IPM is still a hot topic in the EU

In the EU, IPM and not least its implementation on the farm level has been a frequently debated topic in recent years. Some years ago, EU DG SANTE, which is responsible for the directive concerning sustainable use of pesticides (Directive 2009/128 EC), carried out a series of fact-finding missions to six selected EU countries, including Denmark. 

The conclusion in all six reports was that a range of actions had been taken to fulfil the formal requirement in the form of e.g. teaching and checking of sprayers, but that none of the six countries had taken action or developed tools to follow up and check implementation of IPM on the farm level. The same conclusion was reached in a report regarding implementation of Directive 2009/128 EC, which was published at the end of 2018, and was requested by the European Parliament, which has shown increasing interest in the pesticide area in recent years.        

We see similar developments on the domestic political scene. In the text of the supplementary agreement to the Pesticide Plan 2017-2021, which was passed in January this year, the political parties behind the Pesticide Strategy 2017-2021 (all parties minus Alternativet and Enhedslisten), decided that pesticide users must be required to fill out a form with points, which can be used to check if the user applies IPM principles. AGRO is presently involved in soundings with the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and Seges to find out how this can be carried out in practice, but it is too early to say what these talks will result in.

Think tank considering publishing a report

That plant protection, including IPM, attracts so much attentions was also clear in connection with a meeting that RISE (Rural Investment Support for Europe) held in Brussels 8 April this year. RISE is an independent foundation that works like a think tank and publishes regular reports about conditions concerning European agriculture. 

RISE is planning a report about the future of plant protection in the EU seen in the light that the number of pesticides is decreasing, that implementation of IPM is progressing slowly, and that resistance in most European populations is on the rise. In this connection, RISE held a pre-event to present its preliminary thoughts and, in particular, to find out if there is a need for such a report. 

The meeting gathered approximately 200 participants, where the majority represented stakeholders from the industry, farmer organisations and NGOs. I was invited to the meeting to speak about IPM and the challenges regarding implementation of IPM. 

The conclusion of the meeting was that there is a need for a report from RISE, and that the report should also address the potential consequences for food production in the case that pesticide regulation in the EU is tightened more than in other parts of the world. During the discussion afterwards, there was quite a bit of focus on IPM and its implementation in practice. 

I advocated for the view that time has run out for a debate about the appropriateness of some sort of checklist for implementation of IPM. Instead, the focus should be on how such a checklist should be formulated so that it not only remains a tool for those who are doing the checking, but also for those who are being checked. I believe that one of the reasons that IPM is perceived as not having been implemented sufficiently could be that farmers experience IPM as an elusive concept. In this case, a point system or checklist would be helpful.