The goal of this session was for participants to become (1) more knowledgeable about some 'environmental impacts of pest control systems' that are being developed, (2) a bit better versed about the issues at hand and the research challenges that remain, and (3) more familiar with some of the players in the field.

Presentations

Five panelists, each of whom has played a lead role in developing a model or conceptual tool for assessing impacts of 'plant protection methods' gave presentations which touched on the following points:

1. The purpose of the system -- What/whose perceived need led to the development of the system?
2. Who is intended to use and make decisions based on the system -- Farmers/growers (of specific crops?); farming system advisors; researchers; regulators; the public (as consumers, purchasing agents, the press, environmental groups...)?
   
3. Which environmental effects/variables have been taken into account -- Are only 'inherent' pesticide (and other pest management products and methods) properties considered, or also site and situation-specific conditions and farm management decisions)?
   
4. Principles behind the calculation(s).
   
5. Format of the output -- Ie: computer screen; short handout; scientific paper...
   
6. Stage of development of the system -- Is it still evolving? What would be involved in adapting the system for other user groups?

Most of the systems presented are 'works in progress'. Some focus on pest management, whereas others also assess other components of agricultural systems. Most are structured to enable comparisons of pest control options. Some evaluate impacts of pesticides exclusively, whereas others also assess non-chemical pest control methods. Each evaluates impacts on one or more environmental parameters or indicators -- some of the systems focus on agro-ecosystem impacts and indicators, whereas others prioritize consumer and/or occupational risks (which are considered 'public health impacts' in the framework of these IPM meetings). The systems described here are methods for interpreting empirical field or lab (eg: toxicity) data and data predicted by environmental fate models. Details about each assessment system were summarized in posters and handouts. Thus oral presentations at this session were brief, allowing substantial time for discussion. Panelists can be contacted at the e-mail addresses listed below for more information.

Participants

Joe Bagdon. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Project leader for the National Agricultural Pesticide Risk Analysis (NAPRA), which is a water quality model. Output is in the form of a climate-based probability that pesticide loss from the field will exceed human health advisory levels. This risk can be compared for different pesticide options. Mail to: Joe Bagdon.

Charles M. Benbrook, Benbrook Consulting Services, is a consultant to the Policy Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC, and the Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York. Benbrook has developed a methodology for measuring progress toward national adoption of IPM. This system places pest control practices along a continuum to demonstrate a shifting reliance from treatment to prevention of pest problems. The continuum is divided into four zones on the basis of these 'farmer behaviors in pest management': No IPM, Low and Medium Transitional IPM Systems, and Biointensive IPM. Mail to: Chuck Benbrook.

Lynn Coody. Organic Agsystems Consulting, Eugene, Oregon. Designed a prototype computer expert system to assist the Technical Advisory Panel of the National Organic Standards Board in developing a list of materials appropriate to use on organic farms. Data about the characteristics of materials are compared with evaluation criteria, using weighted values to generate a product rating (Allowed, Regulated, or Prohibited). Results can be reported at three levels of detail. The system is intended to provide a structure for the evaluation process and to simplify the presentation of information needed to satisfy requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act. Mail to: Lynn Coody.

Kevin Klair. Center for Farm Financial Management, University of Minnesota, St. Paul. The CFFM team has recently released an updated version of PLANETOR 2.0, which is a comprehensive environmental and economic farm planning software program. The system combines site-specific environmental models with individual farm financial planning data to evaluate impacts of reducing or changing pesticide, nitrogen, phosphorus and manure applications, tillage systems and crop rotations. PLANETOR evaluates alternative management plans for individual farms and compares impacts on soil erosion, nitrate leaching, phosphorus runoff, pesticide movement and whole farm profitability. Mail to: Kevin Klair.

Joost Reus. Center for Agriculture and the Environment, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Developed the 'Pesticide Yardstick' as a method for farmers to use in selecting pesticides and evaluating progress they make towards more environmentally-sound crop protection. In this system, pesticide risk is assessed by comparing predicted environmental concentration (PEC) in a certain environmental compartment with the Dutch environmental quality standard for several indicators. Reus is currently working on a proposal for a joint European project in scoring or ranking pesticides. Mail to: Joost Reus.

Discussion

Group discussion focused on the objectives, potentials, limitations and research needs regarding environmental impact assessment tools. Discussion themes included:

• Knowledge and database gaps in general and particularly re: non-synthetic chemical pest control methods; also difficulties in assessing impacts and efficacy of biological and cultural control methods.
  
• Extrapolating/adopting existing and prototype assessment tools to additional crop scenarios and site conditions.
  
• Methods/challenges in incorporating a broader range of environmental indicators into assessment systems, including indicators of community and ecosystem-level environmental quality, and indicators with longer time-horizons (eg: genetic and reproductive effects).
• Targeting audiences for different assessment tools; structuring assessment systems to meet objectives and needs of user groups.
• How to make explicit the limited objectives of an assessment system so results are not misinterpreted or extrapolated beyond the intended purposes/audiences of the assessment tool. How to encourage target group adoption of an assessment procedure and results?
• Barriers to adoption of environmental assessment tools.
• Difficulties in collecting data from farmers/growers who are fearful that identification of an environmental impact will lead to greater regulation in the use of a pest control method. Ie: relationship between 'science' and 'policy'.
• Question of whether efficacy data belong in environmental impact assessments.
• Facilitating communication and cooperation among people working to develop and implement environmental impact assessment methods and methodologies for agriculture.