Opportunity for Input into Pesticide Reduction Focus Groups

Hello Neil,

In the environmental law & policy field, a combination of regulation and education is generally seen as the most effective approach. Sierra Legal's Municipal Powers Report found that such a combined approach to pesticide reduction resulted in 51-90% success in behaviour change. Education and outreach without a by-law, on the other hand, resulted in 10-24% success: http://www.ecojustice.ca/reports/municipalpowers_report_may2007.pdf

The report is also very useful in describing various case studies from across Canada, and suggesting financing mechanisms and revenue tools that could potentially make such programs revenue-neutral (or at least less of a burden on municipal budgets).

Finally, it is important to consider as well the role that by-laws can have in shaping public norms and influencing attitudes, even without heavy enforcement. Something that has the force of law is seen more readily as a public value, and not something that is merely an optional behaviour for the socially and environmentally conscious.

Kristen Courtney

Neil,

If you haven't already found it on the net, suggest you check out a Best Practices Review on this topic (Impact of By-Laws and Public Education Programs on Reducing the Cosmetic, Non-Essential, Residential Use of Pesticides): http://www.pestinfo.ca/documents/PesticidesBestPracticeReview-FINAL04032 4.pdf

The by-laws are found to be particularly useful in the entire package of incentives.

Michael Bergman
Reducing Toxics Educator
WA Dept. of Ecology

Dear Neil:

My response applies to any regulatory approach to sustainability issues (in which I include environmental, economic and social factors). My statements are sensitive to the needs of the (very) small business community in Canada, as they operate like households, representing over 1.8 million entities or 80.1% of Canadian business. This sort of by-law will impact them, as many also operate out of their homes (don't have an exact number - let's say half for discussion purposes). So you can get their attention as business owners and as homeowners. The important point here is to gain their cooperation in the solution. Let me be clear I think everybody should be part of a solution; if you are not actively engaged in a solution, you are an agent or carrier of the problem - somewhat like the tsetse fly Regulation is a good news bad news story. In my experience, regulation on its own - at any level, is an option of last resort. It needs to be considered in terms of its cost against the benefits accrued. And one should think through the options and consequences of alternatives first from a systems perspective. ..

David Boyd (in his book Unnatural Law) well articulated the fact that effective environmental laws share five common features (considering OECD and excerpts from Duncan):

1.clear jurisdiction or cooperation between different levels of government

2.clear manageable, enforceable standards

3.mandatory language

4.effective compliance and enforcements mechanisms, including incentives and penalties

5.adequate resources for implementation and enforcement

According to David Boyd, the majority of Canadian environmental laws do not meet these characteristics. I add one feature request: It is really useful too if they are written in plain language and not 'gobbledygook'. I have read some regulations that made you wonder if the writers weren't high on more than their own egos. Regulation is a cost burden, and the cost may increase when it is a stand alone option. Too many environmental regulations focus on reporting and not on doing. For small business regulation is also a much more expensive option on a per capita basis (see the Canadian Federation of Independent Business' member survey Rated R on their website).

My example does not relate to pesticides, my apologies, but I think it still makes the point. Toluene is a ubiquitous material, and not without its impacts on the environment in addition to human health issues. To help small business owners address their environmental impact, we tested the information flow on toluene - how they would find information on what it is, what concerns it represented and what they could do about it. We used a number of research sources - governments, NGOs, and found almost nothing and no answers. We searched the internet - a common search option. Interestingly enough, the only relevant piece of information was a by-law. And what did it tell the reader? It told them how to pollute. Don't think this was a good idea, and probably not one that was intended with the writers of the by-law. So, what's the bottom line? First, regulation is not a stand alone tool. Motivate, don't regulate. The process of discovery that Doug has helped to develop in CBSM is useful. As part of this process of discovery one can chart the flow of materials and the flow of activity involved in pesticide use. Flowcharting is a good tool to that end. Include the points of control, and where synergy with parallel systems may enable alternate messaging to help. Another useful tool to examine cause and effect is the Fishbone Diagram, which looks at root causes. You are also looking for points of persuasion. Positive things - is there a community award system whereby land owners (as home owners or business owners) be recognized for their efforts. Does the City or Richmond practice what they preach (or you would like them to practice)? What does the Mayor do? City Councilors? Here is a challenge - your local golf courses.

Hope this helps. Have fun with it.
L P.S.

L. E. Johannson, B.E.S. (Hons), M.Sc.,
FRSA President E2 Management Corporation (E2M)

Hi Neil and other interested parties:

In collaboration with the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention, we did a study four years ago that looked at that exact question for residential pesticides. See http://www.cullbridge.com/Projects/Pesticides.htm We will be updating and expanding that study this coming year (new funders are welcome - please contact me if you are interested J) You may also find of interest the City of Toronto's upcoming webinar on their approach and success. Details are at http://www.cullbridge.com/Services/Social_Marketing_Workshops.htm and in a separate posting on today's FSB listserv. I believe that NRCan and LURA did a similar look at the role of by-laws for vehicle idling. Contact [email protected]

Cheers,
Jay

Jay Kassirer
President,
Cullbridge Marketing and Communications
61 Forest Hill Avenue,
Ottawa Ontario, Canada K2C 1P7
Tel: (613) 224-3800
Web: www.cullbridge.com 
www.toolsofchange.com

Hi Neil -

Some of the more interesting work in bylaws, a result of environmental organizing around corporate-driven community harms, has been done by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund in Pennsylvania ( http://www.celdf.org ). Communities there found that the U.S. regulatory system offered them no protection against toxic assaults such as sewage sludge and quarries, and resource assaults such as water grabs, so they began passing bylaws challenging the legitimacy of "higher" state and federal law. To date the bylaws, passed over the last ten years, have been effective in keeping out those harms - but the challenges have yet to begin in earnest. While the substance of these bylaws - which includes asserting legal rights of nature and stripping corporations of illegitimately granted constitutional rights - may be somewhat different than what you're considering, the element of fostering sustainable behavior is prominent. As I believe I've mentioned in a previous post, I've written about this in an article for Food First: http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2005/w05v11n1.html I don't know what the Canadian parallels are, but I strongly encourage anyone who's interested in the local democracy aspect of fostering sustainable behavior to check out the CELDF site.

Cheers,
Adam in blissfully sinking Massachusetts of the tenuously United States of America

Hi all!

This is interesting work that Tom Bird is doing at the City of Waterloo, and their website, www.letscurbpesticides.ca is excellent. Under "By-law" the site says, "This by-law was created in response to the concerns expressed by residents about the health and environmental risks associated with the use of pesticides." While I certainly feel that concern too, I also wonder about the role that by-laws have in reducing unsustainable behaviour. I am entering into a discussion about the value that by-laws -- such as those restricting lawn chemical usage -- may have in changing unsustainable behaviour in a community context. While chemical use is one concern, I am also interested in this topic more generally, as it applies to anti-idling campaigns or any other topic of sustainability. Can anyone direct me to research exploring whether by-laws are actually a good investment? In other words, what are the key cost factors in establishing such by-laws and what behaviour change results can typically be expected? Is the cost of by-law enforcement money well-spent, or could it be more effective if allocated elsewhere? Can a CBSM change effort effectively take the place of these by-laws or should local governments pursue both approaches on every issue? As usual, your diverse thoughts and perspectives are welcome on these questions.

Cheers,
Neil
City of Richmond

Tom,

You may want to check out the Our Water Our World campaign in the San Francisco Bay Area at http://ourwaterourworld.org .

Annie Joseph, who consults with this program, has done a lot of work with local and regional nurseries and hardware stores over the last few years to train staff on IPM, and likely has a lot of ideas for you. Her e-mail address is [email protected]