There is a lot of carbon locked up in the growing trees and roots as well as the harvested logs, and even the harvest residue lying in-field. Emissions generated during the harvesting operation and the burning off of harvest residue will be off-set against the carbon locked up in the wood to calculate the carbon balance.
Plantation owners in South Africa with more than 100 ha of trees in the ground are required to report their carbon emissions on an annual basis, in terms of Greenhouse Gas regulations gazetted in 2017.
This requirement is likely to send a shiver down the spines of tree farmers, who are already burdened with dozens of laws and regulations requiring their attention and compliance. More red tape, more admin … and calculating carbon balance is a daunting prospect as it is not something they learned in forestry school. This is why only a few big plantation owners in South Africa are currently reporting their carbon emissions, while the majority of growers have not yet complied with the GHG reporting regulations.
And don’t for a moment think that you can bury your head in the sand and wait for the carbon reporting thing to go away. It won’t! It is going to become a bigger issue going forward all around the world as greenhouse gas emitters come under increasing pressure. They will be taxed, punished and eventually shut out of international markets.
But fear not! The Sustainable African Forestry Assurance Scheme (SAFAS), in collaboration with the Paper Manufacturers’ Association of South Africa (PAMSA) and the Department of Forestry Fisheries & Environment (DFFE), has unpicked the knot and developed a protocol to make carbon reporting for plantation owners do-able, effective and relatively simple.
“But forestry is sustainable, renewable, it sequesters carbon out of the atmosphere and stores it in the wood, and so why do we now have to jump through these carbon reporting hoops?” I hear you cry.
Exactly! Forestry is located on the positive side of the carbon equation and this is going to become a massive advantage for this sector going forward. But first we have to monitor our emissions, calculate our carbon balance, so that we can access those advantages and reap the full benefits of growing trees. This process is going to become a way of life for foresters.
Sappi mill ...one of the key aims of the SAFAS protocol is to enable wood processors to offset the carbon locked up in third party timber against their carbon tax.
Dave Everard, chair of the SAFAS Council and former Group Environmental Manager at Sappi Forests, has been involved in the development of the SAFAS carbon reporting protocol. He gave a very succinct presentation at the recent SA Institute of Forestry AGM on the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of carbon reporting.
Some background: PAMSA approached the SAFAS team a few years back with a request to develop a carbon reporting protocol for forest owners that is accurate and verifiable. PAMSA’s motivation is to enable wood processors (pulp mills, sawmills etc) who are required by law to pay a carbon tax, to offset the carbon stored in the timber they use as raw material. Currently processors can only offset the carbon sequestered in their own timber that they grow themselves on their own farms. As it stands now, mills cannot offset the sequestered carbon contained in third party timber that they buy in, and over which they do not have operational control.
Why? Because there are concerns around the chain-of-custody and how to verify the carbon claims of third party growers. This is a big problem for the processors who must procure timber from outside of their own business to keep their mills running. It’s going to get costly.
It’s also a big problem from the point of view of plantation owners who may experience declining demand for their timber as a consequence.
The SAFAS carbon reporting protocol is therefore designed to not only facilitate accurate, do-able carbon reporting for timber growers, it must also be verifiable so that it can be endorsed by the tax authorities. The first part has been achieved – the protocol is up and running and the system has been tested (and verified) on 20 farms in a pilot study.
According to Dave the SAFAS protocol is currently being presented to Treasury and is awaiting their approval to allow third party timber to be included in the carbon tax calculations of processing mills. The protocol has been developed in close collaboration with DFFE, so Dave is confident that this endorsement will be forthcoming.
Dave described a simple five-step process that growers can follow to achieve carbon reporting compliance.
Step 1 The grower registers on the SAFAS Value-Based Platform (VBP), provides some simple data on their tree growing operations including info about tree species, MAIs, stems per hectare, age distribution and utilisable standing timber. The Carbon reporting tool on the VBP provides estimates of the volume of leaves and branches, litter layer, root volume and harvest residues required for the stock calculations. The grower must also indicate whether they burned their residues, used fertiliser or had any wildfires so that emissions can be calculated.
Step 2 The Platform calculates the carbon stored in the plantation based on the info provided, utilising global carbon ratios (Tier 1), South Africa generic ratios (Tier 2) or compartment specific data if this is available (Tier 3). This calculation determines the carbon stock of the plantation for that year. Note that the carbon stored in harvested timber sold to the mill is not included in the total carbon stock. Carbon stocks less emissions gives you the carbon balance. The carbon balance from the current year less the carbon balance from the previous year indicates whether the plantation has sequestered carbon (carbon positive) or has maintained the stored carbon (carbon neutral) or has lost some carbon (carbon negative).
Step 3 Verification of the carbon stocks and emissions on the plantation during the protocol will be done by SAFAS. Note that DFFE may require some of the submissions to be independently verified by an accredited verifier, but this is post reporting and outside of the protocol. The protocol makes this verification process a simple procedure for the grower.
Step 4 The grower receives a report and signs off if he/she is happy with the calculation.
Step 5 The SAFAS VBP transfers the carbon data to the official carbon reporting platform, SAGERS, and the carbon reporting process is completed.
This process needs to be done annually. Most of the information required for Step 1 is the kind of info that a forestry manager would have recoded in the normal course of business, said Dave. It is required for FSC or PEFC certification purposes anyway.
This process not only enables the forest owner to comply with current carbon reporting regulations, it also serves as a useful management tool for the responsible farmer who wants to reduce GHG emissions going forward.
Once Treasury has endorsed the protocol and the carbon sequestered in third party timber can be verified and offset against mill owners’ carbon tax, the grower’s timber becomes more valuable as a feedstock.
Dave concluded his presentation with the following points:-
• Carbon reporting will become a requirement for forest certification, both FSC and PEFC. • The forestry sector’s role in the carbon issue should be seen as an advantage. • Forestry has a legal and socio-economic obligation to report and manage GHG emissions. • Carbon reporting is likely to become a pre-requisite for accessing many markets, both local and international. • The SAFAS protocol has been piloted with 20 farms supplying Sappi, Mondi and NCT, and the system works! • The SAFAS Value Based Platform offers many other benefits to growers, including risk assessments that address sustainability issues as well as a pathway to certification.
Putting certification within reach of small-scale growers
Small-scale growers harvesting wattle in Matimatolo, KwaZulu-Natal Midlands. (Photo courtesy of SAFAS)
Free certification for small-scale growers operating on communal land – this is the goal of the Sustainable African Forest Assurance Scheme (SAFAS), a non-profit company on a mission to promote sustainable forest management and ensure that all timber growers in South Africa have fair access to certification.
SAFAS intends to make this achievable through the establishment of a Landscape Certification Programme - that functions like a co-op and focuses on relevant risks - to make certification accessible and affordable to all timber growers, including small-scale growers on communal land.
This is just one of several innovative initiatives that the SAFAS team has introduced in the past few years to promote sustainable forest management in Africa. Key among these is the Value Based Platform (VBP), a web-based platform that integrates data from a wide range of sources. This helps to provide integrated, locally relevant solutions to the broader challenges facing sustainable development, such as habitat degradation, inequality, poverty, poor governance, and accelerated climate change. This enables forest managers to identify and prioritise the key risks in their operations in the context of the landscape within which they operate.
Another innovative SAFAS initiative is the Community Label. This is based on the concept of forestry businesses being a part of the wider community with a responsibility to play a positive role in their development for mutual benefit through timber procurement, providing market access and promoting sustainable management practices on the road to achieving certification. The Community Label promotes the forging of mutually beneficial partnerships between larger forestry organisations and community forestry enterprises.
These initiatives are not just sugar-coated wish lists as they are beginning to gain traction on the ground through practical implementation.
In 2020 Sappi utilised the Value Based Platform to complete individual assessments on all 25 of their forestry plantations in South Africa, covering some 370 000 ha, becoming an essential internal auditing tool to enable the Sappi forestry team to prepare for the formal certification process. Sappi’s South African plantations are certified by both FSC and PEFC.
Earlier this year Sappi used the VBP to assess a group of private timber suppliers in southern KwaZulu-Natal against the requirements of the SAFAS standard. The assessment included 12 private commercial timber growers, two land reform timber farms and 100 small scale growers grouped into two clusters.
According to SAFAS General Manager Steve Germishuizen, the assessments produced some surprising results:- • The small-scale grower groups were the least risky in terms of overall sustainability. • The most consistent risks across all suppliers were related to health and safety, training and management of contractors.
Steve said that the VBP allowed the growers to engage with the certification process in a positive way that helped them to see it as a potential benefit and not just an administrative burden.
NCT Forestry is also using the VBP to assess their growers’ sustainability risks and to prepare them for certification under their PEFC group scheme.
Mechanised Eucalyptus harvesting operation, Mpumalanga. It is efficient and highly productive, but this system does not maximise job creation.
About SAFAS The SAFAS certification system has been developed in South Africa by local stakeholders and is endorsed by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), a globally recognised forest certification system.
It is the culmination of years of work behind the scenes by local stakeholders including Forestry South Africa, SAPPI, NCT, TWK and the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries. The motivation behind the SAFAS initiative stems from the realisation that most small-scale and family-owned forestry operations typically have moderate or low environmental impacts while providing significant social benefits directly at the local community level, yet they have been largely unable to achieve certification. Large commercial forestry operations on the other hand, which have a greater environmental impact and limited local community employment footprint, are almost all certified.
This anomaly means that small-scale growers located in under-resourced rural areas in Africa may be denied access to premium fibre and wood product markets by virtue of their inability to get certified.
Now forestry operations joining the SAFAS Landscape Certification Programme (LCP) have an easier pathway to being certified. The overhead costs associated with certification will be shared amongst members of the programme according to the scale of the operations.
The ultimate goal, according to Steve, is for small-scale timber growers on communal land to have free certification. Revenue generated by the LCP will be used to promote sustainable forest management or reduce the annual costs of certification for the members. It is essentially a cooperative system and members will have a say in how their money is spent.
At the heart of the LCP is the Value Based Platform which helps forest managers to identify and prioritise the key risks in their operations, in the context of their landscape. The platform links the risks up to the relevant indicators in the certification standard. By eliminating irrelevant and low risk indicators, the platform vastly simplifies certification.
Upon joining the LCP, a timber grower undergoes a risk assessment that provides a prioritised list of risks, along with supporting information and the documentation required to mitigate those risks. The grower then knows exactly what is needed to achieve or maintain sustainable forest management standards and certification.
SAFAS also provides the training, support and resources required to tackle any technical and managerial challenges associated with achieving sustainable forest management certification through PEFC.
Labour intensive Eucalyptus harvesting operation on a community-owned timber farm, Eastern Cape.
What sets this system apart is that the risks to sustainable forest management of each grower member are determined according to the landscape within which the operation is located. This simplifies the certification process which focuses on the actual risks that the forestry operation faces.
This system works because site and socio-economic factors define, to a large extent, the risks and opportunities that forestry operations face. These factors characterise the forestry landscape and shape the nature of forestry businesses.
It is unsurprising that in areas of similar topography, climatic and socio-economic conditions forestry takes on a very similar structure and appearance. This realisation is critical when measuring forestry against a national or global standard. What is good or normal practice in one landscape would be unacceptable in another. Understanding the landscape context is the best away to understand these differences. For example, it is much harder to control alien plants in a steep, high rainfall area, with a subtropical climate, dominated by woody vegetation, than in a flat high altitude grassland area that is prone to fires and frosts. It is therefore necessary to understand that context when making an assessment of the effectiveness of an alien plant control programme.
Below are examples of two very different forestry landscapes and some of the risks and opportunities the forestry operations in those landscapes face:- • High production on flat land: High national economic importance, high productivity, high efficiency, global competitiveness, high impact, limited biodiversity, low ecosystem services, limited local employment • Communal multifunctional: Multiple benefits for local communities, high potential for ecosystem services, low impact operations, moderate biodiversity, low national economic importance
Joining the LCP allows timber growers of all scales to get certified as part of the landscape they operate in. The LCP provides all the documentation, supporting information and SAFAS works with the growers to maintain compliance.
SAFAS GM Steve Germishuizen surveying the biodiversity that is still thriving at Ozwatini, KZN midlands, where small scale tree farmers grow wattle and Eucalyptus and practice mixed farming with vegetables, crops, cattle and goats.
Five steps to certification with the LCP • Complete a Risk Survey on the Value Based Platform after which you will have access to your risk assessment detailing the key risks faced by the operation in context of the landscape. • You receive a report detailing what is required to comply with the SAFAS standard. • You will be guided through the LCP management system, which contains all the documents and supporting information necessary for certification. • Once compliant with the SAFAS requirements you will be included in the programme to be certified in the 3rd Party audit by the Certification Body. • Once the 3rd Party audit is completed you will be certified under the PEFC.
“What makes PEFC-endorsed national forest certification systems so relevant and valuable is that they are locally developed and owned,” commented Ben Gunneberg, former CEO and Secretary General of PEFC International. “They respect the country’s operational and cultural conditions and are accessible to forest owners of all sizes, with a particular emphasis on smallholders.”
Sustainable small-scale tree farming
Eza Mapipa of NTE (left) discusses bark quality with local community wattle growers.
Small-scale wattle growers in the Matimatolo area near Greytown in the KZN Midlands have developed their own unique ways of growing and harvesting their trees that is largely sustainable with minimal impacts on the environment. But the irony is that up until now they have been unable to get their small tree plantations certified by the global certification organisations because they have been unable to fulfil the complex administrative requirements and couldn’t afford it anyway.
With international markets increasingly demanding that the products they sell are derived from responsibly managed plantations that have been certified by recognised certification bodies, the market access of these small scale tree farmers is no longer assured. They are also missing out on the premium prices paid for certified timber products.
NTE, a local manufacturer of tannin products that are derived from the bark of wattle trees (Acacia mearnsii), has been working with the local wattle growers to help them improve their yields and to get certified through the newly established SAFAS system. SAFAS is geared specifically to South African conditions and is endorsed by PEFC, one of the globally recognised certification organisations.
This could turn out to be a game-changer for the small scale growers located in remote rural areas like Matimatolo where there is little infrastructure and very few job opportunities.
Paraquat - widely used in South African forestry to prepare tracer belts before burning firebreaks - is facing world-wide bans, forcing foresters to reach for the old-fashioned hoe. GAYNOR LAWSON reports.
It sounds so benign: “A non-selective herbicide - an aqueous solution contact herbicide for the control of annual grasses and annual broadleaf weeds in crops as listed and as a sugarcane desiccant. Inactivated on contact with the soil.” But this listed herbicide that contains Paraquat, “could have killed 2000 people” when maliciously used by a disgruntled employee to poison a tank of milk in the Cape in 2017, according to a News24 article. It is highly toxic.
Locally, Paraquat is extensively used to create tracer-belts as part of a fire management programme to prevent fires running out of control during the burning of firebreaks. The herbicide creates a boundary area devoid of vegetation before burning takes place. It is considered cost-effective, efficient and useful as it only desiccates the above-ground part of the vegetation (it leaves the root stock below ground unharmed), allowing for regeneration with the rainy season and thus preventing erosion or invasion by alien plants.
First produced for commercial purposes in 1961, Paraquat remains one of the world’s most commonly used herbicides, despite its potentially lethal impact on humans, either through deliberate poisoning or simply by working irresponsibly with it. It may be airborne when applied as a fine spray and can be spread through contact with clothing so it requires special training to ensure safe handling by users.
China reportedly experiences 5,000 deaths from Paraquat poisoning annually, although whether this is through accidental or deliberate poisoning is unconfirmed - Paraquat is known to be used in suicide attempts. It reputedly doubles the risk of Parkinson’s disease in those who come into contact with it, and the Michael J Fox Foundation issued an anti-Paraquat appeal on its website in October last year (the popular actor’s much-publicised battle with Parkinson’s has brought about heightened awareness of the disease): “Take action today to ban Paraquat. Your support can help protect people from environmental exposure to a known pesticide that increases the risk of Parkinson’s disease. We need your help to educate your Senators and Representatives…”
The appeal was posted in response to the reapproval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of several pesticides (including Paraquat) for use in the United States. The EPA reviews all herbicides and pesticides every 15 years to confirm they are safe for use, based on “assessments of human and environmental impact”. Despite its “well-documented harms”, the use of Paraquat in the United States “is at an all-time high, and it is one of only two pesticides still used in the United States that is either banned or being phased out in the European Union, China and Brazil”, according to the website.
Measures have indeed been put in place to control its availability. It cannot be bought or used in the UK (although, ironically, it is legally manufactured there), Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and the European Union (where it has been banned since 2007). It has been banned in Switzerland since 1989 because it is deemed too dangerous for use even when wearing protective clothing and equipment. In the USA, only commercially licensed users have access to it.
A complete international ban is apparently blocked by the US and developing nations whenever this is proposed. According to an article, “Poison on a plate”, which appeared in The Daily Maverick on 26 January this year, “It’s a shocking display of global north hypocrisy, allowing dangerous agrochemical companies to flood low- and middle-income countries for the financial gain and profit of European nations.”
The situation in South Africa In South Africa, plantations certified under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) may not use Paraquat in any formulation that is available on the market. Gerrit Marais of the FSC Southern Africa Office, says: “Paraquat has been on the FSC Highly Hazardous list since the first pesticide policy was published way back in 2006. The figure below provides information on the reasons why this is done i.e., acute toxicity. Use of the product is thus not limited but prohibited unless it is approved, via a formal FSC process, for temporary emergency use. The South African forestry industry used to have a special derogation (exemption) for the use of this active ingredient and product, but this expired in 2020…Traditionally, the only alternative (to Paraquat) was to hoe the tracers by hand. This is, however, not ideal from an environmental perspective as hoeing often leads to erosion and thus this option – especially on steep slopes - is most undesirable. Some certificate holders have used other systemic herbicides (such as Glyphosate), but here too, the entire plant is killed and the risk of erosion is increased. The South African forestry industry is looking at other options…”
The stance of the Sustainable African Forest Assurance Scheme (SAFAS) – which has been endorsed by the other global certification body, PEFC - is that Paraquat can be used for tracer belt preparation, providing strict control/mitigation measures are in place. Steven Germishuizen, SAFAS general manager, says: “SAFAS supports the use of Paraquat from an environmental perspective because it is the best solution for fire management in grasslands. However, we acknowledge that it is highly toxic, so in accordance with our risk-based approach, we insist on strict precautions as far as training, use of PPE and application methods go.”
Craig Norris, NCT Forest Technology Manager, adds: “In addition to what Steve has said, we encourage an integrated approach to chemical use. In other words, the use of agrochemicals is the last choice of action and must be defendable. Agrochemicals can be detrimental to human and environmental health and will only be used after due consideration is given to other options/mitigation measures: • Chemical control must be used in combination with above methods to minimise quantities used. • Strategy for reduction of chemical use must be implemented. • Chemical label specifications must be followed. • Recommended safety, training, application procedures must be adhered to.
Steven comments: “We also encourage the use of technology, such as drones, to keep people away from the chemical. We strongly encourage exploration into environmentally suitable alternatives that are less toxic.” There is some experimentation with drone spraying currently underway in an attempt to cut humans out of the Paraquat-handling process almost completely.
What is the history behind Paraquat use in SA? According to Dr John Scotcher of ForestLore Consulting in a report written for the FSC in 2014: “Burning green grass is not possible and, in any event, adversely affects biodiversity. In order to improve the safety aspects of burning firebreaks, a system of fire tracer lines was introduced which entailed the hoeing or ploughing of two parallel strips of vegetation approximately one metre wide (the fire tracer line) and 30 metres apart during the late summer to early autumn. These tracer lines are now devoid of vegetation and are used as lines from which to burn the intervening 30 metres (the firebreak) during winter when the grass is dry.”
The report continues: “Approximately 30 years ago, the use of chemicals was introduced as an approach that could be used where mechanical methods such as hoeing, ploughing or use of a brush-cutter was impractical and dangerous to use … normally on steep and mountainous terrain. Paraquat was first used in South Africa in 1982 by the nature conservation agencies responsible for the management of high-altitude grasslands in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park, which is a registered World Heritage Site. The use of Paraquat in this mountainous region enabled the elimination of the historic use of hoed or ploughed tracer lines that resulted in soil loss and scars across the landscape, which even after 100 years are still visible to this day. Paraquat was soon adopted by the agriculture and forestry industry. Paraquat was ideal for use in conservation areas and later in no-till systems such as forestry and grazing lands since it only affects the foliage part of the sprayed plants, thus promoting intact root systems and preventing soil erosion. It also does not leach into groundwater since it is absorbed into clay particles and neutralised when it comes into contact with the soil … In the forestry industry, the use of Paraquat was seen as a best management practice because there was no need to continue with the damaging practice of hoeing or ploughing.”
The Forestry South Africa Environmental Guidelines for Commercial Plantations in South Africa (Version 4 2020, chapter 4) proposes the following approach to the preparation of firebreaks:
Mowing
Slashing
Burning
Desiccant chemicals (Paraquat) – on slopes greater than 20 per cent
Manual hoeing – now discontinued
Mechanical methods (ploughing) – now discontinued
The Wildland Fire Management Handbook for sub-Saharan Africa provides detailed advice on fire protection and advocates the use of ‘chemical surface sprays’ for the preparation of tracer lines i.e. Paraquat.
Paraquat may still be used by the man in the street, although a global shortage because of it being discontinued in many countries has sent prices rocketing. Is there an alternative?
Roger Poole, chairman of the Timber Industry Pesticide Working Group or TIPWG, says: “The forestry industry in collaboration with Professor Keith Little of Nelson Mandela University (NMU) has been researching and testing alternatives for the past nine years since the FSC first indicated that Paraquat would be prohibited. One alternative, pelargonic acid, has shown results similar to Paraquat as a desiccant and was heading for registration under Act 36 of 1947. Unfortunately, the manufacturer was involved with a company buy-out and the new owners changed the formulation of the original product that had been tested. Bridging trials were done to compare the new formulation to the original pelargonic acid; sadly the new formulation did not show favourable results and could not be registered. Glufosinate-ammonium is an active ingredient that is used in agriculture, classed as a partly systemic contact herbicide that is an alternative for tracer preparation - but supervision is imperative as over-application could result in it being more systemic than contact and grass root systems could be severely damaged. TIPWG has stated that Glyphosate formulations should not be used for tracer preparation as this active ingredient could result in a complete kill and thus erosion will occur, especially on steep terrain.”
Dr Scotcher adds in another factor - the human element of the spraying process: “When terrain is steep, the person spraying naturally slows down to navigate safely up or down the hillside, resulting in a higher application rate per unit area.”
Dr Gerhard Verdoorn, Operations and Stewardship Manager for CropLife SA, comments: “There is currently no herbicide with the properties of Paraquat apart from diquat which is also a bipyridinium compound with high toxicity. It is not registered for the purposes of industrial vegetation management like Paraquat is. A possibility is pelargonic acid but the dosage rates required to desiccate plants is much higher than what was originally anticipated and that makes it a very costly option. Furthermore, it is not registered in South Africa. Attempts with many other herbicides have all failed to emulate the effects of Paraquat. Glyphosate is registered for such purposes as making firebreaks but due to its systemicity, it kills plants completely which leads to terrible erosion.”
When asked about the slower progress of workers on steep slopes leading to over-application, he disagrees, saying: “Glyphosate is super-systemic and even with a low dosage (lower than label directions) it will kill plants completely, especially broad-leaved plants. Some of the tough monocotyledons like Cynodon will survive but most of the softer grass species are wiped out completely. Another issue is the problem of resistance development when sub-optimal dosages of Glyphosate are used for chemical mowing; although it is on labels of some Glyphosate-containing herbicides, it is the best catalyst for resistance development I have ever heard of and the crop sector is currently battling with Glyphosate resistance (Amaranthus palmeri, Amaranthus hybridus, Conyza bonariensis, etc).”
A desiccated tracer break ready for burning.
Is a total ban an over-reaction? “People are very quick to point fingers at the use of pesticides but are sadly ignorant of potentially toxic products they use daily at home and, which, if used incorrectly, can be fatal,” says Roger Poole. “Everyone loves coffee, but do they know that the caffeine in coffee's LD50 is 150-200 mg/kg?” {LD50 is the amount of a substance, given all at once, that causes the death of 50% of a group of test subjects; it is a way of determining the short-term poisoning potential or acute toxicity of a substance}.
“So why has no one died from coffee? Simply put, the risk of consuming lethal quantities in your morning cup of java is not possible so the risk of poisoning is reduced. Consider household cleaning detergents, has anyone ever read the label or safety data sheet of the detergents they have in their home? Are these locked away so the uninformed cannot access them? Are certain products kept separately so that they cannot react with each other? Bleach is one of the most commonly used products found in households throughout South Africa, but did you know that if bleach and vinegar come into contact with each other their reaction can cause chlorine gas? Whatever product you are using at home or in the workplace, be it a pesticide or a detergent, they can all be toxic if used or applied incorrectly.” His message is loud and clear - use Paraquat correctly to minimise potential risks!
Is a total ban on Paraquat likely in the near future? The Rotterdam Convention is scheduled to take place this year, although with the global COVID-19 pandemic, whether it goes ahead is uncertain. Poole says: “Paraquat is one of the many listed active ingredients for consideration to be banned worldwide and has been listed numerous times but never seems to be banned due to pressure from the large world economies. We wait in anticipation for the outcome, as we've done in the past.”
A year later on… It’s a year since an article entitled 'Weaning the forestry industry from its paraquat reliance' by Jacqui Meyer appeared in SA Forestry magazine. According to the article, “the next step is applying for an Emergency Registration under Act 36 of 1947, which Dr Gerhard Verdoorn of CropLife SA is currently assisting TIPWG with. With CropLife’s support and the information obtained from the bridging trials, we hope to have pelargonic acid available for the 2021 summer rainfall area fire season.”
Well, that was in March 2020, and in April 2021, Dr Verdoorn was doubtful about the predictions - for this fire season at least. “I am not sure this is going to materialise… if we are able to get our hands on pelargonic acid. It is quite expensive … and I wonder if it will make the grade for the timber industry.”
In the meantime, creating tracer belts using mechanical methods such as brush-cutters and tractor-operated grass-slashers is the norm, with some landowners and companies using Glufosinate-ammonium. “It’s been very difficult, with manual clearing and a return to traditional hoeing on flat terrain,” says Simon Thomas, Operations Manager for KZN FPA. So, what will the situation be by next year’s fire season? Is a total switch to drone-spraying a feasible option? Only time will tell.
