{"id":15475,"date":"2015-04-23T00:01:29","date_gmt":"2015-04-23T04:01:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=15475"},"modified":"2026-04-23T13:24:13","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T17:24:13","slug":"two-new-local-policies-showcase-the-good-and-the-bad-of-ipm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2015\/04\/two-new-local-policies-showcase-the-good-and-the-bad-of-ipm\/","title":{"rendered":"Two New Local Policies Showcase the Good and the Bad of IPM"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides, April 23, 2015)<\/em> Just in time for Earth Day, two localities took action this week to advance their own pesticide policies. The city of Evanston, IL improved upon its \u00a0previous IPM policy by announcing<\/a> a new pilot organic land care program on five city parks, however, Charlottesville, VA put in place an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy<\/a> which codifies existing efforts by city officials, yet lacks clear and concise efforts to reduce dependency on toxic chemicals.<\/p>\n

\"charlottesvilleDisappointment in Charlottesville, VA
\n<\/strong>Despite pressure from local advocates<\/a>, including over 1,000 signatures from community members, the city of Charlottesville, VA merely adopted a pest management policy that \u00a0makes official practices that were already in place for the past ten years. Though one could argue that enacting a formal policy is a step in the right direction, the new policy does not address recommendations advanced by local environmentalists, which called for an increase in organic-compatible products while reducing harmful synthetic pesticides.<\/p>\n

The local advocates, part of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club<\/a>, were pushing for pesticide-free parks and school grounds throughout the city of Charlottesville. According to John Cruickshank, chairman of the local chapter, at the very least, there should be a waiver process for pesticide use, which would come from the city manager. \u201cSynthetic chemical pesticides should not be used unless all other options fail,\u201d Mr. Cruickshank told Charlottesville Tomorrow<\/a><\/em> back in February. \u201cOur campaign is focused on city parks, school grounds and any other property maintained by the city. That could include the traffic islands, roadsides and the flower pots on the [Downtown] Mall.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, the actual IPM plan<\/a> that the town adopted drastically falls short of the recommendations by the local groups. Though the resolution states that efforts will be made to minimize the use of pesticides, there are no required \u00a0measures in place to ensure that this will actually happen. The plan states that it will: eliminate significant threats caused by pests to the health and safety of staff and the public; prevent loss or damage to City owned assets or property by pests; protect environmental quality; and will over time progressively move to reduce chemical pest controls<\/em>. General strategies of the IPM program include selecting a pest management approach that is based on current information, and available financial and human resources. While it does push for structural modifications and non-pesticide technologies, it is \u00a0vague in allowing the use of \u201cappropriate pesticide compounds\u201d that present the \u201clowest potential hazard to humans and the environment in the most effective manner,\u201d and calling for the evaluation and use of non-synthetic pesticide products only as a final step. The good news is that according to Brian Daly, parks and recreation director, the city will be providing 24-hour advance notice of applications on school property, and posting notifications will be made available for 24 hours following any pesticide application.<\/p>\n

The problem with the city of Charlottesville\u2019s IPM plan echoes Beyond Pesticides\u2019 concern with the general use of the term IPM, which can have different definitions and methods of implementation, meaning virtually anything the practitioner wants it to mean. The term has largely been co-opted by the chemical-dependent programs masquerading as IPM, and often allows for use of hazardous, synthetic pesticides as one component in the \u201ctoolbox\u201d of options available to manage a pest problem. However, those who argue that IPM requires the ability to spray pesticides immediately after identifying a pest problem are not describing IPM. Thus, Beyond Pesticides has, in recent years, worked with local communities to shift the focus from IPM policies for playing fields, gardens, and turf to organic land management<\/a> policies, while \u00a0advocating for strong, well-defined structural IPM practices<\/a> for indoors.<\/p>\n

\"City<\/a>Improvements in Evanston, IL
\n<\/strong>To mark the fifth anniversary of the city\u2019s pesticide reduction policy, the city of Evanston, IL will launch a new pesticide-free park program<\/a> on five of the city\u2019s parks. The local parks, Ackerman, Burnham Shores, Eiden, Perry, and Trahan, will all be maintained without the use of pesticides for one year, and, if successful, the program will be extended expanded to include more parks. The program is being launched with the help of the local company Greenwise Landscaping & Lawn Care Services, along with the Midwest Pesticide Action Center<\/a>. Instead of relying on chemical pesticides, the city will utilize organic management \u00a0methods, including high mowing to increase root strength and shade out weeds, and focus on improving soil health for natural weed resistance.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe City of Evanston strives to keep our parks a healthy place for all our residents and visitors to enjoy, and we are excited to launch this Pesticide-Free Parks Pilot Program, which is our largest Adopt-a-Park partnership to date,\u201d said Evanston\u2019s Public Works Department Assistant Director Paul D\u2019Agostino.<\/p>\n

The city\u2019s initial reduction policy, the City of Evanston sustainable Pest Control and Pesticide Reduction Policy<\/a><\/em>, which passed in the spring of 2010<\/a>, requires city employees, agent employees, agents and contractors to follow natural lawn care and \u201cleast-toxic Integrated Pest Management\u201d (IPM) and prohibits high hazards pesticides. Unlike Charlottesville\u2019s policy, Evanston\u2019s does at least define which pesticides are prohibited on city property, including:<\/p>\n