Risk Mitigation Toolbox Process

Transcription

1 Risk Mitigation Toolbox Process Anne Alix 1, Veronique Poulsen 2 1 Dow AgroSciences, Milton Park, Abingdon, United Kingdom 2Anses, Maisons Alfort, France

2 Main components of RMM Risk mitigation measures = Technical x legal x practical Taylor made for a country Is any harmonization possible?

3 Process followed Inventory of RMM: existing and in development Discussion of the RMM identified Ranking Listing of the tools to measure RMM effectiveness Identification of research needs Preparation of a guidance document Preparation of future networking

4 1. Inventory Inventory of risk management measures used in EU Member States to mitigate environmental exposure of pesticides, their status (legally bound or recommendations as good agricultural practice) and their nature (generic or product specific): Questionnaires and MS answers Contributions: - posters - papers - videos - leaflets

5

6 2. Discuss the tools identified In depth discussion of what is meant by the RMM, how their are implemented in national regulatory contexts and by farmers, to spot similarities and differences and the possible adaptations to improve harmonization and the sharing of practices Seek and agreement on the definitions

7 3. Rank the tools to identify priorities Rank the risk mitigation measures identified based on agreed criteria: - Technical feasibility - Legal issues - Potential for implementation by farmers - Potential for integration in risk assessment - Costs

8 3. Rank the tools to identify priorities RMM Location related to Rating need to prepare recommendations and be encouraged 2 no spray zone - depending on wind direction 4 buffer zone - vegetated 6 Low drift nozzles (incl. spray pressure, etc) 10 Precision spraying 13 Treated seeds - low wind speed 15 Buffer zone with depending on % of offfield recovery area 16 Ecological Focus Areas - to enrich landscape with recovery areas Buffer 3 efficacy obvious, we need to understand why not implemented in some countries Comments homework who it is a practice but little detail about the implementation Buffer NTP; 3 yes there is a chance to give more meaning to these vegetated BZ to address specific protection goals Buffer/Fi eld Buffer/Fi NTA;NTP;Be eld e Field Landsca pe Field/La ndscape ask Sweden to explain how they implement it ask countries what they need to implement it see H NTA;NTP; 3 yes check with SW bees & other pollinators 1 needs more data to quantify the benefits as it is a very good idea 3 need to check if this is in the draft SANCO GD on treated seeds 3 Germany to draft a paper to explain how it works 3 Germany to draft a paper to explain how it works used on some crops and depending on the growth stage same as for sprays - rather corresponds to good practice well established in one MS, CAP Ecological Focus Areas - as a chance to enrich landscape with recovery areas well established in one MS, influences the registration process in allowing more flexibility with regulatory RMM well established in one MS, corresponds to MFFM to fulfill CAP recommendations, influences the registration process in allowing more flexibility with regulatory RMM write a paragraph to explain G and describe research needs see G see G see G Jan MFFM group, Jan will share docs in field group/gw and SW groups Janine Burkhard/Ro land Burkhard/Ro land

9 4. Tools to measure RMM effectiveness - Data already available geographic area covered - Monitoring tools - Modelling tools - Indicators to be used by farmers

10 5. Research needs Identify areas of research and technical developments that may be used as a support of new/improved risk management practices: - Technical aspects, data supporting efficacy measurement, etc - Additional literature review

11 6. Prepare guidance documentation Prepare a guidance document on risk mitigation, into the form of a toolbox based on agreed risk management objectives and performances among European Member States: - Proceedings to be published in 2016 open book - For farmers: communication tools to be developed

12 7. Networking Objective: explore the ways to develop / join an existing platform for further exchanges for Member State Authorities, research laboratories, industry and farmers, to - Pursue the development of the toolbox: improve existing tools, develop next tools - Implement training - Develop communication material - Provide advice on the use of RMM

13 SETAC Europe 12 th Special Science Symposium Organization of the work Four breakout groups: 1. Ground water 2. Surface water and aquatic organisms 3. In-field organisms 4. Off-field organisms

14 SETAC Europe 12 th Special Science Symposium...to cover the following issues: Spray drift MFFM Discuss feedback and identify promising RMM Rank RMM: implementation, costs, links with RA Agree on the list Legal issues Stewardship Monitoring Proceedings

15 SETAC Europe 12 th Special Science Symposium Proceedings - content RMM for groundwater protection (will include recommendations regarding the management of drainage that are common with the management of transfers to ground water) RMM for surface water (run-off, spray drift and drainage) RMM for in-field areas RMM for off-field areas For each chapter: proposals with regards to SPe phrases Regulation (EU) 547/2011 Stewardship programmes and initiatives Monitoring Regulatory and legal aspects Link to the protection of biodiversity

16 Questions?