“ Indicators, targets and mitigation measures for risk reduction and IPM”

“Indicators, targets and mitigation measures for risk reduction and IPM”

Amalia KafkaOPERA Research CenterScientific Officer

Madrid, 2 July 2012

Update on SUD implementation – issues and main topics

European Commission forum: “Directive 2009/128/EC on Sustainable use of pesticides”, Brussels, 20th June 2012

Focus of the discussion:– Integrated Pest Management (IPM)– Risk Indicators (RI)

Update on SUD implementation – issues and main topics

EU Expert Meeting on NAP on Sustainable Use of PPP, (Berlin 5th-6th June 2012)

– Training of the farmers– Advise on IPM– Development and implementation of IPM

guidelines– Inspection of spraying – Water and biodiversity protection

• Buffer zones: fixed• Buffer zones: depended on PPP and application equipment • Use of biobeds

IPM implementation in Member States

• IPM or special tools, (eg decision support systems, biological control measures), are used voluntarily by farmers for several years.

• IPM guidelines is one of the main areas of actions for the MS

• IPM tools suggestions include specific and technical recommendations for the implementation of IPM

OPERA proposes background infrastructure that will support the

technical implementation of IPM

OPERA approach to IPM

The RECOMMENDATION PROVIDES INFORMATION on:

o Definition of IPM and its importance for the European Agriculture

o IPM implementation o Sustainable Use Directiveo Objectives to be achievedo Limitations

o Conclusions

IPM concept and its application

The concept of IPM is based on the need to include all the possible available measures to obtain a proper defense for the crop, also considering health, social, economic and environmental aspects

Focus points• Measures on preventing and/or suppressing harmful organisms • Target- specificity and minimization of side effects• Record keeping, monitoring, documentation and checking• Correct spray-free buffer zones to water• Training of the farmers

IPMseen from the perspective of SUD

Objectives

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

Oppo

rtuni

ty fo

r new

an

d im

prov

ed p

rodu

ctio

n pr

actic

es The 8 points of the Annex III recall the adoption of:

Agronomic measuresMonitoringThreshold levelsSpecificity of application Preference for non-chemicals If it provides satisfactory pest controlResistance Management Check of results in relation with the applied measures

General principles of IPM (Annex III)

Prevention and/or suppression of harmful organisms

(Principle 1)

Guidelines on viable crop rotation schemes

Inventory of the adequate cultivation techniques

Criteria for the selection of cultivars and certified seed and plating material

Guidelines on balance fertilization irrigation

Minimum recommendations for crop and pest specific hygiene

Guidelines for beneficial organism introduction

General principles of IPM (Annex III)

Monitoring harmful organisms(Principle 2)

Checklists, observation sheet, software

Public monitoring system at regional or national level

Application of plant protection measures(Principle 3)

Management decision support tools (eg. leaflets with decision schemes, recommendation from plant health authorities, simple software etc)

General principles of IPM (Annex III)Sustainable biological, physical and other non-chemical methods(Principle 4)

Guidance on the alternative control means and their efficiency

The pesticides applied shall be as specific as possible for the target (Principle 5)

Guidelines on PPP category to be used and on mitigation measures to reduce risk

General principles of IPM (Annex III)

Use of pesticides at necessary levels(Principle 6)

Information campaign on the need to respect the label

Anti- resistance strategies should be applied to maintain the effectiveness of the products(Principle 7)

Regional or national anti/resistance strategy with simple recommendations for farmers, based on international guidelines

General principles of IPM (Annex III)

Check the success of the applied plant protection measures(Principle 8)

Recommendation on maintaining records on pesticides’ use and on the monitoring of harmful organisms

General principles of IPM (Annex III)

Resources and actions to achieve a successful implementation of IPM

principlesKnowledge transfer means training, information and research

Training is explicitly required by the SUD for the whole complex of measures, but it appears particularly relevant for IPM

It can be organized either by the national or regional authorities, or by the private sector under the guidance of the public authorities.

Resources and actions to achieve a successful implementation of IPM

principlesInformation is a compulsory requirement of IPM

Meteorological data, pest detection and population dynamics, alerts and more general advice should be available on an easy to access communication platform, integrated with a proper local support service for farmers who have no familiarity with information technologies.

Conclusions- Regulatory initiatives recommended to be taken into consideration for a successful

implementation of IPM

•Training network open to the contribution of farmers, advisors, PPP producers, researchers, etc. working together and learning from experience

•Consider financial support to the farmers (CAP support, credit facilities, insurance funds) and rewarding diligence

•Establish a network of demonstrative centres for IPM

•Maintain a clear distinction between organic farming and IPM farming

Regulatory initiatives recommended to be taken into consideration for a successful

implementation of IPM

•Avoid extra bureaucracy for the farmers, privilege indirect assessments, recordings and self evaluations

•Increase public awareness that IPM provides food quality and safety

•Implement innovation technologies

Update on SUD implementation – Risk Indicators

• Not all MS have clear picture on what RI to use. • Some MS have already adopted RI but the big

majority waits further assistance by the EC.• Various approaches:

• Modeling indicators• Trend indicators• Indirect indicators

• Member States’ distinguish three categories of RI

• Environmental • Economical • Social Risk Indicators

Risk Indicators, the current situation was discussed…

Problems in the implementation of the RI• Lack of resources• Long bureaucratic procedures • Need for new data: expensive

EC intends to create a WG which will work on the establishment of the harmonized RI

Indicators and targets for the Sustainable Use Directive

Indicators and

Targets

Capture information, on impact in reducing the risk and not on the volume of pesticide used, during the implementation of National Action Plans (NAP)Asses performance of NAP

Information on risk reduction at European level will be completed with data collected for the future harmonised indicators

The approach of the working group

In implementing the SUD, it is important to clearly define goals to reduce risk, and then measures to

reach these goals

The mitigation measures are linked to the risk indicators selected.

Mitigation Measures

Risk Indicators

The approach of the working group

Therefore, risk indicators and mitigating measures - have to be addressed in parallel

MEASURE TARGET RISK INDICATOR

Any set of indicators should reflect a minimum number of

economic, social and environmental aspects

The toolbox stepwise approachGoals should be set in relation to the policy priorities in the MS to address the risks identified prior to the application of the NAP

The targets for each measure shall vary from MS to MS, even if the overall quantitative target of the plan is the same.

Rede

fine

goal

s afte

r im

plem

enta

tion

The toolbox

Procedure to establish quantitative risk reduction targets

Give benchmark values over time to the indicators selected to monitor risk reduction

The targets suggested in the toolbox are a hypothetical example of how MS’s may consider achieving a certain level of risk reduction through the measure taken and its corresponding indicator.

The toolboxExample: Risk reduction measure: Training of farmers and operators in

application techniques and equipment maintenance

Attendance of designated training courses

1000 farmers participating every year to designated

training courses

Participation in recognized professional bodies

Increase by 10% in 3 years the number of farmers adhering to

professional bodies

Skill tests for operators Over 80% of the tested operators pass the examination

Financial impact for users No target required

Environmental Social Economic

Balanced set of indicators Examples of Quantitative Targets

The toolbox

The toolbox of practical risk indicators proposed by OPERA aims to measure the impact of NAP on:

Environment - water; soil and biodiversityPeople - consumers; bystanders and operatorsSocial issues

Economic costs

A mix of indicators from the four categories it is recommended

Thank you for your attention!

The publications are available at

www.OperaResearch.eu

[email protected]