|
Discussion No. 1: Future development of research on virus-vector-relationships. (Moderator, G. Adam)
To initiate the discussion the following structure of topics was presented:
- Which insect vectors are present and important?
- Aphids: yes, the most important vectors
- White flies: not yet that important
- Thrips: yes, after aphids the second most important group
- Cicadellids: not much known
- Others: Nothing known
- Mite Vector: Nothing really known, neither vectors nor possible viruses
- Nematodes: Nothing really known, but Tobacco Rattle Virus has been found in weeds and crop plants.
- Fungal vectors: Nothing really known, neither vectors nor possible viruses
- Type of research
- Ways of transmission
- Identification of virus carrying vectors, but also the presence of vectors.
- What is responsible for specificity
- Where can you interfere in the life cycle
- Biological controll research especially for glass houses
- Epidemiology: a very important aspect
It was agreed in generell, that a survey for the present vectors would be the first subject to be able to estimate the possible involved risks for transmission of pathogens. Thereafter the epidemiology and the use of biological controll measures follows second.
Discussion No. 2: How are new scientific developments converted into EU-Directives and policies? (Moderator,
W. Jelkmann)
After his excellent talk about the status of fruit tree indexing and the indication that between what is possible from the scientific point of view and what finally becomes adopted and converted into directives by the EC, a vivid discussion developed between the scientists
and present EU-officers. It was pointed out by scientists, that they
have indicated or even demanded since centuries that new scientific procedures and techniques should lead to new strategies. They questioned, why this never took place.
One of the possible reasons are that a scientific point of view might not always be a stringent reason to tighten rules that influence trade and weaken the production. The political decissions are in most cases not made by scientists, but maybe, scientist are not able to
make their risk assessments transparent and understood for the policy
makers. Scientific aspects are based solely on results whereas resulting regulations have to include more than these aspects into consideration.
Discussion No. 3: Scientific Research: Impact and support in phytosanitary policy making. (Moderator
H. Arijs)
The need of unification of methods for pest identification was pointed out, since not all methods used are equally reliable. It was proposed to use only certified methods for identification from all scientists and laboratories, to obtain the most reliable results. Despite
of the mutual agreement on this proposition it was noticed that this idea is
hardly to be achieved. It should be distinguished that not all laboratories dispose of the same facilities, consumables and funding, and scientists are specialized in different fields. Nevertheless it was mentioned that at least a unified quality management system should be established. Some EU laboratories have such systems operational,
but it will probably take more time to introduce them everywhere in the EU.
Another proposal was made on the strict specification of responsibilities. Improvement of communication between policy makers and general public was emphasized.
The request from operative plant protection workers to scientists was for quicker analyses in the name of faster reactions against pests and better scheme of decision making. It was pointed out though, that the implementation of pest risk assessments
for example is not that easily prepared.
Considering the importance of successful communication between scientists, operative services and policy makers, a proposal for organization of regular meetings of involved sides was made.
In conclusion, the mutual purpose of the service to the agricultural producer and general benefit as a whole, was underlined.
|