Minutes of the 24th Pesticides Forum Meeting held on 8 June 2004 at Defra Offices, Page Street, London, SW1
Those present at the meeting are listed at Annex A.
1a. Apologies for absence
Matthew Wells recorded apologies from Members:
Peter Hall (ACOS), John Foley, (FPC/BRC), Peter Thomson (SNFU), Darren Moorcroft (RSPB), David Coggon (ACP), Robert Campbell (CLA).
Ian McKee (DARDNI), Jonathan Williams (NAWAD), Chris Hurley (HSE) and Martin Johnston (SERAD).
The Chairman welcomed James Grant (SNFU) who attended instead of Peter Thomson, and Jim Densham (RSPB) who attended in place of Darren Moorcroft. He also welcomed Simon Dyer (DoH) who has taken over from Robin Fielder, and Angela Rabess(DTI) who has taken over from Richard Bowden.
He also welcomed Richard Garnett, of Wisdom Systems attending to take part in the afternoon session on disposal of packaging.
1b. Minutes and Matters Arising
Matthew Wells updated the group on actions arising from the 25 February meeting. The Secretariat is still looking for a consumer representative to join the Forum. Suggestions from the last meeting had been explored, but had proved futile. It is hoped that a replacement will be found before the October Forum meeting. Keith Dawson (AIC) reported that he would shortly be leaving AIC to take up a new post as principal crop consultant with SAC. He will take over from Stuart Wale as Forum representative for SAC. The Secretariat will approach AIC to ask for a new representative to replace Keith.
1c The Chair explained his intention to circulate a questionnaire to members before the October meeting to ask members for feedback on areas of business where the Forum has been successful and for ideas on areas to improve. Matthew Wells reported that the Secretariat is currently exploring the idea of having a designated Web area for Forum papers and agendas. Members would have a password to gain access to these documents. This was currently being piloted by the ACP. A similar model could be adopted for the Forum. This issue could be addressed in the questionnaire. Members agreed that sub group minutes should not be published on the website. The Secretariat will circulate final project group minutes to all members once they have been agreed.
1d The Chair introduced the subject of improving publicity of the Forum and raising its profile. The public are made aware of Forum activity through publication of documents on the website. A way to improve publicity would be for members to convey Forum business back to their organisations and activate responses. It was therefore suggested that the questionnaire should also include a section on suggesting ways of raising Forum’s profile. Following circulation to members the questionnaire will be sent to external contacts to seek their views. Ministers could also be approached to ask how key messages could be addressed regarding raising the profile of the Forum.
Action: Forum Chair & Secretariat
1e Following discussion on crop protocols and their competitive impact at the February meeting review of knowledge transfer it had been agreed that someone from the retail sector should be invited to speak to the Forum at a future meeting. Members agreed that a grower should also be invited to provide a different view of protocols, and look at how growers might comply. It was also agreed that there should be some European input to the discussion. The Secretariat agreed to arrange speakers for the October meeting from the retail, grower and European sector.
1f At the February meeting Members asked whether there were any plans to award more than two points out of thirty for carrying out crop protection management plans (CPMP’s) under the entry level scheme (ELS). Matthew Wells noted that he was currently investigating this issue further with Defra ELS colleagues, as details of the ELS scheme were unclear. Once clarified, the Secretariat will draft a letter for the Chair to send on behalf of the Forum to ask for higher weighting to be given to carrying out the provision of a CPMP. It was agreed that a draft letter would be copied to Helen Bower, Richard Knight and Julian Hasler to check the detail, then forwarded on to the Chair to send to Defra ELS people. Richard Knight asked whether Scotland, Wales and Ireland operate a system the same as CPMPs. Julian Hasler reported that Scotland will introduce a similar system in 2005. The entry level scheme had been piloted in Wales. It was agreed that the Secretariat will write to other countries to discover what schemes they currently have in place.
Action: Helen Bower, Richard Knight, Julian Hasler, Forum Chair and Secretariat
1g The Chair reported that the Forum had received a response from the CPA to a letter he had sent on 10 December 2003 raising Forum concerns on the sale of a hybrid barley product. CPA confirmed that their member companies were aware of this issue and they confirmed that Forum views have been noted.
1h Tom Bals advised that at his project group meeting on 11 May it was considered that the Forum’s remit should be expanded to include amenity and home garden use. It was important not to duplicate the work of the Amenity Forum and it was suggested that John Allbutt (Amenity Chair) could be invited to join the Pesticides Forum, however Ministerial approval would need to be sought. Peter Pitkin raised concern over the size of the Forum since it was important that the Forum did not become unwieldy. However, some members felt that if the Forum was moving into these sectors it would need to expand to include relevant expertise. The Chair requested Tom Bals produce a short paper for the October meeting to look at how the Forum could undertake the mechanics of expanding into other areas. The Chair noted that the subject of whether the Forum expands into the health area should be addressed at the October meeting. The subject of membership could also be included in the questionnaire.
Action: Tom Bals
2. The Green Code
Tom Bals reported that his project group had looked at the draft Green Code at their meeting on 11 May. A number of recommendations have already been sent to PSD. The Chair thanked Tom Bals project group for its comprehensive review of the draft. Members agreed that it was particularly important to include references to the Voluntary Initiative (VI) in the document. Regardless of whether the VI would finish in 2006, its initiatives will continue. Lack of recognition of the VI would be a mistake. Sue Popple noted that the Green Code consultation was still in progress and members are welcome to respond individually. It was agreed that Tom Bals would summarise Forum discussion and recommend that there should be more reference to three main areas - VI, biobeds and appropriate dose rates. Tom Bals will discuss issues raised today with officials following the meeting. Members can respond to the consultation individually by letter or via the PSD website. The consultation will run until the end of July. PSD hope that the revised Code will be out before the end of the year.
Action: Tom Bals and Forum Members
3. Knowledge Transfer
Keith Dawson summarised the background to the Knowledge Transfer paper. Keith’s sub group had discussed the document at their meeting on 26 May. As a result a revised paper had been produced and circulated prior to the meeting. The Forum would need to identify how recommendations could be followed up. Members are invited to comment on the content of the paper and provide ideas on how to publicise the final document. Peter Pitkin noted that the paper had been discussed at two or three sub group meetings and the main conclusion was to identify who is responsible for taking forward recommendations and co-ordinating knowledge transfer. Since the original document was produced in 1997 good progress had been made in some areas but not in others. Members are aware of the various routes their organisations can have an impact on, when taking forward recommendations. The Chair reflected on the project group’s good effort in putting the paper together. It was agreed that Keith Dawson would work on tightening up and developing the recommendations. Peter Pitkin agreed to assist Keith Dawson with this task. The first paragraph should include information on the good progress made so far. The Forum should encourage an industry-led approach in recommending that spray operators register with NRoSO. Once finalised the document would be sent to specific organisations. The final paper will be launched with a press release and covering letter from the Chair. Keith Dawson would be named as the main point of contact for directing any questions.
Action: Chair, Keith Dawson, & Forum Secretariat
4. National Pesticides Strategy
Keith Dawson reported that his project group had first sight of PSD’s draft section three of the strategy. He commended the work of those who attended the groups meeting on 26 May. The group were pleased to see how the strategy was evolving and that recommendations the Forum had put forward earlier had been taken on board. Keith reported that PSD said that comments put forward by the project group would be considered when drafting the next version of the strategy. Keith noted that the group’s comments on the strategy were included in its minutes of the 26 May meeting. These will be circulated to all members. The Chair thanked PSD for letting the Forum have a first look at part three of the strategy. The Forum had made a substantial input into the national pesticides strategy. The Chair will write to the Minister expressing gratitude for the unique experience of being able to have input to the pre- consultation discussions on the strategy. Keith’s project group will look at the document again once the consultation is published. Their next meeting will be on 14 September and will be open to all members to attend. The consultation is due to be published early July and will run for three months until October. The Forum, as a whole, will discuss the strategy at its meeting on 6 October. This would give sufficient time for the Forum to have joint input into the official consultation. Sue Popple said that if PSD were made aware that late comments were due to be submitted, they would allow time for receipt of these.
Action: Keith Dawson project group, Chair, & the Forum Secretariat
5. Environment Agency report on pesticide monitoring in water
Andy Croxford introduced a brief overview of EA’s executive summary of pesticide monitoring in 2002 that had been circulated to members prior to the meeting. He reported that many failures of Environmental Quality Standards were caused by sheep dip chemicals either from their use or as residues released from wool washing factories. This problem was particularly noticeable in Wales, the North of England, Kent and West Yorkshire. TBT is banned but still persistent in the environment. EA recognised that there is a long running environmental problem with TBT. In terms of water contamination and the need to treat water for drinking water purposes, the substances of concern are high dose, widely used herbicides. Andy Croxford noted that EA are currently processing data for their 2003 Report. A draft would be made available to the Forum at the October meeting. Some of EA’s findings could link into James Clarke’s indicators group. The Chair noted that the October Forum meeting agenda was beginning to look crowded and asked James Clarke’s group to look at the draft.
Action: Andy Croxford and James Clarke project group
6. Rothamsted Field Visit
Matthew Wells reported that arrangements to visit Rothamsted on 14 July are being firmed up. He asked that members let the Secretariat know as soon as possible if they require overnight accommodation the evening before the meeting. A draft meeting agenda had been circulated with the Forum papers.
Action: Forum members & Secretariat
Matthew Wells reminded members that the next meeting of the Pesticides Forum would be 6 October, and will be held in Nobel House, Smith Square, conference rooms A and B.
7a Bystander Consultation
Sue Popple reported that there was nothing to report at present from PSD on the bystander consultation. The minister will make a statement in due course.
7b Voluntary Initiative
Anne Buckenham reported that the VI had reached the end of its third year. The key targets met or now exceeded were:
- Over 770,000ha covered by CPMPs
- Over 5,000 sprayers tested
- Over 15,000 operators registered
This excellent progress was recognised in the Government’s Budget report which re-stated the belief that, if fully implemented, the VI is the most effective way of reducing the environmental impact of pesticides. The VI steering group has agreed new interim targets for 2004 to include:
- An increase in area covered by CPMPs to 900,000ha
- 10,000 sprayers tested (approx 50% of arable area)
- 17,500 operators on register
The VI is continuing to look at appropriate way of monitoring pesticides in water. The indicators currently in use are in need of refining. VI is working on developing these. Over the next few months the VI will be launching a new water awareness campaign called H2 OK. The scheme will target farmers, advisors, operators and the amenity sectors. If anyone would like further details of the scheme they should contact Patrick Goldsworthy at the Crop Protection Association.
7c. FSA’s policy on minimisation of pesticide residues
Esther Heller reported that in May, the FSA Board was updated on the work undertaken to progress its minimisation policy. It was clear that there are already a number of retailer and grower initiatives. In light of this the proposed action plan focuses on what action the Agency could take to support the food industry to successfully deliver its existing pesticide minimisation initiatives. Consumer attitudes survey results have shown a consistent, high level of concern about pesticides, when prompted. Further research has identified potential risk to health was identified as a primary concern. Nevertheless, when consumers were informed about the safety controls that exist the majority considered that reducing residues further than the current safe levels in food was still important.
The Agency will draw together examples of best practice into useful guidance and consider with stakeholders, how this might contribute to existing pesticide minimisation initiatives. This would be taken forward with assurance schemes. UK suppliers of fresh produce to the major retailers are all members of Assured Produce Scheme and the majority of fresh produce bought by consumers in the UK is marketed through retailers. FSA will explore the possibility of an independent audit process to measure the uptake of assurance schemes. Surveillance results suggest that imported produce is more likely to contain residues than UK produce. However the proportion of samples that exceed the MRL is still low at around 2%. Some growers, e.g. in Spain, are following protocols developed in the UK. Further work needs to be done to reduce residues in imported produce.
The Agency will play a facilitating role, working with retailers and assurance schemes and will work with stakeholders on ways in which uptake of best practice could be measured and will report back to the Board in 18 months. The FSA will continue to develop their understanding of consumer interests and how complex messages about pesticides can be communicated effectively.
8. Seminar on disposal of pesticide product packaging
8a The first presentation was introduced by Andy Croxford of the Environment Agency. He announced that the EA is currently reviewing its policy on the disposal of waste products. There would be implications following the introduction of the Agricultural Waste Regulations (AWR) which will go out to consultation and are expected to be introduced in 2005. The results of a recent agricultural waste survey had shown that open burning was the most popular method of disposal. It is expected that the Regulations will ban uncontrolled burning or burial of waste on farms, except plant material. The options open to farmers would be:
- To secure waste on farm for up to one year prior to disposal. Three years if the waste is to be recovered.
- Send or take waste to licensed sites for disposal
- Register a licensing exemption to recycle
- Apply for licence to continue on farm disposal
The use of drum incinerators was currently considered to be outside the scope of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) and is covered by the Waste Framework Directive. Its objective is the disposal of waste including pesticide packaging without harm to the environment or human health. EA surveyed CPA data on the drum incinerator but felt it would have to be heavily modified to reduce emission of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (since the burn temperature was currently too low) and would then fall under WID (which required expensive licensing). EA was proposing a 12 month extension to use of drum incinerator’s after the introduction of the Agricultural Waste Regulations (AWR’s).
Helen Bower asked whether boxes would be included in the banning of uncontrolled burning or burial of waste. Andy replied that he was unsure what the situation was on boxes, but it is likely that these will come under plant matter. It was agreed that there should be an incentive for farmers to return containers to manufacturers e.g. a deposit on return. Andy noted that some landfill tax funds could be used to provide grants for the development and provision of a national collection scheme and infrastructure for plastic waste packaging. In summary it was agreed that distributors, farmers and manufacturers would need to get together to discuss a way forward.
8b Julian Hasler introduced the NFU’s view on disposal of pesticide product packaging. Farmers are now faced with this question specifically for disposal of pesticide containers, but with other packaging and plastic waste also in mind. However, farmers do understand why drum incinerators will eventually have to go. There is a need for people to get together and identify problems and point to possible solutions. The NFU would like to look at how this problem is being dealt with in Europe, and how schemes are funded there. BIFFA are currently undertaking research in this area. The introduction of a levy on the cost of pesticides to pay for the scheme could be one possibility. However if the extra costs were too high, farmers may dispose of material themselves. Farmers would need to have an incentive. The NFU recognise that there are problems with collection schemes, e.g. have fertiliser bags been emptied properly? Have containers been rinsed out properly? One container could contaminate the rest. The introduction of collection points could be a way forward, with inspectors checking that containers have been properly rinsed. CPA, farmers and distributors would need to get together to investigate all the options. The Chair said that schemes in other countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium appear to be working well. To investigate how these schemes work and to introduce similar ones here could be a way forward.
8c Richard Garnett from Wisdom Systems gave an introduction to the alternatives for disposing of waste pesticide packaging. See attached paper.
8d Anne Buckenham presented CPA’s view on disposal of waste pesticide packaging. The CPA recognised that current practice could not continue due to changes in legislation. Farmers have a legal responsibility for disposing of waste on the farm. 16% of farmers currently use incinerators to dispose of waste. The CPA had decided not to commit any additional funds for research into the use of drum incinerators. However they would support the introduction of an alternative. Money had been invested into the Biffaward research using a consultant to assess feasibility and make recommendations for implementation of a pesticide container recovery scheme. A final report on the project is due in July 2004. The CPA is aware that recovery schemes are running in other countries. The CPA have decided to back a scheme for all plastic farm waste, large enough to be economic, to justify collection from farm and to interest the waste industry. Some of the key elements of this scheme are
- Removes all farm plastic waste
- Disposal via suitable recovery route (not landfill)
- Financed by farmer payments and recovery notes.
Farming unions would lead the scheme with support from the whole of the agricultural supply industry. Stakeholder Trust or commercial company would be responsible for managing the scheme.
Anne Buckenham noted that the CPA is pleased to hear Andy Croxford’s comments regarding possible landfill tax funding to get a scheme up and running. Helen Bower asked what CPA’s obligation would be on the supply of chemical packaging. Anne Buckenham replied that manufacturers’ legal obligations were fulfilled through payments to Valpak or similar schemes. However CPA would support the farmers in setting up a disposal scheme. Although CPA members consider other types of packaging, single trip packaging will continue.
Tom Bals advised there were a lot of issues to consider as per the discussion paper he had prepared for the meeting. A response from Peter Hall – points for the Forum to consider at this meeting had been tabled. This raised a lot of questions. Helen Bower noted that regulations concerning disposal of waste pesticide packaging had been pushed forward quickly in Europe. It was important to have an alternative method in place soon in the UK. By 2006, in 18 months time, farmers would not be allowed to burn waste, even drum incinerators, on the farm. The CPA is currently in discussion with farming unions to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. The Agricultural Waste Stakeholder Forum (AWSF) contains the relevant stakeholders looking at disposal of plastic waste. The Forum did not wish to duplicate the work of the AWSF.
8e In discussion the Forum raised a number of points. It was important that an alternative to drum incinerators was introduced quickly. Some work was necessary on optional design of containers. The Forum agreed that they did not wish to support further extension of the use of CPA drum incinerator (past the EA extension), but would use the withdrawal of this incinerator to push for urgent action on coming up with a waste disposal scheme. A question Tom Bals had asked in his paper was whether the Forum should initiate or support studies on how other countries deal with disposal of used pesticides containers. Members recognised that it was important not to duplicate the work of others. The CPA had carried out some work in this area. Anne Buckenham said that she will check on this and ask whether Forum could have access to findings of the study. Members agreed that there was no cheap option to incineration. Peter Pitkin asked what the cost of incineration on one farm set up to serve thirty or forty farms would be. Andy Croxford replied that the cost of complying with environments regulations would need to be considered in calculating the overall cost. The Forum agreed that farmers should be made aware at an early stage of a possible cost coming their way. It was agreed that the Chair will draft a letter to the Agricultural Waste Stakeholder Forum on behalf of the Forum including concerns raised by members. The draft letter will be sent to Tom Bals to check, PSD should then have sight of it before it is sent.
Action: The Chair, Tom Bals, Anne Buckenham and PSD
Summary of Presentation by Richard Garnett - 8th June 2004
Pesticide Packaging Waste – Alternative Strategies
The disposal of pesticide packaging waste is just one part of the overall application process and from the farmer's point of view is a non productive and costly consequence of using pesticide.
The majority of pesticide packaging is designed and registered for single use only. Opening, emptying measuring and dispensing from these packs has been well recognised as a key source of sprayer operator difficulty. The resulting operator and environmental contamination arising from drips and splashes has been recognised by the Predictive Operator Exposure Model (‘POEM’) formulated by PSD to assess operator, environmental and third party risks. The contribution of these mixing site losses has been sited in many countries as contributing up to 85% of the pesticide found in surface waters. Current pressure from DEFRA and the Treasury to reduce the contamination of water has led to the threat of a Pesticide Tax.
Reduction of Packaging Waste – Move from Single Use to Return and Re Fill
In the mid ‘80’s the UK HSE in common with other developed countries safety bodies and industrial interests recognised the need to provide engineering controls to prevent the majority of identified risk and cited the lack of common standards of packaging and pack disposal techniques as the core item to address.
In response to the EU Packaging Waste Directive a number of pesticide manufactures experimented with strategies to reduce or overcome the identified issues. Practical field trials resulted in manufacturers coalescing around a proposal to utilise Multi Trip packaging with specific and standardised connections that permitted operators to achieve significant reductions in risk. Following early development work these standard connections have been adopted as a common interface by all manufacturers and are actively used on all continents for a wide range of pesticide products. Commercial utilisation of multi trips in Australia, North Central and South America, The Philippines, Germany and the UK demonstrate the practical benefits to be derived from the approach.
In the UK the initial work faltered due to logistic difficulties and costs from returning empty containers back to mainland Europe for refilling. Following the large scale changes in the pesticide industry and the rationalisation of formulation and filling sites the possibility to use contract filling in the UK to service this market is now a realistic possibility.
Various pack types and sizes are now commercially available and most applications for pesticide registration for the last 7-10 years have included this option in the data set.
Multi Trip Packs for liquid and solid formulations have been proven to be suitable for a large portion of the market. Multi Trip packs cannot satisfy all requirements and there will always be a continuing need for some small single trip packs (estimated at 20% of market volume). The aim of multi trip use is to reduce the bulk of packaging waste to the absolute minimum. Multi Trip packs are in use in the UK in limited areas of the agricultural market but the demand from farmers for this to be extended is increasingly high.
Close scrutiny of filling methods has been funded by PSD and HSE at the The Food and Environment Research Agencyand have conclusively demonstrated that Multi Trip Packs and the required emptying equipment (Closed Transfer Systems) can reduce the contamination of operators and mixing sites by 100 times per access of the pack, as the multi trip pack sizes are generally larger the effect on filling a sprayer can give in excess of 1000 times reduction in contamination over traditional packs. Multi trip packs are not rinsed after use they are self sealing and safe for transport back to a refilling system without using further packaging. At the end of their projected life these containers are secure in a closed supply loop and are extracted for cleaning and disposal in the system described below.
In the markets where multi trip packs are commercialised the cost to the farm of the product is equal to or less than that in single trip packs. No direct charge is made for recovery or re filling.
Farm Use Incentive
Practical reports from farms and studies by manufacturers demonstrate a significant increase in application efficiency using these packs. This can result in approximately two extra uses of the spraying equipment for every day of ideal conditions. For farmers and contractors this equates to a cash value of some £500 + per day of use. This alone provides a clear demand for more products to be packed in this way. The economic and environmental benefit to the country is self evident.
Recovery and Recycling – Collect and Process Plastic Waste
Traditional packs are currently disposed of following a cursory and unverifiable rinsing event. Rinsing is a requirement of the FEPA – Green Code. Rinsing empty packs at speed in the hectic activity to refill and return the sprayer to work is often only partially completed and leads to significant consequential pollution of mixing sites and the areas used for burial and burning. This contributes greatly to the bulk of concentrated pesticide that escapes into surface waters each year. The EA and DEFRA position has been fairly well established in that on farm burial and burning will cease to be an option in 2004 with a phase out period of 12 months for the CPA designed drum burner. This leaves disposal by contractor as the only reasonable option.
Packs that have contained a product marked as Hazardous will not be collected or processed by normal waste contractors at the same price as domestic waste plastic estimated @ £130/tonne. Packs marked as hazardous can be collected for incineration however as ‘special waste’ and this is charged at an estimated £400/tonne. For pesticides this equates to an extra cost of about £0.40 per litre of product purchased. At present this cost falls directly onto the end user. Golf courses, local authorities and other non agricultural pesticide users have been meeting these costs for the last 5 years or so.
The majority of municipal plastic waste from kerbside collection is land filled at about £40/tonne hazardous waste can not be disposed of in this way due to ground water contamination issues.
Many groups and individuals fear incineration due to the risks of atmospheric pollution, the lack of efficient heat recovery and use and because using a fossil fuel derived product, particularly plastics, in this way are depleting a rapidly diminishing resource.
From an economic standpoint to keep the incinerator working large volumes of light plastic waste need to be collected and sorted from a wide area, the cost of doing this cannot be recovered. Generating heat from traditional fuels is always cleaner, easier and cheaper.
Planning applications for new incinerators frequently fail, any new incinerators are usually distant from any consistent heat demand and the cost of constructing a new incinerator to ‘clean chimney’ emission levels is prohibitively expensive.
One alternative is to collect and mechanically recycle plastic. To do this requires the segregation of plastic types into specific and chemically identical batches. The plastic must be extremely clean and free of other contaminants like paper, foil and grit. Even when this is achieved most of the material has to be used in products of a much inferior grade than the original material. The costs of achieving this are high, the quality of products low and the demand is almost non existent.
Wisdom Systems has made a proposal to bring together an industry specific scheme for Agriculture to collect all farm plastic and process it using a Pyrolysis plant. This method renders the plastic in the absence of oxygen from polymer to monomer producing a range of waxes and oils and some gas. These products are collected and fed into the petrochemical industry as a crude oil feedstock substitute. The process uses some energy but is in excess of 80% efficient. The process is well researched with academic endorsement and commercial trials with BASF, Shell Oil and BP amongst others.
Pyrolysis recycles at a molecular level and 100% of the hydrocarbon products produced can be used to manufacture virgin polymer for the packaging industry. The process is unaffected by the presence of contaminants like pesticide residues and paper and releases nothing to the atmosphere.
Wisdom will be arranging for the collection of pesticide packs and other waste plastics from farms on a nationwide basis using third party contractors. A site for the pyrolysis plant has been located close to an Oil Refinery and the plant management team and finance is identified.
Wisdom is seeking the formal support of the CPA, NFU and the major suppliers of farm products packaged in plastic to endorse and use the scheme. The income streams to fund the collection are a) diversion of the current PRN payments to the new scheme, b) Government funding via the Land Fill Tax income [this process will avoid large volumes of rapidly disappearing land fill capacity] and c) a direct charge to end users who will pay for the service based on a fixed rate per bag collected from the farm.
Farms will be supplied with special bags for this service and each collection will be invoiced for and a waste transfer note issued. Waste disposal can become part of the audit for assured crop schemes as these already audit the input side of the enterprise i.e. ‘x’ containers in need to be balanced by ‘x’ containers out to a registered disposal / collection scheme.
Annex A: Those present at Pesticides Forum Meetings 06/2004
Ed Gallagher Forum Chairman
Tom Bals – Agricultural Engineers Association
Anne Buckenham – Crop Protection Association
Richard Knight– Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group
Keith Dawson Agriculture Industries Confederation (formerly UKASTA)
Andy Croxford Environment Agency
Angela Rabess Department
Helen Bower Women's Farming Union
Peter Pitkin Scottish Natural Heritage
Esther Heller – Food Standards Agency
David Buffin Pesticide Action Network
Bill Parker - ADAS
Stuart Wale Scottish Agricultural College
James Grant – National Farmers Union (Scotland)
Richard Garnett – Wisdom Systems
Julian Hasler National Farmers Union
Paul Singleton - BASIS
Peter Leighton – Crop Protection Association BASF/CPA
Simon Dyer – Department of Health
Sue Popple – Pesticide Safety Directorate
David Williams - Pesticide Safety Directorate
Matthew Wells - Pesticide Safety Directorate
Sue Rambridge - Pesticide Safety Directorate
Francesca Montgomery - Pesticide Safety Directorate