What guidelines do Europe need ? – contribution from a project funded by DG ENV– Brussels 21...
-
Upload
martin-freeman -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of What guidelines do Europe need ? – contribution from a project funded by DG ENV– Brussels 21...
What guidelines do Europe need ?
– contribution from a project funded by DG ENV–
Brussels
21 January 2009
Beratungsgesellschaft für integrierte Problemlösungen
2
Project data
Title:
Development of guidance for establishing Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Time frame:
July 2008 – April 2009
Involved institutes:
BiPRO GmbH, Julius Kühn Institute
3
Overall project objectives
1. Development of general principles for IPM including possibilities of compliance monitoring
2. Development of crop specific principles for IPM including the linkage to general IPM principles
3. Evaluation of the proposals made by the Council and the EP
4. Preparation of a draft guidance document for establishing IPM principles
4
Draft guidance document
Target group: Member States / professional users
Aim 1: provide concrete tools which need to be established in order that IPM principles are fully implemented by all professional users
Aim 2: provide recommendations for the development of crop specific IPM criteria and reflect on the link to general IPM principle
Aim 3: provide potential performance indicators to assess and compare crop specific IPM systems
Aim 4: specify possible measures to monitor compliance
it was agreed to address Member States and to include material that can be used for communication with professional users
5
What will be included in draft guidance document? -1-
• Focus will be given on 8 principles of Common Position
o Explanation of principles o Tools to be established in order that general IPM principles are fully
implemented o Information that can be provided to farmers
• The importance of training activities will be highlighted
6
General IPM Principles – Existing approaches
Common Position of the Council
Article 13 on Integrated Pest Management
Annex III describes the general principles of Integrated Pest Management:
(1) Measures for prevention and/or suppression of harmful organisms (2) Tools for monitoring (3) Threshold values as basis for decision-making (4) Non-chemical methods to be preferred (5) Target-specificity and minimization of side effects (6) Reduction of use to necessary levels (7) Application of anti-resistance strategies (8) Records, monitoring, documentation and check of success
7
General IPM Principles – Existing approaches
Besides this categorisation of general IPM principles in the Common Position,a series of different approaches to IPM could be found in:
IPM concepts of several international organisations
• International Organisation for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants (IOBC) (West Palaearctic Regional Section)
• European Initiative for Sustainable Development in Agriculture (EISA)
• Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe)
• Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) / Global IPM Facility (in co-operation with World Bank)
IPM approaches used outside of Europe
• United States of America (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
• Latin America (Cuba, Brazil Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, Costa Rica, …)
IPM approaches applied in individual European Member States
8
General IPM principles – Existing approaches
individual elements of all approaches have been identified
subsequently elements have been linked to the eight principles of the common position
it has been checked if elements are covered already by different articles in legislation
Possible new and independent elements have been identified
9
Existing approaches – link to Common Position
31 additional elements could be identified mentioned in the IPM materialof international organisations and EU Member States
• Several of these elements are covered correspondingly by principles of the Common Position
• Several elements are considered within other general articles of the Framework Directive
10
Additional elements
A comparison of the Common Position and other concepts showed:
IPM is addressed in different ways
• The Common Position is focussed on principles to be applied by the professional user, i. e. farmer and crop grower defined to-dos for the user
• IPM concepts of other organisations and Member States also include several principles referring more to the national or political level, e. g. Regulative political framework conditions These principles do not address the user directly but the policy maker
11
Additional elements
● Training of farmers, certificates for users mandatory; further advice systems
the only additional element that has been identifiedas relevant in order to address professional users
NEW
BUT:
As training activities cannot be made mandatory it was agreed to raise awareness for this point via the guidance document
12
What will be included in draft guidance document? -2-
• Distinctions between GPPP and IPM will be highlighted • European definition of IPM will be drafted
13
Distinction between IPM and Good Plant Protection Practice
• “Integrated Pest Management” (IPM) is a 50 year old concept designed as a response to the increasing usage of chemical pesticides
• The term “Good Plant Protection Practice” (GPPP) first used in Europe in the 1980s.
• No clear distinction between GPPP and IPM, fuzzy boundaries (also identifiable from some questionnaire answers of experts)
• While GPPP only describes possibilities of handling within the legal framework and gives specific recommendations, using the term “should”, IPM demands compliance with certain requirements in a programme
GPPP as the technically accepted status quo, IPM as the model or highest quality of practical plant protection
14
Relation between IPM and GPPP
A comparison of main characteristics, similarities and differences betweenGood Plant Protection Practice and Integrated Pest Management has been
performed.
15
Relation between GPPP and IPM – main characteristics
Good Plant Protection Practice Integrated ManagementCompliance with legal regulations Compliance with legal regulationsNo use of guidelines; plant protection measures for specific problems
Complex concept drafted as an IPM guideline
Use of selected approved and economically justified cultural, biological and other non-chemical control measures
Use of all feasible cultural, biological and other non-chemical control measures, including subsidies
No particular consideration of natural control
Consideration and use of natural controlBeneficial organisms are included in action thresholds; use of selective pesticides; enhancement of natural pest control by field margins and other structural elements
Monitoring of fields for infestation Pest monitoring according to conceptDecision-making after simple evaluation of infestation, including experience and advisory service information
Decision-making after field monitoring using action thresholds and all available forecasting and decision making systems
16
Relation between GPPP and IPM – main characteristics
Good Plant Protection Practice Integrated ManagementPrompt use of authorised and appropriate pesticides according to legal requirements
Prompt use of authorised pesticides most appropriate for IPM in situation-specific doses
No actions for ecological enhancement of landscape
Actions for ecological enhancement of landscape (e.g. biodiversity), including subsidies
Documentation of field-related pesticide use
Documentation of field-related infestation situations and pesticide use
Use of normal state advisory service Use of IPM-related state advisory serviceNo subsidies for plant protection measures Subsidies for cultural and non-chemical
methodsNormal plant protection control regarding compliance with legal regulations
Control on compliance with legal regulations and IPM requirements
17
What will be included in draft guidance document? -3-
• For selected crops examples will be elaborated
o concretisation of general IPM principles
• It will be highlighted which crop specific additional elements might be necessary
• Recommendations for the development of crop specific IPM criteria
• Discussion on the link between general and crop specific IPM principles
18
Crop specific IPM elements – selection of main crops
Criteria taken into consideration are
the quantitative relevance of the crops with respect to:
Use of plant protection products, crop protection market
Treatment index for pesticide application
Volume of harvested production
Area cultivated
a well balanced representation of:
geographic distribution area of the European Union (North / South)
Cereals, oilseeds, fruits, crop trees, vegetables and potatoes
Crop rotation systems and individual crops
Field growing and greenhouse growing
19
Main crops
Taking these criteria into account, the following main crops cultivated in Europe have been selected:
Common wheat
Maize Typical crop rotation system of arable crops
Rapeseed
Potato
Tomato Greenhouse growing with increasing importance(Spain, Netherlands) and field growing considered
Wine and must Perennial crops with high protection volume
Apples Most important crop of the category crop trees;historic prototype of IPM
20
What will be included in draft guidance document? -4-
• Possible measures to monitor compliance with IPM principles
• Explanation and scope of compliance indicators
• Recommendations for routine monitoring and for spot checks
• Recommendation on possible performance indicators to assess and compare crop specific IPM systems
21
Monitoring of implementation
In depth study of monitoring possibilities and limitations is a crucial aspect for all legislative approaches.
In order to derive with recommendations the following steps will be fulfilled:
Selection of indicators
• amongst other aspects easy to implement, effective and cost- efficient
• SMART approach: specific, measurable, adequate, realistic and time dependent
• link to and consistency with other EU legislation or other monitoring activities
• discussion of limitations and recommendation to deal with
Time line for monitoring
22
Next relevant project date
• 17 March 09 – draft final report will be available for discussion
• In coordination with the Commission it is planned that this version will be as complete as possible in order to enable EC and others to comment on the project work
23
Thank you very much for your attention !
Contact:
BiPRO GmbHDr. Alexandra Polcher
Grauertstr. 1281545 München
Tel. +49-89-18979050Mail: [email protected]