|
|
For any question on data and metadata, please contact: Eurostat user support |
|
|||
1.1. Contact organisation | Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) |
||
1.2. Contact organisation unit | Statistical services |
||
1.5. Contact mail address | Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) Statistical Services P.O.Box 2 (Latokartanonkaari 9) FI-00791 Helsinki, FINLAND |
|
|||
2.1. Data description | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
2.1.1. Main characteristics of statistics | |||
The statistics describe the use of pesticides in the growing of the most important agricultural and horticultural crops in Finland: spring and winter wheat, rye, barley, oats, rape and turnip rape, food potatoes and food-industry potatoes, sugar beets, grassland for feed production (not pasture), caraway, broad beans, peas, cabbages, carrots, food onions, strawberries, currants (black, green, red and white) and apples. Crop-specific information on the quantities of pesticide products (plant protection products) used and the treated areas was collected from farmers in 2013 and 2018 during crop yield survey and horticultural enterprise survey. The available pesticide products and their active substance concentrations were sourced from the Plant Protection Product Register maintained by the Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency (Tukes). |
|||
2.1.2. Reference period of data collection | |||
Data collection included pesticide use in the production of the yield harvested in the year 2018. Thus, the collected data covers the treatment of harvested crops during the growing season of 2018, and for overwintering crops in autumn 2017, too. |
|||
2.1.3. National legislation | |||
Yes | |||
2.1.3.1. National legislation - Name | |||
Laki kasvinsuojeluaineista 29.12.2011/1563 In English: Law on plant protection products |
|||
2.1.3.2. National legislation - Link | |||
https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2011/20111563
|
|||
2.1.3.3. National legislation - Responsible organisation | |||
Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry |
|||
2.1.3.4. National legislation - Year of entry into force | |||
2012 |
|||
2.1.3.5. National legislation - Coverage of variables required under EU legislation | |||
The national law requires the production of pesticide statistics according to the EU regulation. |
|||
2.1.3.6. Divergence national definitions from EU regulation | |||
No divergencies. |
|||
2.1.3.7. National legislation - Legal obligation for respondents to reply (Yes/No) | |||
Yes | |||
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 | |||
Agriculture / crop production |
|||
2.3.1. Crops covered by the statistics | |||
Winter wheat, spring wheat, rye, malting barley, other types of barley, oats, rape and turnip rape, food potatoes and food-industry potatoes, sugar beets, grassland for feed cultivation (not pasture), broad bean, caraway, peas, cabbages, carrots, food onions, strawberries, currants (black, green, red and white) and apples. For crop codes, please, see table "2.3.1. Crops" in the attached Excel file in "3 - 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. For biological products the treated area only is reported. |
|||
2.5. Statistical unit | |||
Agricultural or horticultural holding. |
|||
2.6. Statistical population | |||
Agricultural and horticultural holdings with minimun annual Standard Output of 2000 euros. |
|||
2.7. Reference area | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
2.7.1. Geographical area covered | |||
The entire territory of Finland. |
|||
2.7.2. Inclusion of special territories | |||
FI Åland Islands |
|||
2.8. Coverage - Time | |||
Pesticide use data was collected in the years 2013 and 2018. |
|||
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 "3 - Annexes". Annexes: Source data |
|||
3.2. Frequency of data collection | |||
Every 5 years (2013, 2018) |
|||
3.3. Data collection | |||
See the attached Excel file in the Annexes of "3.1 Source data". |
|||
3.4. Data validation | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
3.4.1. Data validation measures | |||
Manual Automatic Annexes: Data validation measures |
|||
3.4.2. Target of data validation measures | |||
Completeness Outliers Aggregates |
|||
3.4.3. Specification target of data validation | |||
3.5. Data compilation | |||
Summing up active substances into hierarchical classes was carried out according to the Regulation (EU) 2017/269. In the conversion of litres into kilograms it was assumed that 1 litre = 1 kilogram. Pesticide data was collected in the Finnish crop yield survey. Other statistical procedures are described in the quality report of the crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
3.6. Adjustment | |||
Not applicable. |
|
|||
4.1. Quality assurance | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
4.1.1. Quality management system in organisation | |||
Yes | |||
4.1.2. Specification of implementation | |||
See section "4. Quality management" in the quality report of crop statistics (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
4.1.3. Peer review | |||
No | |||
4.1.4. Main conclusions peer review | |||
4.1.5. Future quality improvements | |||
Further automation | |||
4.1.6. Specification of quality improvements | |||
4.1.7. Additional comments quality assurance | |||
4.2. Quality management - assessment | |||
See section "4.2. Quality management - assessment" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
4.2.1. Overall quality | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.2. Relevance | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.3. Accuracy and reliability | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.4. Timeliness and punctuality | |||
Improvement | |||
4.2.5. Comparability | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.6. Coherence | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.7. Additional comments quality assessment | |||
|
|||
5.1. Relevance - User Needs | |||
There is a need for information on pesticide use among research and administration, e.g. when estimating the risk on the environment. Also, media is interested in pesticide use especially with issues that are currently in public debate. Recently, such topics have been glyphosate and neonicotinoids. New information that is now available in the pesticide use statistics includes: - the used amount of pesticides specifically in agriculture - use of pesticides in the cultivation of each of the main crops - agricultural area treated with pesticides
|
|||
5.1.1. Unmet user needs | |||
There is a need for information on the regional use of pesticides. So far, only national figures have been published in the pesticide use statistics. Regional estimates of pesticide use can be made by combining the national crop specific use of pesticides per hectare with regional cultivation areas of the crops. |
|||
5.1.2. Plans for satisfying unfilled user needs | |||
Development of data processing so, that regional data on the use of pesticices can be published. |
|||
5.1.3. Additional comments user needs | |||
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction | |||
See section "5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
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. |
|
|||
See section "5. Accuracy and reliability" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
6.1. Accuracy - overall | |||
See section "6. Accuracy and reliability" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
6.1.1. Grading of accuracy | |||
Moderate | |||
6.1.2. Factors lowering accuracy | |||
Measurement error Non-response error |
|||
6.1.3. Specification of factors | |||
6.1.4. Additional comments overall accuracy | |||
6.2. Sampling error | |||
See item "6.2. Sampling error" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
6.3. Non-sampling error | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
6.3.1. Coverage error | |||
See item "6.3.1. Coverage error" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
6.3.2. Measurement error | |||
See the item "6.3.2. Measurement error" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
6.3.3. Non response error | |||
See the item "6.3.3. Non-response error" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
6.3.4. Processing error | |||
See the item "6.3.4. Processing error" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - 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 | |||
See item "6.5. Data revision - policy" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
6.6. Data revision - practice | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
6.6.1. Data revision - average size | |||
See item "6.6. Data revision - practice" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
6.6.2. Data revisions - conceptual changes | |||
No | |||
6.6.3. Reason for revisions | |||
See item "6.6. Data revision - practice" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
6.6.4. Impact of revisions | |||
Not important | |||
6.6.5. Additional comments data revisions | |||
No revisions have been made for the pesticide data of the year 2018. |
|
|||
7.1. Timeliness | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
7.1.1. Time lag - first result | |||
The statistics were released on one occasion (see item 7.1.2.). |
|||
7.1.2. Time lag - final result | |||
The reference period ended at the harvest of the included crops in 2018. The latest crops were harvested by the end of October 2018. The time lag between this point and the release of the statistics (27 Mar 2019) was about 5 months. |
|||
7.1.3. Reasons for possible long production times? | |||
7.2. Punctuality | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
7.2.4. Punctuality - delivery and publication | |||
7.2.1. Data release according to schedule | |||
YES | |||
7.2.2. Data release on target date | |||
YES | |||
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 | |||
Not applicable. See item "8.3. Coherence - cross domain" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
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 | |||
Not applicable. |
|
|||
9.1. Dissemination format - News release | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
9.1.1. Publication of news releases | |||
Yes | |||
9.1.2. Link to news releases | |||
|
|||
9.2. Dissemination format - Publications | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
9.2.1. Production of paper publication | |||
No | |||
9.2.2. English paper publication | |||
No | |||
9.2.3. Production of electronic publication | |||
Yes | |||
9.2.4. English electronic publication | |||
Yes | |||
9.2.5. Link to publications | |||
https://stat.luke.fi/sites/default/files/luke-luobio_73_2020.pdf |
|||
9.3. Dissemination format - online database | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
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 applicable. |
|||
9.4.1. Accessibility of micro-data | |||
No | |||
9.4.2. Link to micro-data | |||
9.5. Dissemination format - other | |||
9.6. Documentation on methodology | |||
See sub-categories 9.6.1. and 9.6.2. below. |
|||
9.6.1. Availability of national reference metadata | |||
Yes | |||
9.6.2. Link to national reference metadata | |||
9.6.3. Availability of methodological papers | |||
No | |||
9.6.4. Link to methodological papers | |||
9.6.5. Availability of handbook | |||
No | |||
9.6.6. Link to handbook | |||
9.7. Quality management - documentation | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate | |||
9.7.2. Metadata - consultations | |||
9.7.3. Availability of quality report | |||
YES | |||
9.7.4. Link to quality report | |||
https://stat.luke.fi/tilasto/4081/laatuseloste/4359 (in Finnish) |
|
|||
The collection of pesticide data from farms was carried out as a supplement to the annual crop survey and horticultural enterprise survey. With this arrangement a separate pesticide survey could be avoided, which meant lower costs and one survey less for the farmers. While filling in the crop or horticultural survey, the farmer was dealing with crop data and, therefore, pesticide survey fitted well together with these surveys. The total cost of the statistics on pesticide use in agriculture (data collection, processing and dissemination) was estimated at 125,000 euros. Submitting of pesticide data was an additional burden for the farmers. The amount of work varied a lot between farms depending on the number of crop species and on the extent of pesticide use. Web questionnaire had several functionalities that helped answering. Pesticide data was asked for those crops only that were grown on the farm according to the answers of the farmer to the crop survey questions. The target of pesticide use (weeds, diseases, insects or growth regulation) was asked first, and then the questionnaire showed a menu of those pesticide products that were available for the crop-target combination in question. For telephone interview, farmers and interviewers got a list of all the avaialble pesticide products arranged in groups according to the target of the product. Each product had a theree-number code that helped its identification. The data on pesticide use should have been available on farms, because the terms of farm subsidies and legislation obligate farmers to keep record of pesticide use. |
|||
10.1. Efficiency gains | |||
None | |||
10.2. Specification efficiency gains | |||
10.3. Measures to reduce burden | |||
None | |||
10.4. Specification burden reduction | |||
|
|||
11.1. Confidentiality - policy | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
11.1.1. Transmission of confidential national data to Eurostat | |||
Yes | |||
11.1.2. Confidentiality according to Regulation | |||
Yes | |||
11.1.3. Data confidentiality policy | |||
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment | |||
See section "11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment" in the quality report of crop production statistics of Finland (CROPROD_ESQRSCP_A_FI_2019_0000, see "3 - Annexes"). |
|||
11.2.1. Procedures for confidentiality | |||
11.2.2. Additional comments confidentiality - data treatment | |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Crops and data sources Quality report of the crop production statistics of Finland Quality report of the crop production statistics of Finland, annex |