Pesticide use in agriculture (aei

Pesticide use in agriculture (aei_pestuse)

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

Compiling agency: Statistics Norway

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: Eurostat user support

Download

1. Contact

Top

1.1. Contact organisation

Statistics Norway

1.2. Contact organisation unit

Housing, property, spatial and agricultural statistics

1.5. Contact mail address

2. Statistical presentation

Top

2.1. Data description

See sub-categories below.

2.1.1. Main characteristics of statistics

Statistics Norway carried out an electronic sample survey concerning pesticide use in 2017. Similar surveys were carried out in 2001, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2014. The survey results serve as information to national authorities when monitoring the pesticide use and in the ongoing work to reach stipulated goals on reduced health and environmental hazard from such substances.

2.1.2. Reference period of data collection

2017

2.1.3. National legislation

Yes

2.1.3.1. National legislation - Name

Forskrift om plantevernmidler

2.1.3.2. National legislation - Link

https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2015-05-06-455

2.1.3.3. National legislation - Responsible organisation

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA)

2.1.3.4. National legislation - Year of entry into force

2015

2.1.3.5. National legislation - Coverage of variables required under EU legislation

All required variables are covered.

2.1.3.6. Divergence national definitions from EU regulation

None

2.1.3.7. National legislation - Legal obligation for respondents to reply (Yes/No)

2.1.4. Additional comments data description

No additional comments

2.2. Classification system

The classification used for pesticides corresponds to Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 (http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1185/2017-03-09) of the European Parliament and of the Council.
The classification system for crops derives from the Annual crop statistics Handbook 2019 (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/Annexes/apro_cp_esms_an1.pdf).

2.3. Coverage - sector

Agriculture is the main economic sector covered by the data set. The survey comprised the following crops: Potatoes, onions, common cabbage, carrots, strawberries, apples, meadows and pastureland, barley, oats, spring wheat, winter wheat and oil-seeds. These crops comprised about 97 percent of total agricultural area in use in 2017.

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 relevant

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 holdings

2.6. Statistical population

Active agricultural holdings with areas of potatoes, onions, cabbages, carrots, strawberries, apples, meadows and pastureland, barley, oats, spring wheat, winter wheat, oilseeds.

2.7. Reference area

See sub-categories below.

2.7.1. Geographical area covered

The entire territory of the country.

2.7.2. Inclusion of special territories

2.8. Coverage - Time

2001-

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 3-4 years

3.3. Data collection

See the attached Excel file in the Annexes.

3.4. Data validation

All forms were submitted electronically, and were then automatically transferred to Statistics Norway's system for control and editing. The forms went through a set of controls and in the control program a distinction was made between absolute and possible errors. Absolute errors were corrected in all cases, while possible errors were corrected at discretion. Among other things, a check was made against area information from applications for production subsidies and also a check was made of the stated doses against the recommended doses.

3.4.1. Data validation measures

Manual
Automatic

3.4.2. Target of data validation measures

Completeness
Aggregates
Consistency
Data flagging

3.4.3. Specification target of data validation

3.5. Data compilation

In order for the results from the sample to apply to all agricultural holdings that cultivated the relevant crops, the results had to be weighted. Using an estimation model, each farm will have a weight (inflation factor) by which the farm's information is multiplied. The weights to be calculated had to satisfy two requirements. First, the weights had to give the correct number of holdings distributed according to a division by agricultural area in operation and by area of the individual crop. Secondly, the weights had to give the correct area of the individual crop according to the same division.

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

4.1.3. Peer review

4.1.4. Main conclusions peer review

4.1.5. Future quality improvements

None

4.1.6. Specification of quality improvements

4.1.7. Additional comments quality assurance

4.2. Quality management - assessment

Information provided by the individual respondent may contain measurement errors. In particular, information on the size of the area that was sprayed, the dosage used and that all treatments were given is of great importance. Measurement errors on this information are considered small as each agricultural holding is required to keep a spray record. It must contain information on which field and in which growth it was sprayed, pest, preparation, dosage and time of spraying. No systematic errors have been discovered in connection with data registration and editing of forms.

4.2.1. Overall quality

Stable

4.2.2. Relevance

Stable

4.2.3. Accuracy and reliability

Stable

4.2.4. Timeliness and punctuality

Stable

4.2.5. Comparability

Stable

4.2.6. Coherence

Stable

4.2.7. Additional comments quality assessment

5. Relevance

Top

5.1. Relevance - User Needs

The results from the surveys are an aid for national authorities in the work of monitoring the use of pesticides and assessing whether set goals for reduced health and environmental risk when using such agents are achieved.

5.1.1. Unmet user needs

Not relevant

5.1.2. Plans for satisfying unfilled user needs

Not relevant

5.1.3. Additional comments user needs

5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction

No activities

5.2.1. User satisfaction survey

5.2.2. Year of user satisfaction survey

5.2.3. Satisfaction level

5.2.4. Additional comments user satisfaction

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

Measurement errors from the respondent may occur. Errors in connection with processing are assumed to be insignificant.

6.1.1. Grading of accuracy

High

6.1.2. Factors lowering accuracy

Measurement error

6.1.3. Specification of factors

6.1.4. Additional comments overall accuracy

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.

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 applicable

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

6.6. Data revision - practice

No revision

6.6.1. Data revision - average size

Not relevant

6.6.2. Data revisions - conceptual changes

6.6.3. Reason for revisions

6.6.4. Impact of revisions

6.6.5. Additional comments data revisions

7. Timeliness and punctuality

Top

7.1. Timeliness

See sub-categories below.

7.1.1. Time lag - first result

18 months

7.1.2. Time lag - final result

18 months

7.1.3. Reasons for possible long production times?

Large quantity and complexity of the data.

7.2. Punctuality

See sub-categories below.

7.2.4. Punctuality - delivery and publication

7.2.1. Data release according to schedule

7.2.2. Data release on target date

7.2.3. Reasons for delays

8. Coherence and comparability

Top

8.1. Comparability - geographical

Data are collected on a country level (NUTS 0). Therefore, the data are not comparable on a regional level. The geographical comparability between countries is evaluated by Eurostat.

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

Not applicable.

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

The data are considered to be consistent.

9. Accessibility and clarity

Top

9.1. Dissemination format - News release

No news relaease

9.1.1. Publication of news releases

9.1.2. Link to news releases

9.2. Dissemination format - Publications

Publication: Pesticide use in agriculture in 2017, Statistics Norway (SSB), 2019, https://www.ssb.no/en/jord-skog-jakt-og-fiskeri/artikler-og-publikasjoner/_attachment/394291?_ts=16cb41e4778

9.2.1. Production of paper publication

Yes

9.2.2. English paper publication

9.2.3. Production of electronic publication

Yes

9.2.4. English electronic publication

9.2.5. Link to publications

https://www.ssb.no/en/jord-skog-jakt-og-fiskeri/artikler-og-publikasjoner/pesticide-use-in-agriculture-in-2017

9.3. Dissemination format - online database

No on-line database available for the data set.

9.3.1. Data tables - consultations

Not available.

9.3.2. Accessibility of on-line database

9.3.3. Link to on-line database

9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access

No access

9.4.1. Accessibility of micro-data

9.4.2. Link to micro-data

9.5. Dissemination format - other

No other dissemination

9.6. Documentation on methodology

Publication: Pesticide use in agriculture in 2017, Statistics Norway (SSB), 2019, https://www.ssb.no/en/jord-skog-jakt-og-fiskeri/artikler-og-publikasjoner/_attachment/394291?_ts=16cb41e4778

9.6.1. Availability of national reference metadata

9.6.2. Link to national reference metadata

9.6.3. Availability of methodological papers

9.6.4. Link to methodological papers

9.6.5. Availability of handbook

9.6.6. Link to handbook

9.7. Quality management - documentation

No other quality related documents.

9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate

9.7.2. Metadata - consultations

9.7.3. Availability of quality report

9.7.4. Link to quality report

10. Cost and Burden

Top

Cost and burden: EUR 120000

10.1. Efficiency gains

On-line surveys

10.2. Specification efficiency gains

10.3. Measures to reduce burden