Benefits of Non-Agricultural in

Submitted to:

February 2019 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 2 1 Introduction ...... 5 2 The Non-Agricultural Sector in Canada ...... 6 2.1 Products in Canada ...... 6 2.2 Non-Ag and Domestic Pest Control Product Sector ...... 7 3 Economic Benefits to Canadians ...... 9 3.1 Economic Benefits of Non-ag and Domestic Use Pesticide Manufacturing...... 9 3.2 Economic Benefits of Non-Agricultural Pesticide Use in Other Sectors ...... 11 4 Environmental and Societal Benefits ...... 15 4.1 Protection of Habitat and Diversity ...... 15 4.2 Control of noxious weeds and nuisance weeds ...... 16 4.3 Roadside, railway, and industrial worker safety ...... 17 4.4 Maintenance of public spaces, infrastructure and investments into landscaping .... 17 4.5 Public health benefits ...... 18 4.6 Sports-field safety...... 20 4.7 Fire prevention ...... 20 5 Impacts of Use Restrictions ...... 20 5.1 Impacts on Municipal Governments ...... 20 5.2 Impacts on Schools ...... 21 5.3 Impacts on Consumers ...... 21 5.4 Impacts on Businesses ...... 22 6 References ...... 24 Appendix 1: Methodology ...... 26 Appendix 2: Summary of Provincial and Municipal Restrictions on Pest Control Products ...... 27

Page 1 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Executive Summary

This report examines the economic, environmental, and social benefits that the non- agricultural pesticide sector delivers to Canadians, including pesticides for domestic use, industrial vegetation management, structural pest control, golf courses, and lawn care.

Overall, agricultural pesticides account for 74.7% of all pest control product use by volume in 2016. The non-agricultural sector (e.g. mainly antimicrobials used for wood preservation and water treatment, as well as some used in industrial vegetation management) has a 20.1% share of pest control product use.

Domestic use (e.g. mainly antimicrobials used for swimming pool and spa treatment) accounted for 5.2%. Homeowners also use a variety of , herbicides, vertebrate controls, , and disinfectants to control a wide range of pests, including: • insects such as cockroaches, ants, spiders, silverfish, flies, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks and bed bugs • lawn and garden weeds • rodents, such as rats and mice • household mildews, molds and bacteria.

Economic Benefits It is estimated that revenues for non-agricultural pest control product manufacturers in Canada amounted to $312 million in 2016 ($248 million for non-ag use and $64 million for domestic use). This level of manufacturing activity generates $617 million in economic activity, $285 million in GDP, and $115 million in income for more than 1,840 Canadians.

In addition to these economic benefits, it is estimated that the sector spends about $22 million on research and development on non-ag and domestic use pest control products in Canada, generating an additional $30 million in GDP, 327 jobs and $21 million in wages in the Canadian economy.

Impacts across the value chain include sales at the wholesale level, which generate $252 million in economic activity in Canada, $139 million in GDP, $81 million in labour income, and over 1,465 jobs. Retail sales account for an additional $134 million in economic activity in Canada, $76 million in GDP, $50 million in labour income, and over 1,520 jobs.

Non-agricultural pest control products are important intermediate inputs to other industrial sectors, generating significant additional benefits throughout Canada’s economy. For example:

Page 2 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

• Wood preservation: pest control products are a major input used in the Canadian wood preservation industry. There are 55 wood preservation facilities with total sales of $874 million in treated product (industrial and residential). • Industrial vegetation management (IVM): pest control products are also a key input to the IVM sector in Canada, which does about $50 million in business a year, about $20 million of that being for herbicides and $30 million for the cost of applying the herbicides and the other vegetation management methods, such as hand trimming, mowing, etc. Pest control products play a critical role in maintaining the safety and security of critical electrical power and pipeline infrastructure, as well as safety along thousands of kilometres of roadsides and railroads in Canada • Forest vegetation management (FVM): the Canadian forestry sector relies on pest control technology to ensure sustainable forest renewal and to remain competitive in global markets. • Structural pest control: pest control products are critical tools used to control rodents, vermin, insects and wood-destroying pests and organisms which invade buildings or structures, including railroad cars, ships, docks, trucks, airplanes, or the contents thereof. • Turfgrass: this multi-billion-dollar sector involves planting, growing, and maintaining of turfgrass by sod farms, lawn and landscaping companies (households, offices, institutions), municipal parks, cemeteries, golf courses, and sports fields. • Other industrial uses: Raw commodities and packaged grocery products—the foods Canadians eat—are protected from insect contamination by the controlled use of insecticides in processing, manufacturing, and packaging facilities. Pesticides are used in grocery stores to manage insects and rodents attracted to food and food waste. • Domestic use: while most domestic use involves swimming pool and spa products, domestic pest control products are used in plastics, paints, and caulking used in homes prevent mold, and in toilet bowl cleaners and disinfectants to protect health.

Environmental and Societal Benefits Non-ag pesticides also deliver a range of environmental and societal benefits to Canadians, including: • Protection of habitat and diversity through invasive weed control • Control of invasive forest pests • Control of noxious weeds and nuisance weeds • Roadside, railway, and industrial worker safety • Power supply security • Maintenance of public spaces, such as infrastructure and parks • Nuisance insect control • Public health and hygiene • Sports-field safety

Page 3 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

• Fire prevention

Impacts of Restrictions on Non-Ag Pesticides For municipalities and schools, restrictions on non-ag pesticides have significantly increased costs of playing field maintenance, particularly for small municipalities and school boards. Bans have also increased costs of maintaining a lawn for homeowners by an average of $80- $100 per year. However, despite various provincial and municipal bans, the most recent data from Statistics Canada (2015) shows that use by all households across Canada has fallen by only 4 percentage points since 2007. Data for households with a lawn or garden show that herbicide use has actually grown by 12 percentage points in and 4 percentage points in Ontario.

Overall, non-ag pest control products provide significant economic benefits to Canadians. However, proper use of non-ag pesticides as part of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies also deliver significant environmental and societal benefits to Canadians – benefits that often go unnoticed by the public.

Page 4 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

1 Introduction

Properly used, pesticides provide benefits essential to our way of life. There are many kinds of benefits of pesticides that go unnoticed by the public. The most obvious and easiest benefits to calculate are economic benefits that farmers derive from the protection of crop yield and quality, ensuring reliable supplies of agricultural produce at prices which are affordable to Canadian consumers. These benefits have been quantified in a separate report, The Value of Plant Science Innovations to Canadians. (RIAS Inc., 2015)

But pesticides are also widely used in a variety of other settings. For example, if left unchecked, trees and brush growing beneath power lines can cause costly power outages. Herbicide use by utility companies to prevent undergrowth eliminates the problem and provides unobstructed access for maintenance and repairs. Road crews also use herbicides to control vegetation along highways for safety reasons: clear roadsides increase visibility for drivers and allow water to escape more efficiently during a downpour or flooding. Herbicides also are used to fight invasive weeds in parks, wetlands, and natural areas. Insecticides are also used in parks, wetlands, and natural areas to protect Canadians against West Nile virus and other mosquito-borne diseases.

Pesticides are used around our homes and businesses in ways we often take for granted. Plastics, paints, and caulking often contain fungicides to prevent mold. Toilet bowl cleaners and disinfectants often contain pesticides. Raw commodities and packaged grocery products—the foods Canadians eat—are protected from insect contamination by the controlled use of insecticides in processing, manufacturing, and packaging facilities. Pesticides are used in grocery stores to manage insects and rodents attracted to food and food waste. Proper use of pesticides, as part of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies, improves quality of life, protects our property, and promotes a better environment.

However, these non-monetary benefits from the use of pesticides are difficult to quantify, particularly when they are distributed across various impacted groups such as pesticide users (both synthetic and organic), other market participants (e.g. shippers and retailers), residents of those areas where the pesticides will be applied, consumers of products treated with pesticides, formulators, marketers, and applicators.

Economic Benefits Economic benefits are estimated across the entire value chain of the sector, from suppliers to manufacturers of non-agricultural pesticides, to manufacturing of non-agricultural pesticides, to transportation/distribution/ warehousing, to wholesalers/dealers and retailers, and to final consumers. Estimates of economic benefits are derived using multipliers from Statistics Canada’s interprovincial input-output (I-O) simulation model. Measures from I-O modeling include total economic activity generated, and contribution to GDP, total employment and

Page 5 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019 labour income. Additional measures are also calculated, such as provincial and federal income and corporate tax revenues. For more detail on methodology, please see Appendix 1.

Environmental and Societal Benefits Section 5 of this report also provides an overview of the environmental and societal benefits of non-ag pesticides from the literature, including: • Protection of habitat and diversity through invasive weed control • Control of invasive forest pests • Control of noxious weeds and nuisance weeds • Roadside, railway, and industrial worker safety • Power supply security • Maintenance of public spaces, such as infrastructure and investments into landscaping • Nuisance insect control • Public health and hygiene • Sports-field safety • Fire prevention

Impacts of Restrictions on Non-Ag Pesticides Section 6 of the report examines how product restrictions on non-ag pesticides have impacted economic, environmental, and societal benefits to Canadians within the various sub-sectors identified above.

2 The Non-Agricultural Pesticide Sector in Canada

2.1 Pest Control Products in Canada A pest control product is any product intended to control, destroy, attract or repel any pest, and includes chemicals, devices (such as pheromone traps) and even organisms (such as microbials).

According to 2016 data, the most common pest control products are herbicides (57% of all pest control products sold in Canada, by volume), antimicrobials (24.8%), fungicides (7.7%), and insecticides (4.7%) (, 2018). While pest control products are most commonly synthetic products, the term also includes derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals. Biopesticides account for more than 6.8% of all pest control products.

Overall, agricultural use accounts for 74.7% of all pest control product use by volume in 2016. The non-agricultural sector (e.g. mainly antimicrobials used for wood preservation and water treatment, as well as some herbicides used in industrial vegetation management) has a 20.1% share of pest control product use, while domestic use (e.g. mainly antimicrobials used

Page 6 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019 for swimming pool and spa treatment, as well as insecticides and herbicides) accounted for 5.2%.

Figure 1: Quantity of Pesticides Sold in Canada by Sector (2012-2016)

Source: Health Canada, 2018.

Table 1 shows the market for pest control products in Canada. Total market is calculated as total revenue for pest control product manufacturing (NAICS 32532) in Canada plus imports minus exports.

Statistics Canada has suppressed revenue data for 2016 to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act, so the latest data for total market for pest control products in Canada is $2.6 billion in 2015.

Table 1: Canadian Market for Pest Control Products ($ millions)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total revenue $581.4 $804.9 $1,135.9 $1,121.4 $1,419.1* Imports $1,160.0 $1,539.0 $1,663.0 $1,607.0 $1,779.0 Exports $90.5 $71.2 $90.3 $125.1 $113.8 Total Canadian Market $1,650.9 $2,272.7 $2,708.6 $2,603.3 $3,084.3 Source: Statistics Canada Table 16-10-0117-01 Principal statistics for manufacturing industries, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), Statistics Canada Table 18-10-0032-01 Industrial product price index by industry, and Trade Data Online. * 2016 revenues were estimated based on total active ingredient in 2016 x total price/kg in 2015 x IPPI 2016/IPPI 2015 for Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing (32532).

2.2 Non-Ag and Domestic Pest Control Product Sector The non-agricultural pesticide sector in Canada includes industrial vegetation management, turfgrass farms, lawns and landscaping around homes and institutions, municipal parks, golf

Page 7 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019 courses and sports fields. Although a multi-billion-dollar sector in Canada, reliable statistics for this sector are scarce.

Manufacturing We examined several different data sources to determine the value of non-agricultural pesticide manufacturing, including comparing market shares by volume of pesticides sold in Canada according to Health Canada’s sales reports from 2012 to 2016 with market shares based on the value of pesticides used as intermediate inputs by industries and in final consumption by households from Statistics Canada’s Supply and Use Table 36-10-0478-01 over the same period. Data in Table 2 show that the share of the Canadian market segments by volume and by value are fairly similar.

Table 2: Market Shares Average 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012-2016 Market Shares Based on Volume - Pest Control Products Sales Reports Agricultural 78.1% 73.9% 74.3% 73.0% 74.7% 74.8% Non-Ag 17.1% 20.2% 21.0% 23.2% 20.1% 20.4% Domestic 4.8% 5.9% 4.6% 3.7% 5.2% 4.9% Market Shares Based on Value - Statistics Canada’s Supply and Use Table Agricultural 84.5% 80.3% 71.6% 79.6% n/a 78.6% Non-Ag 10.8% 15.9% 24.4% 16.1% n/a 17.3% Domestic 4.7% 3.8% 4.0% 4.3% n/a 4.2% Source: Health Canada (2018) and Statistics Canada (2018b). Notes: “n/a” - not available

Non-Ag Pesticides According to the most recent report from PMRA, there has been some fluctuation in Non- agricultural sector sales since reporting began in 2007/2008, with a large decrease in some years (2012) and smaller increases and decreases in other years. For the Non-agricultural sector, antimicrobials accounted for 95.4% of sales in 2016, followed by herbicides (3.4%), fungicides (1.0%), insecticides (0.5%), and vertebrate control (0.2%). Antimicrobials consistently account for the majority of Non-agricultural sector pesticide sales (ranging from 86% to 96.8%) since reporting began. Non-agricultural sector products are used predominantly in the wood preservation industry and for water treatment.

Domestic Use Pesticides Domestic use products accounted for 5.2% of overall pesticides in Canada for 2016. The PMRA notes that changes from year to year in the Domestic sector may be dependent on changes in regional regulations (e.g. restrictions at the municipal or provincial level), as well as changes in weather (e.g. hot and sunny summers may result in increased sales of swimming pool and spa products).

Page 8 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

In 2016, antimicrobial products accounted for 53.5% of domestic pesticides sold in Canada (mainly sales of swimming pool and spa products), followed by herbicides (35.8%), insecticides (8.6%), vertebrate controls (2.0%) and fungicides (0.3%) (Health Canada, 2018). Homeowners use a variety of insecticides, herbicides, vertebrate controls, fungicides, and disinfectants to control a wide range of pests, including: • insects such as cockroaches, ants, spiders, silverfish, flies, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks and bed bugs • lawn and garden weeds • rodents, such as rats and mice • household mildews, molds and bacteria.

3 Economic Benefits to Canadians

The testing, development, production and selling of non-agricultural and domestic use pest control products impact Canada’s economy at various stages of the value chain. This section includes a breakdown of the economic impacts for the following stages of the value chain: • Production of non-agricultural pest control products (i.e. production by CropLife member companies) • Suppliers of products and services used in the production of non-agricultural pest control products (e.g. R&D, other inputs such as energy, commodity chemicals, financial and professional services, etc.) • Wholesaling and distribution of non-agricultural pest control products • Retail/household use

3.1 Economic Benefits of Non-ag and Domestic Use Pesticide Manufacturing Production impacts are based on our estimate of the value of manufacturing shipments of non-agricultural pest control products of $312 million. Based on the average market shares over the 5-year period from 2012 to 2016 from Table 2 above, we applied shares of 17.5% for non-ag use and 4.5% for domestic use to the estimated $1.42 billion in revenues for pest control product manufacturers in 2016.

Table 3: Economic Impacts from Production of Non-agricultural and Domestic Use Pest Control Products Output GDP Labour income ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) Jobs Direct Non-ag $248.3 $97.2 $28.2 319 Domestic $63.9 $25.0 $7.3 82 Sub-Total $312.2 $122.1 $35.4 401 Direct and Indirect Non-ag $429.5 $75.1 $8.6 1,408 Domestic $110.4 $46.4 $24.9 406 Sub-Total $540.0 $121.5 $33.4 1,814

Page 9 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Output GDP Labour income ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) Jobs Direct, Indirect, and Induced Non-ag $490.6 $226.8 $91.9 1,466 Domestic $126.1 $58.3 $23.6 377 Sub-Total $616.7 $285.1 $115.6 1,843 Source: RIAS Inc. estimates based on Statistics Canada input-output multipliers (Statistics Canada, 2017)

Table 3 shows that $312 million in revenues generates total direct, indirect and induced impacts of just under $616 million in economic output, $285 million in GDP, $115 million in income and more than 1,840 jobs for Canadians.

Private Research and Development On average, the pesticide industry reinvests about 7% of its total sales into R&D (RIAS Inc, 2015). Applying this R&D spending estimate to sales of non-agricultural and domestic use pest control products in Canada, we estimate that companies spend approximately $22 million on research and development on non-ag and domestic use pest control products in Canada.

Table 4: Economic Impacts of Research and Development Output GDP Labour income Jobs ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) Direct $21.9 $16.3 $14.1 179 Direct and Indirect $30.6 $21.1 $17.3 237 Direct, Indirect, and Induced $45.5 $29.7 $21.3 327 Source: RIAS Inc. estimates based on Statistics Canada input-output multipliers (Statistics Canada, 2017)

Private investment in research and development generated almost $30 million in GDP, and an additional 327 jobs in the Canadian economy earning over $21 million in labour income.

Non-Agricultural Wholesale Overall, non-agricultural pest control products generate over $252 million in economic activity in Canada, $139 million in GDP, 1,465 jobs for Canadians earning over $81 million in wages and salaries at the wholesale level.

Table 5: Economic Impacts of Non-Ag Wholesale Output GDP Labour income Jobs ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) Direct $122.6 $68.0 $42.8 697 Direct and Indirect $197.6 $108.1 $66.7 1,135 Direct, Indirect, and Induced $251.9 $139.2 $81.3 1,465 Source: RIAS Inc. estimates based on Statistics Canada input-output multipliers (Statistics Canada, 2017)

These non-agricultural pest control products are important intermediate inputs to other industrial sectors, generating significant additional benefits throughout Canada’s economy, as discussed in Section 3.2 below.

Page 10 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Domestic Use Retail Table 6 shows that the sale of domestic use pest control products generates over $134 million in economic activity in Canada, $76.5 million in GDP, almost $50 million in labour income, and 1,524 jobs at the retail level.

Table 6: Economic Impacts of Retail Sales - Domestic Use Pesticides Output GDP Labour income Jobs ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) Direct $62.2 $35.5 $28.5 1,100 Direct and Indirect $100.7 $57.2 $40.6 1,319 Direct, Indirect, and Induced $134.5 $76.5 $49.7 1,524 Source: RIAS Inc. estimates based on Statistics Canada input-output multipliers (Statistics Canada, 2017)

3.2 Economic Benefits of Non-Agricultural Pesticide Use in Other Sectors

Treated Wood Industry Based on the most up-to-date information available, in 2010 the Canadian wood preservation industry was comprised of 55 wood preservation facilities with total sales of $874 million in treated product (industrial and residential). Provinces with the most active facilities are with 14, Ontario with 12 and Quebec with 11 (Environment Canada, 2013).

Treated wood is lumber, timbers or round poles that have been treated with a chemical preservative to prolong their service life. The treatment can reduce the impact of fungal decay (rot), weathering or wood-eating insects such as termites. Wood intended for structural applications (such as preserved wood foundations) or non-structural applications (such as utility poles or fence posts) can be treated with preservatives.

The most common treatments can be divided into two groups: those used only on industrial products and those used primarily for residential products. Industrial uses of treated wood include telephone and power poles, landscaping ties, bridge parts and decking, and commercial decks and boardwalks. Residential products include primarily outdoor decking, landscaping ties and fence posts, with some treated products used in house foundations.

In Canada the predominant wood preservatives are the following antimicrobial pesticides: • Aqueous based formulations for residential use: o ACQ (alkaline copper quaternary) - ACQ-treated products include lumber for patios and fencing in residential construction. o CA-B (copper azole) - CA-B-treated products include lumber for patios and fencing in residential construction o Borates - Uses are for wood components in interior applications. • Aqueous based formulations for commercial & industrial use:

Page 11 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

o CCA (chromated copper arsenate) - CCA-treated products include agricultural fence posts, foundation lumber and plywood, utility poles and construction timber. • Oil based formulations for commercial & industrial use: o PCP (pentachlorophenol) - PCP-treated products include utility poles and cross- arms. o Creosote - Uses include treatment of railway ties, utility poles for export, and pilings and timbers for marine applications.

Studies have shown that pesticides used in wood preservation enhance the lifetime utility of wood by a factor of 5 to 10 or more, depending on the species of wood, end use and efficacy of the treatment. (Environment Canada, 2013). This is an important contribution that the wood preservation industry makes to forest conservation. Substituting alternative materials (such as steel, concrete or plastics) for treated wood in industrial applications (not including residential) could increase material costs to users.

Industrial Vegetation Management The industrial vegetation management (IVM) sector carries out the control, removal or alteration of vegetation to achieve the objectives of land users. IVM services includes tree trimming, hazard tree identification and removal, manual brush cutting, mechanical brush control, and herbicide use. The large majority of industrial vegetation management (IVM) services are outsourced to contractors. IVM services are critical for a number of sectors, including pipelines and electrical distribution utilities, provinces and municipalities for roadside maintenance, railroads and industrial sites.

The industrial vegetation management sector in Canada does about $50 million in business a year, about $20 million of that being for herbicides and $30 million for the cost of applying the herbicides and the other vegetation management methods, such as hand trimming, mowing, etc.

Utilities and Pipelines Rights of Way: Critical electrical power infrastructures, including transmission lines, relay facilities, pipes, fences, gates, bridges, and access roads, occupy many acres across Canada on rights-of-way (ROW) corridors. Easy, safe access to repair and update these critical infrastructures is essential. Proper maintenance, including vegetation management, of ROW and its supporting facilities is crucial to ensuring the reliable transmission of affordable electrical power, though this is no small task. Vegetation management on rights of way (ROW) often represents a utility company’s largest operations and maintenance cost. Unmanaged and poorly maintained vegetation can cause electricity outages, wildfires, soil erosion, and water quality issues. These events can damage electric power infrastructures, resulting in serious reliability, economic, environmental, and health risks.

Page 12 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Vegetation interference with transmission and distribution power lines is one of the most common causes of electrical outages. For example, the August 14, 2003 electricity blackout affected more than 50 million people across eight northeastern and midwestern states and two Canadian provinces. In some areas, power was restored in hours, while other areas were without power for several days. While this blackout was an inconvenience for many, it also interrupted critical infrastructure services and cost the U.S. economy an estimated $7 to $10 billion. The August 14, 2003 blackout culprit: overgrown trees. (U.S. EPA, 2018). According to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), power outages and other power disturbances cost the U.S. economy nearly $120 billion every year. Much of this cost can be directly attributed to power outages triggered by overgrown vegetation on ROW. (U.S. EPA 2018)

Pipelines have similar requirements. A clear sight line remains important for proper pipeline maintenance. During regular inspections conducted from aircraft or ground vehicles, crews can spot leaks or problems. Even routine maintenance becomes difficult if crews can’t easily access pumps, gates and valves. Vegetation management also positively affects the safety of work crews that must access pipelines.

Both electrical utilities and pipeline companies have legal responsibilities to maintain rights of way to ensure safety; vegetation management is a significant component of achieving that goal. For example, activities within pipeline ROWs are governed by the NEB Act, the NEB Pipeline Damage Prevention Regulations – Authorizations and NEB Pipeline Damage Prevention Regulations – Obligations of Pipeline Companies, and easement agreements between landowners and pipeline companies. Aesthetics and wildlife habitat also play a role in managing a well-maintained right-of-way. An emerging issue is security. Clear visibility and access are vital to ensure that the security of pipeline infrastructure is not threatened.

Roadsides: Safety is paramount along highways and roads. Vegetation management helps ensure motorist safety by controlling encroaching weeds and brush that can conceal road signs and affect driver visibility. Since weeds and brush offer animals an ideal hiding spot, wildlife can dart into the road, increasing the potential for vehicular accidents. Eliminating heavy, tall vegetation bordering roadways prevents shading and allows the sun to melt ice or snow on pavement. It also eliminates snow that may be trapped in vegetation and lead to hazardous drifting across roadways. In addition, vegetation management stops weeds and brush roots that crack and buckle road surfaces.

Railroads: With more than 51,000 km of railroad track crisscrossing Canada, effective vegetation management on and along railways is critically important. Safety is essential for railroads, because heavy equipment moves at high speeds along the rails. Left unchecked, weeds and brush can reduce train traction during starts and stops, can hide damaged equipment and other hazards, and can cause rail ballast to rot prematurely. At crossings,

Page 13 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019 dense foliage limits motorist sight lines. Again, railways have a legal responsibility to safety and vegetation management.

Forest Vegetation Management: Forest Vegetation Management (FVM) is an important tool in the regeneration of Canada’s forests. The Canadian forest industry relies on the use of herbicides as an effective plantation management technique to ensure forest renewal and to remain competitive. Following harvest, numerous pioneer plant species (e.g., Canada blue- joint grass, raspberry, trembling aspen), which are well-adapted to disturbed sites and open growing conditions, easily outcompete newly planted crop tree seedlings (e.g., spruce and pine species) for nutrients, light, water and growing space. Similar to what happens in the home garden, reduced crop growth or outright crop failure will occur if weeds are not controlled effectively. Of course, in contrast to the home garden, the scale at which forestry operations occur makes hand-weeding highly impractical.

According to Natural Resource Canada, while non-chemical FVM techniques are employed on a large portion of the forest land base, there are generally “no alternatives that are as cost- effective, efficient or reliable as modern chemical herbicides in many forest regeneration scenarios.” (NrCan 2011). The literature also indicates that trees in herbicide treated areas produced more volume with higher future value than those in mechanically cut areas. Homogain, et al (2011) found that the projected value of wood produced was 36% to 53% higher in herbicide-treated tree plots and 24% to 37% higher in mechanically cut plots than in control plots.

Structural Pest Control Structural pest control is the control of pests (including but not limited to rodents, vermin and insects) and wood-destroying pests and organisms or such other pests which may invade buildings or structures, including railroad cars, ships, docks, trucks, airplanes, or the contents thereof. The practice of structural pest control involves structural repairs or replacements, or the use of pesticides, insecticides, , fumigants, or allied chemicals or substances, or mechanical devices for the purpose of eliminating, exterminating, controlling or preventing infestations or infections of such pests, or organisms.

Turfgrass Turfgrass is a multi-billion-dollar industry in Canada. This sector consists of the planting, growing, and maintaining of turfgrass principally in the following locations: • sod farms; • lawns and landscaping (households, offices, institutions); • municipal parks; • cemeteries; • golf courses; and • sports fields.

Page 14 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Sod Farms: In 2017, there were 246 sod farms managing 20,522 hectares of turfgrass, with sales of $147.3 million. Ontario is the largest sod producing province in Canada, with 65 sod farms covering 8,624 hectares and sales of $59.1 million. Canadian sod production peaked in 2012. Lower sod sales since that time have been attributed to a shift away from the construction of single-detached dwellings in favour of multi-dwelling type buildings, and a move away from traditional landscaping practices towards hardscaping.

Table 7: Summary Statistics for Sod Production in Canada 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total sod operations 284 274 243 240 246 Total sod area (ha) 23,766 24,225 22,914 21,915 20,522 Total sod sales ($ M) $160.2 $162.4 $157.0 $146.8 $147.3 Source: Statistics Canada. Table 32-10-0034-0 - Estimates of sod area, sales and resales and Table 32-10-0026-01 - Total greenhouse, sod and nursery employees

Golf Courses: Canada has 2,346 public and private golf facilities, ranking it third in the world in total supply by country. Golf courses in Canada manage over 175,000 hectares of green space, including 30,000 hectares of wildlife habitat under golf course stewardship.

Landscaping Services This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in planning, designing and administering the development of land areas for projects such as parks and other recreational areas, airports, highways, hospitals, schools, land subdivisions, and commercial, industrial and residential areas by applying knowledge of land characteristics, location of buildings and structures, use of land areas, and design of landscape projects. Total sales in 2016 were $435.5 million, up from $422.1 million in 2015. About 54% of landscaping services where to businesses, 9% to households, and 33% to governments, not- for-profits and public institutions, with the remaining 4% to exports.

4 Environmental and Societal Benefits

4.1 Protection of Habitat and Diversity While vegetation management on ROW is essential for providing safe and reliable electric power, the ROW also provide important wildlife habitats. As wildlife habitats in Canada are lost to development, these ROW become increasingly important. While poor vegetation management on ROW can result in the loss of these critical habitats, the IVM approach can create natural, diverse, and sustaining ecosystems, such as a meadow transition habitat. These transition landscapes, in turn, reduce wildlife habitat fragmentation and allow species to be geographically diverse, remaining in areas from which they might otherwise be excluded. A variety of wildlife species (including threatened and endangered species), such as butterflies,

Page 15 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019 songbirds, small mammals, and deer, consider these habitats home. These habitats also encourage the growth of native plant species and can increase plant diversity.

And proper vegetation management on ROW is not just a concern for utility managers; it is also vitally important to those who manage the land adjacent to ROW. How vegetation is managed on ROW can impact the surrounding land by causing wildfires, fragmenting wildlife habitat, and introducing invasive and exotic species. Utility companies and land managers can both benefit by implementing Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) programs on ROW and adjacent properties.

Invasive and exotic species are often a problem on ROW, and, consequently, the surrounding land. IVM techniques (such as selective herbicide application) can minimize this problem, while ensuring native and endangered species are not affected. (U.S. EPA 2018)

4.2 Control of noxious weeds and nuisance weeds Invasive alien species (IAS) are species introduced through human action from outside their natural distribution (past or present), that threaten the environment, economy, or society - including human health. Annually, IAS results in billions of dollars in direct losses, control costs, increased production costs and lost market access. The annual impact of IAS is estimated to be as much as $20 billion to the forest sector, $7 billion for aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes, and $2.2 billion for invasive plants alone in the agricultural sector. IAS have gained international attention as globalization, climate change, and international trade increases have elevated IAS introduction risks. (CFIA, 2014)

Invasive species affect Canada’s economy in many ways, both directly and indirectly. Direct economic impacts caused by invasive species arise from costs such as, research, control and management programs, reduction of economically important resources and crop yield, and impacts on international trade and tariffs. However, much of this data is not available, and many of these impacts are not assessed. Indirect economic impacts can be much more challenging to quantify, and in some cases, hold a greater weight than direct impacts. Examples of indirect economic impacts include loss of ecosystem services (the ways that the environment benefits humans), changes in natural habitats, decrease of biodiversity, and social impacts. Due to the difficulty in assessing both the direct and indirect impacts of invasive species, estimates of economic impact vary widely.

Economic loss, due to invasive species in Canada, can be calculated from available data on control costs, reduced yield and land value, trade bans, landowner compensation, health-care costs, and reduced revenue from tourism. The costs associated with ten species, which invade the Canadian fishing, forestry, and agriculture industries, totaled $187 million per year (Colautti, et al, 2006).

Page 16 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

There is also an “invisible tax” due to invasive species that is caused by the reduced production of resources. This decrease due to invasions applies to forestry, fisheries, and agriculture. When this impact is incorporated, the cost of invasive species to Canada is between $16.6 billion and $34.5 billion per year. Similarly, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) estimates the annual impact of invasive species to be $30 billion ($20 billion in the forest sector, $7 billion for aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes, and $2.2 billion for invasive plants in the agricultural sector). It saves money in the long run to invest in prevention efforts when dealing with invasive species, rather than paying the extensive costs associated with management after arrival and establishment. (CFIA, 2014)

However, none of these IAS damage estimates include the significant impacts of IAS in urban areas. In 1945 Dutch elm disease was introduced to Quebec from the United States. Since then, it has killed 600,000 elm trees in Quebec and in one year alone killed 80 percent of Toronto’s 35,000 elm trees. Dutch elm disease is now found in most of North America and has irrevocably changed the composition of many Canadian urban forests. More recently, emerald ash borer and Asian longhorn beetle have been threatening hardwoods in Windsor and Toronto respectively.

4.3 Roadside, railway, and industrial worker safety Poorly managed vegetation on ROW can have significant negative impacts on these features, such as wildfires, soil erosion, and water quality issues associated with runoff. An IVM program on ROW can reduce these risks.

4.4 Maintenance of public spaces, infrastructure and investments into landscaping

• Soil erosion control, water conservation — ground water recharge. Healthy lawns absorb rainfall and reduce runoff up to 80 times more efficiently than impervious surfaces. Runoff water from agriculture and urban areas account for 64% and 5% of non- point surface water pollution affecting US rivers, and 57% and 12% of non-point water pollution affecting US lakes. Research has shown that “quality turfgrass stands modify the overland flow process so that runoff is insignificant except in the most intensive rainfall events.” Good turf had runoff of 5% to 25% of bare soil (RIAS Inc., 2006). • Storm water runoff and flood control. This is a critical issue in Canadian and US rural and urban municipalities, especially those with combined sewer outflows, which can cause sewage facilities to overflow in heavy rain events. The issue is so important that storm water utilities have been established in the United States (only studies, so far, in Canada) to charge for runoff from properties. The charge structures usually offer an incentive to reduce runoff. Properties with good ground cover would pay less than those without. This is another market-price recognition of the value of good ground cover. • Soil enrichment. This takes place through carbon storage.

Page 17 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

• Discourages nuisance pests. Well-maintained lawns discourage nuisance pests. • Organic chemicals decomposer. Bacterial populations in a thick turf community offer one of the most active biological systems for the degradation of trapped organic chemicals. • Phosphorus runoff. Research at the University of Wisconsin O.J. Noer Turfgrass Research Center confirms that poorly kept, unfertilized lawns contribute 40% more phosphorus than fertilized lawns. The reason is that phosphorus binds to soil; and soil runoff carries phosphorus with it. A healthy, well-kept, properly fertilized lawn filters rainwater and holds soil in place, preventing runoff — and phosphorus pollution (RIAS Inc., 2006).

4.5 Public health benefits The role of pesticides in protecting public health is broad and varied. Water utility companies apply the pesticide chlorine to public drinking water to kill harmful bacteria. Pesticides known as disinfectants eliminate dangerous organisms that cause Legionnaire’s disease, and hospitals rely on disinfectants to prevent the spread of bacteria such as Staphylococcus. Insecticides are used to eradicate bed bug infestations. Rodenticides are used in public housing units to control rodents that carry diseases such as the deadly hantavirus. Avicides are used to control birds near silos and grain storage buildings, reducing the likelihood of grain contamination and exposure of workers to the lung disease histoplasmosis.

Herbicides control allergen-producing weeds such as ragweed and poison ivy. About 15% to 20% of the population has hay fever or allergic reactions to plant pollen, dust and other airborne particles. Ragweed is the major cause of the problem. Hay fever is most common among 24- to 44-year olds, and the economic impact of their diminished productivity is substantial. For many individuals, high pollen counts trigger asthma attacks, and may promote the development of the condition. Dense lawns typically are free of the many weedy species that produce allergy-related pollens.

While poison ivy can be controlled by grubbing (digging) out the roots and stems, herbicides offer some safety advantages over mechanical methods. For example, the danger of a person receiving poison-ivy dermatitis either by direct contact with the plant or indirectly by touching contaminated tools, etc., is much less with herbicidal methods than with mechanical methods. Also, control of these weeds using herbicides is usually more effective by than by mechanical methods since it is almost impossible to remove every piece of underground stem, so regrowth is likely to occur.

Page 18 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Figure 2: Cases of West Nile Virus and Other Mosquito-borne Diseases

Source: Public Health Agency of Canada. West Nile virus and Other Mosquito-borne Diseases National Surveillance Report

Figure 2 shows the incidence of West Nile Virus and other mosquito-borne diseases in Canada over time. Healthcare professionals recommend the use of DEET to repel insects that vector Lyme disease, West Nile virus, etc. West Nile virus alone has resulted in deaths of significant numbers of people, horses and birds nationwide over the past 20 years. The goal of public health officials is to reduce mosquito numbers to levels that minimize the risk of West Nile virus transmission.

While there are a range of integrated pest management strategies, including identification and elimination of mosquito breeding sites, use of sentinel species such as crows and blue jays to detect the virus, and the monitoring of adult mosquito populations, even with best efforts mosquito populations sometimes explode beyond acceptable public health standards. When this happens, health officials take immediate action to control adult mosquitoes with insecticides in areas where the virus is detected. Once the insecticides have controlled the mosquito population, some professionals resume their focus on non-pesticidal methods of prevention but pesticide programs for larvae control are much more common.

Raw commodities and packaged grocery products are protected from insect contamination by the controlled use of insecticides in processing, manufacturing, and packaging facilities. Pesticides are used in grocery stores to manage insects and rodents attracted to food and food waste.

Other health benefits of maintaining household lawns and community sports fields and green spaces include: • Temperature moderation. The average-sized front lawns of eight homes have the same cooling effect as about 70 tons of air conditioning. Lawns cool hot summers. Healthy, well-maintained lawns will reduce surface temperatures by 18 to 24 degrees Celsius in

Page 19 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

comparison to bare soil, and 10 to 15 degrees Celsius in comparison to natural vegetation or poorly managed grass. • Pollutant filter for water quality. • Oxygen release. 2,500 square feet (230 m2) of lawn releases enough oxygen for a family of four. • Noise abatement/glare reduction. Good turf also makes life a bit quieter. It effectively absorbs and deflects sound. When combined with trees and other landscaping, grass can reduce noise levels within urban environments by 20% to 30%.

4.6 Sports-field safety Herbicides are used on athletic fields to promote healthy turf, which has been shown to reduce sports injuries (fewer twisted knees and ankles). Weeds can result in reduced lateral shear strength of turf and can therefore increase the chance for athlete injury (Gardner, 2017). Weedy turf does not afford the density necessary for safe footing for athletes and is not desirable for high quality amateur sports or professional sports fields.

4.7 Fire prevention Safety and productivity requirements often dictate that certain areas on industrial sites, around enclosed warehouses and exposed stockpiles and warehouses, utility substations, highways, railways and runways be kept completely weed free (bare ground). This reduces fire hazards and ensures that maintenance and emergency equipment can access freely the sites and facilities.

Unmanaged and poorly maintained vegetation along utility rights of way can result in wildfires, which can result in damage to electric power infrastructure, with potentially serious economic, environmental, and national security consequences.

5 Impacts of Use Restrictions

5.1 Impacts on Municipal Governments Municipalities have discovered that there can be additional costs associated with the maintenance/rebuilding of sports fields, to retain safety standards and usability, should the fields be attacked by an infestation. In addition, should an infestation occur during the construction or renovation of a field, there may be revenue loss associated with the delay in bringing the field(s) back into service, and potential additional costs to bring the field back up to acceptable use standards.

Impacts of municipal bans appear variable – some larger cities report relatively low or no cost increases to deal with the bans, while smaller cities report significant costs. For example, one southeastern Manitoba city has experienced cost increases for field maintenance of

Page 20 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

"eight/nine fold" (CBC, 2016b) as a results of the 2014 ban in Manitoba. More recently, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities reports that alternatives to traditional pesticides aren't as effective and are "incredibly costly," costing 10 to 15 times more (CBC, 2017).

Below are some unedited comments from municipal parks/operations officials in Ontario:

• “Ballfield closures for grass establishment, unplayable surfaces due to insect and disease problems, more frequent cycle of field renovation. Cost of organic bio-controls for thousands of acres is prohibitively expensive and not consistently available or effective.” (City of Hamilton)

• “Expensive! Hand’s on in the field guy… cost to spray is $24 per hectare. Full IPM overseeding, aerating, topdressing cost is $9000 per hectare for parks turf. All parks are completely overrun with weeds. Property owners go to Buffalo to buy pesticides” (City of Brampton)

5.2 Impacts on Schools A major study published in HortScience in 2015 found that budgetary expenditures for schools increased as a result of the pesticide ban for schools in Connecticut in 2010 due to “increased labor requirements, increased cultural practices, and/or increased cost of products necessary to maintain school grounds and playing fields.” The paper noted that schools “will continue to struggle with demands for acceptable school grounds and athletic field quality and balancing expense, especially given the limited literature and resources currently available that address the management of school grounds without pesticides.” Another major finding of the study was that cities/towns with higher median incomes (and higher budgets) are better able to maintain school ground quality and have safer recreation and athletic fields than lower income school districts due to expense imposed by the pesticide ban in Connecticut (Bartholomew et al, 2015).

5.3 Impacts on Consumers Regarding other uses of domestic pest control products, RIAS Inc. (2006) examined the benefits of herbicides for residential lawns/landscaping. This work cited a study by the Université Laval that demonstrated a mean price premium of 7.7% across all landscape attributes and all values of houses from well-kept lawns. Landscape Ontario reports that properly-maintained natural turfgrass lawns increase property values by 15-20% (Landscape Ontario, 2018).

The Laval study also found the costs of maintaining consistently high turf quality to be 60 times higher when herbicides are not used. More recent estimates indicate that the cost of having a lawn professionally treated throughout the season may be $80 to $100 more than it

Page 21 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019 was before provincial/municipal bans came into effect in Canada (CBC, 2016a). When total loss due to infestation occurs, the cost to re-sod a lawn is considerable – for 1,000 square feet of lawn, costs to re-sod average about $1,600. Additional costs of $1,000 to $2,000 may also be incurred for removal of existing material.

Data from Statistics Canada shown in Table 8 below indicates that the effectiveness of the bans appears to be limited. Since 2007, the number of households in Canada using herbicides has fallen by only 4 percentage points. In Quebec, one of the first provinces to institute bans on “cosmetic” use, the number of households with a lawn or garden using herbicides has actually increased by 12 percentage points. In Ontario, where the ban was implemented in 2008, herbicide use initially fell by 5 percentage points (2009), but by 2015 had risen 9 percentage points – 4 percentage points above the pre-ban level.

Table 8: Domestic Use of Pest Control Products (% of households)

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Canada - households with lawn or garden 95% 96% 96% 96% 97% Herbicide use 80% 75% 76% 76% 76% use 29% 31% 28% 27% 27% 6% 5% 5%E 4% 5% E Quebec - households with lawn or garden 90% 96% 94% 95% 97% Herbicide use 46% 36% 37% 56% 58% Insecticide use 49% 71% 59% 45% 45% Fungicide ------8% E 13% E Ontario - households with lawn or garden 98% 96% 98% 96% 97% Herbicide use 79% 74% 77% 77% 83% Insecticide use 32% 33% 24% 26% 20% Fungicide 7% 8% E -- 4% E -- Source: Statistics Canada. Table 38-10-0052-01 Use of fertilizer and pesticides Notes: “E” use with caution, “--” too unreliable to be published.

5.4 Impacts on Businesses

Industrial Vegetation Management RIAS Inc. (2006) found that restrictions on herbicide use in industrial vegetation management would have two immediate effects and a more important follow-on effect. The immediate effects would be an increase in the costs of industrial vegetation management estimated to be 150% (i.e., from about $7.0 million to about $17.5 million) along with a decrease in the effectiveness of weed control and brush management. The follow-on effect would be an increase in the events that industrial vegetation management is intended to prevent (i.e., power outages through brush contact with transmission lines, the inability to access facilities quickly for maintenance or in response to an emergency/failure, reduced visibility at crossroads and the loss of even more land to invasive species).

Page 22 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Turfgrass Although most provincial bans exclude golf courses, RIAS Inc (2006) also found that restriction of phenoxy herbicides use alone would increase treatment costs at golf courses in Canada from about $3 million to about $26 million, but without maintaining course quality. The decline in quality could cost Canadian courses both their regular customers and the high- profile competitions that bring additional economic benefits to local communities.

Page 23 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

6 References

Bartholomew, Candace, Benjamin L. Campbell and Victoria Wallace. 2015. Factors Affecting School Grounds and Athletic Field Quality after Pesticide Bans: The Case of Connecticut. HORTSCIENCE 50(1):99–103. 2015.

Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). 2016. Cosmetic Pesticides – Provincial Policies & Municipal Bylaws: Lessons Learned & Best Practices. August 2016

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), 2014. 2013-2014 Departmental Performance Report. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-aboutcfia-sujetacia/STAGING/text- texte/acco_repparl_2013-2014dpr_1414175730978_eng.pdf

CBC News. 2016a. Cosmetic pesticide ban means dandelions more expensive to fight. May 19, 2016

______. 2016b. Manitoba pesticide ban needs provincial review, municipalities say May 30, 2016

______. 2017. NDP slams Pallister government's plan to revamp pesticide law, but municipalities welcome change. Apr 19, 2017

Colautti, Robert I., Sarah A. Bailey, Colin D.A. van Overdijk, Keri Amundsen and Hugh J. MacIsaac. 2006. “Characterised and projected costs of nonindigenous species in Canada”, Biological Invasions (2006) 8: 45–59.

Cooper Jerry and Hans Dobson (2007) “The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the environment” Crop Protection Accepted 19 March 2007

Damalas, Christos A. 2009. Understanding benefits and risks of pesticide use. Scientific Research and Essay Vol. 4 (10), pp. 945-949, October, 2009.

Environment Canada (2013). Recommendations for the Design and Operation of Wood Preservation Facilities. December 2013. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/ec/En4-237-2014-eng.pdf

Felsot Allan S. 2011. Pesticides & Health: Myths vs. Realities A Position Paper of the American Council on Science and Health. June 15, 2011

Health Canada. 2018. Pest Control Products Sales Report for 2016.

Homagain, K., C.K. Shahi, M. Leitch, N.J. Luckai and F.W. Bell. 2011. Differences in extrinsic tree quality and value of fibre production following alternative vegetation management treatments in northwestern Ontario. For Chron. 87(2): 251–259.

Page 24 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Knutson, Ronald D. 1999. “Economic Impacts of Reduced Pesticide Use In The United States: Measurement Of Costs And Benefits.” In AFPC Policy Issues Paper 99-2, 1999. https://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/1/148/99-2.pdf.

Landscape Ontario. 2018. Lawn and Turk Benefits. Accessed November 15, 2018. http://landscapeontario.com/lawn-and-turf-benefits

National Allied Golf Associations (NAGA). 2014. Economic Impact Study of Golf in Canada. http://canadagolfs.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SNG-Golf-2014-Executive- Summary-FINAL-Report-JUNE-2_ENG.pdf

Natural Resources Canada. 2011. “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) On the Use of Herbicides in Canadian Forestry”, Canadian Forest Service - Technical Note No. 112.

Gardner, Dave. 2017. “Choosing the Correct Herbicide.” Sports Field Magazine, January 2017. https://u.osu.edu/athleticfieldmanagement/2017/10/11/organic-synthetic-herbicides-for- athletic-fields/

Statistics Canada. 2017. Input-Output National Multipliers, 2013. Catalogue no. 15F0046XDB.

______. 2018a. Table: 16-10-0117-01. Principal statistics for manufacturing industries, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Accessed June 25, 2018.

______. 2018b. Table 36-10-0478-01 Supply and use tables, detail level, provincial and territorial. Accessed June 25, 2018.

______. 2018c. Table 21-10-0036-01. Architectural services, summary statistics. Accessed June 25, 2018.

______. 2019. Table 18-10-0032-01 Industrial product price index by industry. Accessed February 12, 2019.

RIAS Inc. 2006. Assessment of the Economic and Related Benefits to Canada of Phenoxy Herbicides. Prepared for the Industry Research Task Forces for Phenoxy Herbicides. October 2006. www.24d.org/PDF/NAPIAP-RIAS-studies/RIAS-2006-CAD-Assessment.pdf

______. 2015. The Value of Plant Science Innovations to Canadians. Prepared for CropLife Canada. December 2015. http://croplife.ca/wp-content/uploads/The-Value-of-Plant- Science-Innovations-to-Canadians_RIAS-Inc.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Benefits of Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) on Rights-of-Way. https://www.epa.gov/pesp/benefits-integrated- vegetation-management-ivm-rights-way. Accessed June 25, 2018.

Page 25 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Appendix 1: Methodology

Our analysis employs multipliers from Statistics Canada’s National Input-Output Multipliers - GDP components, (Industries, Detailed (D) aggregation). Statistics Canada’s I-O multipliers can be used to calculate economic impacts generated by the activities of 236 different industry sectors on the Canadian economy. The input-output multipliers measure direct, indirect and induced impacts on output, GDP, jobs and labour income: • Direct impacts: Any action taken by producers, consumers or other agencies such as governments, when measured in monetary units, is called the “direct impacts”. These direct impacts become the starting point for a series of indirect and induced impacts within the economy, which are often called “secondary economic impacts”. • Indirect impacts: These secondary impacts are generated through the purchases of various goods and services produced by other industries. The purchase of these goods creates additional demand for the goods produced by other industries. In order to produce them, these industries are assumed to increase production and purchase additional goods and services within the region. In economic impact literature, these interdependencies are called “backward linkages” of a sector. • Induced impacts: These impacts are generated by the actions of owners of human resources who receive compensation for their services. The wages and salaries and return to management earned by these agents are subsequently spent within communities, triggering another round of increase in the demand for various goods, thereby resulting in another round of economic impacts.

We used the following multipliers to estimate impacts throughout the Canadian economy: • Multipliers for Pesticide, fertilizer and other agricultural chemical manufacturing (BS325300) were used to estimate the impacts of pesticide manufacturing operations in Canada. • Multipliers for Scientific research and development services (BS541700) were used to estimate the economic benefits of scientific R&D expenditures for non-ag and domestic use pesticides in Canada. • Multipliers for Miscellaneous merchant wholesalers (BS418000) were used to estimate the impacts of herbicide, insecticide and lawn care chemical products merchant wholesalers for non-agricultural pesticide sales in Canada. • Multipliers for Miscellaneous store retailers (BS453000) were used to estimate the impacts of retail sale of domestic use pesticides.

Page 26 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Appendix 2: Summary of Provincial and Municipal Restrictions on Pest Control Products

Table 9: Summary of Provincial Regulations Banning Cosmetic Pesticides

Date Pesticides Indoor Sensitive Jurisdiction Passed Captured Coverage Spaces Areas Exceptions Newfoundland and 2011 carbaryl, 2,4-D, Lawns No No Golf courses, forestry activities, Labrador mecoprop, agriculture, sports turf, highly dicamba, MCPA. maintained turf.

Nova Scotia 2011 All pesticides not Lawns, No No Public health & safety, forestry on the List of shrubs, activities, agriculture Allowable trees, golf courses. Pesticides flowers, Regulations. ornamental plants

New Brunswick 2009 2,4-D Lawns No No Golf courses, agriculture

PEI 2010 2,4-D Lawns No No Golf courses, agriculture

Quebec 2003 20 active Lawns Yes (Limited Yes, child & Golf courses, plant nurseries, ingredients in to areas daycare seed orchards, agriculture Schedule I of frequented centres, lawns & land used for outdoor Pesticide by children) home sporting activities only by Management childcare pre-, persons older than 14 years, Code. primary & fenced in, or secondary equipped with a watering schools system

Ontario 2008 All pesticides not in, on or No No Public health & safety, golf included in class over land courses, specialty turfs, 11. arboriculture, specified sports fields, scientific purposes, natural resources

Manitoba 2014 All herbicides that Lawns No Yes, schools, Public health & safety, golf are not allowable hospitals, or courses, agriculture (including herbicides. child care turf and sod farms), forestry, centres destroy noxious weeds, internationally used sports field, scientific purposes.

Saskatchewan British Columbia Source: CAPE, 2016.

Page 27 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Table 10: Summary of Municipal Regulations Banning Cosmetic Pesticides

Pesticide Use Pesticide Use Municipality Details on Private on Public Property? Property?

In 1998 Toronto City Council passed a motion to restrict the use of pesticides on public lands. Presently, the City's outdoor pesticide use has been reduced by 97%. In November 2001, City Council passed a motion to begin developing a strategy to phase-out non-essential uses of pesticides, including a process by which stakeholder and public consultations would take place, and a discussion document would be developed and distributed by Public Health. On November Toronto, ON 8, the MOH issued a report to be considered Nov. 18, that is proposing a No restrictions IPM creation of a multi-stakeholder pesticide reduction partnership; pesticide reduction timelines and a detailed 3-year implementation plan to meet its targets; the report to be prepared by April 2003 would include a policy that would form the basis of a municipal by-law to enforce outdoor pesticide reduction targets consistent with the objectives of the Pesticide Reduction Partnership. On September 12, 2002 Vancouver Council directed staff to consult with stakeholders to address options for responsible pest management on private lands; to work with Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and others on the development of a public education program at promoting IPM on private Vancouver, BC No restrictions IPM property with civic funding; work with GVRD, Lower Mainland municipalities to developing a coordinated regional approach to pesticide use restrictions and report back by July , 2003 on the status of these initiatives including potential effectiveness of a ban on pesticides in the Vancouver. Upon receiving a staff report in November 2001, the City Council voted down the idea of a pesticide ban and supported the proactive idea of a homeowner Calgary, AB education program. To date, the Parks and Recreation Department have No restrictions IPM allocated $60,000 (minimum) toward this worthy project. Some city area garden centres and Alberta Environment have committed funding as well. On October 10th, 2001 Ottawa City Council adopted a recommendation which Policy of not directed city staff to prepare a pesticide reduction strategy which will consist of using the timing and nature of a draft strategy governing the cosmetic use of Ottawa, ON No restrictions pesticides, with pesticides on urban private property, the initiation of a public consultation special process, a public health campaign, and a 2002 budget estimate. In March 2002, exceptions Council approved funds for a public education campaign. The City of Winnipeg will consider a range of options when it considers the Winnipeg, MB No restrictions IPM mayor's municipal environmental strategy. Dundas introduced by-laws to severely restrict or ban pesticide use on municipal property (this by-law is still in effect within what was Dundas until the new City By-laws restrict Dundas / of Hamilton develops a city-wide policy). Councillors recently rejected a city- use on public No restrictions Hamilton, ON proposed Integrated Plant Health Program (IPHP) because of its nearly $500,000 property in price tag. former Dundas

The City has adopted a practice that neighbourhood and general park areas not Policy of not be sprayed with pesticides using Mississaugua, No restrictions pesticides, with ON special exceptions

Page 28 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Pesticide Use Pesticide Use Municipality Details on Private on Public Property? Property?

City Council on December 3rd, 2001 resolved that a strategy be developed to phase out the non-essential uses of pesticides in London. A task force on Integrated Pest Management Implementation will be established to study the London, ON issue and to develop an IPM Community Plan, including a communications No restrictions IPM program to inform Londoners about pesticide use. In addition, the City will monitor the status and progress of legal aspects related to non-essential use of pesticides. Passed a policy aimed at eliminating pesticide use in city parks. The policy Pesticide Kitchener, ON No restrictions commits the city to working towards a zero per cent target. reduction policy In 2000, year 1of by-law phase-in, pesticides banned on municipal property and education programs begin. As of April 1 2001, It is illegal to use pesticides within 50 metres of registered private properties, as well as any school, licensed day care, park, playground, licensed senior citizens' residence, university, church or By-law By-law restricts Halifax, NS hospital. As of April 1, 2003, a general ban on the use of pesticides will apply to restricts use of use of all properties affected by the by-law. Applies to residential and municipal pesticides pesticides properties only. Does not apply to commercial or institutional properties. A list of permissible pesticide products has been created. Windsor City Council has established the Best Management Practices Committee to assist Parks & Rec in implementing an aggressive reduction program in the use of chemical pesticides for non-essential and cosmetic purposes, on Plant Health Windsor, ON No restrictions municipally owned properties. C.A.L.M - Clear Altenatives for Landscape Care (PHC) Management is is a task force created by the Best Management Practices Committee. A draft by-law is being developed by Victoria's regional government which restricts the use of pesticides. Because of its integrated pest management Victoria, BC program, the city's preventive techniques have reduced pesticide use by 97 per No restrictions IPM cent. Pesticide Reduction Steering Committee will start a Pesticide-Free Parks Pilot Markham, ON Project in one city ward this spring. The goal of the pilot project is eventual No restrictions realization of a pesticide by-law. In September 2001, Citizens Concerned About Pesticides made a presentation to the Barrie City Council requesting a by-law to restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns and gardens on public and private lands. A copy of the Barrie, ON No restrictions IPM suggested by-law was presented. In December 2001 City Council asked for a third party to review the relevant information and make recommendations in 2002. Report on possible options under consideration, no date set. Banned use of a group of pesticides, Kingston, ON No restrictions known as chlorpyrifos, on municipal property The region of Halton has begun holding stakeholder consultations regarding Policy of not restricting cosmetic pesticide use on public and residential properties. Oakville using Oakville, ON has greatly reduced the use of pesticides on municipally-owned lands. No restrictions pesticides, with special exceptions

Page 29 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Pesticide Use Pesticide Use Municipality Details on Private on Public Property? Property?

The City of St.Catharines is allowing the Parks and Recreation department to Policy of not phase out the use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers over the next using St. Catharines, three years. A ban on their use on private property may follow; council has No restrictions pesticides, with ON asked staff for a report on possibly imposing such a restriction. special exceptions In the year 2000 Guelph City Council adopted a five year phase out of pesticides Guelph, ON on publicly owned lands. The city is currently working on a public process to No restrictions IPM look at pesticide reductions on all lands within the city Adopted a formal program which is directed at reducing the use of pesticides in Cambridge, ON the community. City has designated a pesticide-free zone of 200 diameters No restrictions IPM around play equipment The City of Peterborough has convened a committee of citizen, council and Peterborough, industry representatives to develop a strategy for the reduction of cosmetic No restrictions ON pesticide use on public and private property. The committee will likely present a formal strategy to reduce pesticide use on public property by spring. Because the issue that has brought a significant number of complaints and concerns annually to the City of Sarnia and to Mayor Bradley's office, Sarnia City Integrated Plant Sarnia, ON Council asked the Environmental Committee to make this issue a priority for No restrictions Health Care 2001 in their work plan and to report back at year's end with any changes to be (IPHC) implemented in the year 2002. The City of Belleville has launched a pilot program at Parkdale Park where no pesticide-free Belleville, ON pesticides will be applied this year to measure the difference with and without No restrictions pilot program the chemical treatment used traditionally in other parks to keep weeds at bay. Had a goal of 0% pesticide use by the year 2000. The City passed a motion for changes to the Ontario Municipal Act to give municipalities the power to regulate pesticides and other toxic chemicals. (Kitchener-Waterloo Record, Oct. Plant Health Waterloo, ON No restrictions 18, 2000) The Regional Municipality of Waterloo will co-ordinate the issue of Care (PHC) pesticide use, co-ordinated by the Health Dept., with a staff rep from each of the 7 participating municipalities. By-law (Municipal Land) - As of Jan 3, 2002 considering extending it to private by-laws restrict North land No restrictions use on public Vancouver, BC property The Caledon Town Council has acknowledged that the risks associated with the Town council use of chemical pesticides is a concern to many residents of Caledon. A new has banned Caledon, ON No restrictions strategy is presently being developed for private property. pesticides on public lands Owen Sound, On February 4th, 2002, the City Council passed a motion supporting by-law No restrictions ON consultation, in association with the Association of Ontario Municipalities. Stratford City Council established a Pesticide-Use committee with a 3-year term (currently in it's 2nd year) to provide recommendations on how the city can reduce the amount of pesticides it uses on public lands by 50% by 2003. The Stratford, ON No restrictions Energy and Environment Standing Committee has set up a committee to make recommendations about a by-law to restrict cosmetic use on residential property. Banned chemical pesticides on all municipal property, including parkland. (Windsor Star, Aug. 24, 2000) Ban on use of La Salle, ON No restrictions chemical pesticides

Page 30 Benefits of Non-Ag Pesticides in Canada February 2019

Pesticide Use Pesticide Use Municipality Details on Private on Public Property? Property?

Port Moody City Council has voted to begin a 3 year education campaign to Port Moody, teach residents about the risks of pesticide use and possible alternatives. After 3 No restrictions IPM BC years, a by-law will be drafted to prohibit so-called cosmetic pesticide use. Council has banned blanket spraying of pesticides on public parks, but still spot Ban on spraying Stoufville, ON sprays. Sub-committee has been created to discuss strategies to phase out the No restrictions in public parks cosmetic use of pesticides. Pesticides banned outright from June through September. In the winter months, pesticides pesticides a permit is granted only for extreme infestations following an inspection. banned in banned in summer summer except except for Westmount, for protecting protecting PQ human health - human health permit needed - permit at all other needed at all times other times Beaconsfield's by-law requires permits for all applications of pesticides. By-law By-law restricts Beaconsfield, Prohibited in the case of wind, lack of rain, temperature, protection restricts use of use of PQ zones. Warning signs must be posted for 72 hours. pesticides pesticides By-law prohibits spraying of lawns and gardens, except in the case of an By-law By-law restricts Mont-Royal, infestation that threatens health, property. Permits are required yet there are restricts use of use of PQ prohibitions for wind, time-of-day, size of tree, etc. Signage required pesticides pesticides Has passed a by-law banning cosmetic use of pesticides from public lands. By-law restricts Russell No restrictions use of Township, ON pesticides With the exception of "permitted pesticides" the by-law regulates the use of By-law By-law restricts pesticides on both private and public property in the municipality. Permits may Chelsea, PQ restricts use of use of be granted in exceptional cases. Golf courses exempted for 5 years with certain pesticides pesticides provisions. Except for specific exemptions relating to infestations and human health, (where By-law By-law restricts Roxboro, PQ permits must be obtained), the application and use of a pesticide is prohibited restricts use of use of throughout the territory of Roxboro. pesticides pesticides In 1998 the Town adopted a by-law banning the cosmetic use of pesticides on By-law restricts Gananoque, public property. No restrictions use of ON pesticides As of January 1, 2003, the spreading and use of pesticides is prohibited By-law By-law restricts Shediac, NB throughout the territory within the jurisdiction of the municipality. Golf course restricts use of use of has 5 year grace period. List of permitted pesticides has been developed. pesticides pesticides Hudson's by-law requires residents to seek a permit when applying a pesticide By-law By-law restricts Hudson, PQ for conditions such as human health and insect infestations. restricts use of use of pesticides pesticides The spreading and use of a pesticide is prohibited throughout the territory of the By-law By-law restricts Cobalt, ON municipality beginning Nov 1, 2002. Certain exemptions exist. Farmers asked to restricts use of use of register use of pesticides for agricultural purposes. pesticides pesticides Source: CAPE, 2016.

Page 31