Pesticide-Free Towns

Report Title Can Go Here PESTICIDE-FREE TOWNS A snapshot of pesticide UK councils after Sub-heading canuse gobyhere a decade of campaigning

July 2025 July 2025

Pesticide-Free Towns

2

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Impacts of urban pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Methodology – what did we do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 UK councils – the overall picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Results from the UK’s four nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A closer look at London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 How much money are councils spending on pesticides? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Lack of government data on urban pesticide use . . . . . . . . . . 22 Are UK councils using glyphosate-based herbicides? . . . . . . 23 Alternatives to urban pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Annex 1 – List of councils sent Freedom of Information requests by PAN UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Annex 2 – List of councils "leading the way" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Cover art and infographics created by www.itwasmadeforme.com

3

Pesticide-Free Towns

Introduction When the Pesticide-Free Towns campaign launched in 2015, pesticide use in public spaces was an invisible issue. As far as PAN UK is aware, at the time, every council in the UK used pesticides. The vast majority of these chemicals were herbicides used to remove vegetation (or ‘weeds’) from land under council control, including streets and parks. The general public – and even those within the environmental movement – were unaware that pesticides were used outside of farming, let alone that these toxic chemicals were sprayed right outside our own homes and in the public spaces frequented by our families and pets. The value of urban biodiversity remained largely unrecognised, as did the extent of the global nature crisis. Political decision-makers, even those with pesticides in their remit, rarely if ever referenced urban pesticide use. Neither the UK government nor local authorities had plans or policies in place aimed at reducing the UK’s second most common route of pesticide exposure after diet.

Ten years later and the picture is very different.

Following a decade of campaigning, dozens of councils across the UK are taking action to reduce and even end their pesticide use (see Annex 2 for those leading the way). While some of this change has been the result of PAN UK’s direct work advising councils, local residents all over the UK have mobilised to call for their own councils to phase out pesticides. Public campaigning in places from major urban centres such as London, Manchester and Derry to largely rural counties such as Devon, has yielded great results and demonstrated that the majority of people – once aware that pesticides are being used in their local public spaces – do want them to go pesticide-free.

As the demand for non-chemical weed management approaches has grown (not only from councils but also other major land managers such as South West Water and Transport for London to name but a few), increasing numbers of nonchemical alternatives have come onto the market.

Meanwhile, public awareness of both the global nature crisis and the fact that the UK is one of the most-nature depleted countries in the world1, has risen hugely with urban biodiversity increasingly

4

touted as one of the many solutions. Since the pandemic, far more people understand the benefits to well-being from spending time in nature. The Pesticide-Free Towns campaign, which was initially focused more on protecting human health, has increasingly broadened out to advocate for the immense benefits to both people and wildlife of allowing greener towns and cities to flourish.

Thanks to all this activity at the local level, national level decision makers are now taking notice. Sian Berry MP has tabled a bill2 in the House of Commons which would phase out urban pesticide use by local authorities in England. In June 2025, Chemicals Minister Emma Hardy stated in a letter to PAN UK “The land that is managed by local councils and authorities matters deeply to the people who live there and use it, and therefore it matters to me. You have made it clear that we can balance effective weed management and sustainability – now I want to see your hardwon learnings shared across local government, to reduce unnecessary pesticide use across this important sector.”3 It has taken ten years of campaigning to get to this stage, but it can be argued that we have now reached a tipping point. There is still a long way to go, with the majority of UK councils continuing to use pesticides in public spaces. However, the ever-growing Pesticide-Free Towns movement has never been stronger and our ultimate goal of making all the UK’s public spaces pesticide-free is now within reach.

For the sake of both human health and the environment, there is an increasing awareness that we urgently need to reduce our overall chemical exposure. Ending the use of pesticides in villages, towns and cities – the vast majority of which is for purely cosmetic reasons – is a relatively easy place to start.

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

Which pesticides are used in the UK’s public spaces?

While it is estimated that pesticide use in urban areas only constitutes approximately ten percent of the UK’s total usage, it is the second most common route through which people are exposed to pesticides (after diet).

The vast majority of pesticides used by UK local councils are herbicides (or ‘weedkillers’) aimed at removing plants from hard surfaces such as streets, pavements, pathways and on housing estates under council control. They are also used in green spaces, most notably parks, playgrounds, sports pitches, road verges and cemeteries.

Urban pesticides officially come under the heading of ‘amenity use’. According to the UK government’s latest survey on the use of amenity pesticides4, there are currently 36 different pesticide active substances being used by local authorities.19 of these active substances are herbicides, with four classified as Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) meaning that they pose a particularly high risk to human health and/or the environment.

By far the most widely used pesticide active substance is glyphosate. The local authorities which responded to the government’s latest amenity survey reported using a total of 21,075kg of glyphosate in 2020, making up 96% of all the pesticide active substances they applied.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, part of the UN World Health Organisation) declared glyphosate to be genotoxic (it causes DNA damage), carcinogenic to animals, and a “probable carcinogen” to humans.5 This ruling was based on a review of one thousand publicly available scientific studies by independent experts.

Meanwhile, since 2018, there have been a spate of US court cases linking Monsanto’s Roundup – which contains glyphosate as its key ingredient – to the potential risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (a type of cancer). It is worth noting that many of these cases were linked to nonagricultural activities such as grounds maintenance and landscape gardening. Landmark legal defeats for Monsanto (now Bayer) have resulted in jury verdicts worth billions.6

Glyphosate received a new ten-year license from the European Commission in 2023. However, due to concerns over its impacts on human health and the environment, its license was renewed with the condition that Member States “Minimise or prohibit the use in public spaces, such as parks, public playgrounds and gardens.”7, 8 Unfortunately, this has been largely ignored by the UK government and many local councils.

At the time of writing (July 2025), glyphosate comes up for renewal in Great Britain in December 2026. However, the UK-EU ‘Common Understanding’ deal9, signed in May 2025, is likely to result in the UK adopting EU pesticide active substance approvals meaning that glyphosate would stay on the market in the UK until 2033.

There is, however, nothing in the deal to prevent the UK going further than the EU by banning the use of glyphosate (and all other pesticides) in public spaces.

Pesticide application on a street in London. Credit George Hudson

5

Pesticide-Free Towns

What have other countries done on urban pesticides?

Due to concerns over its impacts, the use of glyphosate in urban areas has already been banned in Luxemburg, Italy, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands.

France has gone even further, introducing national legislation that came into force in January 2017 which banned the use of almost all nonagricultural pesticides – meaning that all public spaces throughout France are managed without the use of pesticides.10 Paris itself has been pesticidefree for more than a decade, proving to the world that it is possible to maintain a pristine city without chemicals during the 2024 summer Olympics.

In Belgium, towns and cities in the regions of Flanders and Wallonia have stopped the use of pesticides completely. The City of Ghent, which has more than a quarter of a million residents, has been completely pesticide-free for over twenty years.

Other big European cities (such as Barcelona and Hamburg) have stopped using glyphosate and, in Canada and the USA, there is an ever-growing momentum to stop the use of pesticides in urban areas, including in parks and playgrounds. This trend will only grow as evidence of the harms caused by glyphosate specifically and pesticides more generally continues to increase, as does the range of available non-chemical alternatives.

6

Accessibility – the importance of consultation As many towns and cities have proven, it is perfectly possible to go pesticide-free without negatively impacting upon accessibility for local residents.

However, if you don’t set out or keep to a clear strategy, then reducing or ending your pesticide use sometimes leads to unchecked plant growth which can restrict the ability of certain people to use and enjoy their local public spaces. This is especially true of disabled people and the elderly but can also affect those using prams or buggies.

It is vital that councils ensure that the rights and needs of those who struggle with access are taken into consideration when designing and implementing their pesticide phase-out plans.

The best way to do this is to explicitly include consulting with local groups and networks that represent disabled and elderly people in public outreach initiatives and review throughout, to ensure that there isn’t plant growth in spaces that would make their already-challenging use of urban spaces harder. These groups will be best-placed to represent the voices and concerns of their members and advise on how best to go pesticidefree while maintaining accessibility.

Cemeteries in Paris are partly mown, brushed or left wild to encourage biodiversity. Credit PAN UK

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

Impacts of urban pesticides Impacts on health Pesticides do not only affect the organisms they are targeted at, but can have negative, and often unforeseen, impacts on non-target organisms including people. In terms of the impacts on human health, some groups are more vulnerable to the effects of pesticides than others. Children in particular are more susceptible for a number of reasons; their bodies are still developing, they are exposed to greater amounts of pesticides relative to their body weight and they tend to be more directly in contact with sprayed areas such as playgrounds, parks and sports pitches.

Whilst it is very difficult to directly link particular instances of chronic ill health with exposure to specific chemicals, we do know that certain pesticides have qualities that can cause serious health conditions. Long term pesticide exposure has been linked to the development of various cancers, reproductive and developmental problems Parkinson’s disease; asthma; depression and anxiety; and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

It is important to note that just because a pesticide is approved for use does not automatically mean it is “safe” to use. The dangers they pose are precisely the reason why they are regulated and, even when approved, most licenses include specific conditions which must be followed to control the harm from these chemicals.

The Precautionary Principle is an internationally agreed standard for guiding decision-making to ensure that harms to human health and the natural environment are avoided. It states that: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some causeand-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”.11 The principle is particularly relevant to decision-making around pesticides. In practice, it means that if there is sufficient evidence that a pesticide harms human health or the environment then it shouldn’t be used, regardless of whether some scientific uncertainty remains.

Although the regulatory system is designed to take the harmful effects of pesticides into account, we have seen time and time again that pesticides are authorised only to be banned later when more evidence emerges revealing the harms they have caused. Sadly, by that point the harmful, and often irreversible, effects have occurred and either people or wildlife (and often both) have paid the price. Since pesticides are designed to kill living organisms and their potential for harm is well-known, a precautionary approach to their use is simple; do not use pesticides when viable non-chemical alternatives are available. In the UK amenity sector, there are increasing numbers of non-chemical alternatives available and adopting a pesticide-free approach is perfectly possible to achieve. In fact, many councils around the UK and beyond are already proving that it is possible.

One aspect that the regulatory system completely fails to take into account is the so called ‘cocktail effect’ which refers to the fact that people are exposed to combinations of multiple pesticides on a daily basis. Recent research has shown that combinations of chemicals can work synergistically to increase harmful effects that would not necessarily result from exposure to just one pesticide. In addition to amenity spraying, people are exposed to pesticides in multiple ways – most notably as residues in their food – so are constantly coming into contact with cocktails of chemicals. Reducing our overall exposure by stopping their use in public spaces would help to decrease the risk of harmful health impacts, particularly for the most vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children and pregnant people.

Pesticides, including glyphosate, have also been known to cause injury to pets, most commonly to dogs but also cats, rabbits and horses. Exposure tends to happen either directly through the skin or orally if an animal eats grass or plays with objects that have come into contact with pesticides. In dogs, the most common symptoms include vomiting, hyper-salivation and diarrhoea due to gastrointestinal irritation. In severe cases, acute poisoning could lead to death.

7

Pesticide-Free Towns

Threats to the natural environment Pesticides are also negatively affecting the environment and urban biodiversity. Due to habitat loss and the large quantities of pesticides used in UK agriculture, wildlife is increasingly seeking refuge in our towns and cities. However, pesticides are destroying many of the areas where they can forage for food and contaminating the natural resources they depend upon.

Overuse of herbicides is reducing the number and variety of plants in our towns and cities, including ‘weeds’ such as dandelions, which in turn limits the ability of wildlife to survive and prosper. Their use is also reducing the abundance and diversity of native and much-loved British plant species. Most councils in the UK still look to remove all plants from streets, parks, and playgrounds. The term ‘weed’ has a pejorative connotation for what is effectively just a flower or plant deemed to be in the wrong place. In fact, these plants play a valuable role in supporting bees, pollinators, birds, and many other species that use them for forage or shelter. For more information, see our Pavement Plant Guide which is available at: www.pan-uk.org/pavement-plants In recent years, the issue of dwindling bee and pollinator numbers has caught the attention of the British public. There are a growing number of campaigns calling for councils to adopt ‘no mow’ regimes on road verges and other areas that can be good pollinator habitats. According to the campaign group Plantlife, as well as providing habitats for many of our hard-pressed bee and pollinator species, road verges are also home to over 700 species of wildflower – nearly 45% of our total flora – including 29 of 52 species of wild orchid.12 Ending pesticide use and stopping mowing are key ways in which councils can contribute to halting the recent declines in pollinators and other insects.

Recent and ongoing research is clearly demonstrating that glyphosate, the most widely used pesticide in the amenity sector, is causing harm to bees and other insect pollinators. The harms are twofold. Firstly, herbicides destroy their habitats and, secondly, glyphosate in particular has the potential to directly harm bee health.

Road verges are home to over 700 species of wildflower – nearly 45% of our total flora – including 29 of 52 species of wild orchid.12

For more information, see PAN UK’s report – “Herbicides: A threat to bee and pollinator survival” – which is available at: www.pan-uk.org/herbicides-and-pollinators/ Pesticides are also a significant contributor to the contamination of much of the UK’s water supplies since they tend to run off hard surfaces such as pavements and paths. Hard surface spraying is the most common practice in the amenity sector, despite aquatic ecosystems being particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of pesticides. Populations of invertebrates, amphibians, fish and the wildlife that feeds on them can all be impacted by the presence of pesticides in water bodies.

Contamination of water supplies is also a big problem for UK citizens. As a result of health concerns, water companies in England and Wales spend millions of pounds each year removing pesticides from drinking water. This cost is passed on to the consumer resulting in higher water bills.

South West Water, for example, estimates that 17% of the amount of its customers’ bills results from passing on the cost of pesticide removal.13 In December 2023, Southern Water wrote to Brighton & Hove Council stating that: “...from a groundwater quality risk perspective, we do not support the use of glyphosate within any of the groundwater catchments in Brighton and Worthing from which we abstract drinking water for customers.”14

Facing page: A thriving tree pit. Credit John Welsh

8

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

9

Pesticide-Free Towns

KEY FINDINGS In early 2025, we sent hundreds of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to councils across the UK asking about their use of pesticides in public spaces. The results tell a fascinating story about how far the Pesticide-Free Towns movement has come in the last decade. Urban pesticide use was an entirely invisible issue in 2015. Ten years later, we have more than one hundred and fifty councils taking positive steps towards ending or reducing their use of pesticides. This is a huge achievement and testament to the hard work and dedication of campaigners, local elected officials and council officers.

Methodology – what did we do?

Between January and May 2025, we sent Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to a total of 390 local authorities in all four UK nations. We included city, borough, district and county councils. The list of councils we purchased from a third party also included a handful of town councils to which we also sent FoI requests. See Annex 1 on page 30 for the full list of councils we contacted.

Of the 390 councils we contacted, we received responses from 368 - a response rate of 94%. The following table shows the breakdown of numbers of responses for each of the four nations of the UK.

Firstly, we asked if each council, or contractors acting on its behalf, use herbicide in the following six areas under its control: i. Parks and green spaces ii. Cemeteries iii. Playing fields iv. Road verges and roundabouts v. Hard surfaces such as pavements and highways vi. Housing estates We also asked the following four questions:

Table 1: Responses received from FoI requests to UK councils.

Total number of UK councils sent FoI requests

390

Total number of responses received from UK councils

368

Number of responses received from councils in England

303

Number of responses received from councils in Northern Ireland

11

Number of responses received from councils in Scotland

31

Number of responses received from councils in Wales

23

We asked councils a total of five questions, all focused on their use of urban pesticides in 2024.

10

6 What volume/weight of herbicides did the council and any contractors acting on its behalf use in 2024?

6 Does the council (or its contractors) use glyphosate-based herbicides?

6 How much money did the council spend on herbicides in 2024, not only on purchasing the chemicals but also on associated costs such as application equipment, staff training and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)?

6 Does the council have a policy in place aimed at reducing or ending the use of herbicides on land under its control?

As the responses came in, we inputted them into a database to make them easily accessible to residents wanting to find out if their local council uses pesticides. We also set about analysing them to identify overall trends, both UK-wide and within the four nations.

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

UK councils – the overall picture Our analysis reveals that around 45% of the 368 UK councils that responded to our FoI requests have either ended their pesticide use or taken positive steps towards this goal (see Annex 1 on page 30 for the full list of councils we contacted).

It is worth noting that a total of 101 UK councils have policies, strategies or other documented commitments in place aimed at reducing and/or ending their pesticide use.

These figures show that huge progress has been made in reducing pesticide use by local authorities over the past decade. However, they also highlight that there is still a long way to go before the UK can join the ranks of countries such as France and Denmark where all public spaces are managed without pesticides. Table 2 shows the detail.

Looking more closely at the specific areas where councils use pesticides reveals that more than a quarter of councils are managing their parks and green spaces (including children’s play areas) without pesticides. PAN UK‘s three-year phase-out plan15 advises councils to focus year one on ending pesticide use in parks and green spaces and this has been adopted by many local authorities. However, it seems that pesticide use on pathways in parks remains an issue for some.

Hard surfaces remain the most problematic areas for councils in terms of ending their use of pesticides. Both highways and pavements tend to cover large areas which can be an issue for manual weed removal methods. With pavements in particular, there can be issues related to accessibility and protection of infrastructure that need to be taken into consideration. However, alternatives to pesticide such as hot foam are becoming more widely available and accepted as an effective control measure for hard surfaces and this will only increase as more councils seek to go pesticide-free (see page 26 for more on alternatives).

What do the UK public want?

YouGov polling conducted in June 2025 reveals that the majority of people in the UK support ending pesticide use in urban spaces. Two-thirds of people (65%) agree that “schools, parks, playgrounds and other public spaces in their local area should be pesticide-free”, with a third strongly agreeing.

Only 11% disagree. Meanwhile, more than half (55%) would be “happy to accept more weeds on the pavements in their local area if it meant better protecting humans and wildlife from pesticides”.16

Table 2: Summary of results from FoI responses from UK councils to PAN UK. Category

Overall number

As a percentage of the 368 UK councils that responded to our FoI requests

Number of councils with pesticide-free parks and green spaces

94

26%

Number of councils with pesticide-free cemeteries

124

34%

Number of councils with pesticide-free playing fields

173

47%

Number of councils with pesticide-free road verges and roundabouts

139

38%

Number of councils with pesticide-free hard surfaces such as pavements and highways

83

23%

Number of councils with pesticide-free housing estates

110

30%

Number of councils with pesticide reduction policies or similar documented commitments

101

27%

11

Pesticide-Free Towns

KEY FINDINGS Results from the UK’s four nations We have also split the findings into the four nations of the UK. These figures are particularly noteworthy because urban pesticide use is a devolved competency, meaning that different policies can be adopted in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. While the governments of the four nations have tended to seek consistency in decision-making on chemicals, it is perfectly possible for the Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh parliaments to decide unilaterally to phase out urban pesticide use and assist its own councils to adopt non-chemical alternatives.

As such, it is useful to look at the current status of urban pesticide in each nation. A closer look reveals that there are some clear differences in approaches across the UK’s four nations which are reflected in the findings outlined in the following sections.

Overall picture for English councils It can be argued that, of all the four nations, England has made the most progress on ending urban pesticide use. Of the 303 English councils that responded to our FoI requests, around 45% have either ended their pesticide use or taken positive steps towards this goal (see Annex 1 on page 30 for the full list of councils we contacted).

It is worth noting that a total of 86 English councils have policies, strategies or other

documented commitments in place aimed at reducing and/or ending their pesticide use.

When taken as a whole, English councils are situated around the median across all eight of the categories included in tables 2-7. As with councils across the UK, hard surfaces remain the most problematic area for English councils to end their pesticide use.

What do English residents want?

The polling results for England align with those of the UK. Two-thirds of people in England (65%) agree that “public spaces in their local area should be pesticidefree” and more than half (55%) are “happy to accept more weeds on the pavements if it meant better protecting humans and wildlife from pesticides”.

There are, however, some major regional differences. The highest level of support for going pesticide-free is in the East of England where three-quarters of people (75%) agree that public spaces should be pesticide-free, and 61% are happy to accept ‘weedier’ pavements. However, it is notable that even in the Midlands – the region of England with the lowest support – a considerable proportion of the population are still in favour of ending urban pesticide use with 59% wanting their public spaces to be pesticide-free and 49% happy to accept more weeds.17

Table 3: Summary of results from FoI responses from English councils.

Category

14

Overall number

As a percentage of the 303 English councils that responded to our FoI requests

Number of councils with pesticide-free parks and green spaces

81

27%

Number of councils with pesticide-free cemeteries

111

37%

Number of councils with pesticide-free playing fields

147

49%

Number of councils with pesticide-free road verges and roundabouts

124

41%

Number of councils with pesticide-free hard surfaces such as pavements and highways

74

24%

Number of councils with pesticide-free housing estates

91

30%

Number of councils with pesticide reduction policies or similar documented commitments

86

28%

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

Overall picture for Northern Irish councils Three of Northern Ireland’s eleven councils have pesticide reduction plans in place, and a total of six have taken positive steps to reduce their pesticide use.

Derry City Council, in particular, has taken great strides in going pesticide-free following a concerted campaign by local organisations supported by some councillors. Derry City Council no longer uses pesticides in their parks and green spaces, cemeteries, road verges or housing estates and, in 2024, used only 27 litres of herbicide.

What do Northern Irish residents want?

Public support for going pesticide-free is fairly strong in Northern Ireland, although is slightly less than in England and Wales. 57% of the public agree that “schools, parks, playgrounds and other public spaces in their local area should be pesticide-free”, with over a quarter (27%) strongly agreeing. Only 14% disagree.

Meanwhile, half (50%) would be “happy to accept more weeds on the pavements in their local area if it meant better protecting humans and wildlife from pesticides”. A quarter of people (26%) said they would not be happy to accept more weeds, with the remainder either answering ‘neither agree or disagree’ (17%) or ‘don’t know’ (7%).22

Campaigning for a Pesticide-Free Derry. Credit Hive Cancer Support

Table 4: Summary of results from FoI responses from Northern Irish councils.

Category

Overall number

As a percentage of the 11 Northern Irish councils that responded to our FoI requests

Number of councils with pesticide-free parks and green spaces

1

9%

Number of councils with pesticide-free cemeteries

1

9%

Number of councils with pesticide-free playing fields

0

0%

Number of councils with pesticide-free road verges and roundabouts

5

45%

Number of councils with pesticide-free hard surfaces such as pavements and highways

5

45%

Number of councils with pesticide-free housing estates

11

100%

Number of councils with pesticide reduction policies or similar documented commitments

3

27%

15

Pesticide-Free Towns

KEY FINDINGS A closer look at London In total, 23 of London’s 33 councils (32 borough councils plus the City of London Corporation) have either ended pesticide use entirely or are moving in that direction. This equates to 70% of London councils. In addition, some other borough councils, for example Havering, are developing pesticide reduction initiatives which are not currently counted in our figures but will have positive outcomes in the coming years.

Currently, fifteen London councils (45% of the total) have pesticide reduction strategies or similar documented commitments in place.

These high figures reflect the fact that London has been a focus for PAN UK’s Pesticide-Free Towns campaign since 2018. There have been some notable success stories; in 2016, Hammersmith & Fulham Council18 became the first large local authority in the UK to go pesticide-free, ending the use of glyphosate and adopting the hot foam system for weed control

on its streets. Lambeth has been a leader in public engagement as an effective way of helping end the use of herbicides, running a highly successful and much lauded “Community Weeding Scheme”19 as a precursor to ending pesticide use across the borough.

There has been a willingness from both elected councillors and council officers to engage both with PAN UK and each other to find sustainable nonchemical solutions to weed management. This has helped drive forward progress in the capital and highlight the importance of peer-to-peer learning between councils. At the higher level, the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Mayor have acknowledged the need to reduce the amount of pesticides being used in order to protect London’s biodiversity and the health of its citizens. The Mayor’s 2018 London Environment Strategy20 includes a chapter on “leading by example” which commits the GLA to “reducing the use of pesticides”.

Table 5: Summary of results from FoI responses from London councils.

Category

Overall number

As a percentage of the 33* London councils that responded to our FoI requests

Number of councils with pesticide-free parks and green spaces

12

36%

Number of councils with pesticide-free cemeteries

14

42%

Number of councils with pesticide-free playing fields

15

45%

Number of councils with pesticide-free road verges and roundabouts

14

42%

Number of councils with pesticide-free hard surfaces such as pavements and highways

3

9%

Number of councils with pesticide-free housing estates

5

15%

Number of councils with pesticide reduction policies or similar documented commitments

15

45%

*32 London Borough Councils plus the City of London Corporation

16

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

While the GLA doesn’t itself manage a significant amount of land, it has helped guide some key players (such as Transport for London) to look at reducing their own use of pesticides. It has also provided much-needed leadership to London borough councils by setting out a clear direction of travel.

This is a role that bodies such as Defra and the Local Government Association will hopefully start to play at the national level.

What do London residents want?

Support for going pesticide-free amongst Londoners remains high and above the national average. 66% of residents of the capital agree that “schools, parks, playgrounds and other public spaces in their local area should be pesticide-free”, with only 9% in disagreement. Meanwhile, 56% of people in London said they are “happy to accept more weeds on the pavements if it meant better protecting humans and wildlife from pesticides”. Only one in five Londoners (19%) said they wouldn’t be happy to accept ‘weedier’ streets, compared to roughly one in four (23%) across the UK.21

Pesticide application in a park in Hillingdon. Credit PAN UK

17

Pesticide-Free Towns

KEY FINDINGS Overall picture for Scottish councils Our analysis reveals that 14 of Scotland’s 32 councils have implemented measures to reduce their pesticide use. Seven of the Scottish councils that responded to our FoI requests have pesticide reduction policies in place.

What do Scottish residents want?

Polling reveals decent support in Scotland for going pesticide-free, although it is lower than in some other parts of the UK. 63% of people agree with the statement that “schools, parks, playgrounds and other public spaces in their local area should be pesticide-free” (the overall UK figure is 65%). Only 47% of people in Scotland were “happy to accept more weeds on the pavements in their local area if it meant better protecting humans and wildlife from pesticides”.

This is less than the UK average of 55% and the lowest of all four nations (i.e. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales).23

Posters calling for the council to end pesticide use in Edinburgh.

Credit Pesticide-Free Balerno

Table 6: Summary of results from FoI responses from Scottish councils.

Category

18

Overall number

As a percentage of the 31 Scottish councils that responded to our FoI requests

Number of councils with pesticide-free parks and green spaces

2

6%

Number of councils with pesticide-free cemeteries

4

13%

Number of councils with pesticide-free playing fields

14

45%

Number of councils with pesticide-free road verges and roundabouts

3

10%

Number of councils with pesticide-free hard surfaces such as pavements and highways

0

0%

Number of councils with pesticide-free housing estates

3

10%

Number of councils with pesticide reduction policies or similar documented commitments

7

23%

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

Overall picture for Welsh councils Ten Welsh councils that responded to our FoI request have either ended their pesticide use or taken positive steps towards this goal.

While Wales enjoys the highest percentage of all four nations in terms of councils whose parks, green spaces and playing fields are pesticide-free, there remains a lot of work to do in major cities such as Swansea and Cardiff. However, the Welsh government has shown the most interest in ending urban pesticides of any devolved administration and has stated an intention to reduce the use of urban pesticides throughout Wales.24 What do Welsh residents want?

Support for going pesticide-free is strongest in Wales, beating the other nations as well as the UK-wide figures. 69% of Welsh people agree that “schools, parks, playgrounds and other public spaces in their local area should be pesticide-free”, with a third strongly agreeing. Only 7% disagree, far below the UK average of 11%. Meanwhile, more than 57% would be “happy to accept more weeds on the pavements in their local area if it meant better protecting humans and wildlife from pesticides”.

Again, this exceeds the UK average of 55%.25

Pesticide application in a park in Cardiff. Credit Hilary May

Table 7: Summary of results from FoI responses from Welsh councils.

Category

Overall As a percentage of the 23* Welsh number councils that responded to our FoI requests

Number of councils with pesticide-free parks and green spaces

10

43%

Number of councils with pesticide-free cemeteries

8

35%

Number of councils with pesticide-free playing fields

12

52%

Number of councils with pesticide-free road verges and roundabouts

7

30%

Number of councils with pesticide-free hard surfaces such as pavements and highways

4

17%

Number of councils with pesticide-free housing estates

5

22%

Number of councils with pesticide reduction policies or similar documented commitments

5

22%

* We received responses from the 22 principal Welsh councils plus St. Asaph Town council.

19

Pesticide-Free Towns

20

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

How much money are councils spending on pesticides?

The 368 councils that responded to our FoI requests, reported spending a total of £14.1 million on pesticides in 2024. Given the four nations’ different sizes, figures unsurprisingly varied greatly by nation. Northern Ireland spent the least with £93,000, then Wales on £1.5 million, Scotland next on £2.2 million and England by far the most with £10.2 million.

Spend also differed hugely between individual councils, with £9.15 being the lowest amount reported by one borough council all the way up to £598,000 spent by one county council.

However, these figures are likely to be an underestimation. 21% of councils that responded to our FoI requests (79 of the 368) declined to provide figures for how much money they spent on applying herbicides in 2024.

In addition, while we did ask councils to include all associated costs, many provided figures solely for the amount they spent buying herbicide products. This is misleading but unfortunately common. In fact, when comparing the cost of using pesticides versus non-chemical alternatives, many councils will only factor in the price of buying the actual herbicide products. This distorts price comparisons by ignoring a range of other associated expenses, making pesticides seem cheaper than they are in reality. For example, unlike most non-chemical alternatives, anyone using pesticides professionally must have a certificate of competence which must be purchased.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is also vitally important to keep operators safe and will need frequent replacement if it is to remain in a satisfactory condition. In addition, pesticides

Facing page: London councillors take a tour of Pesticide-Free Lambeth.

Credit PAN UK

can legally only be applied in certain weather conditions. Repeated changes to spraying schedules caused by rain and wind cost councils money. While it is hard to calculate exactly how much, this should be factored in.

What the figures do show is that UK councils are currently spending large amounts of public funds on applying pesticides for weed control in public spaces. While ending the use of pesticides can increase costs for councils, it is also possible for a pesticide-free approach to lead to significant cost-savings. As just one of many examples, Hackney Borough Council in London saved £10,000 per year simply by stopping spraying pesticides on busy streets where footfall was sufficient to prevent weeds from establishing.

Cost savings are particularly possible to achieve when councils take a long-term view.

Looking at costs over the short-term can sometimes be alarming when factoring in items such as capital outlay on new machinery or employing extra staff for hand weeding.

However, experience from councils that have gone pesticide-free shows that, over time, costs will come down significantly while maintenance standards will be comparable to using pesticides.

For advice and tips, see PAN UK’s briefing “Cost saving approaches for going pesticidefree” which is available here: www.pan-uk. org/site/wp-content/uploads/Cost-savingapproaches-to-going-pesticide-free.pdf Cost-saving approaches for going pesticide-free

Pe

stic

E

E

Our Freedom of Information requests asked each council how much it had spent on costs associated to buying and using herbicides in 2024.

We asked councils to state all costs, including but not limited to; buying pesticide products, purchase of application equipment and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), staff training and costs associated to outsourcing to contractors.

id e -FR

cost is ‘how much will it cost?’. While when considering going pesticide-free it One of the main questions that arises their budgets slashed in recent years, for local councils which have seen without can be a significant issue, particularly reduce, or even end, pesticide use to making change. It is possible to is not an insurmountable obstacle have managed to save money! costs going up. In fact, some councils fact be difficult. This is partly due to the of moving away from pesticides can Putting an exact figure on the cost on the location in question, and can necessary will vary greatly depending of going nature that the level and type of weed control context-specific the despite based on the weather. However, even change from season-to-season be applied by all urban land managers some general approaches that can pesticide-free, PAN UK has identified to help keep down costs. decade of working with local councils, of our key learnings from nearly a This short briefing will describe some approaches and measures. and provide advice and tips on cost-saving A PAN UK ‘Alternatives to Herbicides: control methods is available in the More information on alternative weed Make sure you are factoring the following costs into is available here.

Sector’ which non-chemical 6 Unlike for the Amenity alternatives, Guide pesticides Explore whether money is being wasted calculations: 6 Reducing mowing regimes – As mentioned above, can legally only be applied in certain weather overusing – costs may go up long viewpesticides part of the pesticide-free approach and a key the Takeby conditions. Regular comparisons pesticides of and 6 Buying the pesticides themselves. repeated changes to Like-for-like down over time will come butelement element in encouraging biodiversity is to change initially One key in an initial assessment of cost is spraying schedules system caused by rain and winddon’t give 6 Labour costs associated to paying council staff to versus one alternative is that the way in which road verges, roundabouts and pesticide-free to understand going properly about how and cost where points councils pesticides key money. the While of One apply pesticides. an accurate pictureit is hard to calculate of similar grassy-areas are maintained. These areas to end the use are currently being not possible It isapplied.

Understanding exactly how much, this should be factored in. this can takes time. it usually seeking to go 6 Any costs associated to contractors that run part, are often either mown or have overnight A common mistake made by those almost and instant expect a plan to succeed, no pesticides an from pesticide or all, of the weed control programme. switching There are also a rangeisoftoother compare external sprayed with pesticides costs that impact on the pesticide-free it is. PAN UK recommends cost of out your thought matter how well as Delivering the recommended approach system (such could beuse alternative taken intoparticular, consideration 6 Any operative using pesticides professionally must when assessing to control vegetation. has been to one weed cost control which operations. plan out phase its three-year focus solely will secure and differences for example) betweenremoval have a certificate of competence to do so legally. using pesticides versus However, a growing number Often, implemented safer and mechanical pesticidesby councils around the UK.the continued reduction in successfullymore vital to costs. It’s more sustainable the use of herbicides by the Council of alternatives. comparative They include of councils are changing the cost of than are actually needed on those direct 6 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for over the to require looking at the issue of cost in mind,weed treating remember that water, dealing Withfor being thepesticide-free human healthtends thatwith 76% against how this is done and are impacts effective operators is vitally important to keep them safe control itemsthe 2019 baseline and will often be alarming when factoring in a variety of canused, of pesticides short-term and loss of that involves biodiversity system and pollination reducing are being the number of and will need frequent replacement if it is to an integrated an enable a budget saving of £44k to be on new machinery or employing to be replaced services.approaches. as capital outlay While it is nearly are unlikely such impossible Pesticides to calculate times areas are mown. unnecessary remain in a satisfactory condition for use. waste of made from towns the street cleaning service. ” good news is hand weeding. But experience from Theexist these figures staff for with any alternative. extra accuracy, just one they undeniably One driving factor has with council money.

There are effectively shows that, Thames Council, significant gone pesticide-free Kingston-Upon that havereasons and should willinlead Place Committee cities possible andmany leastalternatives be mentioned been support for the ‘No any to some ofatthese thattherefore for report, 9th February 2023 will come down while maintenance pesticide reduction policy time, costs over example of this is the way in or strategy.

Mow May’ campaign run by overuse but a key one is cost-savings. A good comparable to using pesticides. can impact cost. will be specification standards the organisation Plantlife. poor contract which changing mowing regimes with a ‘spray-by-numbers’ becoming is grow to Reducing areas the other number of and mows approach on verges and other often used whereby a certain number of Leaving verges in all costs to afactor to increase and sure on areas, can bring significant cost savings.

Make treatments particular amount of land per year is more popular as a way of helping pesticides to using element of any associated specified, regardless 6 Reducing number of sprays – Many contracts of actual need. support biodiversity. It is also a key number of times is that pesticides or operational policies for applying pesticides pesticide-free plan. Reducing the A point that is frequently ignored and should comes also Prevention use a ‘spray-by-numbers’ approach whereby a them is better than areas are mowed lowers labour costs cure money and applying cost CASE STUDY assessment. certain number of sprays are required every year ranging from hundreds to costs, therefore be factored into any cost with An significant important part of any pesticide-free strategyterms is to How the London Borough of Hackney has reduced pesticide regardless of the actual need for them. This most of pounds per year. In of thousands use while slashing costs hundreds ensure that weeds don’t get established in the first frequently occurs when spraying is contracted out when considering cost assessing ofplace.

If there aredifferences no weeds, there is no need to get rid Hackney Council in London provides a great example of how an initial to a third-party. However, reducing the number of assessment of pesticide use can play a it is important to gain a true pesticide-free, going of them!

Ensuring that areas are free of weed-friendly vital role in reducing both costs and the amount of pesticide being times areas are sprayed, for example from three applied. costs associated to using allplace understanding habitats in the of first will lead to a reduced need down to two, tends not to result in any significant In the first instance, they identified busy streets in the Borough where tend to be ignored. pesticides, to deal withmany high footfall would naturally keep weeds themof in which the growing season. There is a increase in weeds but will reduce the amount of under control and withdrew pesticide spraying. This alone reduced statutory requirement for councils to keep roads and the area of pavements being treated by pesticides used leading to a cost saving.

100km across the Borough and led to an ongoing annual saving of paths free of detritus, which is often the perfect place approximately £10,000. Following on from this, they looked at how pesticides were actually being applied 6 Changing method of spraying – The way in which for weeds to establish. Regular brushing and sweeping in the remaining areas. Switching from a ‘blanket’ application by operatives mounted on quad bikes to spot pesticides are applied can also be changed in of kerbs, gutters and other areas where weeds could spraying weeds by knapsack spraying, led to an overall 50% reduction in the volume of pesticides applied 1 order to reduce usage and bring down costs. establish themselves will help keep weed numbers and – as well as a 50% reduction in the cost of www.pan-uk.org purchasing pesticides.

There are a number of examples of councils costs More info can be found at: down. Sweeping and brushing should be done switching from blanket spraying of pesticides well in advance of the growing season to ensure full Hackney Council has since gone further and withdrawn spraying completely from housing estates under its from quad bikes to spot spraying using operatives effectiveness, ideally in February or March. Similarly, control as well as in parks and green spaces, resulting in a total overall reduction in the amount of pesticide with knapsack sprayers. By simply switching the the use of hot foam systems or similar heat-based being applied of 80%. They have also seen a valuable and important increase in plant diversity and abundance method of application, these councils have been control systems can help to sterilise any seeds that go in the areas where spraying has ceased. able to save significant amounts of money (see on to produce weeds later in the season. Again, this This is a particularly interesting example as Hackney has achieved case study on Hackney Council on page 2). a very significant reduction in the amount of should be done well in advance of the growth phase pesticide it uses as well as saved a substantial sum of money simply by; stopping spraying in certain for weeds. Over time, adopting such an approach and Changing 6 planting regimes – Displays of annual areas, changing the way pesticides are applied and understanding the nature maintaining a high level of hygiene in areas prone to bedding plants or other ornamental species have and level of weed control necessary to keep their obligations to the weeds will result in a reduced need for control – saving been a feature of town and village centres and public in terms of accessibility, safety and the aesthetics of the area. costs associated to both control methods and labour. parks and green spaces for decades. The plants As Jon Burke, the Hackney Councillor who drove their pesticide-free used are often not particularly useful for pollinators initiative said: Practical actions that will reduce costs and other wildlife, cost a lot of money and need regular maintenance and replacement. The cost In an ideal pesticide-free system a number of measures “The cheapest alternative is no alternative”. of annual bedding plants, such as begonias, over that will have a direct impact on costs should be large areas in towns can cost thousands of pounds. included and also assessed when comparing costs:

“

X

2 2

More info can be found at: www.pan-uk.org

More info can be found at: www.pan-uk.org

3 3

21

Pesticide-Free Towns

KEY FINDINGS Lack of government data on urban pesticide use PAN UK has spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours pulling together this snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils. Rather than be left to civil society, providing accurate data on pesticide is clearly a job for government. This is particularly true in the case of urban pesticide use by councils, since it is funded by taxpayers’ money.

The UK government does publish the “Amenity Pesticide Usage Report” which provides data on pesticide use by councils and other nonagricultural sectors such as transport infrastructure and golf. The most recent report29 details amenity pesticide use in 2020 and so is already five years out of date. The next report scheduled to be published in 2025 will cover amenity use in 2024.30 In addition to these reports lagging far behind, they are also woefully incomplete. Responding to the survey which underpins the report is voluntary and response rates are extremely low. The government’s most recent report covering 2020 states that 392 emails were sent to Local Authorities but just 21% (82 councils) responded with data on pesticide use. To compare, we contacted 390 councils and received 368 responses that included pesticide data, a response rate of 94%.

PAN UK has been concerned about the lack of data on urban pesticide use for many years and repeatedly calls for monitoring to be improved.

However, the results gleaned from our hundreds of FOI requests have highlighted the extent of the inadequacies in government reporting.

Table 8: Results from FoI responses on the amount of herbicides used by UK councils.

Herbicides applied in 2024 (tonnes)

22

All UK Councils

354.5

English Councils

271

Northern Irish Councils

4.5

Scottish Councils

54

Welsh Councils ales

25

The amount of pesticides used by local councils highlights the issue. As shown in Table 8 below, the 368 councils which responded to our FoI requests reported using a total of 354 tonnes of herbicides in 2024 (only 29 declined to provide us with figures). In reality, 354 tonnes is likely to be an underestimation of the amount used. While we sent almost 400 FoI requests to city, borough, district and county councils, there are many we did not contact, for example England’s thousands of parish councils many of which do use herbicides.

Comparing these figures to the UK government’s data is alarming. The most recent government report states that Local Authorities used a total of 84 tonnes of pesticides in 2020 (62 tonnes of pesticide products and 22 tonnes of active substance).31 This is less than a quarter of the amount of pesticides reported by local councils to our FoI requests. While some of this inconsistency could be due to issues with comparing 2020 usage figures with those from 2024, it is unlikely that this could account for such a huge difference in figures.

The discrepancy is almost certainly due to the fact that almost 80% of local authorities did not provide any pesticide data to the government.

This raises some important questions about our knowledge of the quantity of pesticides being used in our public spaces. In fact, we know relatively little about which chemicals are being applied, where and in what quantities, let alone detailed information about the impacts they are having on human health, wildlife or water quality. Without accurate figures on usage, it is hard to see how the impacts of attempts to reduce urban pesticides can be effectively monitored or assessed.

The UK government has said that it wants to help to support councils to reduce their pesticide use. However, it is currently legislating in the dark without the data to inform sensible policy making based on knowledge of what works and therefore what kind of support is required.

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

PAN UK would like to see legislation introduced that would make reporting on all pesticide use compulsory, with amenity use by local councils as the absolute priority. It is already a legal requirement for professional pesticide users to keep records of use. Therefore, requiring local councils and other land managers to report these figures to the government on an annual basis

in order to be made publicly available would be a small but important step forward. Having an accurate picture of urban pesticide use would be a huge help to local residents, elected councillors, council officers and others working hard to better protect human health and the environment by making their local public spaces pesticide-free.

Are UK councils using glyphosate-based herbicides?

According to the most recent government figures (from 2020)26, glyphosate-based herbicides make up 96% of pesticides applied by UK councils. It can, therefore, sometimes feel like the Pesticide-Free Towns movement is in fact campaigning to end the use of glyphosate in public spaces. However, there is no point in stopping using glyphosate to simply transition over to using other synthetic herbicides commonly used in the amenity sector (such as 2,4-D or MCPA) which are often equally, or sometimes even more, toxic. With this in mind, the questions in our FoI requests to councils intentionally focussed on all herbicide use and not just glyphosate.

We did, however, ask a simple ‘yes/no’ question on whether councils were using glyphosatebased herbicides and the results were extremely high as shown by the table below. However, it should be noted that these figures do include councils that only use glyphosate-based herbicides to control invasive species, such as Japanese Knotweed. Councils using glyphosate solely for invasive species tend to use far less than those continuing to use it for general weed control.

Table 9: Councils using glyphosate-based herbicides.

Overall number

As a percentage of the UK councils that responded to our FoI requests

Number of UK councils using glyphosate-based herbicides

339 (out of 368 responses)

92%

Number of English councils using glyphosate-based herbicides

279 (out of 303 responses)

92%

Number of Northern Irish councils using glyphosate-based herbicides

11 (out of 11 responses)

100%

Number of Scottish councils using glyphosate-based herbicides

31 (out of 31 responses)

100%

Number of Welsh councils using glyphosate-based herbicides

18 (out of 23 responses)

78%

Glyphosate must have its license reapproved in Great Britain by December 2026. Given the growing body of evidence linking it to both human health27 and environmental harms,28 this would be an excellent opportunity to ban it from being used in public spaces. While entirely possible, ending glyphosate use in farming is a far more complicated endeavour. Reducing our overall exposure to this harmful chemical by removing it from villages, towns and cities is therefore an obvious first step.

23

Pesticide-Free Towns

KEY FINDINGS Alternatives to urban pesticides fact that whilst there is any possible hazard from a “ The pesticide, surely it is better to reduce its use and look

at alternatives? The more people that use alternatives, the more alternatives will be developed, tested and improved.”

Head of Parks and Green Spaces, Lewes District Council, 2018.

There is an ever-growing number of non-chemical alternatives to pesticides in the amenity sector.

While some councils that have gone pesticide-free have done so relying on longstanding techniques such as hand weeding and mulching, others have adopted technological solutions such as hot foam machines and mechanical brushes. As the demand for non-chemical weed control rises amongst both land managers and the public, the cost of these technologies is coming down while their efficacy is increasing.

Here is a brief description of the main alternatives currently available in the UK: 6 Hot foam systems use high temperature water and foam to kill weeds. The foam, which is made using sustainable vegetable oils, helps keep the water at a high temperature while it kills the weeds – literally boiling them. One of the many benefits of this system is the fact that it can be used in any weather condition in contrast to herbicides (such as glyphosate) which can only be used when it is not raining or windy. As it is non-toxic and nonbio accumulative, it is suitable for use in sensitive areas such as nature reserves and in proximity to water bodies. In addition to being used to control weeds, hot foam systems can also be used to remove chewing gum and moss.

6 High pressure hot water treatments are similar to foam systems but instead rely solely on hot, high-pressure water. They are effective for weed control and, as with foam systems, can also be used for other situations such as chewing gum and moss removal thus making them a versatile option.

26

6 Electronic control systems are a relatively new approach that is particularly suited to dealing with invasive species. It works by using electricity to boil weeds from the root upwards.

6 Flame treatment has been used successfully to eliminate weeds in many parks and green spaces. Whilst flame weeding can be an effective alternative to the use of pesticides, and much work has gone into making them more targeted and therefore safer, there are potentially health and safety issues for operatives. However, for smaller areas handheld flame weeders might be a suitable tool if proper training is provided.

6 Brushing can be used for larger areas such as pavements and roads and, in combination with the use of pelargonic acid, can be a very effective alternative. Such systems are particularly useful for removing light weeds and moss from hard surfaces such as paving and tarmac. The use of brushes is also vital for keeping streets and pavements clear of detritus where weeds can prosper. A proper regime of brushing prior to the growing season can help ensure that weed growth is kept to a minimum throughout the year.

6 Acetic acid dilutions have been used very effectively to control weeds on hard surfaces in a variety of situations. Acetic acid is essentially just vinegar and, as such, is biodegradable and poses no risk of bioaccumulation.32 Some of the companies that make and sell pesticide products have started producing non-glyphosate alternatives to Roundup and

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

Alternatives to Herbicides A Guide for the Amenity Sector

January 2021

Alternatives to Herbicides

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO WEED CONTROL

Pe st ic i e - F RE d 1. “Do nothing” or “do less”

Questions to ask include, could you change the kind of plants you maintain in a park from the traditional bedding plants that need managing to one that uses wild native species that would naturally out-compete weeds? Could an area of amenity grass that might be sprayed to keep it looking neat and tidy be converted to a wildflower meadow?

Not using anything to replace the use of herbicides costs nothing – in fact it saves money which can be used to support other activities. This might seem like quite a radical approach, and of course if nothing at all was done to control all unwanted vegetation then there would be problems. But doing nothing is not really doing nothing! In reality, it’s looking strategically at where vegetation can be left alone or where expectations can be adjusted for those both maintaining and using public spaces.

Supporting urban biodiversity and stopping or reducing the use of herbicides is a win-win for all concerned. And the increasing public understanding regarding the need to protect our bees, pollinators and other insects means that this type of approach will be widely welcomed.

““

The first thing to do when looking to adopt an herbicide-free approach is to undertake an audit of which areas are currently being treated, why and how often. This involves asking a number of questions;

future e-free 6 Is there actually a need to spray in this area?

Working together for a pesticid Looking at whether a particular area could be managed in a different way in order to avoid having to treat it with herbicides is an important tool in any herbicide use reduction strategy.

No alternative is the cheapest alternative ”

Hackney Councillor John Burke in response to comments that ending glyphosate use would hugely increase costs

Areas left to grow wild for insects - The Level in Brighton

4 es

P

6 Hand weeding is an option, particularly for smaller areas such as playgrounds and on paths running through parks. Some councils may be able to use their employees and parks staff to do this on a regular basis to maintain acceptable weed-free levels. However, given capacity constraints many councils have chosen to work with the local community around parks and other areas in order to recruit volunteers to help weed by hand. Friends of Parks groups are an obvious first port of call for finding willing helpers. Not only does this get the job done but it is an effective way of engaging local communities to become more involved in their parks and local area. A sense of community spirit can be engendered and it has proved to be an excellent opportunity for the council to engage with local groups in a positive manner. There are already a number of councils using this approach and other land managers such as Royal Parks in London are also asking for volunteers to come in and hand weed.33 An excellent example to look at is Lambeth Council’s Community Weeding Scheme which has not only brought benefits in terms of pesticide reduction but also social cohesion. More information here: www.lambeth.gov.uk/streets-roads-transport/ community-weeding-scheme

For more detail, see our report “Alternatives to Herbicides: A Guide for the Amenity Sector” which is available to download at: www.pan-uk.org/ information-for-local-authorities

EE

6 Mulching is an age-old technique for dealing with weeds by smothering them. Mulching also offers other benefits including retention of moisture in the soil and, depending on the type of mulch being used, improved soil health.

Organic material such as chips and bark from recycled Christmas trees can be used, or there is a wide range of mulch mats available. This is a particularly useful approach in ornamental beds and in parks more generally.

It is important to note when planning to reduce or stop the use of herbicides that the most critical first point is to be aware that there is no silver bullet – there is no like for like replacement. To make a successful transition away from herbicide use, the non-chemical alternatives deployed have to comprise of a mixture of techniques and approaches backed up by a sensible, achievable strategy and policy underpinned by the political will to see the plan through over the long-term.

E

similar herbicides, using acetic or pelargonic acid as the active ingredient. There is some debate about just how effective this can be for large areas of hard surface in urban areas, but it can be a useful tool for smaller areas such as playgrounds.

ti c i d e - F R

27

Pesticide-Free Towns

RECOMMENDATIONS Ways in which the UK government and devolved administrations should be supporting councils Since 2015, over one hundred and fifty councils across the UK have either ended their use of pesticides or taken positive steps towards doing so, all without any support from central government or the devolved administrations.

Given the funding crisis engulfing local authorities across the UK, it is remarkable that so many councils have managed to reduce or end their pesticide use without any support. However, if the UK government and devolved administrations wants to fulfil their 2025 commitment to “… minimise the risks and impacts of pesticide use on the environment and human health…”34 then they should put in place the following:

6 Ringfence extra funding for councils’ city cleansing/environment/parks teams to oversee chemical-free weed removal and for any manual labour required. This is especially true in the spring and summer months when weeds experience the most growth.

6 Introduce legislation prohibiting local authorities – followed by other public authorities – from using pesticides in villages, towns and cities.

There is already a Bill going through the House of Commons, tabled by Sian Berry MP, which would ban pesticide use by English Councils.

Crucially, the UK government and devolved administrations must also help to change the narrative about urban spaces, ‘weeds’ and pesticides. It should be made clear that our villages, towns and cities can and should be an oasis for wildlife, given the current biodiversity crisis we are facing in the UK. Our urban spaces can play a key role in reversing biodiversity declines, since many pavement plants offer food and shelter to animals and insects. The government should assist councils in shifting away from the negative narrative of ‘weeds’ being a nuisance and towards a view of ‘pavement plants’ as an important aspect of urban biodiversity that can be managed without chemicals. See PAN UK’s Pavement Plant Guide for an example of positive communication: www.pan-uk.org/pavement-plants.

6 Provide overarching guidance to local authorities which includes recommendations on how to phase out their use of pesticides in an efficient and cost-effective way that does not compromise on public safety or accessibility.

6 Assist councils to conduct a full analysis of current pesticide use, including how much public money is currently being spent on applying pesticides.

6 Develop a training scheme for council officers on pesticide-free approaches which enables them to trial different chemical-free alternatives with expert supervision.

6 Enable peer-to-peer learning between councils by establishing a network for council officers and operatives to share best practice.

6 Mandate that local authorities consult key local stakeholders – most importantly disability groups – and provide communications on pesticide reduction to all local residents.

Common pavement plants Common pavement plants In tree pits, especially those which

Green Alkanet (Pentaglottis sempervirens) family is This bristly perennial in the Borage thought to have been introduced originally as a dye plant from South West Europe. blue Growing up to a metre tall, it has right flowers and is shade tolerant. It’s common North across the British Isles, apart from in Scotland.

are nutrient rich

are the urban equivalent of fertilised pits, particularly those well used by dogs, About this habitat: Nutrient-rich tree as you’d find in those habitats, including and you’re likely to find similar plants arable fields, gardens and compost heaps aren’t so nutrient-rich, are less shaded, under leafy street trees. Where tree pits some which are relatively shade tolerant in pavement cracks and edges. likely to be overlap with the plants growing drier and with more bare patches, there’s in the Fat-hen (Chenopodium album) An annual which Goosefoot family with toothed leaves Flower usually have a mealy white bloom. and stems grow from the leaf junctions In have strings of small knobbly flowers. rural areas it’s a common weed of arable

6 Provide councils with interest-free loans or grants to cover capital outlay costs for new machinery. Once councils own the required equipment then it can be used for many years. Going forward, reduced (or zero) spend on pesticides will deliver considerable cost savings.

crops.

GREENER CITIES

A guide to the plants on our pavements

This Smooth Sow-thistle (Sonchus oleraceus) family tall and hairless annual in the Daisy has yellow dandelion-like flower heads, It’s toothed leaves and milky stem sap. from common across the British Isles, apart in North Scotland.

An annual Annual Mercury (Mercurialis annua) to in the Spurge family which grows up female 50cm tall. It has separate male and plants with toothed leaves and stems of inconspicuous flowers. It’s common in Southern England and absent from Scotland.

echioides) A Bristly Oxtongue (Helminthotheca in the very robust bristly annual or biennial tall.

Daisy family which can be up to 90cm heads The yellow dandelion-like flowering have leafy triangular bracts underneath give which resemble bristly tongues which the plant its name.

in our city “ We must make space for wild plants helps streets to increase urban greenery, which biodiversity, residents’ health and wellbeing, can and adaptation to climate change. We in wildflowers rethink streets to incorporate and road verges, green roofs, street planters from window boxes; natural parklets reclaimed and shrubs parking spaces; and native climbers covering walls and forming hedges. “ — Sian Moxon (Senior Lecturer and Founder ‘Rewild My Street’)

Sustainability Coordinator, 13

12 12

July 2023

28

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

Actions councils can take

Actions the public can take

While we hope to secure central government support for councils wanting to go pesticide-free, it is not a prerequisite for taking action. More than one hundred and fifty councils in the UK have made huge progress on reducing or ending their pesticide use without any help from Defra or the governments of the devolved nations.

Members of the public have a key role to play in ending urban pesticide use. In countries such as France that have banned urban use nationwide, it started with local residents taking action before growing into a national grassroots movement and ultimately securing national legislation.

Regardless of whether external support is in place, councils should take the following actions: 6 Adopt PAN UK’s three-year phase-out plan which has been followed successfully by many of the councils that have gone pesticide-free.

6 Develop a comprehensive pesticide policy aimed at reducing, and ultimately ending, pesticide use. Many councils have used this policy to introduce limited but necessary exemptions, the most common being for tackling invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed.

6 Conduct a detailed assessment of current pesticide use which includes amounts, locations and costings.

6 Undertake trials and pilot schemes for nonchemical alternatives to pesticides and monitor their progress closely.

PAN UK has a wealth of resources for members of the public wanting to make their council pesticide-free. They can be downloaded at www.pan-uk.org/make-my-town-pesticide-free Take our simple eaction which, in just a few clicks, enables you to tell your ward councillors that you want public spaces in your local area to be pesticide-free. Before you contact them, try searching our new, online database to see whether your council is included. You can find it at www.pan-uk.org/pesticide-free If you want to take your campaign offline, then we also have a range of advice on how to run in person Pesticide-Free Towns campaigns, from running stalls at local events to establishing community weeding groups.

In whatever way you choose to get involved, please do make sure to share what you’re doing with friends, family and neighbours to help build the ever-growing Pesticide-Free Towns movement.

6 Promote existing good work being undertaken by council officers to reduce pesticide use, including publicising any areas that are already pesticide-free. a toolkit for local authorities

Going Pesticide-Free

Reports to council

A Guide for Local Authorities

Council officers are frequently asked to supply reports to council cabinet members, committees or the full council on subjects of interest to councillors who require more expert information .

Reports can be requested purely for further information, in response to a public petition that has gained sufficient signatures to demand a response, or as supporting information prior to a debate and vote on a Motion that has been put forward to the council for consideration . A report template for you to adapt and use can be downloaded from the PAN UK website at https://www.p an-uk.org/ information-for-local-authorities

6 Promote the concept of going pesticide-free to other local land managers (e.g. universities, companies which manage transport infrastructure, housing estate managers etc.).

6 Communicate with members of the public about the benefits of going pesticide free.

Pe

s ti c

E

E

6 Work with council officers to plant pesticide-free urban wildflower meadows to create a haven for bees and other wildlife.

id e - F R

The response itself is comprehensive

and includes;

6 An audit of current pesticide use 6 An investigation of non-chemical alternatives including information on trials already under way 6 The development of a pesticide reduction plan 6 An examination of cost implications 6 A risk assessment outlining possible implications involved with going pesticide-free

The following is an example of a report provided for a full meeting of Lewes Council by the Director of Service Delivery for Lewes District Council in response to a public petition calling for a pesticidefree Lewes .32

Pesticide-Free Zone Poster .

Credit: PAN UK

X

Working together for a pesticide-free future

E

E

es

P

PAN UK has a range of free resources for councils which can be downloaded here: www.pan-uk.org/information-for-local-authorities

ti c i e - F R d

27

29

Pesticide-Free Towns

ANNEX 1

List of 390 councils sent Freedom of Information requests

by PAN UK between January and May 2025 (non-responders in orange) Aberdeen City Council

Bromsgrove District Council

City of Sheffield

Aberdeenshire Council

Broxbourne Borough Council

City of Southampton

Adur District Council

Broxtowe Borough Council

City of Westminister

Amber Valley Borough Council

Buckinghamshire Council

City of Wolverhampton Council

Angus Council

Burnley Borough Council

City of York Council

Antrim & Newtownabbey Borough Council

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

Clackmannanshire Council

Ards & North Down Borough Council

Caerphilly County Borough Council

Colchester City Council

Argyll & Bute Council

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Borough Council Arun District Council

Cambridgeshire County Council

Ashfield District Council

Cannock Chase District Council

Ashford Borough Council

Canterbury City Council

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils

Carmarthenshire County Council

Bangor City Council

Castle Point Borough Council

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Causeway Coast & Glens Borough Council

Basildon Borough Council

Central Bedfordshire Council

Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council

Ceredigion County Council

Bassetlaw District Council

Charnwood Borough Council

Bath & North East Somerset Council

Chelmsford City Council

Bedford Borough Council

Cheltenham Borough Council

Belfast Council

Cherwell District Council

Birmingham City Council

Cheshire East Council

Blaby District Council

Cheshire West and Chester Council

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

Chesterfield Borough Council

Blackpool Council

Chichester District Council

Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

Chorley Borough Council

Bolsover District Council

City & County of Swansea

Bolton Borough Council

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

30

Cambridge City Council

Conwy County Borough Council Cornwall Council Cotswold District Council Council of the Isles of Scilly County Durham Crawley Borough Council Cumberland Council Cyngor Gwynedd Cyngor Sir Ynys Mon Dacorum Borough Council Darlington Borough Council Dartford Borough Council Denbighshire County Council Derbyshire County Council Derbyshire Dales District Council Derry City and Strabane District Council Devon County Council Dorset Council Dover District Council Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council Dumfries & Galloway Council

City of Cardiff

Dundee City Council

Boston Borough Council

City of Carlisle

East Ayrshire Council

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council

City of Coventry

East Cambridgeshire District Council

Bracknell Forest Council

City of Derby

East Devon District Council

Braintree District Council

City of Doncaster Council

East Dunbartonshire Council

Breckland Council

City of Ely Council

East Hampshire District Council

Brentwood Borough Council

City of Gloucester

East Herts Council

Bridgend County Borough Council

City of Leeds

East Lindsey District Council

Brighton & Hove City Council

City of Lincoln Council

East Lothian Council

Bristol City Council

City of London Corporation

East Renfrewshire Council

Broadland District Council

City of Peterborough

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

East Staffordshire Borough Council

Inverclyde Council

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

Ipswich Borough Council

Merton London Borough Council

Isle of Wight Council

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council

Kent County Council

Mid Devon District Council

Kingston upon Hull City Council

Mid Sussex District Council

Kirklees Council

Mid Ulster District Council

Knowsley Borough Council

Middlesbrough Council

Lancashire County Council

Midlothian Council

Lancaster City Council

Milton Keynes Council

Leicester City Council

Mole Valley District Council

Leicestershire County Council

Monmouthshire County Council

Lewes District Council

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

Lichfield District Council

New Forest District Council

Lincolnshire County Council

Newark & Sherwood District Council

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Newcastle upon Tyne Council

Liverpool City Council

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

Newport City Council

London Borough of Barnet

Newry, Mourne and Down District Council

London Borough of Bexley

Norfolk County Council

London borough of Brent

North Ayrshire Council

London Borough of Bromley

North Devon District Council

London Borough of Camden

North East Derbyshire District Council

London borough of Croydon

North East Lincolnshire Council

London Borough of Ealing

North Hertfordshire District Council

London Borough of Hackney

North Kesteven District Council

Gosport Borough Council

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

North Lanarkshire Council

Gravesham Borough Council

London borough of Haringey Council

Great Yarmouth Borough Council

London Borough of Harrow

Guildford Borough Council

London Borough of Havering

Halton Borough Council

London Borough of Hillingdon

Hampshire County Council

London Borough of Hounslow

Harborough District Council

London Borough of Islington

Harlow District Council

London Borough of Lambeth

North West Leicestershire District Council

Hart District Council

London Borough of Lewisham

North Yorkshire Council

Hartlepool Borough Council

London Borough of Newham

Northumberland County Council

Hastings Borough Council

London Borough of Redbridge

Norwich City Council

Havant Borough Council

London Borough of Sutton

Nottingham City Council

Herefordshire Council

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Nottinghamshire County Council

Hertfordshire County Council

Luton Borough Council

Oadby & Wigston Borough Council

Hertsmere Borough Council

Maidstone Borough Council

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

High Peak Borough Council

Maldon District Council

Orkney Islands Council

Highland Council

Malvern Hills District Council

Oxford City Council

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council

Manchester City Council

Oxfordshire County Council

Horsham District Council

Mansfield District Council

Pembrokeshire County Council

Huntingdonshire District Council

Medway Council

Pendle Borough Council

Hyndburn Borough Council

Melton Borough Council

Perth & Kinross Council

East Suffolk District Council East Sussex County Council Eastbourne Borough Council Eastleigh Borough Council Elmbridge Borough Council Enfield Council Epping Forest District Council Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Erewash Borough Council Essex County Council Exeter City Council Falkirk Council Fareham Borough Council Fenland District Council Fermanagh & Omagh District Council Fife Council Flintshire County Council Folkestone & Hythe District Council Forest of Dean District Council Fylde Borough Council Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council Gedling Borough Council Glasgow City Council Gloucestershire County Council

North Lincolnshire Council North Norfolk District Council North Northamptonshire Council North Somerset Council North Tyneside Council North Warwickshire Borough Council

31

Pesticide-Free Towns

Plymouth City Council

South Lanarkshire Council

Torridge District Council

Portsmouth City Council

South Norfolk District Council

Trafford Council

Powys County Council

South Oxfordshire District Council

Truro City Council

Preston City Council

South Ribble Borough Council

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Reading Borough Council

South Staffordshire Council

Uttlesford District Council

Redcar & Cleveland Council Redditch Borough Council Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

Southend-on-Sea City Council

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

Renfrewshire Council

Southwark Council

Walsall Council

Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council

Spelthorne Borough Council

Waltham Forest

St Albans City & District Council

Wandsworth Borough Council

St Asaph City Council

Warrington Borough Council

St David City Council

Warwick District Council

Ripon City Council

St Helens Council

Warwickshire County Council

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

Stafford Borough Council

Watford Borough Council

Rochford District Council

Staffordshire County Council

Waverley Borough Council

Rossendale Borough Council

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

Wealden District Council

Rother District Council

Stevenage Borough Council

Wells City Council

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Stirling Council

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

Royal Borough of Greenwich

Stockport Borough Council

West Berkshire Council

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

West Devon Borough Council

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

West Dunbartonshire Council

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

Stratford-on-Avon District Council

West Lancashire Borough Council

Rugby Borough Council

Stroud District Council

West Lindsey District Council

Runnymede Borough Council

Suffolk County Council

West Lothian Council

Rushcliffe Borough Council

Sunderland City Council

West Northamptonshire Council

Rushmoor Borough Council

Surrey County Council

West Oxfordshire District Council

Rutland County Council

Surrey Heath Borough Council

West Suffolk District Council

Salford City Council

Swale Borough Council

West Sussex County Council

Salisbury City Council

Swindon Borough Council

Westminster City Council

Sandwell Borough Council

Tameside Borough Council

Westmorland and Furness Council

Scottish Borders Council

Tamworth Borough Council

Wigan Council

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

Tandridge District Council

Wiltshire Council

Sevenoaks District Council

Teignbridge District Council

Winchester City Council

Shetland Islands Council

Telford & Wrekin Council

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Shropshire Council

Tendring District Council

Woking Borough Council

Slough Borough Council

Test Valley Borough Council

Wokingham Borough Council

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

Tewkesbury Borough Council

Worcester City Council

Somerset Council

Thanet District Council

Worcestershire County Council

South Ayrshire Council

The City of Edinburgh Council

Worthing Borough Council

South Cambridgeshire District Council

The Moray Council

Wrexham County Borough Council

South Derbyshire District Council

Three Rivers District Council

Wychavon District Council

South Gloucestershire Council

Thurrock Council

Wyre Council

South Hams District Council

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council

Wyre Forest District Council

South Holland District Council

Torbay Council

South Kesteven District Council

Torfaen County Borough Council

Ribble Valley Borough Council Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council

32

Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

Vale of White Horse District Council

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

ANNEX 2

List of councils “leading the way” (based on information provided by councils to PAN UK in response to Freedom of Information requests sent between January and May 2025) Country

Council

County

Country

Council

County

England

Adur District Council

West Sussex

England

Rossendale Borough Council

Lancashire

England

Bath & North East Somerset Council

Somerset

England

Runnymede Borough Council

Surrey

England

Breckland Council

Norfolk

England

Salisbury City Council

Wiltshire

England

Broadland District Council

Norfolk

England

Sevenoaks District Council

Kent

England

Cambridge City Council

Cambridgeshire

England

South Cambridgeshire District Council

Cambridgeshire

England

Chelmsford City Council

Essex

England

South Hams District Council

Devon

England

Chichester District Council

West Sussex

England

South Norfolk District Council

Norfolk

England

City of London Corporation

London

England

Dartford Borough Council

Kent

Stratford-on-Avon District Council

Warwickshire

England England

Derbyshire County Council

Derbyshire

England

Stroud District Council

Gloucestershire

England

East Devon District Council

Devon

England

Surrey Heath Borough Council

Surrey

England

East Hampshire District Council

Hampshire

England

Thanet District Council

Kent

England

Folkestone & Hythe District Council

Kent

England

Three Rivers District Council

Hertfordshire

England

Gedling Borough Council

Nottinghamshire

England

Torridge District Council

Devon

England

High Peak Borough Council

Derbyshire

England

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Kent

England

Lancaster City Council

Lancashire

England

Wealden District Council

East Sussex

England

Lewes District Council

East Sussex

England

Wells City Council

Somerset

England

London borough of Croydon

London

England

West Devon Borough Council

Devon

England

London Borough of Hackney

London

England

West Suffolk District Council

Suffolk

England

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

London

England

Worthing Borough Council

West Sussex

England

London Borough of Hounslow

London

Northern Ireland

Derry City and Strabane District Council

Londonderry

England

London Borough of Lambeth

London

Scotland

The City of Edinburgh Council

Lothian

England

London Borough of Westminster

London

Wales

Bangor City Council

Gwynedd

England

Maidstone Borough Council

Kent

Wales

Flintshire County Council

Flintshire

England

Mid Devon District Council

Devon

Wales

Monmouthshire County Council

Monmouthshire

England

Oxfordshire County Council

Oxfordshire

Wales

St Asaph City Council

Denbighshire

England

Rochford District Council

Essex

Wales

St David City Council

Pembrokeshire

33

Pesticide-Free Towns

References 1. “State of Nature Report, 2023”, State of Nature Partnership, 2023 https://stateofnature.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/TP25999-State-of-Nature-main-report_2023_FULL-DOC-v12.pdf 2. “Plant Protection Products (Prohibition on Public Sector Use) Bill”, 28/04/2025 - https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3822 3. Letter from Emma Hardy MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, to PAN UK, 09/06/2025 4. “Amenity Pesticide Usage in the UK”, D. Garthwaite, G. Parrish & L. Ridley, 28/04/2022 - https://pusstats.fera.co.uk/api/report-download/689 5. “Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides Volume 112”, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2017 - https://publications.iarc.who.int/_publications/media/download/6767/d44170dc102a273c5fb0bc06c542879dbb654c15.pdf 6. Monsanto Roundup Verdicts and Settlements, Wisner Baum, undated https://www.wisnerbaum.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/roundup-settlement/ 7. “Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660 of 28 November 2023 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate” - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/2660/oj 8. “Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 12”, 21/10/2009 - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:0071:0086:en:PDF 9. Uk-EU Common Understanding, 19/05/2025 - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ukeu-summit-key-documentation/ uk-eu-summit-common-understanding-html (clauses 26-28) 10. “France declares public spaces pesticide free - private gardens will follow”, Terri Anne Fell, 08/06/2017 - https://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/news/france-declares-public-spaces-pesticide-free-private-gardens-will-follow 11. “Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle”, Science and Environmental Health Network, 26/01/1998 - https://www.sehn.org/sehn/wingspread-conference-on-the-precautionary-principle 12. “Transforming Britain’s Road Verges”, Plantlife - https://www.plantlife.org.uk/our-work/road-verges/ 13. “Diffuse Pollution of Water by Agriculture”, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Post Note 478, October 2014 - https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-478/POST-PN-478.pdf 14. “Feedback from the Environment Agency and Southern Water on the use of Glyphosate”, Brighton & Hove Council, October 2022 https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s196394/Weed%20Management%20APX.%20n%207.pdf 15. “Pesticide-Free – Framework for a Three Year Phase-Out Plan”, PAN UK - https://www.pan-uk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/Phase-out-plan.pdf 16. Polling conducted by YouGov Plc on behalf of PAN UK. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,162 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 25th - 26th June 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).

17. Polling conducted by YouGov Plc on behalf of PAN UK. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,162 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 25th - 26th June 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).

18. “H&F is first in London to halt use of potentially harmful sprays”, Hammersmith & Fulham Council, 08/06/2016 - https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/news/2016/06/hf-first-london-halt-use-potentially-harmful-sprays 19. “Community Weeding Scheme”, Lambeth Council - https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/streets-roads-transport/community-weeding-scheme 20. “London Environment Strategy”, Page 424, The Mayor of London, May 2018 - https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_environment_strategy_0.pdf 21. Polling conducted by YouGov Plc on behalf of PAN UK. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,162 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 25th - 26th June 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).

22. Polling conducted by YouGov Plc on behalf of PAN UK. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,162 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 25th - 26th June 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).

23. Polling conducted by YouGov Plc on behalf of PAN UK. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,162 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 25th - 26th June 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).

24. “Harmful Pesticides” Questions to the First Minister in the Senedd, 28/02/2023 - https://www.theyworkforyou.com/senedd/?id=2023-02-28.1.486710 25. Polling conducted by YouGov Plc on behalf of PAN UK. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,162 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 25th - 26th June 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).

34

A snapshot of pesticide use by UK councils after a decade of campaigning

26. Amenity Pesticide Usage in the UK, D. Garthwaite, G. Parrish & L. Ridley, 28/04/2022 https://pusstats.fera.co.uk/api/report-download/689 27. “Carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure from prenatal life to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides in Sprague–Dawley rats”, Panzacchi, S., Tibaldi, E., De Angelis, L. et al. Environ Health 24, 36 10/06/2025 - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-025-01187-2 28. “Glyphosate concentrations in global freshwaters: are aquatic organisms at risk?”, Brovini, E.M., Cardoso, S.J., Quadra, G.R. et al.

Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 60635–60648, 2021 - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-14609-8#citeas 29. Amenity Pesticide Usage in the UK, D. Garthwaite, G. Parrish & L. Ridley, 28/04/2022 - https://pusstats.fera.co.uk/api/report-download/689 30. “Amenity Survey 2024 – Pesticide Usage”, The Amenity Forum, 2024 - https://amenityforum.co.uk/insights/amenity-survey-2024-pesticide-usage-2/ 31. Amenity Pesticide Usage in the UK, Page 16, D. Garthwaite, G. Parrish & L. Ridley, 28/04/2022 - https://pusstats.fera.co.uk/api/report-download/689 32. Vinegar; an Alternative to Glyphosate? – University of Maryland – 2017 - https://extension.umd.edu/sites/default/files/_docs/programs/ipmnet/Vinegar-AnAlternativeToGlyphosate-UMD-Smith-Fiola-and-Gill.pdf 33. Volunteer in the Community Garden, Regent’s Park - https://www.royalparks.org.uk/get-involved/volunteer-with-us/volunteeringopportunities/volunteer-and-volunteer-co-ordinator-in-the-community-wildlife-garden,-regents-park 34. “UK Pesticides National Action Plan 2025”, Defra, 21/03/2025 - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-pesticides-national-action-plan-2025

35

Who are Pesticide Action Network UK?

Contact PAN UK

PAN UK is the only UK charity focused on tackling the problems caused by pesticides and promoting safe and sustainable alternatives.

The Green Hub The Brighthelm Centre North Road Brighton BN1 1YD Telephone: 01273 964230 Email: pesticide-free@pan-uk.org

We campaign for change in policy and practice in the UK and overseas, contributing our wealth of scientific and technical expertise to reducing the impact of harmful pesticides and pushing for a pesticide-free future.

Find out more about our work at: www.pan-uk.org/pesticide-free

sti

E

E

Pe

ci d e - F R

printed on recycled paper

X