What guidelines do Europe need ? – contribution from a project funded by DG ENV–

Brussels 21 January 2009

Beratungsgesellschaft für integrierte Problemlösungen

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

2

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 Preparation of a draft guidance document for establishing IPM principles

3

Draft guidance document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

4

What will be included in draft guidance document? -1-

• • o o o Focus will be given on 8 principles of Common Position Explanation of principles Tools to be established in order that general IPM principles are fully implemented Information that can be provided to farmers The importance of training activities will be highlighted

5

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) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Measures for prevention and/or suppression of harmful organisms Tools for monitoring Threshold values as basis for decision-making Non-chemical methods to be preferred Target-specificity and minimization of side effects Reduction of use to necessary levels Application of anti-resistance strategies Records, monitoring, documentation and check of success

6

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 7

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

8

Existing approaches – link to Common Position

31 additional elements could be identified mentioned in the IPM material of 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

9

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

10

Additional elements

● NEW  Training of farmers, certificates for users mandatory; further advice systems

the only additional element that has been identified as relevant in order to address professional users

BUT: As training activities cannot be made mandatory it was agreed to raise awareness for this point via the guidance document

11

What will be included in draft guidance document? -2-

• • Distinctions between GPPP and IPM will be highlighted European definition of IPM will be drafted

12

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

13

Relation between IPM and GPPP

A comparison of main characteristics, similarities and differences between Good Plant Protection Practice and Integrated Pest Management has been performed.

14

Relation between GPPP and IPM – main characteristics

Good Plant Protection Practice

Compliance with legal regulations No use of guidelines; plant protection measures for

specific

problems Use of

selected

approved and economically justified cultural, biological and other non-chemical control measures

N

o particular consideration of

control natural Monitoring of fields

for infestation Decision-making after

simple evaluation

of infestation, including experience and advisory service information

Integrated Management

Compliance with legal regulations

Complex

guideline concept drafted as an IPM Use of

all

feasible cultural, biological and other non-chemical control measures, including subsidies Consideration and use of

natural control

Beneficial organisms are included in action thresholds; use of selective pesticides; enhancement of natural pest control by field margins and other structural elements

Pest monitoring

according to concept Decision-making after field monitoring using action thresholds and all available forecasting and

decision making systems 15

Relation between GPPP and IPM – main characteristics

Good Plant Protection Practice

Prompt use of authorised and appropriate pesticides according to

legal requirements No actions for ecological enhancement

of landscape Documentation of

field-related pesticide use

Use of

normal

state advisory service

No subsidies

for plant protection measures Normal plant protection control regarding compliance with

legal

regulations

Integrated Management

Prompt use of authorised pesticides most appropriate for IPM in

situation-specific doses Actions for ecological enhancement

of landscape (e.g. biodiversity), including subsidies Documentation of

field-related infestation situations and pesticide use

Use of

IPM-related

state advisory service

Subsidies

methods for cultural and non-chemical Control on compliance with

legal

regulations

and IPM

requirements

16

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

17

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

18

Main crops

Taking these criteria into account, the following main crops cultivated in Europe have been selected:      Common wheat Maize Rapeseed Potato Tomato   Wine and must Apples Typical crop rotation system of arable crops Greenhouse growing with increasing importance (Spain, Netherlands) and field growing considered Perennial crops with high protection volume Most important crop of the category crop trees; historic prototype of IPM

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

Thank you very much for your attention !

Contact: BiPRO GmbH Dr. Alexandra Polcher Grauertstr. 12 81545 München Tel. +49-89-18979050 Mail: [email protected]

23