EUROSTAT
------
Direction E: Agriculture and environment statistics, Statistical Cooperation
Unit E-1: Agriculture statistics - methodology / Luxembourg,July 2006
JS/eb
Doc.CPSA/AE/073
Orig.: EN
Working Group “AGRICULTURE and ENVIRONMENT”
of the Standing Committee for Agricultural Statistics
Meeting of 29 and 30June 2006 in Luxembourg
BECHBuilding, Room: Ampère - Beginning 09.30
Draft minutes1
- Adoption of the agenda CPSA/AE/066
The agenda was adopted without any changes.
- Adoption of the minutes of the meeting 13-14.9.2004CPSA/AE/065
The minutes were adopted without any changes.
- Complementary FSS survey on production methodsCPSA/AE/071
3.1The Chair informed the Working Group that this meeting was a combined meeting for experts on Farm Structure Surveys (FSS) and on Agri-environmental indicators (AEI). This was due to the aim of arriving at a reasonable list of characteristics for specific surveys on production methods and other environment-related aspects of agriculture. The Working Group on FSS in September would then discuss in more detail how to set up a structure for collecting the data.
3.2.After an in-depth discussion of the Commission proposal, the following main conclusions were reached:
3.2.1The Working Group acknowledged the relevance and importance of the proposed list of characteristics, but considered that there was room for simplification. A special concern was expressed vis-à-vis some characteristics which are complex or difficult to answer (for instance on low input farming).
3.2.2. Some delegates expressed strong concerns about the need for farm level microdata: growing burden on respondents, better use of existing data even though not available at farm level, confidentiality issues, risk of misuse of the results if aggregated at too detailed a level, preference for parcel instead of farm sampling, nutrient balances instead of microdata on fertilisers input, and several other comments were presented.
The users reiterated their arguments and strong preference for microdata linkable to the FSS microdata.
3.2.3. The link with FSS has to be clarified. The FSS has to remain focused on structural characteristics, since there is a risk that the quality of the FSS could suffer from too many and too sensitive questions.
The group remained divided with some member states in favour of including the production methods characteristics in the 2010 FSS, others considering that this would not be feasible or would have negative effects on quality.
3.2.4. The first 3 sections on agricultural practices, tillage and soil conservation should be better integrated and simplified (it was suggested that there would be no distinction between low and no tillage and to simplify the questions on crop rotation). A question about interpretability of this information was raised and also about the fact that some questions, for example "field margin near water courses" could be considered by respondents as a control measure.
3.2.5. Section on linear features: to be verified whether photo-interpretation or other sources would be less cost-effective than farm interviews.
3.2.6. Section on animal production systems: the sub-sections 3-4-5 were considered to be of less importance. Variable 1.b (period when animals are outdoors) was mentioned as difficult.
The question was raised whether this information should be collected separately from the information on crops.
3.2.7. Section on nutrients: the first 2 subsections were considered difficult or of less importance; subsections 3 to 5 should be simplified.
3.2.8. Section on plant protection: the distinction between preventive and curative in subsection 1 was considered difficult; subsection 3 on the maintenance of equipment would not be relevant in countries where there are legal obligations to do it.
This section was considered complementary to (and not overlapping with) the proposed PPP regulation.
3.2.9. Section on inputs: The reason for including the consumption of potassium (K) was subject to doubt. Questions about the coverage of small units were raised.
The sub-section on the use of plant protection products was considered overlapping with the proposed Plant protection products regulation.
3.2.10.Several delegates expressed concerns about the concomitance of the proposed production method survey with agricultural and/or population censuses.
3.2.11.One delegate recommended that pilot surveys should be carried out to first test the collection of the additional variables being proposed.
3.2.12.Several delegates proposed the introduction of some specific characteristics in order to assess the positive contribution of agriculture in several domains such as production of renewable energy, landscape and biodiversity. One delegate suggested the inclusion of a question on environmental trainings of farmers.
3.2.13. The question of financing has to be clarified.
3.3.Dr. Lampkin from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth presented the "Recommendations for organic production structures, output and agri-environmental indicators", which were the results of the EU-funded Concerted Action "European Information System for Organic Markets (EISfOM)" as an input for a future discussion on a separate FSS module on Organic farming and certified production.
4.Nutrient balancesCPSA/AE/072
4.1The Commission informed the Working Group that the gross nutrient balances are one of the most important agri-environmental indicators, appearing in several AEI lists. It would now be important to collect regional data, to better identify the local trends.
The indicator had been chosen to be one of the topics for the TAPAS action plan for 2007 and 9 Member States had declared their interest for actions to develop or set up regional balances. A coordination group would most likely be set up with experts from Commission services, the EEA, OECD and experts from both the Member States participating in the TAPAS actions and those who do not participate.
4.2The Commission had presented a number of questions on the readiness in the Member States to collect regional nitrogen balances in the working document and now invited Member States to reply to these questions in writing before the beginning of September.
4.3The Commission also suggested three different methods for collecting and calculating the balances and also asked for reactions from the countries on which system would be the most appropriate to develop.
5.Recent developments on Agri-Environmental Indicators
5.1.IRENA
DG AGRI and EEA presented the results of the IRENA operation
5.2.EEA
The EEA presented the latest advancements in the Agency on work related to agriculture and the environment.
5.3.OECD
The OECD gave a short overview of the work on agri-environmental indicators and how they are published.
5.4.JRC
JRC presented their work on AEI, with special emphasis on High Nature Value Farmland.
5.5.TAPAS
The Commission announced that the final reports of the TAPAS actions on issues related to agri-environmental indicators had been uploaded on the Agriculture and Environment interest group on the Circa site. The latest report was from Belgium.
6.Any other business
There was no other business to discuss.
1