What are you expectations with regard to computerised tools for pesticide risk assessment and reduction?

Should the tools account for uncertainty? If yes, should the uncertainty features in the tools be available in a standard or advanced mode?

Is a significant effort on validation needed ? If yes, what would be the best way to achieve a validation of the tools?

Should the tools also cover non-agricultural usage of pesticides (e.g. by local authorities, motorway companies, railway companies, gardeners)?

Should the tools be used in education?

How many specific versions of the tools need to be defined (e.g. specific to one region, to one user group, to one crop)?

Should the tools provide a single environmental indicator or a series of environmental indicators?

Should the use of the tools be made compulsory? If not, what would be main incentives for the tools to be used?

Do you consider the use of the tools to be an advantage or a disadvantage?

In case of the modelling system running on demand, how much time would you be ready to wait for your results? 10 seconds? 1 minute? 30 minutes? 1 hour? 24 hours? 1 week?

Should the tools be free of charge for all users? If yes, how to fund their maintenance in the long term?

Should users receive a training before they can use the tools?

For the regional scale tool, should the tool try to predict concentrations in water bodies or should it stick to concentrations leaving the soil system and be used as an input in more complex models?

Who would be ready to sponsor the long-term maintenance of the tools?

What would be your best advice with regard to the development of the tools?

Does the need to have ArcGIS installed on your machine represent a potential limitation in the use of FOOT-CRS et FOOT-NES? If yes, how can this be addressed?

What is the main reason why the tools would not be used?

Is there a need for national versions of the FOOTPRINT tools?

Who should use the tool operating at the farm-scale tool? The farmer or the agricultural adviser?

The FOOTPRINT tools currently focus on the risk to water resources. Should the tools evolve to estimate all risks associated with the use of pesticides (e.g. user, bypasser, air, etc.)?

Should a large spectrum of stakeholders be involved in the development of national versions? Or on the contrary, a limited number of stakeholders to maximise efficiency?

Should the climatic zonation be based on a scientifically-based climatic study or on administrative boundaries?

Should FOOT-NES be used for national registration? How to handle differences between FOCUS and FOOTPRINT predictions?

Should the FOOTPRINT tools be freely accessible via the internet? Why?

How to cope with the deployment of different versions of the tools on the same territory?

Should FOOT-NES be optimised for two separate applications (registration matters and the Water Framework Directive)?

What should be the outputs of the tools? Graphs? Statistics? Colour maps?

Should the new versions take the form of a PC software or an internet portal?

Do you think we should provide access to detailed daily prediction data coming out of the models?

Can the tools mix scientific and non-scientific assessments?

Your first name and family name :

Your email :