What is the future of weed management?
To what extent have policy and data led to a shift in the sector’s approach to weed management?
In 2019, Brighton Council banned the use of glyphosate. It was a decision it said at the time was made after it was linked to cancer and a decline in bee populations. But an overnight ban eventually led to weeds causing damage and a deluge of complaints from residents about mobility issues and aesthetics.
In 2024, it made the decision to return to a controlled-droplet application of glyphosate to manage weeds on hard surfaces, with parks and open spaces remaining pesticide free. It has also allowed Brighton residents the option, where possible, to opt out of this maintenance programme and keep the pavements clear themselves.
This news didn’t come without its objections, with PAN UK saying at the time that the move was “incredibly disappointing”. But Brighton saw it as a reset, so they could work to reduce glyphosate once unchecked growth was better under control. It seems it is acknowledged that it was a failure to plan that led to this result. Ed Stannard, executive director at Parks for London says, “you can’t ban glyphosate overnight without a plan for how you’re going to manage both the public perception but also some of the damage that can happen to the built environment if you haven’t properly costed the additional resources. It’s important to have an integrated approach which considers a non-chemical-first approach.”
Corrina Urquhart, executive officer of the Amenity Forum, says: “While views across the sector vary, there is broad agreement around professionalism, targeted application, minimising environmental impact and developing integrated management approaches. There is growing recognition that reducing pesticide reliance will be a gradual transition requiring investment, innovation and realistic implementation timescales.”
But is there a decision on the horizon that could force the industry’s hands?
Glyphosate renewal
Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide which is approved for use in Great Britain (GB). Health and Safety Executive is currently assessing whether the approval of glyphosate can be renewed in GB ahead of its expiry in December 2026. The Amenity Forum expects to engage closely with the forthcoming GB glyphosate consultation and help represent a “collective, evidence-based industry perspective,” says Urquhart. “Policy discussions must reflect the practical realities of rail, highways, local authority and public space management, where safety and accessibility remain critical.
“The sector wants future policy decisions to reflect not only environmental considerations, but also operational realities, public safety, resource pressures and long-term sustainability.” Urquhart stresses that any future reduction in glyphosate reliance must be evidence-led, practical and supported by investment in alternatives, training and innovation.
“The sector believes future guidance and regulatory decisions should continue to be informed by robust evidence and operational data, rather than political pressures.”
Moving to a non-chemical first approach
A number of councils have now made a commitment to reduce their use of herbicides through targeted application, revised maintenance regimes, better mapping and greater tolerance of low-risk vegetation, says Urquhart. Sean Faulkner, sales and marketing director at Kersten, says this is in part being driven by policy. “The UK Pesticides National Action Plan has made a big difference,” he explains. “It mandates that other solutions are tried before using pesticides and focuses on prevention.”
Faulkner also points to the Integrated Weed Management (IWM) reference guide developed by Parks for London alongside Kersten, Amenity Forum and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). IWM uses a holistic approach to managing weeds through cultural, biological, mechanical and chemical controls. All with a focus on prevention. Aimed at those managing amenity spaces and public realm, the reference looks to equip them with the tools to do just this.
“The biggest problem we have is people trying to replace glyphosate with something else rather than replacing the whole system so that products work within that system,” explains Faulkner. But Stannard says he has seen a change in the narrative when it comes to treating weeds, “More people are taking a framework approach to weed control. Through this, they are taking a more nuanced view of what a weed is and what is acceptable in certain locations. Crucially it also means they are looking at prevention.”
Instead of simply spraying every weed, Stannard notes more often it’s about looking at the environment to assess what is causing the weeds to occur in the first place. “If you’re preventing your weeds from occurring, these arguments for alternatives all go out the window,” he argues.
Faulkner explains it’s also about assessing the right tool for the task to keep the surface working properly. In a location in Scotland, Kersten have overlaid the complaints data from weed complaints, gully complaints and pothole complaints that the council had repaired. In areas where the council had gully and weed complaints, they were likely to have 2.5 times more potholes. “The correlation between them was massive,” Faulkner says. “The linking factor is the soil. The soil is allowing the weeds to grow up, the soil is blocking up the gullies, and the soil is then holding the moisture against the surface and causing freeze thaw damage which is leading to potholes.”
Kersten did statistical analysis on this data to ensure it wasn’t just random, but the data didn’t lie. Faulkner believes that implementing IWM could save millions which are currently being spent on pothole filling and gully clearing. “If you look at the problem in the round, including the impact on infrastructure, then IWM becomes vital.”
Stannard says the acknowledgement and attention IWM has received over the last 18 months is increasing. “There are political drivers,” explains Stannard, “but there is also more acknowledgement that considering IWM approaches doesn’t mean higher costs. There has always been pushback that moving to a non-chemical first approach will cost a lot of money. Slowly, through trials and evidence-based case studies that narrative is changing.”
“Integrated Pest Management is increasingly viewed not simply as reducing pesticide use, but as making evidence-based, site-specific and proportionate decisions,” says Urquhart. Urquhart also identifies the importance of training, operator competence and record keeping in demonstrating stewardship, accountability and public confidence.
Stannard also emphasises the importance of an audit trail that has an evidence base. “That way, when you’re working with friends groups, organisations or specific counsellors who might want to come in and make their mark, you have an evidence base that you’ve built up with landscape types specific to your organisation, your resources and whether things are done in-house or through a contractor.
“It’s about trying every tool at our disposal to encourage these non-chemical first approaches but then also being able to justify based on evidence where you are going to use it. This isn’t about chemicals or non-chemicals it’s about offering credible alternatives.”
What are the challenges?
Urquhart states that the challenges for local authorities and contractors are balancing environmental ambition with operational and budget realities. “The sector is increasingly focused on justifying treatment decisions, rather than routine or blanket applications.
“There is strong interest in alternatives such as foam, hot water, electricity and robotics, although limitations are reported around scalability, consistency, cost and carbon impact. Invasive and injurious weeds remain an area where practical alternatives are limited in some settings.” In hard surface environments, repeated mechanical treatment can increase surface damage, weed regrowth, and long-term maintenance costs. Urquhart stresses that preventative maintenance is not a complete replacement in all settings.
For Standard, it’s the lack of a joined-up approach and therefore mistrust that can form when different departments have different strategies. “From a community perspective, you could have very publicly glyphosate-free parks but then the edging strips managed by the highways team, for instance, might still be being sprayed.
“It’s that kind of lack of a joined-up approach within a lot of cases that can damage trust and confidence.” It is an aim of the reference guide therefore, that it can act as a tool to bring in people from all directions to take a more considered and collaborative approach within the same organisation.
Faulker says issues remain with budget silos between highways and parks, Faulkner explains. “We need some of the money to come from highways instead, because you’re never going to fund it with the parks budget alone. That way the parks budget could also be used for other things.” With local government reorganisation on the horizon – which seeks to simplify local governance by replacing the two-tier system with a single-tier unitary council structure – this could be more joined up. At the very least it will mean it’s all under one council rather than being split between county and town.
As with so many topics that garner divided opinions, it seems that when it comes to use of pesticides it’s a nuanced debate. A non-chemical first approach seems to be the way the industry is moving, but there is also agreement that this isn’t always possible. Whichever approach is right, it’s clear that it must be driven my data and backed up with evidence and that any failure to plan will likely mean councils are planning to fail. Whatever December brings, there is certainly an agreed hope that it is also evidence-based and represents an industry perspective.
The Cambridge City case study
Cambridge City had a “challenge” on its hands when it came to reducing chemical use, says Kersten UK. With 17% tree canopy cover – meaning leaves and branches cover 17% of the city’s ground area – a bigger task follows to deal with fallen leaves and other detritus. Cambridge developed its plan by combining aims of the national plan for the sustainable use of pesticides and the environment plan. Crucially, it also engaged with the local community to discuss the development of the plan. Following this, several trials were set up to evaluate approaches and build on community engagement.
The second phase consisted of the development of quantitate assessments with standard guidelines to measure effectiveness. They set up a land audit management system to collate and evaluate this data. Based on this data and community engagement, the council decided it would:
- Remediate the current situation, removing all soil in the areas with the worst build up using a weed brush.
- Purchase various models to deal with large stretches of road as well as areas with limited access.
- Adjust the sweeping schedule and equipment.
- Engage the community in the ongoing maintenance of their streets in areas that have opted to help.
The council continues to use its land audit management system to collect data and will keep working with the community to engage their feedback to enhance the plan.
Sean Faulkner says: “I am convinced that Cambridge will succeed because they have developed a well-thought-out herbicide reduction plan, based on solid principles with the support of their community.”
The Integrated Weed Management (IWM) Reference Guide includes an IWM policy template as well as a IWM plan template.