1 / 23

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

Beratungsgesellschaft für integrierte Problemlösungen. What guidelines do Europe need ? – contribution from a project funded by DG ENV– Brussels 21 January 2009. Project data. Title: Development of guidance for establishing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Time frame:

johnna
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Beratungsgesellschaft für integrierte Problemlösungen What guidelines do Europe need ? – contribution from a project funded by DG ENV– Brussels 21 January 2009

  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 Development of general principles for IPM including possibilities of compliance monitoring Development of crop specific principles for IPM including the linkage to general IPM principles Evaluation of the proposals made by the Council and the EP Preparation of a draft guidance document for establishing IPM principles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 Draft guidance document • Target group: Member States / professional users • Aim 1: provide concrete tools which need to be established in order that IPM principles are fully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 • 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

  6. General IPM Principles – Existing approaches Common Position of the Council Article 13on Integrated Pest Management Annex IIIdescribes 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 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

  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 beenperformed.

  15. Relation between GPPP and IPM – main characteristics

  16. Relation between GPPP and IPM – main characteristics

  17. What will be included in draft guidance document? -3- • For selected crops examples will be elaborated • 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 GmbH • Dr. Alexandra Polcher • Grauertstr. 12 • 81545 München • Tel. +49-89-18979050 • Mail: alexandra.polcher@bipro.de

More Related