Government is considering a crackdown on the importation and use of pesticides through a complete overhaul of existing legislation which may include the introduction of a licensing system and more stringent safety procedures, The Royal Gazette has learned.

A task force of personnel from the Environmental Protection and Conservation Departments is consulting commercial pesticide users, including farmers, fumigators and plant retailers to decide how laws can be tightened up to better protect Bermuda's environment.

But farmers are concerned that some proposals, contained in a preliminary draft that has been circulated to stakeholders, would cripple Bermudian agriculture, which they say is already struggling because of duties on tractor parts and heightened competition from abroad.

One industry insider went further and accused Government of “ignoring” the Island's farmers.

“They find millions of dollars for a sports complex but they can't even find any money to restore the marketing centre up in Prospect,” said the man, who asked not to be named.

Environment Ministry Permanent Secretary Brian Rowlinson confirmed that the pesticide legislation was being discussed by Government, “although it is still a long way off and hasn't been through any of the approval stages yet”.

He said: “There is a need to consolidate existing legislation, jurisdiction for which is currently divided between the Health and Environment Ministries, so that we can put it into one comprehensive document.”

But he declined to comment further because the proposals are still on the drawing board.

But Conservation Services director Jack Ward said: “We just need to be very cautious about using quantities of man-made chemicals but also to recognise that they have a great benefit. The idea of this is balancing the needs for environmental protection against the needs for businesses to succeed. You don't want to put in restrictions that compromise the viability of business unless it is absolutely essential.”

The proposals include the introduction of a licensing system for pesticide handling, which would require users to show Government that they are able to safely handle the chemicals and would likely require a fee.

Other ideas foresee commercial users possibly being required to limit the number of times they are allowed to apply pesticides, in line with requirements in other countries, and as well as being required to keep a detailed log of every occasion, including the weather conditions, on which sprayings take place.

While this was not welcomed by farmers, their strongest criticism was saved for an idea which envisions anyone transporting an amount of pesticide on the road accompanying their loads with absorbency materials that would ensure 110 percent containment should there be a spillage.

Carlos Amaral, who raises crops at Bleak Farm Close in Devonshire, asked why similar proposals were not being made for trucks that carry fuel because “diesel is a lot more dangerous than organic chemicals”.

“This seems like it would be another nail in the coffin for the industry if it went through. Most of the full-time growers now accept the fact that we have to be environmentally conscious. But if you have an additional employee who isn't producing it affects your bottom line.”

He said he also worried about whether farmers would be restricted in what chemicals they were allowed to use.

“If you are limited in what you use on crops, then you still have the same variables, such as the weather and resources, and you are losing out. I haven't met anyone who goes into business to lose money. My stock market is that field and my investments are my crops. Every time we are planting we are taking a gamble.”

Farmer Tom Wadson said: “(The legislation) is clearly not workable in its present form. Some bits are very good but then there are some bits which are just moronic.”

Another farmer, who asked not to be named, said: “There are a few good safety precautions but there are a lot of ideas there that a child wouldn't even come up with. They're still in the consulting process but I heard that it doesn't really matter what input they get.”

He said he thought the proposed absorbency material requirement would shoulder farmers with an extra cost that would cripple an already struggling industry.

“We can't afford to spray our crops with pesticides that much anyway. To add this would be a huge cost and I don't have the manpower to waste on it. I have enough vehicles on the road as it is. Things like this would not help and on top of that we have Government making mistakes like putting duty on our tractor parts. They said that would be sorted out but it hasn't been done yet. That sort of thing is slowly hitting the industry and it hurts us all. It's getting harder. Government has really ignored the farming industry. “

But Bermuda Pest Control manager Walter Saul said he supported the legislation because “our laws are out of date”.

“There are things that go right back to the previous government and it is ongoing. The absorbency requirement is needed for spills. If you spill pesticide on a road, where is it going to go? This is one of the reasons why more meetings need to be held. A lot of the legislation is focusing on safety aspects and I don't believe any of it will put undue burden on anyone.”