EUROSTAT
Directorate E: Sectoral and regional statistics
Unit E-1: Agriculture and fisheries /
Luxembourg, 27February 2013
ESTAT/E1/JS/AMK/MK/(2013)
CPSA/AE/115
"AGRICULTURE and ENVIRONMENT"
of the Standing Committee for
Agricultural Statistics
held in Luxembourg
on 18 and 19 February 2013
Chaired by: M. Ernens
Draft minutes
All documents, presentations and written reactions from the Member States can be found at
Please note that there are presently some technical problems in Circabc that impacts the links in this document. If the link doesn’t go to the right page, please right-click, “copy hyperlink” and paste the link into your browser.
1
Draft agendaCPSA/AE/099
The meeting was opened by Director Diaz-Muñoz from Directorate E in Eurostat who stressed the need to identify the data needed for agri-environmental statistics, are they already available or is there a need to start new collection. One important example is the GHG emissions that need a large volume of data. The Agri-environmental indicators require cross-cutting activities both on the European and national level
1. Items for adoption
1.1.Adoption of the agendaCPSA/AE/108
The agenda was approved without any comments
1.2.Adoption of the minutes of the meeting 9-10.02.2013CPSA/AE/107
The minutes that had been uploaded on Circa since 18April 2012 were approved with one change. The Spanish delegate requested that the last sentence of point 2.1.4 would be adapted as follows: Spain takes these issues into account when preparing the GNB data, bycomparing the production of pasture areas withthe needs of the cattle, in order to know how much of this production is actually pastured and how much is left on the soil.
2.Greening of the CAP AGRI presentation
DG AGRI presented the plans for a “greener” Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the growing need for agri-environmental statistics, showing the historical development towards including increasingly sustainability in the policy objectives. There are three main challenges for the present CAP reform: (i) Economic challenges (Food security, Price variability, Economic crisis); (ii) Environmental challenges (GHG emissions, Soil depletion, Water/air quality, Habitats and biodiversity) and (iii) Territorial challenges (Vitality of rural areas, Diversity of EU agriculture). The reform objectives are enhancedcompetitiveness, improvedsustainability and greatereffectiveness.
The improved sustainability uses several instruments: (i) new ‘green’ payments in Pillar I, (ii) enhanced cross compliance for climate change, (iii) two environmental priorities for rural development, (iv) research, innovation and knowledge transfer and (v) an improved Farm Advisory System. The proposed green direct payments would be based on three requirements: (i) crop diversification on arable land, (ii) preservation of permanent grassland and (iii) Ecological Focus Areas (on arable land and permanent crops).
As before, there will be three sets of indicators for monitoring and evaluating the CAP: impact, result and output indicators. AGRI stressed that the new CAP implementation is now likely by 2015 => need to have baseline data before then. The impact indicators for Pillar 1 will be measured at national level and the reporting will be done by the Commission (for the whole CAP).For Pillar 2, the relevant geographical level will depend on the type of programme (national / regional) and the reporting at programme level will be done by the Member States.
The proposed impact indicators for the sustainable management of natural resources & climate are very much linked to the set of AEI:
7 / GHG emissions from agriculture / ~ AEI 198 / Farmland birds index / ~ AEI 25
9 / HNV Farming / ~ AEI 23
10 / Water abstraction in agriculture / ~ AEI 20
11 / Water quality / ~ AEI 27
12 / Soil quality: Soil organic matter / ~ AEI 26
13 / Soil erosion / ~ AEI 21
DG AGRI reminded that for all AEI there is a need to improving their geographical level and aggregation.
3Items for decision/discussion
3.1.Nutrient budgets HandbookCPSA/AE/109
Adrian LEIP from JRC introduced the work of the Expert Panel on Nitrogen Budgets (EPNB) that is setting up national nitrogen budgets (NNB) that will describe the nitrogen flows in a comprehensive way. This way of visualising the N-cascades will help raise awareness and help monitoring policies, see where flows could be constrained and highlighting the knowledge gaps. The N-budget should be dynamic and based on statistics and observations. The work on the agricultural N-budget is coordinated with the work carried out by Eurostat, FAO and OECD. A draft guidance document is available.
Eurostat stressed that the guidance documentbuilds on existing and well-established schemes, which provide appropriate information on a range of scales, takes advantage of existing structures, remaining compatible with these activities while minimizing resources to close the remaining gaps towards a NB. These are (a) OECD/Eurostat agricultural budgets; (b) EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook and (c) IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The national budgets benefit, as much as possible, from detailed data available from inventories submitted to EMEP and UNFCCC, their structure is integrated closely.
Eurostat introduced the changes to the Handbook, clarifying that the change from “Nutrient Balances” to “Nutrient budgets”.The term Nitrogen Budgets (NB) has been introduced by Leip, A. et al (2011) and is used by EPNB/ TFRN in the guidance document.
A nutrient budget (both N and P) consists of the quantification of all major nutrient flows across all sectors and media within given boundaries, and flows across these boundaries, in a given time frame (typically one year), as well as the changes of nutrient stocks within the respective sectors and media.
Nutrient budgets can be constructed for any geographic entity, for example at supra-national level (e.g., Europe), sub-national level (regions, districts), for watersheds or even individual households or for economic entities (such as farms).
The balance is defined in the guidance document as follows: Ideally, the balance of a pool, a sub-pool, or a full NB is closed, i.e. all N flows can be explained as input, output or stock changes. The balance equation is then Noutput + Nstock_change - Ninput = 0. Such a closed N-balance is theoretically possible for each pool defined and for a full NB. In practice, a closed balance is not a requirement of a NB
The same terminology used for NBs can be applied to Phosphorus Budgets.
As had been agreed before, the chosen approach is the Land Budget. In the Handbook the word ''surplus'' is used to refer to the result of the balance calculation total inputs minus total outputs[1] (stock changes are included in the surplus). The surplus can also be expressed per ha. A surplus can also be negative, representing a nutrient deficit.
The reference area has been defined as the UAA, but there is a question how to treat areas that have in fact been used for agriculture, e.g. grazing areas, but that have not been included in the UAA compiled in agricultural statistics, perhaps because the areas are not grassland but other land cover. This will be covered by a Eurostat project running since October, to be discussed later in the meeting. Another issue to be discussed is the definition of agriculture. In the FSS it is defined as NACE Rev2 01.1 – 01.5 with some exceptions, whereas EAA covers more or less the whole chapter 01. The definition of the IPCC/EMEP is more unclear, it is based on activities leading to emissions. Sometimes these activities are not only restricted to purely agricultural activities. Examples are mineral fertiliser use, where IPCC guidelines require total mineral fertiliser use (including non-agricultural uses) and livestock (which includes livestock outside agricultural holdings, for example racehorses etc).
NL suggests that the definition of agriculture needs to be made more precise, it is at present unclear on some issues. The principle should be that the data should be as complete as possible, whereas the practical guidelines are too forgiving. At the moment there are some contradictions, as some posts are excluded while others are optional. Why not include a “not elsewhere cited” category? A summary of the practical guidelines would be needed.
CH asked whether SEEA guidelines have been taken into account.
Eurostat replied that the Handbook will be updated after the meeting, based on both the comments sent in advance of the meeting and in the meeting. It agreed that flows should be as complete as possible, but argued that we also must be pragmatic. For some items there are currently not many data available, as there are no legal requirements for such data. This is for instance the case for other organic fertilisers. For sewage sludge there is a data requirement, and therefore these data are required in the budget. However for other organic fertilisers such requirements do not exist and data are only available for a few countries. As there is no way to estimate it for countries which do not have data available, it has been set as optional. For other items where data are not available in all countries default estimations can be established. The Handbook has been drafted in alignment with IPCC and EMEP/EEA Guidelines. The national nitrogen budgets presented by Adrian Leip are also building on these. Eurostat agrees that where possible other guidelines may also be taken into account to improve coherence with other relevant indicators. Eurostat will consider to what extent the SEEA guidelines can be taken into account.
On mineral fertilisers, Eurostat reminded that there are in theory some discrepancy with IPCC, as all mineral fertiliser use should in principle be reported for the GHG emissions whereas only agricultural use should be reported in the nutrient budgets. However in practice countries often report agricultural use to the UNFCCC. In cases there is a difference between data reported to UNFCCC and in the GNB (countries report total mineral fertiliser use to UNFCCC and agricultural use in the nitrogen budgets) countries should report this in the metadata provided with the nutrient budgets. If the difference is significant it may be necessary to adapt the emissions (which are recorded in the GNB) from total fertiliser use to only include emissions deriving from mineral fertilisers used by agriculture in the GNB.
Nitrogen excretion should be estimated coherent with reporting to UNFCCC. For P there are currently no international requirements as for N. In order to set-up a comparable transparent system of estimating excretion in EU countries consistent with UNFCCC/CLTRP requirements and to develop default P-excretion factors as function of animal type, in line with N methodology, Eurostat has launched a project, to be reported on later in the meeting.Data reported to UNFCCC on livestock may include livestock outside agricultural holdings. If we define agriculture as presented earlier following NACE, it may be necessary to adapt the figures on livestock population to include only livestock on agricultural holdings. If the difference between data reported on livestock to UNFCCC and GNB is significant it may also be necessary to adapt the estimation of emissions from livestock to be included in the GNB for the corrected livestock numbers. Coordination between people estimating emissions and GNB is advised to improve coherence of data.
Eurostat pointed out that data on manure treated should only be recorded if the treatment leads to a change in the amount of nutrients (tonnes of nutrient) after treatment and only this change in nutrients should be recorded, not the total amount of nutrients in the treated product.
Biological N fixation can take place by leguminous crops, in grass-legume mixtures and by free living organisms in reference area. Earlier it was suggested that only data on N-fixation by leguminous crops would be required, but suggestions were made before the meeting to include free living organisms at fixed value all countries 4 kg N per ha and to also include N-fixing in grasslands. Eurostat informed that a project on grasslands is running that will also analyse the aspects of N-fixation in grasslands.
Countries agreed in general that these N-flows could be significant and should be include in the budgets. However, they were not certain that the 4 kg/ha would apply to all climatic and soil conditions. It was agreed that 4 kg/ha would be used as a default value, but ES and EL will confirm later if this is acceptable. If other countries also have more exact information, this can be used, but they should be justified. The N-fixation in grasslands will remain optional, at least until a methodology and data collection is agreed on. The project on grasslands may give an indication on in which countries bio-fix in grasslands is of significance and which data are available in these countries. The final recommendations on the methodology to estimate bio-fix may however come too late for the deadline of data collection. Eurostat will based on these results try to find a solution for these countries on a bilateral approach.
CH and DE had suggested including seeds in the calculations. Eurostat agreed to include this flow in the practical implementation. Eurostat will accept country available data on seeds of all crops. If countries do not have data available Eurostat will estimate for wheat, barley, other cereals and potatoes, the crops, which based on the data collected in 2010/2011, were the most significantat EU-level. The suggestion was accepted.
As was agreed in previous meetings crop residues would not be taken intoaccount in the input side to limit the data requirements. On the output side countries shouldreport crop residues removed from the field and crop residues burned. The net removal of crop residues estimated with the practical implementation of the GNB will approximate the net removal of crop residues with the ideal implementation, as could be seen from the table in the presentation.
AT asked how biogas plants flowback would be handled. Eurostat answered that they can be reported under “other organic fertilisers”.
The practical approach for fodder production is to estimate based on country specific nutrient coefficients and crop production data reported to Eurostat with Crop production statistics and country estimations on fodder production. The grassland project will look at the estimation of fodder production from grasslands. This item may be improved in the future.
Countries agreed to define agriculture more clearer using NACE. This means that there can be differences in data reported to UNFCCC and GNB due to a stricter definition applied in the GNB. These differences should be recorded in the metadata. Corrections may also be needed on the emissions to be taken into account in the budgets. Close coordination between experts estimating emissions and GNB is advised.
The Handbook will be updated based on comments received and decisions taken in the meeting, but countries would have time until 28 February for sending additional comments.
3.2.GNB data transmission CPSA/AE/110N and CPSA/AE/110P
Eurostat presented the excel-files to be used for the transmission of data to Eurostat, stressing that the sheet for the notes is very important for producing the meta-data files. More detailed animal data can be given if considered important. The data transmission files will now be updated to take into account the changes agreed on in the point just discussed on the GNB Handbooks.
Most countries agreed that it was not necessary for Eurostat to prefill the individual sheets with data already available, because these data would have to be validated in any case. The issue of recalculation the data sent in earlier data flows was not appreciated by all countries, due to several reasons. Some considered that as GNB data had been transmitted to several international organisations, the recalculation would risk incoherence in data, others say that they don’t have the data so far back as requested, and neither the resources. Eurostat replied that increasing cooperation between different organisations reduce the risk for incoherence, as many have agreed to get their data from Eurostat.
In addition, there was a request for clearer guidelines on the required meta-data for better coherence. Eurostat agreed to provide a more detailed structure for metadata with clear instructions.
Eurostat confirmed that application of the handbook will imply the need for some recalculations to have consistent data across time. These recalculations should go as back as far as possible, for the years that the country has data available. The indicated future actions in the Handbook may lead to further need for recalculations, however these are considered to be small as they will only relate to certain items of the budgets.
3.3.National discussion groups on fertiliser useNo document
In the CPSA meeting in May 2012 it was agreed to set-up national discussion groups on fertiliser statistics by 1September 2012. The aim was to discuss quality of existing data sources, propose and implement improvements or data collection needed, propose and implement a strategy to estimate data, establish official statistics and ensure coherence and consistency between different reporting on fertilisers. Several countries had sent reports on the work of the discussion groups, with mainly positive reactions. Regular meetings, inclusion of other experts/institutes in the work, inventories of available data, sharing experiences/information and cross comparisons with other data were some of the issues reported on the developments. There are various experiences on fertiliser surveys.