Transcript De kracht van samenwerken: PAV wordt PPO

Integrated crop protection,
some episodes from The Netherlands
Frank Wijnands
Wageningen University and Research Centre
Netherlands
Road map





Short introduction in Integrated crop protection
Research and results experimental farms 1980-2000
The pilot farm networks approach 1990-2004
The agricultural community, responsible network of
stakeholders approach 2004- ?
Creating incentives ?
Integrated crop protection
strategic approach of sustainable crop protection

Prevention



Need of control


Reduce need for control
Strategical, tactical, operational
Support decisions (rational)
Control


Non-chemical, physical, thermal, biological etc.
Chemical,
• where, when, how and what
Integrated Crop Protection & Integrated Farming Systems

IOBC - integrated fruit production - 70’ties
Integrated crop protection
Integrated farming systems

Development since 1979






Lautenbach (south germany)
DFS Nagele NL, arable crops, clay soil, 72 ha
Period from 1990-2000, IOBC european network
Disciplinary research
IOBC

International Organization for the Biological and
Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants


Scientific Non-profit, Non Governmental Organisation



http://www.iobc-global.org/
since 1956
Studygroups, working groups and commissions
Commission on IP guidelines since 1990
(http://www.iobc.ch)


Guidelines pome, stone and soft fruits, grapes, olives, citrus,
vegetables, arable crops
Toolbox to help organisations design ICP schemes
ICP in the Netherlands – experimental farms

Development farming systems (integrated and organic)




DFS Nagele Comparison conventional, organic and integrated 19782003
Conventional system stopped in 1990
More experimental sites in different regions and sectors period 19862003
Limited continuation after 2003, focus on elements and on pilot farm
networks
ICP methods & techniques - elements








Proper crop rotation, optimal fertilisation
Resistant and/or tolerant cultivars, seed treatments
Decision support systems (traps, crop walking, weather
based predictions etc.), action tresholds
Natural enemies, biological control
Mechanical weed control, band spraying, robotisation
Low dose techniques, contact instead of soil herbicides
and insecticides
Precision Farming, crop scans
Emission reduction spraying techniques
Results NL

Very convincing results around 1990,




Period 1990-2000





The peak in North west european intensification and
agrochemical use
Reductions of use and impact (various parameters) up to 90%
Competing economic results of th IFS systems
Further reductions in use and impact
More robust techniques, suitable for larger scale farms
New pesticides contribute to firther reduction in impact
Reductions of use and impact (various parameters) 80-99% i.c.
1986-1990
Perspectives good for application in practice
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
'9
9
'9
2XP
'9
5
'9
2XP
92
-'9
9
I'
92
-'9
5
I'
86
-'9
0
I'
80
-'8
4
I'
0
'8
6'9
C
4
Nematicides
Growth regulators
Insecticides
Fungicides
Herbicides
'8
0'8
C
input active ingredient (kg/ha)
Input active ingredient (kg/ha)
5,0
4,5
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
9
2'9
XP
2'9
XP
'9
5
'9
9
I'
92
-'9
5
I'
92
-'9
0
86
I'
80
I'
-'9
4
-'8
0
'9
6'8
C
0-
'8
4
Nematicides
Growth regulators
Insecticides
Fungicides
Herbicides
target
'8
C
EEP- air (kg a.i. per ha)
Emission to the air, EEP-air (kg a.i./ha)
Emission to groundwater: EEPgr. water (ppb)
Nematicides
Growth regulators
Insecticides
Fungicides
Herbicides
target
20
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
9
2'9
XP
XP
'9
2-
'9
5
'9
9
I'
92
-'9
5
I'
92
-'9
0
I'
86
-'8
80
I'
-'9
4
0
'9
6'8
C
'8
0-
'8
4
0
C
EEP- groundwater (PPB)
18
'9
9
'9
2-
'9
5
'9
2-
70
XP
XP
92
-'9
9
I'
92
-'9
5
I'
86
-'9
0
I'
80
-'8
4
0
'8
6'9
4
'8
0'8
I'
C
C
EYS-waterlife % treatments that exceed target
EYS-waterlife (% treatments exceeding targetvalue)
80
> 100 ESY
11 to 99 ESY
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Working with farmers
pilot farm approaches
ICP/IFS in the Netherlands – pilot farms

Pilot farm network integrated farming



1990-1993: 38 farms (arable)
1996-1998: 18 farms (vegetable)
Farming with future

2000-2003: 40 farms (all sectors)

2004-2007: 350 farms (all sectors, study groups)
2008-2010: network based activities

Pilot farm networks (limited number of farms)


Cooperation extension/advisory organisations, research
and farmers
Farmers are guided intensively,








whole farm approach, agronomical demands
analysis current situation, implementation and improvement
plans
guidance in building up experience with new approaches
decisions farmers’ responsability
Additional research and measurements
Registration / analysis / evaluation
Exchange in groups of experiences and farm data
Basis for dissemination
Pilot farms results 1990-1993

Comparable results to the experimental farms!!!!



Intensive dialogue, collaboration and growth process over 4 years
Post project research (7 years later) showed a permanent, lasting
effect




Under a wide range of varying consitions
Awareness of outside world, communication, responsibility, aprroaches
Farmers concluded to have become better plant growers
Relative low adoption of new routines in agricultural community
Question: is such an intensive proces needed for all, was there too
litlle attention for the community?
Critical success factors - farmers

For a successfull application in practice, the farmer has
to:






Know (knowledge of techniques and methods),
Be able (in technical and economical terms, labour, risks, costs
etc.)
Have the will (vision and motivation) and
Be allowed to do so (“socially desired” behaviour, acceptance in
network)
Awareness – mentality – behaviour
Necessity/use – vision/point of view/strategy - success
Critical success factors - system



Software: between the ears: vision, point of view,
awarenmess
Hardware: knowledge and technology
Orgware: support in the business and social network
Working in the agricultural community
New pilot approaches
Farming with Future 2004-2010





Agricultural network approach
Together towards sustainable crop production
2004-2007: 34 regional networks with 400 participating
farmers and the related stakeholders
2007-2010: varying cooperation's with farmers and
stakeholders
Related to the “Covenant Crop protection”, and the policy
of The Ministry on crop protection and fertilisation
Groups








glas 5
arable, clay 6
arable, sand 4
vegetables 6
bulbs 5
fruit 4
nursery 4
Total 34: 400 participants
Accent glasgroepen in
westen van het land,
deelnemers echter in
meerdere teeltgebieden
Stakeholders – interacting dynamic network

Producers of pesticides


Suppliers of pesticides, +/- advice


Sell the product
More independent advice organisations


Buy the product
Retailers


They are the “problem owner”
Traders


Their members use pesticides
Water boards, drinking water companies


They sell it
Farmers union


They produce it
They advice
Environmental NGO’s
Major objectives
1. New relevant knowledge



2.
3.
On-farm testing and developing Best practices with farmers and
stakeholders (Best practices)
Best practices are the promising new methods & techniques
from research
feasable and effective methods
Realising impact and
increasing responsibility stakeholders
Knowledge development
crop
protection
rejected
to be
adapted
ready to
use
In the heart of knowledge development

Uses the newest knowledge


Links this with



The practical experience and innovative powers of farmers
Develops and tests


From government sponsored research programmes on crop
protection
Together with famers practicable effective and feasible methods
for more sustainable farming systems
Disseminates new knowledge via the network of
advisory, agri-business et.
Gives feedback to research and policy (agenda)
Major objectives
1.
New relevant knowledge
2. Realising impact



Increasing the use of these new methods in agricultural
practices
Knowledge dissemination together with, traders, suplliers,
advisory organisations etc, all relevant stakeholders
Working on solutions for specific problemes, often water qualirty
issues
3. Stimulating stakeholders to take more responsibilty for
sustainabilty in their actions
Knowledge dissemination / “circulation”




Only !! together with stakeholders, in their events and media
Focus on consistent message from all stakeholders
Large amount of varying forms of communication:
 demonstrations, articles, open days, workshops, excursions,
newsletters, flyers, lectures, presentations etc.
Reaching large groups of farmers
Solutions for specific problems
Focus on water quality – alliance with water boards
Example:
Pollution of surface water with herbicides from maize
production in Southeast Netherlands
Coalition of pesticide producers Syngenta and BASF,
suppliers, contractors, water board and farmer union
Results of the project (2004-2007)

70 best practices ready for practice



Reaching 1000’s of farmers by



that are effective and feasible
described in leaflets and broadly disseminated
Yearly some 100 activities organised together with stakeholders
to disseminate sustainable (best) practices
More stakholders involved in the knowledge
dissemination
New coalitions of stakeholders for sustainable
agriculture in varying composition
However




Existing routines are hard to change,
They got the “power of reality”
Changing behaviour of farmers and stakeholders is
difficult and takes time.
From inform to advice!!!
Lessons learned – success factors

Excellent technology






Increasingly hard to find
Innovations needed, new principles, new approaches
Substantial contribution
New, more sustainable approaches should be profitable.
Requires vision, policy, money, courage and support
Road tested technology




Tested with farmers and stakeholders
Feasible and effective
Basis for dissemination
Requires participatory approaches, networks, advisory services,
research, farmers
Lessons learned – success factors

Involve agricultural community – stakeholders







Social contract – agreement start
Responsability – first steps
Link interests – whats at stake for SH with the sustainabilty issue
Increasing interest in sustainability, higher on ladder of interests
From the freedom the choose to the responsibilty to choose
Requires continuous stakeholdermanagement
Support these developments by an organisation – project




Independent,
Flexible
Highly knowledgeble, expertise
Skill in process and content
statement









Never underestimate the possibilities of the stakeholders
They are the professionals in the agricultural business
They cause! the current situation – hostage situation
When they take sustainability serious anything can happen
We must make it their business
As one of my board members stated
Everyone must want to do what they can do
The stakeholders have the key to sustainabilty
But only in cooperation
Incentives

Economically




Ethical – ecological – environmental



New technology makes you money!!
Government EU support, public concerns, support
methods and techniques – ICP ladder
Market- demands certification
Responsibel behaviour – ssustainablity
Make it the “norm”
Legal


Pesticide registration
Additional rules (buffer strips, control machinery etc)