environmental Health of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, in consultation with the Director of Legal Services

SUBJECT: Pesticide Use on Private Property

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. THAT Council endorse the outline of the Pesticide Reduction Education Program, an expansion of Vancouver's Grow Natural campaign, as described in this report.

B. THAT Council request the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and the Regional Health Authorities to undertake a regional advertising campaign aimed at reducing pesticide use.

C. THAT Council refer the funding requests associated with the education program to the 2004 Operating Budget process.

D. THAT Council request the federal Minister of Health and the provincial Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection to ensure that regulations made under the federal Pest Control Products Act and the BC Pesticide Control Act require annual reporting of pesticides sales data, both by active ingredient and by municipality in which the products are sold, in order to facilitate municipal efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of pesticide use reduction programs.

E. THAT Council request the federal Minister of Health and the provincial Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection to expedite programs presently underway to increase public access to reduced-risk pesticides, restrict public access to high-risk pesticides, improve access to information about the safe use of pesticides, and increase co-operative efforts through the Healthy Lawn Strategy in order to reduce reliance on lawn care chemicals.

F. THAT Council request the federal Minister of Health and the provincial Minister of the Environment to include the municipal sector as a partner in the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee on Pest Management and Pesticides mandated to provide advice and direction to governments on programs and policies for pesticides with the aim of enhancing sustainable pest control practices.

CONSIDERATION

G. THAT Council request Legal Services to prepare a by-law to restrict the use of harmful pesticides generally as described in Appendix A.

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager recommends A, B, C, D, E and F and recommends deferral of G for consideration in the 2004 budget process, noting that should Council wish to adopt a by-law regulating pesticide use on private property, additional resources would be required to ensure adherence.

COUNCIL POLICY

On September 12, 2002, Council passed the following:

A. That Council receive the report entitled "Pesticide Use Options for Private Properties in Vancouver", attached as Appendix A to the Administrative Report dated July 9, 2002, of the same title, for INFORMATION and have staff engage in a consultation process with stakeholders to address options for responsible pest management on private lands.

B. That Council work with the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and other government and non government partners on the development and implementation of an education program aimed at promoting the use of integrated pest management on private property with civic funding to be derived from the Environmental Grants Program.

C. That Council instruct staff to work with the GVRD, municipalities and regional health authorities with the view of formulating a coordinated regional approach to pesticide use restrictions.

D. That staff report back on the status of these initiatives by July 1, 2003, including the potential effectiveness of a ban on harmful chemical pesticides in the City of Vancouver.

BACKGROUND

In 1991, City Council in Hudson, Quebec passed by-law 270, to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides. Lawn care companies challenged that the municipality did not have jurisdiction over federally approved products. In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the town's right to regulate where pesticides may be used. Fuelled by growing public concern about possible effects on human health and the environment, this precedent has given municipalities some authority over pesticide use creating a tri-level regulatory regime. Federally, the Pest Control Products Act ensures pesticide products are registered by Agriculture Canada before they may be sold or used in Canada. Provincially, the Pesticide Control Act applies to pesticide sale, transportation, storage, application and disposal and municipally, the City of Vancouver under the health powers of the Vancouver Charter would have the authority to determine when and where pesticides may be applied on lands subject to municipal jurisdiction.

On September 12, 2002, a policy report on Pesticide Use Options for Private Properties in Vancouver was presented to Vancouver City Council. The principal findings of the report are listed included:

· Pesticides are substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, attract or mitigate any pests including insects, rodents, weeds, or microorganisms.
· Pesticides include such products as pool chemicals, bleach, rodent killers, mineral oils and fatty acids (soaps).
· There is a wide range of pesticide products available from those very toxic products to low-risk alternatives.
· The Supreme Court of Canada, in its Hudson vs. Spraytech ruling in 2001, defined the cosmetic use of pesticides as the use of pesticide in certain situations where the application is purely for an aesthetic pursuit.
· Homeowners purchase about 5%-10% of all pesticides sold in Canada
· A February 2002 survey showed that 2/3 of GVRD households used pesticides, mostly Weed & Feed type products and moss killer.
· Residential lawns and gardens represent 20 to 25 % of the total land area of Vancouver.
· There is toxicological evidence to warrant some concern about potential health impacts, especially for young children, from exposure to pesticides. There is some epidemiological evidence associating children in urban environments with elevated long term cancer risks resulting from pesticide use.
· There is evidence to suggest environmental risks from pesticide use.
· There are numerous Federal and Provincial regulations regarding the registration, sale, transport, storage, application and disposal of pesticides.
· There are often effective, non-chemical alternatives for pest control.
· Effective use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices in Vancouver has eliminated the need for cosmetic pesticides in neighbourhood parks, without an appreciable decline in the overall quality of landscapes and playing fields.
· Promotion of IPM practices on private property can further reduce pesticide use within the City.
· Banning the cosmetic use of pesticides may be a necessary tool to further reduce environmental and health risks.
· There are circumstances of public health and/or economic welfare which may warrant the use of pesticides.
· Regardless of municipal by-laws, the provincial government would retain the authority to use pesticides against an invasive pest that threatened the economic interests of the province.

At that time, a number of strategies were identified to reduce pesticide use by Vancouver residents. Staff were instructed to investigate the possibility of a coordinated regional approach and to consult with stakeholders in order to develop an education program. This document will report on these points as well as update Council on the key regional, provincial and national changes that have occurred on the topic of municipal pesticide use.

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

In March 2003, The Vancouver Park Board, in partnership with the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, retained John Talbot & Associates Inc to conduct a consultation process on pesticide use reduction strategies. The consultants facilitated five focus groups and one public meeting and produced a report on their findings (Appendix B). The focus groups were divided according to the following interests:

· Gardeners
· Major turf grass users
· Environmental groups
· Health organizations
· Landscapers (design and maintenance)

The following pesticide reductions strategies were discussed:

· Enhance public awareness and education
· Expanded pesticide notification provisions
· Broaden application of IPM approach
· Restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides in the City of Vancouver
· Lobby the senior levels of government for tighter restrictions

Participants were asked to discuss these strategies and propose other pesticide use strategies that may be considered.

Overall, there generally was agreement and support for all points except the pesticide restriction option, where support was mixed. Two additional strategies were introduced by the groups:

· Ensure Proper Landscape Design and Maintenance, and
· Ensure the Safe Disposal of Pesticides

The greatest support came for the implementation of a public awareness and education program. The aim should be to change public perceptions regarding lawn and garden care and to provide information as to what pest control alternatives are available to the public. The discussions around landscape design came from a suggestion that new construction place greater emphasis on landscape design. Much discussion was centred on the disposal of unwanted or unused pesticides, especially to provide Vancouverites with an accessible place to drop off these pesticides.

There was also much support for the City advocating for pesticide use reduction to the provincial and federal governments. Discussions were centred mainly on the sale and use of domestic pesticides with the groups strongly advocating for all pesticide sales to be reported. This would provide the necessary benchmark values to determine the success of pesticide use reduction strategies.

On the topic of pesticide restrictions, it was suggested that a by-law be put in place should the public education campaign fail. Others warned that a by-law may restrict pesticide application by licensed workers but result in more untrained and unlicensed people applying pesticides. A warning also came regarding the possible shortcomings of a by-law that restrict the use but not the sale of pesticide products (Council does not have the authority to ban pesticide sales).

COORDINATED REGIONAL APPROACH

As many of the Lower Mainland municipalities are implementing and/or considering a variety of initiatives on pesticides, Vancouver Park Board staff hosted a meeting of Parks and Operations Managers for the GVRD municipalities on November 28, 2002. GVRD staff were also in attendance. The purpose of that meeting was to explore the possibility of a coordinated approach to pesticide reduction and public education in the Lower Mainland.

In the Lower Mainland, most municipalities have adopted formally, or in principle, the application of IPM principles for public lands. As a result, all have observed pesticide use reduction on public lands. While public pressure for pesticide reduction had been observed throughout the region, the appetite for regulating pesticide use on private lands was split.x

At that time, few municipalities had any initiatives for private lands yet or education programs on pesticides but there was a strong desire for public education. To address the possibility of a regional approach, a Pesticide Education Workgroup was created. GVRD was seen to be the logical agency to coordinate efforts, with storm water or waste management programs as the vehicles to introduce pesticide reduction strategies or education programs.

The Pesticide Education Workgroup has been working on the principles of a pesticide reduction education program. Based on the effectiveness of the recycling campaigns of the 1980's, the following conclusions were drawn:

· Regional level radio and TV advertising on the need for pesticide reduction;
· Work with non-profit education organisations to deliver municipal public education messages;
· School programs are an effective tool to get the message into homes; and
· The principal target audience consists of homeowners and renters with access to private open spaces.

FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL UPDATES

Federal and Provincial Updates
The new Pest Control Products Act (2002) received Royal Assent on December 12, 2002, and will come into force on a date yet to be determined. The new Pest Control Products Act will

· strengthen health and environmental protection,
· take into account pesticide exposure from all sources, including food and water,
· consider cumulative effects of pesticides that act in the same way,
· support pesticide risk reduction,
· improve product labelling to make the information easier to understand, and
· provide faster approval of lower-risk products.

However, according to the 2003 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on "Managing the Safety and Accessibility of Pesticides", the federal government is not meeting its own deadlines in re-evaluating older pesticides against current standards and processing new and possibly safer pesticides. The federal Minister of Health and the provincial Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection should expedite these programs presently underway to reduce pesticide exposure in the urban setting.

The Healthy Lawns Strategy was initiated to help reduce Canadians' reliance on pesticide use for lawn care through the application of IPM principles, with particular emphasis on pest prevention, use of reduced risk products and application of pesticides only when necessary. A Healthy Lawns Working Group has been established through the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee on Pest Management and Pesticides to implement the strategy. The municipal sector, being closest to the issue of urban pesticide use, would be an invaluable contributor to this committee in providing advice on pesticide use reduction initiatives. The federal Minister of Health and the provincial Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection should take whatever steps are necessary to include the municipal sector as a partner.

At this time, urban pesticide sales numbers can not be obtained as under the current federal Pest Control Products Act or the provincial Pesticide Control Act as domestic pesticide sales (pesticides available to the general public) do not have to be reported. The federal Minister of Health and the provincial minister of Water, Land and Air Protection should ensure that the regulations made under the federal Pest Control Products Act and the BC Pesticide Control Act require annual reporting of pesticides sales data both by active ingredient and by the municipality in which the products are sold. Such a change in legislation would provide municipalities with the ability to determine how many pesticides are being purchased and applied by residents and how effective pesticide use reduction products have been.

In May 2003, the new Integrated Pest Management Act was introduced to the BC Legislature. When enacted, it will repeal and replace the old Pesticide Control Act. It will make the use of integrated pest management a legal requirement in British Columbia and enshrines in law a modern, proactive method of controlling pests. Under the new Act, the use of integrated pest management will apply to commercial and industrial pesticide use on all public land and on private land used for forestry, utilities, transportation and pipelines. Integrated pest management requirements contained in the new act do not apply to agricultural use or pesticides used by homeowners.

Municipal Update
Many municipalities across Canada are involved in initiatives regarding pesticide use reduction including:

· Toronto
On May 22, 2003, Toronto City Council enacted By-law 456-2003 by a 26-16 vote. This by-law will come into effect on April 1, 2004. The by-law aims at prohibiting unnecessary pesticide applications while allowing low-risk alternatives to be used and, if the infestation persists, the use of higher-risk products. The by-law sets down the application of IPM in the landscape in law and no sector-specific exemptions were included in the by-law. Public health inspectors will determine whether the use of the higher risk products was warranted. No permitting system was set up and the program will be driven by complaints and self-reporting.

· Ottawa
On December 18, 2002, City of Ottawa Council voted in favour of a three-year pesticide reduction strategy to encourage residents to voluntarily reduce the cosmetic use of pesticides on private property or likely face a full ban in 2005. The City commissioned surveys to determine the level of pesticide use by Ottawa residents. They have also engaged in an extensive education program including: broad-based advertising (newspaper ads, radio spots, posters and bus ads), web site, residential lawns signs for pesticide-free lawns, and free seminars on pesticide alternatives.

The status of Lower Mainland municipalities was recently summarized in the GVRD report entitled "Local Government Approaches to Restricting Non-essential Pesticide Use", dated June 19, 2003 (Tables 1 & 2).
Table 1: Municipal Initiatives for Pesticide Management Affecting Private Properties (excluding agricultural or medical pesticide use)

Municipality	Policy/ By-law*	Stakeholder Consultation	Educational Program for Residents	Voluntary Registration Program
Bowen Island	-	-	-	-
Burnaby	X*	X	X	-
Coquitlam	-	-	-	-
Delta	-	-	X	-
District of North Vancouver	C	X	X	C
District of West Vancouver	-	-	X	C
Electoral Area "A"	-	-	-	-
Langley	-	-	-	-
Maple Ridge	-	-	-	-
New Westminster	-	-	-	-
North Vancouver	C	X	X	-
Pitt Meadows	-	-	-	-
Port Coquitlam	-	-	-	-
Port Moody	C	X	X	-
Richmond	C	-	-	-
Surrey	-	-	X	-
Vancouver	-	X	X	-
White Rock	-	-	-	-
X = in place	C = under consideration		- = none

* Does not include 72 hours Good Neighbour Signage Requirements which are standard in most municipalities.

 Burnaby's by-law is a notification by-law which only applies to public land and multi-family dwellings.

Table 2: Municipal Initiatives for Pesticide Management on Parks and Public Land

Municipality	IPM Plan	Other Pest Management Plan	Parks - Complete Ban	Designated Areas Only
Bowen Island	-	-	-	-
Burnaby	X	-	X	-
Coquitlam	X	-	-	-
Delta	-	-	-	-
District of North Vancouver	X	-	-	-
District of West Vancouver	-	X	X	-
Electoral Area "A"	-	-	-	-
Langley	C	-	-	X
Maple Ridge	X	-	-	-
New Westminster	X	-	-	-
North Vancouver	C	-	-	-
Pitt Meadows	X	-	-	-
Port Coquitlam	-	-	X	-
Port Moody	-	-	X	-
Richmond	X	-	-	-
Surrey	X	-	-	-
Vancouver	X	-	-	-
White Rock	-	X	X	X
GVRD Parks	-	X	X	X
X = in place	C = under consideration		- = none

Source for Tables 1 & 2: GRVD Report "Local Government Approaches to Restricting Non-essential Pesticide Use, June 19, 2003
 

EDUCATION PROGRAM

Many agencies refer to the need for residents to reduce pesticide usage. However, most do not inform the home gardener as to how to deal with insect, weed and disease problems in their gardens. Information on pest control alternatives are sometimes difficult to obtain. In order to raise public awareness on the issue of pesticide use reduction, the following strategies are proposed for 2004. The new program would adopt Vancouver Engineering Services' existing "Grow Natural" Natural Yard Care program look and slogans. The Park Board would be the lead agency for the new program, with Vancouver's Solid Waste and Waterworks branches of Engineering Services, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and non-profit organizations providing support and cooperation as required.

Education Strategies	Timeline	Budget
Pesticide Use Survey In order to gauge the effectiveness of an education program, it is necessary to establish a baseline. Unfortunately, this information can not be obtained from pesticide sales figures as they are either not available (domestic pesticide sales do not have to be reported) or not specific to a municipality. In February 2002, Vancouver Park Board staff attached a few questions on pesticide use to a region-wide Omnibus survey. It yielded some interesting results such as one third of respondents not using any pesticides on their property.	Jan to Mar 2004	$ 20,000
Local Advertising Campaign The local advertising campaign would be done for the launch of the Pesticide Reduction Education Program and to promote any special events linked to the program. This advertising campaign would consist of placing ads in the local newspapers.	2004	$ 7,500
Web Site Design A recent Vancouver survey showed that nearly 70% of Vancouver homes are linked to the internet. With such a large portion of the population "web-ready", a web site containing detailed information on how to deal with common garden pests would be an invaluable tool to raise public awareness. Building on the City's Growth Natural web page, information on pest-specific solutions and pest control alternatives would be added to the site. These would provide Vancouver residents with the alternative pest control options that will allow them to break their pesticide reliance.	Dec 2003 to Apr 2004	$ 2,000
Information Kits and Posters Based of past experience by other City departments, direct mail (single-family residences, 92000 in Vancouver) was found to be the most effective method to deliver informational media. The Grown Natural booklet would be expanded to include pest-specific solutions for home gardeners. Posters and pamphlets would be elaborated for distribution at City and Parks locations and community centres.	Dec 2003 to Apr 2004	Direct mail: $ 7,500 Design and Layout: $ 2,000 Printing: $ 40,000 Translation: $ 2,500 Total: $ 52,000
Community Outreach The pesticide education program would interface well with many community outreach programs such as Vancouver's "Most Beautiful Block Competition", Community Visions program, the GreenStreets program and other programs held through the various community centres.	Summer 2004	$ 5,000
Seminars and Workshops In 2003, the City of Ottawa ran a series of free seminars on pesticide alternatives. The results were very positive. Over the last 13 years, City Farmer has been delivering the Solid Waste Department's compost and recycling education program with great success. City Farmer, in conjunction with City and Parks staff, would develop a curriculum on pesticide alternatives to be delivered during the summer of 2004.	May to Aug 2004	$ 7,000
Press Education Day Media activity events facilitate information dissemination by involving the media in hands-on demonstrations of the pesticide reduction education program. Activities could include how to use friendly bugs in your garden or demonstrating pesticide-free gardening.	Summer 2004	$ 1,000
Regional radio and Television Advertising Campaign Since the principal print and electronic media cover the entire region, a GVRD and/or Health Authority funded campaign focussed on the need for pesticide use reduction would be more appropriate than a City focussed and funded campaign.	2004	Not applicable

BY-LAW

Since the enactment of the Town of Hudson's pesticide restriction by-law on February 4, 1991, at least fifty communities across Canada now have by-laws that restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides on public and private lands. A brief review of eleven by-laws from municipalities in Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia is presented in Appendix C.

A typical by-law may address:

· Allowed pesticides
A number of municipalities have acknowledged that not all pesticides are the same. Some by-laws identify a list of products or group of products, which are much less potentially harmful to humans or the environment. This could mirror the list of provincially exempted pesticides, as stated in the BC Pesticide Control Act.

· Allowed uses (outright or conditional), sometimes with times of year allowed
As pesticides include pool chemicals, wood preservatives and rodent killers and repellents, many by-laws provide for the unconditional use of such products. Other by-laws have sought to prescribe times of year when pesticides can or cannot be used.

Both Halifax and Toronto have made the use of pesticides conditional on the presence of an infestation on the property. In Toronto's by-law, an infestation is described as "the presence of pests in numbers or under conditions which involve an immediate or potential risk of substantial loss or damage."

· Signs, permits and notification requirements
Signs and/or notification have been a key component of early IPM programs in public land. Some by-laws seek to apply these features to the use of pesticides on private properties. Some also include a requirement for permits.

· Areas exempted from the by-law
A number of by-laws provide exemptions for agricultural lands, golf courses, commercial growers and utility and rail corridors. Within Vancouver, the exemption of areas may not be an option given the provisions of the Vancouver Charter.

A pesticide by-law would send a message of the City's commitment to reducing the application of unnecessary pesticides. It would also attract media attention which would spread the message widely. If Council wishes to pursue the by-law approach, Appendix A outlines the possible structure of a pesticide by-law for the City of Vancouver. It should be noted, however, that a by-law will likely have an impact on the landscape maintenance industry and effective enforcement of the by-law would be challenging unless considerable staff resources were devoted to the task.

As with the education program, gauging the effectiveness of any pesticide reduction by-law will prove to be a challenge. At this time, pesticide use surveys are the only tool available to determine how much pesticides are being purchased and applied by Vancouver residents.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The level of funding to be devoted to this program is to be referred to the 2004 budget process.

The entire education program as described in this report would cost $94,120 in the first year. In subsequent years local advertising, community outreach and continuing distribution of information kits and posters could be done at an annual cost of $15,000.

Should Council opt for a bylaw, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority has advised that enforcement would have to be funded at $75,000 plus an additional $10,000 for laboratory testing in year one, to be adjusted to somewhat lower amounts in subsequent years. These adjustments in subsequent years could be made as part of the annual review of the Environmental Health Services Agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Current patterns of pesticide use on private property continue to be a cause of concern from both a public health and an environmental perspective. As the Sustainable City is being implemented, reductions in pesticide use should be achieved. There is consensus among stakeholders that a public education program with both a local and a regional component is an excellent first step. Should this program not provide an appreciable difference in pesticide use, Council has the regulatory option. However, it is noted that effective enforcement would be challenging even with the addition of staff resources.

MEDICAL HEALTH OFFICER COMMENTS

The Medical Health Officer strongly supports the reduction of non-essential uses of pesticides by using integrated pest management and safer application practices as a prudent way of reducing avoidable risks, even if these risks are not precisely known or understood. As a 1998 scientific report concluded,

"...although research is underway to characterize the risks of childhood cancer associated with pesticides ... it is prudent to reduce, or where possible, eliminate pesticide exposure to children" (Zalm and Ward, 1998).

While the Medical Health Officer supports efforts to reduce or eliminate unnecessary use of pesticides, including those used on lawns and gardens, it is important to keep the relative risks of pesticide exposure in perspective. The health risks to the general population, including children, are relatively small and decreasing due to initiatives at other levels of government referred to in this report.

The Medical Health Officer concurs with the proposed wording for a regulatory approach but does not necessarily agree that such an approach is needed at this time. The educational and voluntarily compliance route, coupled with the full implementation of federal and provincial initiatives to further reduce the risks from urban pesticide use, should be pursued and evaluated prior to initiating a regulatory approach.

There may be some merit in adopting the Ottawa approach of announcing an effective date for a by-law 2 years down the road and reserving the option of implementing the by-law should education and voluntary efforts fail to yield the desired reduction in pesticide use.

Adoption of a by-law will confer on the City a responsibility, at least in the eyes of the public, to enforce the provisions of that by-law. This presents at least two challenges - resources and enforceability. Based on estimates to implement the Toronto By-law, staff has estimated that an additional $150,000 in resources would be required for implementation of the proposed by-law provisions. Assuming that the public health inspectors at VCHA would be designated as the enforcement officials, this would require an augmentation of the existing level of services and associated funding in the Environmental Health Services agreement between the City and VCHA. There may be an opportunity to absorb some of the new duties within the current service agreement due to anticipated reduced enforcement activities related to the Smoke-free Public Place provisions in the by-law. Staff estimates that up to half of the new resource requirements could be offset in this manner, with the remaining half ($75,000) funded on a year-to-year basis, allowing for eventual reductions in funding as we gain experience with enforcement of the by-law. There would be some additional laboratory analysis costs associated with enforcement, estimated to be under $10,000/annum.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A

CITY OF VANCOUVER
SAMPLE BY-LAW

WHEREAS under section 330 of the Vancouver Charter, a by-law may be

passed by Vancouver for providing for the care, promotion and protection of the health of the inhabitants of the city and, for that purpose, for regulating, controlling and restricting persons and their activities;

THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VANCOUVER, in public

meeting, enacts as follows:

1. This By-law may be cited as the "Pesticide Control By-law".

INTERPRETATION

2. In this By-law, unless the context otherwise requires

(a) "ENCLOSED" means an area closed in by a roof or ceiling and walls with an appropriate opening or openings for ingress or egress, which openings are equipped with doors which are kept closed except when actually in use for egress or ingress.

(b) "HEALTH HAZARD" means a pest which has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the health of any person.

(c) "INFESTATION" means the presence of pests in numbers or under conditions which involve an immediate or potential risk of substantial loss or damage.

(d) "PEST" means an animal, a plant or other organism that is injurious, noxious or troublesome, whether directly or indirectly, and an injurious, noxious or troublesome condition or organic function of an animal, a plant or other organism.

(e) "PESTICIDE" means a product, an organism or a substance that is a registered control product under the federal Pest Control Products Act which is used as a means for directly or indirectly controlling, destroying, attracting or repelling a pest or for mitigating or preventing its injurious, noxious or troublesome effects.

GENERAL REGULATIONS

3. No person shall apply or cause or permit the application of pesticides within the boundaries of the City.

4. Notwithstanding Article 3, it is permitted to use a pesticide in the following cases:

(a) To disinfect swimming pools, whirlpools, spas or wading pools;

(b) To purify water intended for the use of humans or animals;

(c) Within an enclosed building;

(d) To control termites;

(e) To control or destroy a health hazard;

(f) To control or destroy pests which have caused infestation to property;

(g) To exterminate or repel rodents;

(h) As a wood preservative;

(i) As an insecticide bait which is enclosed by the manufacturer in a plastic

or metal container that has been made in a way that prevents or
minimizes access to the bait by humans and pets;

(j) As an insect repellent for personal use.

5. Notwithstanding Article 3, it is permitted to use a pesticide that is or contains any of the following active ingredients:

(a) A soap, also called fatty acid;

(b) A mineral oil, also called summer, dormant or horticultural oil;

(c) Silicon dioxide, also called diatomaceous earth;

(d) Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and other registered biological control

organisms;

(e) Borax, also called boric acid or boracic acid;

(f) Ferric phosphate;

(g) Acetic acid;

(h) Pyrethrum or pyrethrins; or

(j) Sulphur.

APPENDIX B

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

PESTICIDE REDUCTION STRATEGIES
John Talbot & Associates Inc.
September 26, 2003

Overall Summary:

This summary provides an indication as to the level of support for the below listed pesticide reduction strategies. For more detailed information by interest group, refer to the individual focus group summaries.

Enhance Public Awareness and Education:

There was support for the implementation of a public awareness and education program with regard to pesticides. The primary purpose of such a program would be to change public perceptions regarding what constitutes the "perfect garden or lawn" and to pro-vide information as to mechanical and non-chemical alternatives to pesticides. It was felt that any program should convey factual, positive messages and that its design and implementation should involve all interests. There was agreement that changing public perceptions takes time and that the recycling movement can provide an excellent model for change. Regarding this movement, it was noted that it started in the schools and spread outwards.

Ensure Proper Landscape Design and Maintenance:

There was support for ensuring proper landscape design and maintenance to reduce the use of pesticides. It was stated that more attention needs to be paid to selecting the right mix of vegetation in accordance with local climate, soil and topographic conditions; while ensuring that proper irrigation, filtration and drainage is in place. It was suggested that new construction should place greater emphasis on landscape design, including planting vegetation that attracts beneficial birds and insects.

Expand Pesticide Notification Provisions:

While there was some support for expanded pesticide notification provisions; concern was expressed regarding both enforcement and practicality. It was reported that pesticide notification is important as it facilitates informed consent and protects people with allergies, asthma and/or chemical sensitivities. On the other hand, it was stated that enforcement, especially as it relates to the personal use of pesticides on private property, would be difficult, if not impossible, as by-law enforcement officers would have to prove that a pesticide was being used. As for practicality, it was stated that given the variability of the weather, many applications do not occur due to rain and the public is placed in a position of needless concern.

Broaden Application of an IPM Approach:

There was support for City Council adopting a universal integrated pest management program that would apply to all Departments within the City of Vancouver, including any contractors working on pest control. It was stated that the Vancouver School District and the Vancouver Parks Department have already implemented a ban on pesticides and an integrated pest management program respectively. There was also support for City Council encouraging the senior levels of government to adopt a similar program for lands under their jurisdiction.

Restrict the Cosmetic Use of Pesticides:

There was mixed support for any by-law which would restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides. Some interests felt that such a by-law would be warranted if a public awareness and education program was proven to be ineffective; while others felt that such a by-law would legislate out-of-business landscape maintenance companies with licensed applicators. It was stated that the loss of such companies could result in more homeowners and unlicensed applicators applying pesticides themselves. Regarding the latter, it was stated that they would be less likely to take the necessary precautions to protect them-selves and that they would be more likely to use broadcast methods of application. Additionally, It was stated that those municipalities which have enacted by-laws to restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides have achieved little or no success, since they have no control over the sale of pesticide products.

Lobby the Senior Levels of Government:

There was support for lobbying the senior levels of government, possibly through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Union of BC Municipalities, for tighter restrictions with regard to the sale and use of domestic pesticides, including concentrates and premixed products. There was also support for reporting all pesticide product sales, including domestic and exempted products. Regarding reporting, it was stated that benchmark information on the full range of pesticide sales is essential in order to determine if pesticide reduction strategies are having their intended effect.

Ensure the Safe Disposal of Pesticides:

There was support for manufacturers and vendors taking more responsibility for the collection and safe disposal of pesticide products. It was suggested that an environmental levy be applied to all pesticide products and that staff at points-of-sale be more knowledgeable about the storage, transport, use and safe disposal of pesticide products. Additionally, it was suggested that safe disposal sites be prominently displayed at all points-of-sale and that a label be applied to all pesticide products informing purchasers of safe disposal sites. It was also suggested that safe disposal sites contain information as to alternatives to pesticide products.

APPENDIX C

CANADIAN MUNICIPAL PESTICIDE BY-LAW EXAMPLES

CANADIAN MUNICIPAL PESTICIDE BY-LAW EXAMPLES

CANADIAN MUNICIPAL PESTICIDE BY-LAW EXAMPLES