1 / 32

Tiziano Galassi (Phytosanitary Service)

Direzione Generale Agricoltura. IPM in Emilia-Romagna. Tiziano Galassi (Phytosanitary Service). Bruxelles 2008. IPM and the national context. National IPM “Principles and criteria” (EU Decision – Star Comitte No. C(96) 3864).

garrison-santana
Download Presentation

Tiziano Galassi (Phytosanitary Service)

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. DirezioneGenerale Agricoltura IPM in Emilia-Romagna Tiziano Galassi (Phytosanitary Service) Bruxelles 2008

  2. IPM and the national context • National IPM “Principles and criteria” (EU Decision – Star Comitte No. C(96) 3864) • National Committee for IPM (since 1997): verifies coherence of regional regulations with IPM principles and criteria • “National Guidelines for IPM” defined by the National Committee for IPM for 117 crops • Voluntary certification of integrated production: UNI regulation no. 11233 of 3 May 2007 (i.e. private system) • National system for integrated production quality: D.M. no. 2722 of 17 April 2008 (i.e. public system)

  3. Principles and Criteria in IPM “EC Decision” - No. C(96) 3864 dated 30/12/96 Promotion of phytosanitary protection with reduced impact on man and the environment while allowing for economically acceptable production Development of correct pest management based on two decisions Evaluation of the need for intervention and choice of best time Rationalisation of protection methods 3

  4. Principles and Criteria in IPM The limitation or ban of the use of certain phytosanitary products is dictated by: • toxicological aspects (toxicological class risk phrases) • environmental aspects (negative effects on non-targeted organisms, water, land and persistence in the environment) • carry-over effect and residues in produce • selectivity as regards beneficial organisms • risk of selecting resistant populations

  5. R 40 Limited evidence of carcinogenic effect R 60 May impair fertility R 61 May cause harm to unborn child R 62 Possible risk of impaired fertility R 63 Possible risk of harm to the unborn child R 68 Possible risk of irreversible effects R 48 Danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure Principles and Criteria in IPM RISK PHRASES THAT LIMIT THE USE IN IPM

  6. IPM and the national context “National Guidelines for IPM” www.politicheagricole.it/SviluppoRurale Frame: “Linee Guida Nazionali Produzione Integrata” 2008-2009 – 15/09/2008

  7. Emilia - Romagna Region UAA : 1,101,524 ha 402.895 451.175 USE OF PESTICIDE IN EMILIA-ROMAGNA REGION 150.000 € Million about 23 % of Italian pesticide market

  8. IPM - background From mid-1970s to early-1990s • heavy investment in research • specialist training of advisors • reorganisation of technical support • continuous devising of low environmental impact techniques • limited no. of farms and land involved: 12,000 ha

  9. IPM - background From early-1990s onwards • reduction in advisor training schemes • development of decision-support systems for advisors • optimisation of support systems for advisors and farmers • direct financial support to farmers practicing IPM (agro-environmental measures and MCO - UE)

  10. MAIN CONCERN OBJECTIVES Producer Association Marketing Farms Social aspect * * Reduce environmental impact * Safeguard producers’ health * * Safeguard consumers’ health * * * Controlled production quality

  11. IPM in Emilia-Romagna Region First Period: • Regional Project Now: • Reg. CE n. 1698/2005 - Misura 214 • Reg. CE n. 1580/2007 e 1234/2007 • Regional Low - LL.RR. n. 28/99 e 28/99

  12. Estimated IPM area With contract: almost 150,000 ha about 15–20% of total UAA • fruit 29,122 ha - (44% of total) • vegetables 23,097 ha – (47% of total) Total estimated influence on 60-65%of horticultural land

  13. Components of IPM system Relations with industry Coordination of technical support Support systems for advisors Regulations for integrated production Research and experimentation IPM system Relations with the market Technical support to farmers

  14. IPM – Research • € 1,150,000 for research in 2002 Now € 500,000 – 600,000 • 130 - 150 research programmes - Transfer of results: • field visits • internal meetings (at least 15 per year) • public meetings (4-5 every year) - Rapid implementation of innovations in the regional regulations for IPM with immediate practical application

  15. IPM Regional Regulations E.g.: Regulation on integrated protection of “Potato” against cryptogams

  16. IPM Regional Regulations No. of crops with regional regulations: 71 • Reference documents for regional agro-environmental policies • Based on the results of research • Reference documents for stakeholder debates

  17. IPM and integrated production IPM is integrated with other aspects • Land suitability • Rootstock choice • Choice of variety • Fertilisation • Irrigation • Soil tillage • Phyto-regulators • Pruning • Harvest conditions • Post-harvest management • Traceability information

  18. IPM and agrochemical industry • Setting the relationships • respect for reciprocal roles • max transparency of choices • constant dialogue • Exchange of opinions when defining IPM regulations • An open day for the public and specific meetings with each agrochemical company • Visits to field experiments and frequent meetings on emerging problems

  19. IPM - Coordination group Regional level Regional coordination of technical support and “emergency” management (at least 30 meetings per year) • Provincial level (9 provinces) • Provincial coordination for the definition of communication programmes (at least 320 meetings per year) with 230 weekly provincial bulletins issued by: • leaflets • SMS • internet bulletins • articles in local newspapers

  20. IPM - Support platforms WEATHER Service provided by the regional Agency for environmental protection (Arpa): hourly temperatures (definition of km 5x5), forecast of temperatures for the next 3 days, precipitation forecast

  21. IPM – Pests monitoring network Monitoring in 2006 More than 26,400 controls on 396 fields

  22. IPM - Forecast models Diseases In use: 10 Being developed: 6 • Oidio della vite • Botrite della fragola • Bolla del pesco • Oidio del frumento • Septoria del frumento • Fusariosi del frumento • Cercospora della bietola • Ruggine bruna del frumento • Oidio del frumento • Peronospora della cipolla • Peronospora della patata • Peronospora del pomodoro • Ticchiolatura del melo • Maculatura bruna del pero • Colpo di fuoco batterico • Peronospora della vite Insects In use: 8 Being developed: 4 • Tignoletta della vite • Carpocapsa • Tignola orientale del pesco • Eulia • Pandemis cerasana • Tignola del susino • Anarsia del pesco • Dorifora della patata • Psilla del pero • Afidi colture orticole • Liriomyza huidobrensis

  23. IPM - Staff (*) Private with money from Region

  24. IPM – Communication plan Farm monitoring, monitoring network and outputs of forecast models Diffusion via internet Regional coordination meetings: about 30 meetings per year Provincial coordination meetings: about 320 meetings per year Integrated production bulletins: about 230 per year Advisors’ visits • leaflets • internet, telephone • local newspaper etc. • Farms

  25. IPM - Market • No price recognition for the ”integrated products” • The “integrated products” have allowed the market share to be maintained • The “integrated products”have been niche products for quite a long time • Integrated production is now a pre-requisite for the large-scale retail trade

  26. IPM - Market Serious problems caused by the German market • It does not recognise any added value to IPM production and that whenever possible less hazardous pesticides are used • It has introduced limits on the pesticide residues which: • - are not based on shared assumptions • consider all pesticides as being equal, without differentiating their risk level for the farmers • accept the presence of residues only from a few pesticides, while for the others only accept zero residues despite it now being possible to measure very low levels of residues (i.e. ppb)

  27. IPM – Some results Pesticides • According to the crop, 20-35% reduction in the amount used • Improved impact on humans and the environment: • between 70 and 90% reduction in pesticides with high acute toxicity • between 40 and 95% reduction in pesticides with high chronic toxicity • strict respect for residue limits

  28. IPM - Conclusions Great interest in and agreement with the points that will be introduced by the new directive on sustainable pesticide use and the regulation that will substitute 91/414/EEC: • training for PPP users (art.5 and 6)- mandatory education, training and certification for PPP users (art.5 and 6)- inspections of application equipment (art. 8)- basic level IPM (art. 13)- advances level IPM (art. 13) 44

  29. IPM - Conclusions Advances level IPM (art. 13) It is very important the application of the precautionary principle, as it has been in E-R in the last decades. The application of the precautionary principle implies that, wherever is possible, lower human and environmental risk pesticide alternatives should be used when dealing with a plant protection problem. Advanced level IPM programmes could be the context where the use of “candidates for substitution” is limited 45

  30. IPM - Conclusions IPM is synonymous with guaranteed quality, technical innovation and professionality. Because of this, as well as the political will expressed through a directive, financial support is also necessary for: • Research and experimentation • Technical support systems • Independent and qualified advisors 46

  31. Thanks ……… for your attention

More Related