EUROSTAT
Directorate E: Sectoral and regional statistics
Unit E-1: Agriculture and fisheries
Luxembourg, 13 August 2013
ESTAT/E1/ME/JS/AV/ga
DOC. CPSA/AE/121
Available in EN only
* Please note that paper copies of the documents will not be provided at the meeting*
Working Group
"Agriculture and Environment
– Pesticides Statistics"
Bech building – Room Quetelet
Kirchberg, Luxembourg
26 and 27 September, 9:30 A.M.
Chaired by: Mr. Marcel Ernens
5.3. Pesticides data for 2011 and the future*
* Document available on Circabc: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a8d6e8e0-4f26-4242-bd7c-baac4873fc9f
1. Introduction
The aim of this document is to initiate a discussion on several issues that have emerged from the data transmission, data validation, questions from countries etc. Eurostat considers that they are of general interest and sometimes are on issues that need to be resolved.
2. Issues to be considered
· There are at the moment 518 active substances in Annex III, but they are not necessarily sold in all countries. As a matter of fact, from table 1 of document CPSA/AE/118, we can see that only France has delivered data for all substances, even if the value was 0 for almost 200 of them. Estonia sent data for 76 substances. There is a big gap between the substances authorised and actually sold. At the moment Eurostat cannot for certain tell the situation per country, because there are no clear rules on how to provide the data.
Eurostat suggests that a 0 (zero) is used in the data delivery (eDAMIS webform or SDMX) for substances that have been authorised but that are either not marketed (the authorisation holder doesn’t even try) or not sold (marketed but no-one buys), while the cell is left blank for those substances that have not been authorised in the country.
Additionally, the meeting participants are requested to give feedback on whether or not any 0 (zero) values would need to be flagged as confidential, and for what reasons.
This would allow making better analyses of the situation, as there is today no clear information of how the pesticide market actually works.
· Several countries have reported problems with collecting data from authorisation holders that are foreign companies and that don’t have local companies handling their business for them. These companies are not then registered in the national business registers and it can cause problems reaching them. Sometimes the national statistical laws or other legislation state that foreign companies are not required to give information or that they are exempted from receiving questionnaires.
The rules are quite clear on this point. Article 67 (3) of the Market Regulation on 1107/2009[1] states this clearly: “Authorisation holders shall provide the competent authorities of the Member States with all data relating to the volumes of sales of plant protection products in accordance with Community legislation concerning statistics on plant protection products.” This means that all authorisation holders are required to send the information, regardless where their legal seat is, even if it is in Japan or USA.
· There have been questions on whether exported pesticides should be included. This issue was raised in relation to seed treatments and refer both to sales and use statistics. In the country asking the question some of the treated seeds are exported, which means that the pesticides are initially sold in the country, but the use in agriculture is in another country.
Eurostat considers that in this case the pesticides are sold in the country where the seed treatment takes place, so the pesticides should be included in the sales statistics of that country. The use of the pesticides takes place in two steps: the treatment of the seeds and the planting of the seeds by the farmer. However, only the first one if these sales action meets the requirements of Regulation 1107/2009 and 1185/2009[2].
The question on the pesticide use statistics in this context is easier: the use is in this case not in agriculture as such, but in agricultural services and the information is therefore not needed for the use statistics.
Otherwise it is important to note that care must be taken so that no double counting takes place and that no exported pesticides are included.
· The question on the pesticide use statistics for treated seeds when the seeds are planted is more difficult. The treated seeds are used by a farmer, who then is the one placing the active substances in the ground. It might, nevertheless, be quite difficult for the farmer to know the amounts of active substances or products that have been used in the treatment phase and how much is then used per ha.
Eurostat has published “A common methodology for the collection of pesticide usage within agriculture and horticulture” in 2008[3]. In this publication it is advised to retain the information from the seed labels, as they have to contain this information. If this is not possible, the seed company should be contacted.
· According to Annex II of regulation 1185/2009 MS should provide a comparison between data on the use of pesticides and the sold quantities. There is no specific methodology foreseen for this, and no template has yet been considered. The main reason for the report is the likelihood that there will be quite big differences between the sold amounts and the actual uses by the farmers. In order for meta-data to be available, information will be needed to explain the differences.
· Eurostat is constantly trying to develop further the user-friendliness of the webform SDMX, and NRME applications. Any comments or suggestions from the Member States on issue related to this are welcome.
3. Defining the crops to be sampled
Annex II to Regulation 1185/2009, section 1(2) states that each Member State shall establish the selection of crops to be covered during the five-year period during which countries can collect pesticide use data. The selection shall be designed to be representative of the crops cultivated in the Member State and of the substances used.
Unfortunately, there is no definition on how this should be understood. Table 1 shows that the crops surveyed sometimes represent almost the whole agricultural area of a country, but in some cases a very limited percentage. As can be seen from Table 2, the spread of the number of crops to be surveyed is huge; a fact that alone will make the use of the data very difficult.
Eurostat considers that more in-depth analyses would be needed to judge whether the crops surveyed are representative of the situation in a country and the risks caused by the use of pesticides. This would require information on
· whether or not a crop is normally treated by pesticides or not. In table 1 the rough grazing areas are also included in the UAA, but according to the definition of these areas they are not treated with pesticides. However, the costs of spraying other crops can be so high that it is rather not economically viable to spray them; this will depend on the expected yield, the input and output prices, etc.
· whether an assumption can be made on whether information on another crop mirrors the situation for other crops. This could for example be on the use of herbicides for cereals: the same substances are perhaps used for several species and in doses of similar level.
· etc.
The same kind of questions can also be brought forward on the substances used on these crops. The use of pesticide substances brings different kinds of risks, depending on what is analysed. The risk for the farmers and other professionals that use the pesticides can be negligible, while the same substance can potentially be very lethal to aquatic organisms or to insects, to the soil, etc. These kinds of evaluations have ideally been taken into account when setting up the surveys; they should be brought forward in the quality reports.
Eurostat would like to bring forward some reflections on the definition of the crops to be surveyed, based on the methodology handbook. First of all, agricultural use also includes horticulture and food storage on the farms. Ideally, all agricultural and horticultural sectors should be surveyed, because it can be that it is in the smaller sectors that problems may occur. In any case the surveys are expensive, so crops must at least be selected so that the majority of pesticide use is captured, both in absolute terms and in rates of application. In these considerations the risks involved should also be considered. There are new substances on the market that are used in very small doses. This means that they are normally not seen as being big in neither absolute terms and in rates of application, but can still cause big risks.
These considerations can hardly be made properly without a solid cooperation between pesticide experts and statisticians. Eurostat therefore considers that a sensible selection should be made within each country, taking into account also regional circumstances if necessary, in cooperation between appropriate services, leading to surveys of the crops that represent those most commonly grown, those receiving the most treatments, and by the substances that could potentially cause the biggest risks to humans and/or the environment.
4. Questions to the meeting
The meeting participants are invited to discuss the different issues brought forward in this document and to present further issues they consider important to discuss in the meeting. These aspects should ideally be sent to Eurostat before the meeting for uploading on Circabc to allow reflexion with other experts.
Table 1 Percentage of crops to be surveyed
Belgium / 1.356 / 1.217 / 89,78%
Bulgaria / 5.050 / 2.659 / 52,65%
Czech Republic / 3.523 / 2.072 / 58,81%
Denmark / 2.671 / 2.521 / 94,40%
Germany / 16.704 / 8.493 / 50,85%
Estonia / 948 / 885 / 93,32%
Ireland / 4.563 / 3.868 / 84,78%
Greece / 3.670
Spain / 23.679 / 5.495 / 23,20%
France / 29.587 / 26.324 / 88,97%
Italy / 12.885 / 4.236 / 32,87%
Cyprus / 115 / 69 / 59,68%
Latvia / 1.805 / 591 / 32,74%
Lithuania / 2.775 / 1.201 / 43,28%
Luxembourg / 131 / 128 / 97,32%
Hungary / 5.247 / 3.100 / 59,08%
Malta / 13 / 8 / 63,78%
Netherlands / 1.866 / 731 / 39,19%
Austria / 3.161 / 870 / 27,53%
Poland / 14.622 / 8.172 / 55,89%
Portugal[4] / 3.632 / 423 / 11,65%
Romania / 14.192 / 12.977 / 91,44%
Slovenia / 483 / 445 / 92,23%
Slovakia / 1.921 / 1.757 / 91,43%
Finland / 2.292 / 1.739 / 75,87%
Sweden / 3.073
United Kingdom / 17.713 / 16.872 / 95,25%
Norway / 1.024 / 807 / 78,81%
Page 1 / 13
Table 2. Crops to be surveyed
CODES / NOMENCLATURE (Reg. 543/2009) / AT / BE W / BE FL / BG / CZ / CY / DE / DK / EE / ES / FI / FR / HU / IT / LV / IE / LT / LU / MT / NL / PL / PT[5] / RO / SI / UK / NO /Cereals and main crops
C1040 / │Cereals for the production of grain / X / X
C1050 / ││Cereals (excluding rice) / X / X / X
C1100 / │││Wheat and spelt / X / X
C1120 / ││││Common wheat and spelt / X / X / X / X
C1123 / │││││Common winter wheat / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1124 / │││││Common spring wheat / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1130 / ││││Durum wheat / X / X / X / X
C1133 / │││││Winter durum wheat / X / X / X / X
C1134 / │││││Spring durum wheat / X / X / X
C1140 / │││Rye and maslin
C1150 / ││││Rye / X / X / X / X
C1151 / │││││Winter rye / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1152 / │││││Spring rye / X / X
C1155 / ││││Maslin
C1160 / │││Barley / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1163 / ││││Winter barley / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1164 / ││││Spring barley / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1170 / │││Oats and mixed grain other than maslin
C1180 / ││││Oats / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1185 / ││││Mixed grain other than maslin / X / X
C1201 / │││Grain maize and corn cob mix / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1202 / ││││Corn-cob-mix / X
C1200 / ││││Grain maize / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1211 / │││Sorghum / X / X
C1212 / │││Triticale / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1213 / ││││Winter triticale / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1219 / │││Buckwheat, millet, canary seed (other cereals) / X / X / X / X / X
C1250 / ││Rice / X
C1251 / │││Rice Indica
C1252 / │││Rice Japonica
C1300 / │Dried pulses and protein crops for the production of grain (including seed and mixtures of cereals and pulses) / X / X / X
C1320 / ││Field peas / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1335 / ││Broad and field beans / X / X / X / X / X
C1343 / ││Sweet Lupines / X / X / X
C1345 / ││Other dried pulses n.e.c. (not elsewhere classified) / X / X / X / X / X
C1350 / │Root crops / X
C1360 / ││Potatoes (including early potatoes and seed potatoes) / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1362 / │││Early potatoes / X / X / X / X / X
C1363 / │││Other potatoes / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1370 / ││Sugar beet (excluding seed) / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
C1380 / ││Other root crops n.e.c. / X / X / X / X / X
C1400 / │Industrial crops / X / X
C1410 / ││Oilseeds / X / X
C1415 / │││Main oil seed crops / X
C1420 / ││││Rape and turnip rape / X