|
|
For any question on data and metadata, please contact: Eurostat user support |
|
|||
1.1. Contact organisation | Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia |
||
1.2. Contact organisation unit | Agricultural Statistics Section |
||
1.5. Contact mail address | Central Statistical Bureau, Street Lacplesa 1, Riga, LV-1301, Latvia |
|
|||
2.1. Data description | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
2.1.1. Main characteristics of statistics | |||
|
|||
2.1.2. Reference period of data collection | |||
|
|||
2.1.3. National legislation | |||
Yes | |||
2.1.3.1. National legislation - Name | |||
The national legal framework covering statistical data acquisition is Statistics Law |
|||
2.1.3.2. National legislation - Link | |||
|
|||
2.1.3.3. National legislation - Responsible organisation | |||
Central Statistical Bureau |
|||
2.1.3.4. National legislation - Year of entry into force | |||
2016 |
|||
2.1.3.5. National legislation - Coverage of variables required under EU legislation | |||
|
|||
2.1.3.6. Divergence national definitions from EU regulation | |||
There is no divergance |
|||
2.1.3.7. National legislation - Legal obligation for respondents to reply (Yes/No) | |||
Yes | |||
2.1.4. Additional comments data description | |||
Legal obligation for respondents
|
|||
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 | |||
Selected crops – cereals covered 58 % of sown area of agricultural crops and rape 10 % respectively, use of pesticides on those crops is relevant. Information for pesticide treatment on selected vegetables and permanent crops is also of national importance. |
|||
2.3.1. Crops covered by the statistics | |||
See the attached Excel file in the Annexes. Annexes: Crops covered |
|||
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 | |||
Population frame includes in 2017 all economically active agricultural holdings with areas of winter wheat, spring wheat, rye, spring barley, winter barley, oats, triticale, buckwheat, mixed cereals, spring rape and winter rape and field beans and in 2019 holdings with areas of apple trees, pear trees, plum trees, cherry trees, raspberries, strawberries, cabbages, carrots, beetroots, onions, potatoes, green maize. |
|||
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 | |||
Not applicable |
|||
2.8. Coverage - Time | |||
2010 onwards |
|||
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. Annexes: Data source |
|||
3.2. Frequency of data collection | |||
Every 5 years |
|||
3.3. Data collection | |||
See the attached Excel file in the Annexes. Annexes: Data collection |
|||
3.4. Data validation | |||
Verifying the area, on which pesticides are used, with total sown area under each crop. Comparing each product application rate in kg or in l per ha with recommended application rate on each holding. |
|||
3.4.1. Data validation measures | |||
Manual Automatic |
|||
3.4.2. Target of data validation measures | |||
Completeness Outliers |
|||
3.4.3. Specification target of data validation | |||
3.5. Data compilation | |||
Data compilation was done by the CSB.The results of the survey were extrapolated to the entire country. The design weights which are inversely proportional to inclusion probability, have been adjusted taking into account the response in the strata. If a farm has not responded in the strata, similar strata are combined and weights are recalculated in stratum. External information for calculation of weights is not used. The quantities of pesticides used per crop have been reported at active substance level as well as at all aggragation levels (major groups, categories of products, chemical classes). Values for the area treated have not been reported as aggragates. |
|||
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 | |||
Quality Management Systems of the Central Statistical Bureau (QMS) are certified according to requirements of ISO 9001:2015 standard "Ouality management systems - Requirements". QMS defines management, support and core business processes and sub-processes, which include: process and sub-process owners, activities to be performed within processes and their sequence, duties and responsibilities of employees, their distribution within processes, files and databases, forms, regulations and other documents referred to in the processes. QMS is binding on all employees of the CSB. |
|||
4.1.3. Peer review | |||
No | |||
4.1.4. Main conclusions peer review | |||
4.1.5. Future quality improvements | |||
Improve data validation Further automation Further training |
|||
4.1.6. Specification of quality improvements | |||
4.1.7. Additional comments quality assurance | |||
4.2. Quality management - assessment | |||
Overall quality of the statistical data on pesticide use on agricultural crops is considered sufficient in terms of quality criteria. The main strengths is that qualified regional inspectors from the State Plant Protection Service ensured collection of data on pesticides used. The sample size was sufficient to meet the standard quality criteria. The coefficient of variation has improved compared to the previous survey for almost all crops surveyed. |
|||
4.2.1. Overall quality | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.2. Relevance | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.3. Accuracy and reliability | |||
Improvement | |||
4.2.4. Timeliness and punctuality | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.5. Comparability | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.6. Coherence | |||
Stable | |||
4.2.7. Additional comments quality assessment | |||
|
|||
5.1. Relevance - User Needs | |||
The statistical information for users is available in the CSB Database as dataset MGG030, press releases published in 11.10.2018 and in 9.10.2020 are also available. The data users are mainly media and the State Plant Protection Service, as well as the students. Users are often interested in the information comparable over time (time series) and among the differentcountries. |
|||
5.1.1. Unmet user needs | |||
Information comparable among countries cannot be provided. |
|||
5.1.2. Plans for satisfying unfilled user needs | |||
Not available. |
|||
5.1.3. Additional comments user needs | |||
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction | |||
User satisfaction survey has not been conducted. |
|||
5.2.1. User satisfaction survey | |||
No | |||
5.2.2. Year of user satisfaction survey | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
5.2.3. Satisfaction level | |||
Neutral | |||
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 | |||
Errors do not have significant impact on key results. |
|||
6.1.1. Grading of accuracy | |||
High | |||
6.1.2. Factors lowering accuracy | |||
Non-response 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. Annexes: Sampling error |
|||
6.3. Non-sampling error | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
6.3.1. Coverage error | |||
See the attached Excel file in the Annexes. Annexes: Coverage error |
|||
6.3.2. Measurement error | |||
See the attached Excel file in the Annexes. Annexes: Measurement error |
|||
6.3.3. Non response error | |||
See the attached Excel file in the Annexes. Annexes: Non response error |
|||
6.3.4. Processing error | |||
See the attached Excel file in the Annexes. Annexes: Processing error |
|||
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 | |||
Data were not revised. |
|||
6.6. Data revision - practice | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
6.6.1. Data revision - average size | |||
Not applicable |
|||
6.6.2. Data revisions - conceptual changes | |||
No | |||
6.6.3. Reason for revisions | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
6.6.4. Impact of revisions | |||
Not important | |||
6.6.5. Additional comments data revisions | |||
There were no changes in statistical values released. |
|
|||
7.1. Timeliness | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
7.1.1. Time lag - first result | |||
The first results on national level were available 270 days from the last day of the reference period. Data revisions were not necessary, the first results are also the final results. |
|||
7.1.2. Time lag - final result | |||
The final results on national level were available 270 days from the last day of the reference period. |
|||
7.1.3. Reasons for possible long production times? | |||
There were still problems for State Plant Protection Service interviewers begin to usie laptops for the data collection. Data entry from paper questionnaires of the surveu 2019 was carried out by the staff of the Agricultural Statistics Section of the Central Statistical Bureau. |
|||
7.2. Punctuality | |||
See sub-categories below. |
|||
7.2.4. Punctuality - delivery and publication | |||
Data are published according to the CSB publication calendar. |
|||
7.2.1. Data release according to schedule | |||
YES | |||
7.2.2. Data release on target date | |||
YES | |||
7.2.3. Reasons for delays | |||
Not applicable. |
|
|||
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 comparibility 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. It is not possible to compare correctlythe data on pesticide use and pesticides placed on the market. In 2017 only grain crops rape and field beans were selected for the data collection and in 2019 - vegetables, permanent crops, potatoes, green maize. Many substances are used in one year for all crops, in the same time products might not be used only in one year but also in the next year etc. |
|||
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 | |||
Harmonised classification of pesticides and crops was applied. A good internal coherence of the data was ensured. Data were obtained from sample survey, the sample size was representative, metod of extrapolation of data to entire country provided good quality data. Approach of data collection was in line with Eurostat guidelines, for example, data collection per field, inclusion of seed treatment. |
|
|||
9.1. Dissemination format - News release | |||
Two news releases linked to the data on pesticide use on agricultural crops in 2017 and in 2019 respectively were disseminated. |
|||
9.1.1. Publication of news releases | |||
Yes | |||
9.1.2. Link to news releases | |||
9.2. Dissemination format - Publications | |||
Publication "Agriculture of Latvia" (Collection of Statistics); publisher: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2019. Link: "see question 9.2.5." |
|||
9.2.1. Production of paper publication | |||
Yes | |||
9.2.2. English paper publication | |||
Yes | |||
9.2.3. Production of electronic publication | |||
Yes | |||
9.2.4. English electronic publication | |||
Yes | |||
9.2.5. Link to publications | |||
9.3. Dissemination format - online database | |||
Domain in the CSB database: Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery/Agri-environmental indicators/Pesticides/Data table MGG030 "Pesticides used on 1 ha of sown area (active substances, kg). https://data.csb.gov.lv/pxweb/en/lauks/lauks__agro/MGG030.px |
|||
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 | |||
https://data.csb.gov.lv/pxweb/en/lauks/lauks__agro/MGG030.px |
|||
9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access | |||
No micro-data were disseminated. |
|||
9.4.1. Accessibility of micro-data | |||
No | |||
9.4.2. Link to micro-data | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
9.5. Dissemination format - other | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
9.6. Documentation on methodology | |||
A unified Quality Report standard has been developed by the CSB - Project Documentation System (ADS). File includes metadata and quality assessment for the survey on pesticide use on agricultural crops in 2017 and in 2019. |
|||
9.6.1. Availability of national reference metadata | |||
No | |||
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 | |||
Not applicable. |
|||
9.7. Quality management - documentation | |||
National quality report on the transmitted data quality has been sent to Eurostat. In order to facilitate correct interpretation of data and tofoster dialogue with data users, the CSB develops a unified Quality Report standard- Project Documentation System (ADS), where different data preparation aspects are described in detail: legal basis, methodology, sample design and sample size, data collection and processing methods, definitions etc. (available in Latvian and for internal use). ADS includes metadata and quality assessment for the survey on pesticide use on agricultural crops in 2017 and in 2019. Starting from 2021, metadata will be maintained and published on the OS portal according to a common standard (SMS 2.0). |
|||
9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate | |||
100 % of metadata elements applicable is provided in this report. |
|||
9.7.2. Metadata - consultations | |||
Not available. |
|||
9.7.3. Availability of quality report | |||
NO | |||
9.7.4. Link to quality report | |||
|
|||
Operational cost in total for the survey of 2017 was EUR 58.2 thousand, which includes cost for data collection EUR 32.7 thousand, for data processing and dissemination EUR 25.5 thousand respectively. Operational cost in total for the survey of 2019 was EUR 34.2 thousand, which includes cost for data collection EUR 32.8 thousand, for data processing and dissemination EUR 8.4 thousand respectively. Operating costs decreased by 10% compared to the previous five-year data collection period. Efforts made to improve efficiency includes data entry of the survey for 2019 by the agricultural statistics section staff themselves. During this data collection period electronic means were not used to facilitate data collection. Range and detail of data collected in surveys was limited to what is absolutely necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Pesticide Regulation. |
|||
10.1. Efficiency gains | |||
Further training | |||
10.2. Specification efficiency gains | |||
Not applicable |
|||
10.3. Measures to reduce burden | |||
None | |||
10.4. Specification burden reduction | |||
Not applicable. |
|
|||
11.1. Confidentiality - policy | |||
In accordance with Regulation (EC) 223/2009 Article 3 data are considered confidencial when they allow statistical units to be identified, either directly or indirectly, thereby disclosing individual information. Subparagraf 3.5.1 of the CSB Quality Guidelines determinates the confidenciality. Methods assuring confidentiality have been applied to the data: Threshold rule: data (either a cell or marginal total) in a table is confidential if the number of contributor is one, two or three statistical units (entrprises). Dominance rule: according tothis rule, a cell is to be regarded as confidetial if the share of of one statistical unit in the respective indicator is 80% and more as well as if the total proportion of the two statistical units is 90% and above. |
|||
11.1.1. Transmission of confidential national data to Eurostat | |||
No | |||
11.1.2. Confidentiality according to Regulation | |||
Yes | |||
11.1.3. Data confidentiality policy | |||
There is no need to avoid identification. Data cover the use of active substances on crops, sample as a method for carring out the survey, ensures protection (it is not known, which statistical units are surveyed). |
|||
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment | |||
Threshold rule: data (either a cell or marginal total) in a table is confidential if the number of contributor is one, two or three statistical units (entrprises). Dominance rule: according tothis rule, a cell is to be regarded as confidetial if the share of of one statistical unit in the respective indicator is 80% and more as well as if the total proportion of the two statistical units is 90% and above. There is no need to avoid identification. Data cover the use of active substances on crops, sample as a method for carring out the survey, ensures protection (it is not known, which statistical units are surveyed). |
|||
11.2.1. Procedures for confidentiality | |||
There is no need to avoid identification. Data cover the use of active substances on crops, sample as a method for carring out the survey, ensures protection (it is not known, which statistical units are surveyed). |
|||
11.2.2. Additional comments confidentiality - data treatment | |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
ANNEX |