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 Preparation of a draft guidance document for establishing IPM principles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Draft guidance document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What will be included in draft guidance document?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: alexandra.polcher@bipro.de