There has not been a new or blanket “approval” of glyphosate for firebreak preparation.

The current position reflects:

• existing registrations under Act 36 of 1947, where certain glyphosate products include vegetation management uses (which may extend to firebreak preparation where explicitly stated on the label), and
• a risk-based evaluation of available registered herbicides, which has identified glyphosate as the least harmful option within the current set of legally registered products for this specific use case.

It is important to emphasise that glyphosate is not the only registered herbicide but has emerged as the most appropriate option under current conditions, based on comparative risk, not preference.

1. Compliance remains non-negotiable

Glyphosate may only be used:

• where the specific product label permits the use, and
• strictly in accordance with label instructions (rates, application method, buffers, etc.).

Use outside of label instructions remains illegal under Act 36.

2. Glyphosate is not a default solution

The identification of glyphosate as the least harmful option does not imply that chemical control should replace existing manual or mechanical firebreak preparation methods. Where effective firebreak preparation systems are already in place, there is no technical or compliance-based justification to transition to glyphosate use. The current position should be understood as: “enabling a compliant option where no viable alternative exists, not promoting a shift toward chemical control.”

3. Firebreaks represent a high-exposure environment

Firebreaks are typically:

• located on slopes or areas prone to runoff,
• in proximity to watercourses, and
• accessible to workers and, in some cases, the public.

As a result, product selection must consider exposure risk, not only hazard classification.

4. Glyphosate is not a direct replacement for paraquat or glufosinate-ammonium

It is important to recognise that glyphosate differs fundamentally from both paraquat and glufosinate-ammonium in terms of behaviour and risk profile:

• Glyphosate is systemic, resulting in complete plant kill, whereas paraquat and glufosinate-ammonium act primarily as contact herbicides (with glufosinate having limited translocation).
• The systemic action of glyphosate may lead to increased bare soil exposure, particularly in firebreak strips.
• In certain conditions, this can contribute to erosion and runoff risk, especially on slopes or in areas with higher rainfall.

As a result, glyphosate should not be treated as a like-for-like operational substitute for either paraquat or glufosinate-ammonium, and its use should be carefully considered in relation to site conditions and firebreak objectives.

5. Use must be targeted and justified

Where glyphosate is used, this should be:

• site-specific,
• risk-assessed, and
• applied in a targeted manner (e.g. tracer lines rather than blanket application, where appropriate).

Routine or blanket use without clear justification should be avoided.

6. Integrated firebreak management remains best practice

Firebreak preparation should continue to follow an integrated management approach, where:

• manual and mechanical methods remain the primary tools, and
• chemical use is supplementary, applied only where necessary.

7. Status of alternative products

Contact, non-residual herbicides (e.g. pelargonic acid-based products) represent a more aligned option for firebreak preparation; however:

• they are not yet registered for this use in South Africa, and
• cannot currently be relied upon operationally.

Similarly, the status of other products (e.g. glufosinate-ammonium) remains uncertain and subject to regulatory processes.

Glyphosate can be described as:

• ✔ Legally available (for specific products and uses)
• ✔ Identified as the least harmful option among registered herbicides for this use case
• ✔ Operationally effective in certain contexts
• ✖ Not without environmental and stewardship considerations
• ✖ Not a replacement for existing effective firebreak practices

 In this context, glyphosate should be regarded as a “risk-informed, constrained option to be used only where justified.” Consistent messaging across the Sector is important to avoid unintended shifts in practice driven by availability or supplier influence. The key question should remain: “Where do we need glyphosate?”  not  “Where can we use glyphosate?”

TIPWG will continue to support the industry by:

• clarifying legal and certification requirements, and
• promoting risk-based, context-appropriate decision-making.

 Please feel free to reach out if further support, including decision-support tools or comparative assessments, would be useful.