|
|
For any question on data and metadata, please contact: Eurostat user support |
|
|||
1.1. Contact organisation | Statistics Austria (STAT) Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES) |
||
1.2. Contact organisation unit | STAT: Directorate Spatial Statistics AGES: Institute for Plant Protection Products |
||
1.5. Contact mail address | STAT: AGES: |
|
|||
2.1. Data description | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
2.1.1. Main characteristics of statistics | |||
The quantities of plant protection products used in agriculture were extrapolated to use in Austria on the basis of farm records and seed certification data. Austria is considered as one survey region; no evaluation is carried out at the federal state level. The application data originate from farms that voluntarily participated in the survey and keep records of pesticide application using the software programs LBG-Bodenwächter, XComply or Agrarcommander. The data were made available to AGES anonymously by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Regions and Tourism (BMLRT). About 940 farms participated in the survey. The survey area in total is 28,200 ha. Data on seed treatment of 88,000 tons of seed are available from the seed certification system. |
|||
2.1.2. Reference period of data collection | |||
2017 |
|||
2.1.3. National legislation | |||
No | |||
2.1.3.1. National legislation - Name | |||
2.1.3.2. National legislation - Link | |||
2.1.3.3. National legislation - Responsible organisation | |||
2.1.3.4. National legislation - Year of entry into force | |||
2.1.3.5. National legislation - Coverage of variables required under EU legislation | |||
2.1.3.6. Divergence national definitions from EU regulation | |||
2.1.3.7. National legislation - Legal obligation for respondents to reply (Yes/No) | |||
2.1.4. Additional comments data description | |||
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. |
|||
2.3. Coverage - sector | |||
The main arable crops and the main permanent crops were included in the survey. Crops were selected according to the estimated treatment area. To obtain better coverage, the number of relevant crops was increased compared to the first five-year period. A coverage of 70- 75% of the marketing volume (excluding inert gases) is targeted. |
|||
2.3.1. Crops covered by the statistics | |||
See the attached excel file in the annex. |
|||
2.3.2. Commercial non-agricultural uses of pesticides | |||
In Austria, there are no data on non-agricultural uses. |
|||
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 | |||
For farm use data, the statistical unit for two of three data packages is a field, and for one data package it is the acreage for the respective crop on the farm. For the seed certification data, the statistical unit is one batch of seed. |
|||
2.6. Statistical population | |||
The farms volunteered to provide data. The size of the farms reflects the range of farm sizes in Austria. |
|||
2.7. Reference area | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
2.7.1. Geographical area covered | |||
For the survey crops, all relevant growing areas in Austria are covered by the survey. |
|||
2.7.2. Inclusion of special territories | |||
2.8. Coverage - Time | |||
Data on the use of plant protection products in agriculture were collected in Austria for the first time in the reference year 2012 for the first five-year period. For the second five-year period, 2017 was chosen as the reference year. The data collection does not take place on an ongoing basis but in project form for each five-year period. |
|||
2.9. Base period | |||
Not applicable for Pesticide Use Statistics, because it is not based on an index number of time series. |
|
|||
3.1. Source data | |||
See the attached Excel file in the Annexes. |
|||
3.2. Frequency of data collection | |||
Currently once every five-year period. |
|||
3.3. Data collection | |||
See the attached Excel file in the Annexes. |
|||
3.4. Data validation | |||
The validation of the raw data was carried out at the survey farms by the recording programs, which, among other things, carry out a comparison with use regulations of the respective plant protection product. These records serve, among other things, as proof of compliance with cross-compliance in the on-site control of the application of plant protection products. In the evaluation, data from the reference year 2012 and data on the placing on the market statistics were used for validation. |
|||
3.4.1. Data validation measures | |||
Manual Automatic |
|||
3.4.2. Target of data validation measures | |||
Completeness Outliers Consistency |
|||
3.4.3. Specification target of data validation | |||
3.5. Data compilation | |||
Since the data came from recording programmes, the effort for data control was manageable. The plant protection products were identified with the register number, and the application rate was given as indicated in the register. The basis for the evaluation was the proportion of the area treated with individual plant protection products (including the application rate used) to the total area of the crop. |
|||
3.6. Adjustment | |||
Farms that had apparently entered incorrect data that had not been checked automatically, e.g. had entered unrealistically low data for the area treated and the application rate, were not included in the evaluation. |
|
|||
4.1. Quality assurance | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
4.1.1. Quality management system in organisation | |||
No | |||
4.1.2. Specification of implementation | |||
4.1.3. Peer review | |||
No | |||
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 | |||
The results on the use of plant protection products for the reference year 2017 come from a total of 940 farms, with a total survey area of 28,200 ha. With the exception of the oat and tritcale, there is thus good coverage. For individual crops such as potatoes, the survey area is more than 20% of the cultivated area of the crop in Austria. There is room for improvement in the form of an even broader data basis and, above all, to achieve a better informative value when seldom or special plant protection products are used. |
|||
4.2.1. Overall quality | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.2. Relevance | |||
Improvement | |||
4.2.3. Accuracy and reliability | |||
Improvement | |||
4.2.4. Timeliness and punctuality | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.5. Comparability | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.6. Coherence | |||
Improvement | |||
4.2.7. Additional comments quality assessment | |||
|
|||
5.1. Relevance - User Needs | |||
The results are used by the federal states to revise the National Action Plan and by politicians for decision-making. Estimating the relevance of individual active substances on the basis of quantity is not always easy, as the application rate per ha varies greatly. The treated area can partly compensate for this, but is of limited relevance for active substances that are applied several times on the same area. In order to better estimate the treatment intensity in a crop, the treatment index would be more suitable. A comparison between EU member states would also be easier. In order to obtain a better picture of the use of plant protection products, there is a wish to record as many uses as possible, also outside agriculture. However, this would involve a great deal of bureaucracy and would almost be equivalent to a full survey. |
|||
5.1.1. Unmet user needs | |||
Covering more crops in agriculture and non-agricultural applications would create a lot of bureaucracy and bring high costs. Similarly, an annual survey of data on the use of plant protection products would be desirable, which would also be very cost-intensive. |
|||
5.1.2. Plans for satisfying unfilled user needs | |||
Currently, there are no plans for a significant expansion of the use statistics for plant protection products. |
|||
5.1.3. Additional comments user needs | |||
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction | |||
The users of the statistics on the use of plant protection products are informed about the statistics on the use of plant protection products in regular meetings on the coordination of plant protection matters between the federal government and the federal states and have the opportunity to make requests. |
|||
5.2.1. User satisfaction survey | |||
No | |||
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. |
|
|||
6.1. Accuracy - overall | |||
A reason for random errors is the number of survey farms. For infrequently used crop protection products, the estimated value may deviate more from reality. For frequently used crop protection products, the estimates are more precise. For seed treatment, the estimation was performed using data from seed certification. Data on the equipment of seed produced on the farms themselves without being certified are not available, here it was assumed that this is equipped with plant protection products in the same way as that which was submitted for certification. For some crops, untreated seed is also sown; no data is available on this in Austria; this proportion had to be estimated on the basis of expert statements. To improve the accuracy, the number of farms surveyed per crop can be increased as well as applications such as stock protection in arable crops or sprout inhibition in potatoes are additionally covered. |
|||
6.1.1. Grading of accuracy | |||
High | |||
6.1.2. Factors lowering accuracy | |||
Coverage error | |||
6.1.3. Specification of factors | |||
6.1.4. Additional comments overall accuracy | |||
The quantities of plant protection products used in seed treatment are generally difficult to record. These may well have a measurable influence on the coverage of the sales quantity. For example, for corn, it is estimated that more than twice the national demand is produced in Austria. In the use statistics, reference was made to the area under cultivation in Austria. However, the data on placing on the market include quantities of plant protection products used for the treatment of seeds that are not sown in Austria. |
|||
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 | |||
No revision is planned, since the project covering the current 5-year investigation period has concluded. |
|||
6.6. Data revision - practice | |||
The evaluation of the data for the reference year has been completed. There is no further evaluation and no plans to carry out a revision of the data. |
|||
6.6.1. Data revision - average size | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
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 | |||
|
|||
7.1. Timeliness | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
7.1.1. Time lag - first result | |||
Not applicable here. |
|||
7.1.2. Time lag - final result | |||
Not applicable here. |
|||
7.1.3. Reasons for possible long production times? | |||
7.2. Punctuality | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
7.2.4. Punctuality - delivery and publication | |||
Yes |
|||
7.2.1. Data release according to schedule | |||
YES | |||
7.2.2. Data release on target date | |||
7.2.3. Reasons for delays | |||
|
|||
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 | |||
When comparing the active ingredient quantities from the use statistics and the placing on the market statistics, the following aspects should be noted: The majority of plant protection product applications were recorded in the 16 agricultural crops. For the applications listed below, no or too few initial data were available for a valid extrapolation: Seedling treatment and sprout inhibition in potato, applications against storage pests in storage, and seed treatment in sunflower. Based on the quantities placed on the market, the sum of active ingredient quantities in these applications is estimated to be just below 1% of the total quantity placed on the market. Agricultural crops not covered, such as vegetable and ornamental horticulture, applications in forestry, and non-agricultural use of plant protection products in municipal green spaces, traffic and recreational areas, and in home and allotment gardens. Differences in the specification of the active ingredient quantity: In the use statistics, no active ingredient quantity in kg was calculated for active ingredients based on pheromones, viruses, bacteria and fungi. In the case of such active ingredients, the quantities stated differ greatly between individual products and active ingredients, and extrapolation does not appear to be meaningful. In the statistics on the placing on the market, however, quantity data are available for some of these active substances and are included. Due to this circumstance, the overall result of the quantity used is lower; the difference is in the order of magnitude of about one percent of the total quantity placed on the market. Seed treatment and seed traffic: In Austria, seed of a wide variety of crops is multiplied on about 40,000 ha of cultivated land. On the one hand, seed multiplication, processing including seed dressing serves to cover domestic demand, but it is also exported very successfully. Thus, plant protection products for seed treatment are marketed in Austria, but the treated seed is sown abroad. This circumstance was taken into account when extrapolating the use in agriculture, as the area under cultivation of the crop in Austria was referenced in each case. No data are available in the project on the share of exports and thus the difference between marketing and sowing in Austria. Only in the case of corn can a certain conclusion be drawn on the basis of the quantities of seed from seed certification and the quantities of plant protection products placed on the market. Based on these data, more than twice as much seed is produced in Austria for corn than is required for cultivation in Austria. The application of plant protection products does not always take place in the year of placing on the market: Placing on the market includes the first placing on the market in Austria. It is not possible to read from these figures what quantities are used in the year of placing on the market or are stored in trade and after sale in practice, both in agriculture and off-farm. A large part of the crop protection products are bought in agriculture in early purchases before the growing season. In years with dry weather and lower disease pressure, significant quantities of crop protection products can be carried over into the following year. In the use statistics, the year of the start of harvest must be used as the reference period. Applications made in the fall, e.g. in winter crops such as winter oilseed rape, are thus to be assigned to the following year. This also applies to applications to stubble fields and set-aside areas for crop preparation. These are to be assigned to the following crop. Another aspect concerns the start and end of the authorization: If the authorization of a plant protection product ends and the sales or use period is still valid, such plant protection products can be used without being placed on the market in that year. The opposite case can occur with newly approved plant protection products; a placing on the market without a use in the year of the placing on the market. In summary, it can be stated that in individual years the points mentioned may well have an effect on the difference between use and placing on the market, but on average over several years this should balance out. |
|||
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 | |||
|
|||
9.1. Dissemination format - News release | |||
A summary of the methodology and the aggregated results of the use statistics in tabular form until the end of 2020 are published on the AGES homepage under the topic Research-Pesticides http://www.ages.at/themen/landwirtschaft/pflanzenschutzmittel/forschung/. (currently only available in German) |
|||
9.1.1. Publication of news releases | |||
No | |||
9.1.2. Link to news releases | |||
9.2. Dissemination format - Publications | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.2.1. Production of paper publication | |||
No | |||
9.2.2. English paper publication | |||
No | |||
9.2.3. Production of electronic publication | |||
No | |||
9.2.4. English electronic publication | |||
No | |||
9.2.5. Link to publications | |||
9.3. Dissemination format - online database | |||
The data on the use of plant protection products per crop, aggregated by active ingredient group, are published on the AGES homepage under the link given above. |
|||
9.3.1. Data tables - consultations | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.3.2. Accessibility of on-line database | |||
Yes | |||
9.3.3. Link to on-line database | |||
9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.4.1. Accessibility of micro-data | |||
No | |||
9.4.2. Link to micro-data | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.5. Dissemination format - other | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.6. Documentation on methodology | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.6.1. Availability of national reference metadata | |||
No | |||
9.6.2. Link to national reference metadata | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.6.3. Availability of methodological papers | |||
No | |||
9.6.4. Link to methodological papers | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.6.5. Availability of handbook | |||
No | |||
9.6.6. Link to handbook | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.7. Quality management - documentation | |||
In the publication of results on the use of plant protection products, a comparison is available on the quantity placed on the market by group of active substances. |
|||
9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.7.2. Metadata - consultations | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.7.3. Availability of quality report | |||
NO | |||
9.7.4. Link to quality report | |||
Not available. |
|
|||
Costs for the five-year period:
Cost for data collection: 40.680 € Costs of compensating the survey farms for the data transmission effort: 30.960 € Costs for data preparation, extrapolation, plausibility checks, reporting: 138.160 € Total cost: 209.800 € |
|||
10.1. Efficiency gains | |||
None | |||
10.2. Specification efficiency gains | |||
10.3. Measures to reduce burden | |||
Easier data transmission | |||
10.4. Specification burden reduction | |||
The use of all data on crops generated on farms that volunteer. |
|
|||
From a data protection point of view, no restrictions are necessary in the publication of the results. Neither the individual farms can be traced back, nor can the data on the use of plant protection products be used to draw direct conclusions about the data on placing on the market. |
|||
11.1. Confidentiality - policy | |||
No. |
|||
11.1.1. Transmission of confidential national data to Eurostat | |||
No | |||
11.1.2. Confidentiality according to Regulation | |||
11.1.3. Data confidentiality policy | |||
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
11.2.1. Procedures for confidentiality | |||
11.2.2. Additional comments confidentiality - data treatment | |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
ESQRS_ANNEX_PESTUSE_2015-2019 |