Integrated crop protection,

some episodes from The Netherlands

Frank WijnandsWageningen 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 Reduce need for control Strategical, tactical, operational

Need of control 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 http://www.iobc-global.org/

Scientific Non-profit, Non Governmental Organisation 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

1978-2003 Conventional system stopped in 1990 More experimental sites in different regions and sectors period

1986-2003 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,

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 Period 1990-2000

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

Input active ingredient (kg/ha)

05

101520253035404550

C '80-

'84

C '86-

'90

I '80

-'84

I '86

-'90

I '92

-'95

I '92

-'99

XP '92-

'95

XP '92-

'99

inp

ut

acti

ve i

ng

red

ien

t (k

g/h

a)

Nematicides

Growth regulators

Insecticides

Fungicides

Herbicides

05

101520253035404550

C '80-

'84

C '86-

'90

I '80

-'84

I '86

-'90

I '92

-'95

I '92

-'99

XP '92-

'95

XP '92-

'99

inp

ut

acti

ve i

ng

red

ien

t (k

g/h

a)

Nematicides

Growth regulators

Insecticides

Fungicides

Herbicides

Emission to the air, EEP-air (kg a.i./ha)

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

C '80-

'84

C '86-

'90

I '80

-'84

I '86

-'90

I '92

-'95

I '92

-'99

XP '92-

'95

XP '92-

'99

EE

P-

air

(k

g a

.i. p

er

ha

)

Nematicides

Growth regulators

Insecticides

Fungicides

Herbicides

target

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

C '80-

'84

C '86-

'90

I '80

-'84

I '86

-'90

I '92

-'95

I '92

-'99

XP '92-

'95

XP '92-

'99

EE

P-

air

(k

g a

.i. p

er

ha

)

Nematicides

Growth regulators

Insecticides

Fungicides

Herbicides

target

Emission to groundwater: EEPgr. water

(ppb)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

C '80-

'84

C '86-

'90

I '80

-'84

I '86

-'90

I '92

-'95

I '92

-'99

XP '92-

'95

XP '92-

'99

EE

P-

gro

un

dw

ate

r (P

PB

)

Nematicides

Growth regulators

Insecticides

Fungicides

Herbicides

target

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

C '80-

'84

C '86-

'90

I '80

-'84

I '86

-'90

I '92

-'95

I '92

-'99

XP '92-

'95

XP '92-

'99

EE

P-

gro

un

dw

ate

r (P

PB

)

Nematicides

Growth regulators

Insecticides

Fungicides

Herbicides

target

EYS-waterlife (% treatments exceeding

targetvalue)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

C '80-

'84

C '86-

'90

I '80

-'84

I '86

-'90

I '92

-'95

I '92

-'99

XP '92-

'95

XP '92-

'99

EY

S-w

ate

rlif

e %

tre

atm

en

ts t

ha

t e

xc

ee

d t

arg

et

> 100 ESY

11 to 99 ESY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

C '80-

'84

C '86-

'90

I '80

-'84

I '86

-'90

I '92

-'95

I '92

-'99

XP '92-

'95

XP '92-

'99

EY

S-w

ate

rlif

e %

tre

atm

en

ts t

ha

t e

xc

ee

d t

arg

et

> 100 ESY

11 to 99 ESY

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!!!!

Under a wide range of varying consitions Intensive dialogue, collaboration and growth process over 4

years Post project research (7 years later) showed a permanent,

lasting effect 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

Accent glasgroepen in westen van het land, deelnemers echter in meerdere teeltgebieden

Groups glas 5 arable, clay 6 arable, sand 4 vegetables 6 bulbs 5 fruit 4 nursery 4 Total 34: 400

participants

Stakeholders – interacting dynamic network Producers of pesticides

They produce it Suppliers of pesticides, +/- advice

They sell it Farmers union

Their members use pesticides Water boards, drinking water companies

They are the “problem owner” Traders

Buy the product Retailers

Sell the product More independent advice organisations

They advice Environmental NGO’s

Major objectives

1. New relevant knowledge 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

2. Realising impact and 3. increasing responsibility stakeholders

Knowledge development

crop protection

rejected to be adapted

ready to use

In the heart of knowledge development Uses the newest knowledge

From government sponsored research programmes on crop protection

Links this with The practical experience and innovative powers of

farmers Develops and tests

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 objectives1. 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 problemsFocus 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

70 best practices ready for practice that are effective and feasible described in leaflets and broadly disseminated

Reaching 1000’s of farmers by 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

Results of the project (2004-2007)

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

New technology makes you money!! Government EU support, public concerns, support

methods and techniques – ICP ladder Market- demands certification

Ethical – ecological – environmental Responsibel behaviour – ssustainablity Make it the “norm”

Legal Pesticide registration Additional rules (buffer strips, control machinery

etc)