IPM monitoring sheet: ARPA Anness 6 and filled example

For Eco-Scheme 2 commitments, open ARPA’s Direct Payments guidance, version 7.4, page 15. Its monitoring record covers the visit date, pest and number observed, with traps installed according to the IPM plan. ARPA lists Anness 6 as a conditionality sheet, not a separately named Eco-Scheme 2 form.

Identify the current sheet and keep the legacy document separate

Anness 6 is headed “Moniteraġġ u Immaniġjar Integru tal-Mard”. Keep the name and identity fields above the rows and the month(s), year and page fields below them. The PDF prints no version number.

The older AECM Annex 10 link returned 404 on 28 October 2026. That historical 2014–2020 sheet instructed annual completion and retention of previous years’ records. Those legacy instructions do not set a new retention period for current Eco-Scheme 2. Use the current sheet linked above for the printed monitoring layout and the separate Direct Payments guide for scheme commitments.

Read the observation headings as a connected event

These are the current sheet’s six observation columns. Its crop column and checked trees/plants belong in a copy alongside the parcel, date, pest and count. An observation is distinct from a completed product use in the application record.

For your working procedure, prepare a reference list for trap positions and parcel nicknames. Identify what was inspected on each visit so a subsequent reader can understand a count. A bare number becomes difficult to interpret when the sampling method changes without explanation. Record the method or explanatory note in associated working material rather than silently pretending two different observations are identical.

Copy the observation headings into a working spreadsheet

For a personal spreadsheet, this CSV header translates Anness 6’s observation columns into English. Keep the person, identity, month(s), year and page with the document. This is an editorial working layout, not an ARPA submission file.

Date,Parcel,Crop,Pest,Number of pests present,Traps/trees/plants checked

Keep any sampling explanation, decision and follow-up in separate working columns or a linked note. The original sheet’s short headings do not establish a pest threshold or an interval between visits. Use the actual IPM plan and agronomic advice for that interpretation.

Common problems with the monitoring sheet

Filled example: an observation followed by a decision

Invented demonstration only: the parcel references, dates and observations below are fictional. They show how to fill the headings; they provide no intervention threshold, approved sampling method or spraying recommendation.

In the fictional supporting note, the observer identifies which traps were checked and explains the counting method. The adviser’s fictional decision is to continue observation, with a follow-up reference attached. No pesticide application has occurred, so these rows remain monitoring observations. If an application is later performed, its actual product and treatment details belong in the separate application record. The distinction follows the different purposes of the monitoring headings and the application-record Annex.

Do not interpret the decrease in the invented counts as proof of control. Keep the sampling context and adviser’s interpretation with a real comparison. The Directive’s final IPM principle connects evaluation of success with both pesticide-use records and monitoring of harmful organisms.

Start with prevention rather than with a product entry

Annex III of Directive 2009/128 lists prevention or suppression approaches including crop rotation, cultivation techniques, resistant or tolerant cultivars, suitable seed and planting material, balanced fertilisation, irrigation/drainage, machinery hygiene and protection of beneficial organisms. These are elements of the IPM framework, not a requirement to invent an application every time a parcel is visited.

For an adviser discussion, describe the actual practices relevant to the parcel. Keep a cultivation or hygiene note connected to the crop and season it concerns. Distinguish an existing practice from a proposed change. That simple separation helps the adviser understand the situation without converting every discussion into a claim that a particular action was performed.

ARPA’s direct-payments guide includes a list of techniques for the IPM plan, such as pruning and tillage methods, field and seedbed sanitation, pest-resistant varieties, management of planting or harvesting dates, irrigation, soil/nutrient management, predator populations, traps, biological inputs and other specified approaches. Under the described commitment, the IPMP includes at least three of the listed techniques. These are scheme-plan requirements in that version of the CAP document.

Record monitoring before interpreting the need to intervene

The Directive’s monitoring principle includes adequate methods and tools where available, field observations, scientifically sound warning or forecasting systems where feasible, early diagnosis and qualified adviser input. Its decision principle ties whether and when to apply plant protection measures to monitoring results, with robust, scientifically sound thresholds and relevant regional, crop and climatic conditions where feasible.

Keep a warning notification distinguishable from your own field observation. Record its source and relevant date in the supporting material, then link it to the parcel visit or adviser enquiry it informed. A forecast and an observed count describe different information even if they concern the same pest. Preserving both helps explain the reasoning without overstating what was actually seen.

For a doubtful organism identification, retain the original observation and obtain a clarification from the appropriate adviser. Explain whether the clarification changes the pest name or the interpretation of its significance. Avoid rewriting an older count to make it fit a later decision. The monitoring record should remain an intelligible account of the observation used.

Keep the threshold and decision attributable

A threshold is not supplied by the blank Anness 6 table. The Directive requires scientifically sound decision-making thresholds and consideration of relevant region, crop and climatic conditions where feasible. Keep the source of the threshold or the adviser’s interpretation with the decision it informed.

In your own working record, describe the decision in ordinary language: continued monitoring, a non-chemical measure, or a completed application recorded elsewhere. Give the decision a date and reference. Distinguish a recommendation from its later implementation, and preserve the person’s explanation if the operation differed from the initial plan.

Invented documentary example: a monitoring visit is filed under a fictional parcel reference with an observation note and a later adviser response. The decision is to continue observation, so no pesticide-use event is created. A second visit is documented separately. This example demonstrates the distinction between evidence and action; it gives no pest, threshold, product, interval or treatment instruction.

Preserve the reasoning for non-chemical measures

Annex III says sustainable biological, physical and other non-chemical methods are preferred when they provide satisfactory pest control. Its targeting principle says pesticides should be as specific as possible for the target, with the least side effects on human health, non-target organisms and the environment.

Keep the consideration and chosen measure in the plan or decision record supplied for the parcel. Explain the source of any agronomic assessment rather than adding a universal statement that one method will work for every crop. Record the action actually carried out and any follow-up observation under separate dates.

For a supplier or adviser document, preserve its title and scope. A general leaflet can inform a discussion, while a parcel-specific plan explains the intended programme. Give both documents distinct references so an administrator can identify which statement belongs to the farm’s particular situation and which is general background material.

Necessary use and resistance management are linked principles

The Directive calls for pesticide use and other intervention levels to be kept necessary, considering acceptable risk and avoiding increased resistance risk. Where resistance to a measure is known and repeated applications are needed, it calls for available anti-resistance strategies, which may include products with different modes of action. These principles describe the decision framework; they do not provide a dose or a product sequence for your crop.

Retain the relevant adviser or plan explanation with the decision history. Link completed applications by their event references so the actual products and dates can be examined. If an intervention was omitted, delayed or changed, document the actual outcome in its own terms instead of editing the proposed plan to imply that everything happened as originally scheduled.

Article 55 of Regulation 1107/2009 separately makes authorised-use and labelling conditions part of proper use. Keep those product conditions connected to any application recorded. An IPM discussion does not replace the authorised product identity or the specific conditions attached to its use.

Follow the result after the intervention

The eighth IPM principle says the professional user should check the success of the applied plant protection measures using pesticide-use records and monitoring of harmful organisms. Keep later observations connected to the measure they evaluate, including an outcome that differs from expectations.

For a practical review, identify the original observation, decision, completed action and follow-up. Note whether the same parcel area and monitoring method were used. Preserve an explanation when the comparison changed because a trap was moved or a different part of the parcel was assessed. Do not manufacture a numeric improvement where the underlying observations are not comparable.

A concise end-of-season note can identify which supporting documents explain the sequence. List a specific unresolved question for the adviser, such as an uncertain identification or unexplained change in counts. Keep that question open as a working enquiry until its answer is available, rather than substituting a confident historical statement unsupported by the observations.

Connect monitoring to the direct-payments guide without merging the records

The Eco-Scheme 2 commitment description in ARPA’s direct-payments guide version 7.4 requires following an IPM plan across the identified parcel area for at least three consecutive years. It requires a plan issued by a recognised Farm advisory service in line with LN 99 of 2019 or a competent consultant approved by the Plant Health Directorate; it also says competent individuals draft the plan, trap installation follows the plan, and farmers retain monitoring date, pest and number recorded, if any. It also describes an eligible committed area of at least 0.04 hectares. These statements belong to the scheme description in that version.

Keep the plan’s parcels and crop descriptions consistent with the monitoring references. Retain the plan version and the explanation of a change. Where a visit covers only part of a parcel, describe the observed part in the associated note so a later reader does not infer that the count represents an unexamined area.

The current Eco-Scheme 2 guidance requires the farmer to declare the crop type in BiedjaCam before submitting the aid application and record PPP use on those crops. That digital submission context is explained in the BiedjaCam guide. Preserve the monitoring evidence that supports the plan even where a digital interface presents the crops and applications in separate screens.

Eco-Scheme 2: keep training evidence with the plan

Eco-Scheme 2 also requires training: farmers must attend training related to the crops they cultivate by the end of the commitment period. Keep the provider, attendance evidence and relevant crop with the scheme file, and ask ARPA or the adviser preparing the plan which training counts. The scheme is open only to farmers eligible for BISS, so a monitoring sheet does not establish eligibility on its own.

Vineyards and orchards: preserve the original scheme context

The legacy AECM guidance includes AECM 4 for implementation of an IPM plan targeting vineyards and orchards. Annex 10’s footnote likewise refers to understanding pests affecting vineyards and orchards. These references identify the historical context of the template; retain that context when using the sheet to understand the headings.

For a current working monitoring file, identify the actual crop, parcel, plan and observed organism. Keep a vine block and an orchard block distinguishable through their own references. An observation from one should not be copied into the other merely because the blank table looks the same. The Directive’s decision principle explicitly considers crop and relevant local conditions.

A crop-specific plan can carry agronomic detail that a short monitoring row cannot explain. Keep the plan accessible with the observation history, and identify the adviser who can clarify its meaning. Preserve the dates of field visits so a later review can distinguish an earlier recommendation from the conditions recorded on a later visit.

Prepare useful material for AgriConnect or AgriKonsulta

The Research and Advisory Services Directorate describes AgriConnect as its frontline advice service, including crop planning and IPM. AgriKonsulta is described as a national initiative focused on IPM and sustainable fertiliser use, with field visits, tailored advice and access to expertise. These are advisory routes described by the agriculture department.

Before a discussion, select the relevant observation sequence and accompanying plan. Identify the parcel, crop, monitoring method and specific uncertainty. Keep product-use records available where an application followed, but avoid sending an unexplained collection of unrelated seasons. The purpose is to make the agronomic question understandable from the evidence you actually hold.

After the conversation, retain the supplied advice with the observation or decision it concerns. Distinguish a verbal explanation recorded in your own note from a written plan provided by the adviser. If the recommendation leads to a completed pesticide use, create the separate application record with the required product, date, dose, location, extent and crop information.

Keep certification requests in their own document category

If a customer or certification body asks for records, preserve the actual request and applicable standard alongside the copy set prepared for that purpose. Identify which application, observation or plan document answers each item. This is an editorial filing recommendation; it does not assign a particular certification edition or invent a buyer requirement.

The statutory application-record Annex and the IPM principles remain the documented foundations described above. Keep their source distinct from an additional commercial instruction. A certification label in a folder name should not obscure whether an attached document records a monitored pest, an application or an agreed plan.

Review the documentary sequence before filing the season

Read the file as a chain of evidence: prevention context, observation, decision, any completed intervention and later evaluation. The sequence reflects the IPM principles, with the application record kept separately when a plant protection product was used. Preserve references that allow the reader to move between those documents.

For an internal handover, explain trap abbreviations, parcel nicknames and the location of the plan. Assign a custodian for unresolved adviser enquiries. Check that a different authorised colleague can retrieve the relevant dated observation and its linked action without relying on the person who performed the visit.

Use the ARPA inspection guide for the wider purchase, use and storage evidence pack. The electronic-record guide explains application-data timing and access. Return to the Malta hub when choosing the next task rather than extending the monitoring sheet into an all-purpose pesticide form.

The companion spraying after rain guide and spray tank calculator are awaiting publication: both live URLs returned HTTP 404 when checked on 27 October 2026. Meanwhile, distinguish observed weather from a forecast and keep any preparation arithmetic with its source inputs.