Pesticide use in agriculture (aei_pestuse)

National Reference Metadata in ESS Standard for Quality Reports Structure (ESQRS)

Compiling agency: Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI)  

Eurostat metadata
Reference metadata
1. Contact
2. Statistical presentation
3. Statistical processing
4. Quality management
5. Relevance
6. Accuracy and reliability
7. Timeliness and punctuality
8. Coherence and comparability
9. Accessibility and clarity
10. Cost and Burden
11. Confidentiality
12. Comment
Related Metadata
Annexes (including footnotes)

For any question on data and metadata, please contact: EUROPEAN STATISTICAL DATA SUPPORT


1. Contact Top
1.1. Contact organisation

Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI)


1.2. Contact organisation unit

Institute for Strategies and Technology Assessment


1.5. Contact mail address

Stahnsdorfer Damm 81
14532 Kleinmachnow / Germany

2. Statistical presentation Top
2.1. Data description

See sub-categories below.

2.1.1. Main characteristics of statistics

Since 2011, regular surveys of pesticides use have been carried out in Germany as PAPA surveys. PAPA stands for panel pesticide applications. A number of crop-specific networks of farms have been created, in which the PPP application data are recorded in detail annually. The data are forwarded in an anonymised form to the Julius Kühn-Institute (JKI).
The crops (winter wheat, winter barley, winter rape, corn, potatoes, sugar beets, apple, hops and vine) were selected for their relevance to the national action plan on the sustainable use of PPPs. This means, that the individual crop area is not the only important criterion for the selection, but also the intensity of chemical plant protection measures and the associated potential risk to human health and the environment.All surveys and analyses relate to the Federal Republic of Germany. The distribution of the panel farms was proportional to the distribution of arable land per crop.


2.1.2. Reference period of data collection


2.1.3. National legislation
Yes Name of national legislation

§ 21 of the German Plant Protection Act (Gesetz zum Schutz der Kulturpflanzen - Pflanzenschutzgesetz (PflSchG)) of 6 February 2012 Link to national legislation Responsible organisation for national legislation

German Parliament (Deutscher Bundestag) Year of entry into force of national legislation

2012 Coverage of variables required under EU regulation

none Divergence national definitions from EU regulation

irrelevant Legal obligation for respondents
2.1.4. Additional comments data description

Not available

2.2. Classification system

The classification used for pesticides corresponds to Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 ( of the European Parliament and of the Council.
The classification system for crops derives from the Annual crop statistics Handbook 2019 (

2.3. Coverage - sector

The crops (winter wheat, winter barley, winter rape, corn, potatoes, sugar beets, apple, hops and vine) were selected for their relevance to the national action plan on the sustainable use of PPPs (NAP). This means, that the individual crop area is not the only important criterion for the selection, but also the intensity of chemical plant pro-tection measures and the associated potential risk to human health and the environment.


2.3.1. Crops covered by the statistics

See the attached Excel file in the Annexes.

2.3.2. Commercial non-agricultural uses of pesticides

not available

2.4. Statistical concepts and definitions

The data reported are the quantity of each active substances listed in Annex III of Regulation 1185/2009 contained in plant protection products used on a selected crop, expressed in kg. The area treated with each substance are expressed in hectares.

2.5. Statistical unit

agricultural holding

2.6. Statistical population

agricultural holdings which are representative of the region in which they are located

2.7. Reference area

See sub-categories below.

2.7.1. Geographical area covered

The entire territory of Germany.

2.7.2. Inclusion of special territories

no special territories

2.8. Coverage - Time

Data collection on pesticide use started in 2001. Yearly surveys are conducted since 2011.

2.9. Base period

Not applicable for Pesticide Use Statistics, because it is not based on an index number of time series.

3. Statistical processing Top
3.1. Source data

See the attached Excel file in the Annexes.

3.2. Frequency of data collection

every year

3.3. Data collection

See the attached Excel file in the Annexes.

3.4. Data validation

confronting the statistics against other relevant data (both internal and external); investigating inconsistencies in the statistics; verifying the statistics against expectations and domain intelligence, outlier detection


3.4.1. Data validation measures
3.4.2. Target of data validation measures
3.4.3. Specification target of data validation

no specification necessary

3.5. Data compilation

The surveys collect accurate and quantitative data.
All data sets are equally weighted.
An extrapolation for Germany is made on the basis of the sample. Standard statistical methods (calculation of mean values, sums, confidence intervals, etc.) are used for this purpose.


3.6. Adjustment

no adjustment

4. Quality management Top
4.1. Quality assurance

See sub-categories below.

4.1.1. Quality management system in organisation
4.1.2. Specification of implementation

Not relevant

4.1.3. Peer review
4.1.4. Main conclusions peer review

Not relevant

4.1.5. Future quality improvements
4.1.6. Specification of quality improvements

Not relevant

4.1.7. Additional comments quality assurance
4.2. Quality management - assessment

The distribution of panel farms (at least 100 farms per culture) is proportional to the distribution of the acreage of crops in Germany.
The documentation of the individual pesticide use data is done by the farmer himself. This data is then collected by regional staff and forwarded anonymously to the JKI. A data check (plausibility tests) is carried out by JKI. Missing or incorrect data is supplemented or corrected.  Standard statistical methods are used for the projections.
A comparison between pesticide application data and sales data gave satisfactory coincidence in the majority of cases. Unexplained deviations were only observed for active substances which are rarely applied.


4.2.1. Overall quality
4.2.2. Relevance

Annex 4.2.2 Relevance
4.2.3. Accuracy and reliability

Annex 4-2-3 Accuracy Reliability
4.2.4. Timeliness and punctuality

Annex 4-2-4 Timeliness Punctuality
4.2.5. Comparability
4.2.6. Coherence
4.2.7. Additional comments quality assessment

No other relevant information

5. Relevance Top
5.1. Relevance - User Needs

All groups in society (government agencies, non-governmental organizations, farmers' associations, etc.), who take part in the political debate on the use of plant protection products, are users of the data. In particular, the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) needs the results of the surveys in the framework of the National Action Plan on Sustainable Use of pesticides.
All relevant results are published on the website and in various publications.


5.1.1. Unmet user needs

Regional surveys are often requested. But the costs are too high.


5.1.2. Plans for satisfying unfilled user needs

No changes planned

5.1.3. Additional comments user needs

No other relevant information

5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction

No activities

5.2.1. User satisfaction survey
5.2.2. Year of user satisfaction survey

Not relevant

5.2.3. Satisfaction level
5.2.4. Additional comments user satisfaction

No other relevant information

5.3. Completeness

See sub-category below.

5.3.1. Data completeness - rate

Not applicable for Pesticide Use Statistics because in this data collection, there is no target on the number of data. Member States are asked to collect data on representative crops without stipulating the number of crops.

6. Accuracy and reliability Top
6.1. Accuracy - overall

see also Annex to concept 4.2.3:
The accuracy of the results of the statistical surveys is considered to be fully sufficient (especially from the perspective of current use). An improvement in accuracy can be achieved only by an extreme increase in sample size. The associated costs can not be justified.

6.1.1. Grading of accuracy
6.1.2. Factors lowering accuracy
6.1.3. Specification of factors

low sample size and agricultural diversity

6.1.4. Additional comments overall accuracy

No other relevant information

6.2. Sampling error

See the attached Excel file in the Annexes.

6.3. Non-sampling error

See sub-categories below.

6.3.1. Coverage error

See the attached Excel file in the Annexes.

6.3.2. Measurement error

See the attached Excel file in the Annexes:

No use of questionnaires. Use of original data from the farmers' records for PSM application. Documentation errors are usually detected directly when digitalising the survey data. The most common errors are incorrect or incomplete PPP-names and/or incorrect measurement units (e.g. kg/ha instead of g/ha). Missing data are supplemented; incorrect data are corrected.

6.3.3. Non response error

See the attached Excel file in the Annexes.

6.3.4. Processing error

See the attached Excel file in the Annexes.

6.3.5. Model assumption error

Not relevant, since only standard statistical methods are used for the projections.


6.4. Seasonal adjustment

Seasonal adjustment is not applicable to pesticide use statistics since all plant protection treatments associated directly or indirectly with the crop during the reference period are reported.

6.5. Data revision - policy

Our aim is: no revision!

6.6. Data revision - practice

In practice, there has been no revision of pesticide use data since 2011. If at any time published values need to be revised, this will be documented by a footnote.



6.6.1. Data revision - average size

no revision

6.6.2. Data revisions - conceptual changes
6.6.3. Reason for revisions

no revision

6.6.4. Impact of revisions
Not important
6.6.5. Additional comments data revisions

no other relevant information

7. Timeliness and punctuality Top
7.1. Timeliness

See sub-categories below.

7.1.1. Time lag - first result

about 14 days (depending on crops, here: hops)

7.1.2. Time lag - final result

about 4 months (depended of crops, here: apples)

7.1.3. Reasons for possible long production times?

quantity and complexity of the data

7.2. Punctuality

See sub-categories below.

7.2.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication

No target date

7.2.2. Data release according to schedule
7.2.3. Data release on target date
7.2.4. Reasons for delays

No target date

8. Coherence and comparability Top
8.1. Comparability - geographical

It is assumed that the data is specific to Germany.


8.1.1. Asymmetry for mirror flow statistics - coefficient

Not applicable, because there are no mirror flows in Pesticide Use Statistics.

8.2. Comparability - over time

Not applicable for Pesticide Use Statistics, because it is not based on time series.

8.2.1. Length of comparable time series

Not applicable for Pesticide Use Statistics, because it is not based on time series.

8.3. Coherence - cross domain

The statistics on national PPP use are compatible to the statistics on the sales data, which is compiled by the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL).



8.4. Coherence - sub annual and annual statistics

Not applicable for Pesticide Use Statistics, because the data collection is based on a five-year period.

8.5. Coherence - National Accounts

Not applicable, because it has no relevance for national accounts.

8.6. Coherence - internal

9. Accessibility and clarity Top

see subcategories

9.1. Dissemination format - News release

Data are published regularly on the internet (see


9.1.1. Publication of news releases
9.1.2. Link to news releases

No news releases

9.2. Dissemination format - Publications

 There are only crop specific overviews at irregular intervals (see; Item "Veröffentlichungen").


9.2.1. Production of paper publication
9.2.2. English paper publication
9.2.3. Production of electronic publication
9.2.4. English electronic publication
9.2.5. Link to publications

No electronic publications; for data see

9.3. Dissemination format - online database

The JKI does not provide for an on-line database in which the use data for PPPs can be accessed.


9.3.1. Data tables - consultations

Request corresponding data if required from:


As of 01.12.2020 from:

9.3.2. Accessibility of on-line database
9.3.3. Link to on-line database

No online database

9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access

no access (see items 11.1 and 11.2.)


9.4.1. Accessibility of micro-data
9.4.2. Link to micro-data

No link to microdata

9.5. Dissemination format - other

No other dissemination

9.6. Documentation on methodology

see or
ROSSBERG, D.: Erhebungen zur Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der Praxis im Jahr 2011.
Journal für Kulturpflanzen 65 (4), 2013, 141-151

9.6.1. Availability of national reference metadata
9.6.2. Link to national reference metadata

Not applicable

9.6.3. Availability of methodological papers
9.6.4. Link to methodological papers

Not applicable (only internal methodological papers)

9.6.5. Availability of handbook
9.6.6. Link to handbook

Not applicable, there is no handbook

9.7. Quality management - documentation

No specifications

9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate

No metadata

9.7.2. Metadata - consultations

No consultations

9.7.3. Availability of quality report
9.7.4. Link to quality report

No quality report

10. Cost and Burden Top

Costs (per year) associated with the collection and production of pesticide use statistics at the JKI are estimated as follows:

50% of the yearly working time of a scientific officer: about 70.000 €

75% of the yearly working time of an assistant:  about 50.000 €

The respondents will receive representational allowances. The sum of these expenses was 134.500 € in 2018.

Total for 2018:  about 260.000 €

10.1. Efficiency gains
10.2. Specification efficiency gains

Not applicable

10.3. Measures to reduce burden
10.4. Specification burden reduction

Not applicable

11. Confidentiality Top

see subcategories

11.1. Confidentiality - policy

see subcategories

11.1.1. Transmission of confidential national data to Eurostat
11.1.2. Confidentiality according to Regulation
11.1.3. Data confidentiality policy

Due to aggregation of the data, it is not possibly to identify a person or economic entity (neither directly nor indirectly).

11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment

see 11.2.1

11.2.1. Procedures for confidentiality

Electronic raw data are stored in a database running only in the JKI's internal network. Reporting forms in paper form are kept under lock and key for 10 years. After that, they are disposed of in a way which ensures confidentiality. In the JKI report which is published on the internet, data on use of active substances are aggregated in such a way that inferences to individual farms are not possible.

11.2.2. Additional comments confidentiality - data treatment

No other relevant information

12. Comment Top

No comments

Related metadata Top

Annexes Top
ESQRS Annex to Quality Report for Pesticide Use (Germany)