Results:  The discussion was organized into three Topic areas:

Topic I.  What messages do you have for federal and state pesticide regulatory agencies (EPA and state government) about communications regarding their regulatory actions?

Topic II.  Broadening to pest management overall (not just pesticide regulation), what are the barriers impeding progress towards better pest management in New England?  What suggestions are there to improve University IPM and Pesticide Applicator Training programs?

Topic III.  What do you think about the New England Pest Management Network activities planned for 2002 and 2003?  What should be included in the work plan beyond 2003? 

             In compiling the feedback from flip charts and my own notes, it became apparent that a narrative list of the topics discussed was difficult to interpret and redundant.  To make a more readable report, similar items are grouped under subheadings for each of the major topics. 

            There was almost complete overlap between Topics II and III.  Most of the ideas listed under Topic III (guidance for the New England Pest Management Network) are included with the IPM Program activities under Topic II.  Items are listed under Topic III only if they pertained exclusively to the project.

            At the end of the April 3^rd meeting, participants voted to prioritize the items.  Because of the combinations and clarifications made for this report, the items are not worded exactly as they were for voting.  But the goal of prioritizing the suggestions has been preserved by presenting groups of related items with the number of votes received for items in that group as a whole.  Not every idea expressed was supported by everyone in the group.  This is a comprehensive list, not a list of ideas arrived at by consensus.

            This report is being sent to contacts at the EPA, USDA, the Northeast Pest Management Center, the lead pesticide regulatory agency for each New England state, the program leaders for University Cooperative Extension IPM and Pesticide Safety Education programming for each New England state; and of course all meeting participants.  Recipients who were not meeting participants are listed in Appendix C.  The Appendix B and C mailing lists are attached because not only do they apply to this report, but could be useful for increasing regional communication about pest management issues across state lines, which is one of the New England Pest Management Network project goals.

            A restatement of similar themes from an unrelated formalized study of stakeholder needs is attached as Appendix D.  This attachment highlights and reinforces our findings by identifying common themes in public education needs for technical information that address natural resource management.

Topic I.  What messages do you have for federal and state pesticide regulatory agencies (EPA and state government) about communications regarding their regulatory actions?

 
Suggestions to EPA - 87 votes

          Does EPA use crop profiles?  Who specifically uses them and for what purposes?  The New England pest management community needs feedback.  How will crop profiles be updated?  How will pest management strategic plans be used?

          The PESP Partner network with EPA was established to increase communications with minor crop commodity groups but has not been actively used.  Make better use of it.

          Pesticide toxicity and exposure fact sheets need to be more widely publicized.

          EPA staff should come to New England for first-hand looks at how pesticides are used and to better understand the context for pesticide regulations.

          EPA re-registration decisions need to be more user-friendly in terms of impacts to users.  Current announcements are too legalistic and hard to interpret by end users.  There should be a 1-2 page summary in plain language.  Announcements should also be accompanied by timelines for actions.

          It would help commodity groups formulate their responses to regulatory actions if EPA could give earlier notification about forthcoming announcements.

Regionalize New England state interactions with EPA – 45 votes

          Minor use crops are very important in New England.  EPA could work with the New England Pest Management Network to coordinate information exchange.  This could save growers from repeated calls, and could benefit EPA by getting assistance in identifying knowledgeable individuals and regional trade associations as sources.  It could benefit both EPA and pest managers by providing an anonymous channel for reporting accurate information without fear of consequences if something in the reported information is perceived to be a regulatory violation.

          A coordinated regional response could better represent the New England pest management community in federal decisions.  This coordinated EPA-New England dialogue could and should also be used proactively and not just to react to problems.

           EPA should allow New England states to make a coordinated single regional request to EPA for Section 18 and 24C labels rather than each state having to duplicate the process.

Messages to State pesticide regulatory agencies - 31 votes

          General use products should require a dealer licensing fee.  In addition, funds should be collected as part of state pesticide registration fees for support of University IPM and Pesticide Applicator Training / Pesticide Safety Education programs.  This funding stream should be established on a regional New England level. 
          The state pesticide regulatory agencies should try to get pesticide manufacturers to buy into product stewardship.

           State regulators need to respond factually to pesticide concerns.  This requires accurate and realistic information on human and wildlife toxicity, exposure, and environmental fate of pesticides.  This should also include accurate and objective responses to claims by advocacy groups.

           State regulatory agencies should offer more assistance to municipalities dealing with pest management and pesticide issues by providing objective factual information and contact persons.

Topic II.  Broadening to pest management overall (not just pesticide regulation), what are the barriers impeding progress towards better pest management in New England?  What suggestions are there to improve University IPM and Pesticide Applicator Training programs?

Public education on pest management – 144 votes

          The general public is not very well informed about pesticide and pest management issues.  This leads to underestimation of risks in some contexts (such as home use of pesticides), and overestimation in other contexts. 
          There is need for more public education and awareness of IPM.  Because of the audience size, funding will always be a limiting factor with regards to educating the public.         
         Increasing involvement with public pest management education raises a number of questions that University pest management education programs must address:
          Who funds it?
          Who does the education?  How do you insure objective, factual information?
          How do we balance information to get people to change attitudes if needed?
          How do you get information to the general public?
          Can existing groups be used to get the message out?
          Are generic IPM brochures an effective tool?

           University programs should work with Ag in the Classroom programs and commodity groups for curriculum identification and development on the topics of “Food Production (Food Safety)” and “Ornamental, Turf & Environmental Management”.

          University programs could be more effective by teaching staff at pesticide retailers such as garden supply stores.  This is a key entry point for homeowner IPM and pest management education for the general public.

          University IPM programs need to educate University administrators about IPM.  University administration must understand IPM and IPM Program activities in order to value and support them enthusiastically.

          There is need for proactive meetings to create productive dialogue between pesticide users and activist groups that oppose pesticides.  This dialogue should not be postponed until a conflict forces confrontation.  Extension can provide facilitation and objective factual support for these discussions.
          Similarly, there is need for objective resource persons to facilitate town meeting and other community discussions that address pest management issues.

          The University IPM and PAT programs should provide science-based information for pest management issues that the media has presented, and should establish relationships with environmental and consumer groups so that those groups will look to the state University as a source for accurate information.

Residential and lawn care pest management service provider issues – 60 votes

          The residential pest control industry is caught between client desire for optimum results that is often combined with opposition to pesticides.  There is a need for organic options for residential IPM.  The residential pest control industry is willing to give the customer what they want, but clients only want to pay for control measures, not scouting and other IPM services.  The present alternatives are:
          1) pesticides for good results;
          2) monitoring that no one wants to pay for;
          3) or the client puts up with the pest problem until their desire for a solution overcomes their resistance to pesticide, so they and the service provider end up with pesticide-based pest management, i.e. back at #1, rather an IPM approach.

          The industry is willing to respond to client demand for IPM; the issue is how to create that demand.

           There was discussion of IPM certification programs that would either be run, supervised, or at least sanctioned by the state Land Grant University.  There is opposition to IPM certification among some food producers. 

          From our discussion, there appears to be more consensus and interest in IPM certification by the lawn care and residential pest services industries.  While representatives of these industries thought that to such an approach would require University involvement for credibility, they would also want industry to have some control over defining guidelines for such a program.  The idea behind this is to combine the goal of greater IPM training for practitioners with some type of accreditation to provide a marketing advantage as an incentive.

           Residential and lawn care pest management employees are a major public interface with IPM.  These workers need training in IPM and Best Management Plans.  There is need to identify resources for employee training such as pamphlets, fact sheets and other publications, video, and online content.  Cooperative Extension and the commodity/trade associations could work together on this.

Other Messages to University Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programs

          What are University IPM Programs doing to develop new strategies to deal with loss of pesticide registrations arising from the Food Quality Protection Act?  It is important to make sure we have the research in place to transition to new materials. 

          Do not ignore organic growers.  Try to meld the ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ “camps” into 1 group of “growers”.

           There should be more emphasis by University and regulatory agencies on pesticide use reduction, and more research on off-site and other unintended end-results of pesticide use.  Others in the group felt that reducing pesticide related risk, or a focus on minimization of pesticide use within a dynamic set of circumstances, were more appropriate concepts than absolute reduction of the amounts of pesticide used.

          University IPM programs should engage and cooperate with NRCS (USDA - Natural Resource Conservation Service) and any other agencies that are involved with IPM.

          Cooperative Extension should use Task Groups of expertise to develop non-crop IPM programs that have not been addressed previously and for which Extension expertise may be incomplete.

           There is need for IPM Programs that are specific even within a commodity.  For example, different programs for lawn care turf and golf course turf.  University IPM programs could develop regional IPM protocols (such as “Elements of IPM lists, or Best Management Plans) for the different pest management arenas.  IPM programs must be specifically targeted to the commodity/use area being addressed.

           Cooperative Extension needs to market itself more effectively to the general public.  While well known to the agricultural community, it is a well kept secret to the general public.

          IPM information is scattered.  It should be easier to access.

Message to University Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT) programs – 22 votes 

          PAT sessions are boring.  These sessions should provide a continually evolving base of knowledge, not just repeating the regulations etc.  Minor crops do not get good recertification information.  Develop more specific programs for smaller crops/commodities, such as herb growing.

          Update old tests and outdated educational materials.

          It was mentioned that it is hard to reach people in the animal pest management categories (poultry, dairy groups, etc) with PAT programming.  Too often people licensed in those categories just attend the plant-oriented sessions and do not get the best targeted training.

Topics I and II crossover – 28 votes

          University and state pest management programs should try to get funding from pesticide manufacturers as an investment on their part in product stewardship.  

Topic III.  What do you think about the New England Pest Management Network activities planned for 2002 and 2003?  What should be included in the work plan beyond 2003? 

Topics I and III crossover - 25 votes

          Minor use crops are very important in New England.  The New England Pest Management Network could serve as a vehicle to coordinate responses to EPA for a stronger regional pest management community voice.  Use this coordinated voice not just to react to problems, but also proactively.

Other

          The PRONewEngland.org web site should address the interests of the general public.

          We need wider diversity on Advisory Committee, more environmental group and other non-pesticide user representation.

          The New England Pest Management Network project should coordinate its activities with the Northeastern Pest Management Center Commodity Working Groups.