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

2. 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. 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the linkage to general IPM principles 3.Evaluation of the proposals made by the Council and the EP 4.Preparation of a draft guidance document for establishing IPM principles

4. 4 Draft guidance document Target group: Member States / professional users  Aim 1: provide concrete tools which need to be established in order that IPM principles are fully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5. 5 What will be included in draft guidance document?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. 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. 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. 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. 9 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

10. 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. 11 Additional elements ● 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 NEW BUT: As training activities cannot be made mandatory it was agreed to raise awareness for this point via the guidance document

12. 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. 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. 14 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.

15. 15 Relation between GPPP and IPM – main characteristics Good Plant Protection PracticeIntegrated Management Compliance with legal regulations No 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 control Beneficial 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 infestationPest monitoring according to concept Decision-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. 16 Relation between GPPP and IPM – main characteristics Good Plant Protection PracticeIntegrated Management Prompt 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 serviceUse of IPM-related state advisory service No subsidies for plant protection measuresSubsidies for cultural and non-chemical methods Normal plant protection control regarding compliance with legal regulations Control on compliance with legal regulations and IPM requirements

17. 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. 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. 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  TomatoGreenhouse growing with increasing importance (Spain, Netherlands) and field growing considered  Wine and mustPerennial crops with high protection volume  ApplesMost important crop of the category crop trees; historic prototype of IPM

20. 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. 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. 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. 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