70 likes | 99 Views
Explore the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing European HRAC, along with ongoing activities focusing on resistance monitoring guidelines and communication strategies. Learn about EHRAC's expectations from GHRAC and the importance of aligning global and regional efforts for effective resistance management. Stay informed on key issues impacting herbicide usage in the EU.
E N D
European HRAC Marc Bonnet on behalf of EHRAC team
European HRAC - Members • Matt Cordingley, Syngenta • Pierre Creange, Bayer CropScience • John Edmonds, Gowan • Barrie Hunt, Monsanto • Alan Porter, (Coordinator) • Marisa Salas, DuPont (Chair) • Marine Djeddah, Adama • Simon Moyal, Nufarm • Anne Thompson, Dow AgroSciences • Hubert Menne, Bayer CropScience • Bernd Sievernich, BASF • David Hennens, FMC • Don Pendergrast, Arysta LifeScience • Marc Bonnet, Arysta LifeScience
European HRAC SWOT analysis… • Strengths: • EHRAC represents a strong pool of knowledge regarding the characteristics and uses of herbicides • Member companies have in-depth knowledge of farmer weed control practices and preferences • Member companies have broad global infrastructure (R&D, sales and technical representatives, etc.) that can help address resistance issues • EHRAC is well-positioned to evaluate new technologies that can be used to address various aspects of resistance • EHRAC members have close contacts withAcademics, Country WG, Authorities and EPPO
European HRAC SWOT analysis… • Weaknesses: • EHRAC has limited influence with academics / officials • Communication and coordination with country WG’s is poor or lacking • EHRAC rarely leads on resistance issues (consequence of 1st point) • Opportunities: • Build the case with regulators to maintain availability of diverse herbicide options to avoid resistance by working through regional HRAC’s • Develop better communication and connection with the European country WG. • Facilitate creation of a resistant WG for CEU countries (CZ, PL, HU) • Action: invitation to our next face to face meeting • Threats: • Lack of budget/ressource
European HRAC • Modus Operandi • 4 meetings per year (3 conf.call / 1 FTF) • Review WG progress • Country Group Feedback by EHRAC members
EHRAC currentactivities • Resistance monitoring method guidelines (WG) – almostcompleted • Objective: • Share companyresistance monitoring processes and methodologies • Minimum requirements (to preventconfidential information) whichcouldbeused in regulatorysubmissions • Guidelines for: • Pre-emergence in grasses • Post-emergence in grasses • Post- emergence in dicots • Content • Field observation • Seed collection • Bioassays (plants growingfromseeds) • Dose responsestudies • Other diagnostic studies (petri-dish, DNA analysis, Leaf disc assays) • Resultsinterpretation • Communication & Education – Outreachmaterial (WG) - ongoing • Resistance management leaflet • EHRAC presentation • Key resistance issues to the farmers • Reminder of « Good Agricultural Practices » to reduceresistancerisks
EHRAC expectations from GHRAC • Improvevisibility of Global HRAC to EU stakeholders (Regulators, Governmentpolicymakers, Academics, Ag Adviser, …) • Improve EHRAC recognition by GHRAC - weedresistanceis a bigproblem and highlyregulated in EU sincemanyyears! • Improvealignmentbetween EHRAC and GHRAC • Does EHRAC agreewith GHRAC BMP’s? EHRAC concernsincluded in GHRAC decisions? • Lack of consultation between GHRAC and EHRAC beforepublishing information on the websiterelating to European issues / incorrect advice • Today more European representatives sitting on GHRAC, which will provide better insight to European issues in the future