Summary of presentation by panelists and measurement systems experts:

Joost Reus - "CLM Dutch Yardstick"

Charles Benbrook, Sarah Lynch - "IPM Continuum"

Erich Dickler - "IFP Classification System"

Eric Hesketh, Joe Bagdon - "National Agricultural Pesticide Risk Analysis (NAPRA)"

Volkmar Gutsche - "SYNOPS_2"

Meriel Watts - "The Hazard Scoring System for Pesticides"

James Lazorchak - "EMAP"

Graham Thwaite - "PESTDECIDE"

Hayo van der Werf - "Fuzzy Expert System"

Don Wauchope - "Computer Modeling of Environmental Impact Assessment"

Scott M. Swinton and Mollie B. Williams - "Assessing the Economic Impacts of Integrated Pest Management: Lessons from the Past, Directions for the Future"

Mary B. Swanson - "CHEMS1"

Joost Reus - "CLM Dutch Yardstick"
See Full Paper: "The environmental yardstick for pesticides - state of affairs June 1998"

The Yardstick is used to advise farmers, serve as a performance tool and support policy evaluation. The Dutch Yardstick attempts to measure risks to groundwater, water organisms, and soil organisms. Risk is expressed in Environmental Impact Points. It forces farmers to think about alternatives to pesticides and to overcome reliance on pesticides (see Appendix I)

Their goal is to steeply reduce the use of highly toxic chemicals and longer-term targets for the adoption of biologically based IPM. They are in the process of implementing a measurement system that will track potato growers' progress in meeting pesticide reduction and IPM adoption targets.

Incremental progress along the IPM continuum is critical in reducing reliance and use of high- risk pesticides.

No IPM	Transitional Systems		High or Biointensive IPM
	Low	Medium
Shifting Reliance From Treatment to Prevention
Chemically Based     Biologically Based

It measures mammalian, chronic and ecotoxicity, as well as the impacts on biointensive IPM systems.

Nine European countries devoted themselves to drawing up 14 IFP guidelines for pome fruit production. IFP and similar quality assurance (QA) schemes were operating in nearly all fruit producing countries in western Europe accounting for approximately 40% of the total area of pome fruit production. Thirty-one organizations are following regional or national IFP (QA) guidelines (see Appendix I).

NAPRA evaluates the potential loss of pesticides to ground and surface waters by modeling pesticide movement, toxicity and crop management techniques under specific weather and soil conditions. NAPRA can be used to determine where the most critical areas are within a watershed, and what kinds of alternative management strategies would be required to meet water quality goals. NAPRA includes the impacts of climate, water management, soil management, crop management, pesticide management and pesticide toxicity to non-target species. The limits of the evaluation are bottom of root zone and edge of field.

The purpose of version 2 of the SYNOPS-model is to assess the environmental risk potential of a crop related plant protection strategy in a region and to compare different strategies using different plant protection agents. Compartments in the system are: soil, surface water, and (optional) air. Species include earthworms in soil and algae, daphnia, and fish for surface water. The system calculates direct load to soil and water for each a.i.; calculates concentrations in soil and water for each a.i.; calculates short term and long term predicted environmental concentrations in soil and water for each ai; calculates the acute and chronic biological risks to each species with predicted environmental concentrations/LC50 and predicted environmental concentrations/NOEC for each species and each a.i.; and the results of calculations are visualized on a circular risk graph.

A numerical score is allocated for each indicator of hazard. The scores are summed to provide a total hazard score for each pesticide in two separate categories - health and environment The system is a national policy mechanisms and is not a farmer-field tool. It scores human health and environmental hazards separately.

Proposed Indicators:

Human Health	Environmental
Skin and eye irritation	Earthworms
Subchronic and chronic NOELs	Beneficial insects
Neurotoxicity	Bees
Carcinogenicity	Aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish
Reproductive effects	Birds
Acute oral, dermal and inhalation	Non-target terrestrial invertebrates
Sensitisation	Secondary poisoning
Endocrine disruption	Soil micro-organisms
Immunotoxicity	Bio-concentration
Mutagenicity	Persistence in soils
	Leaching potential

EMAP is a probability-based survey to address questions regarding the extent of regional contamination, using randomization in the selection of set of locations for monitoring/sampling to collect indicator information. To assess and monitor the impact of pest control strategies on aquatic ecostystems, EMAP considers five parameters: level of toxicity, duration of exposure, routes of exposure, sources of pesticides and scale.

PESTDECIDE is a further development of the Pesticide Index (Penrose et al 1994) which arose from concerns about simplistic methods proposed for measuring pesticide use in the Australian apple and pear industry. Based on the Pesticide Index (PI) concept, a data sheet was prepared for every pesticide registered for use on apples in Australia. A PI score was calculated for 177 insecticide and 99 fungicide recommendations listed on 105 labels available up to June 1995.

The "Fuzzy Expert System" is a system to assess the impact of cultivation practices - such as fertiliser and pesticide use, crop rotation - on the agrosystem and its environment. For a pesticide application an environmental impact score is calculated from three types of input variables: a) pesticide characteristics (e.g. toxicity to water organisms), b) environmental characteristics (e.g. the runoff risk of the field), c) application characteristics (e.g. the site of application: on the crop, on the soil, in the soil).

The work Dr. Wauchope is involved with is the prediction of pesticide behavior in the field. The modeling involves the incorporation of foliar data, temperature and moisture. The scaling is an obvious challenge due to non-linear processes, including, molecular, field, regional and global levels of analysis.

See graphic: "Pesticide Processes & Compartments in RZWQM."

Evaluation of environment and health variables has been accomplished either by comparing individual attributes (multiple criteria approach) or else by constructing a weighted index (index approach), which may be measured in monetary or non-monetary terms. While partial budgeting represents an accepted measure of short-term expected profitability effects of IPM practices, the three other focal areas are much more costly and complicated to measure. For routine IPM project assessments, simple indicators of health and environmental impacts are needed that can be used to extrapolate upon valuation measures from prior, published studies (see Appendix I, p.)

CHEMS1 makes chemical management decisions based on total hazard; human health, environmental exposure and toxicity. CRS principles include:

• Have a clearly defined purpose;
• Be compatible with risk assessment paradigm;
• Acknowledge uncertainty;
• Acknowledge the role of professional judgement;
• Consider a broad range of effects;
• Recognize the role of valuation in aggregation and weighting;
• Have transparent methods and outputs;
• Be neutral to data availability;
• Accommodate extreme data variability across chemicals;
• Use a tiered approach;
• Have consistency across tiers;
• Preserve critical information;
• Specify data selection guidelines;
• Be theory driven as well as data driven;
• Include sensitivity analysis;
• Be consistent with pre-selection; and
• Consider the impacts of scaling.