|
|
For any question on data and metadata, please contact: Eurostat user support |
|
|||
1.1. Contact organisation | Statistics Norway |
||
1.2. Contact organisation unit | Housing, property, spatial and agricultural statistics |
||
1.5. Contact mail address |
|
|||
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 | |||
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) | |||
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. |
|||
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. |
|
|||
3.1. 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 |
|
|||
4.1. 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 | |||
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 | |||
|
|||
5.1. 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 | |||
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 | |||
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 | |||
|
|||
7.1. 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 | |||
|
|||
8.1. 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. |
|
|||
9.1. Dissemination format - News release | |||
No news relaease
|
|||
9.1.1. Publication of news releases | |||
No | |||
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 | |||
No | |||
9.2.3. Production of electronic publication | |||
Yes | |||
9.2.4. English electronic publication | |||
No | |||
9.2.5. Link to publications | |||
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 | |||
No | |||
9.3.3. Link to on-line database | |||
9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access | |||
No access |
|||
9.4.1. Accessibility of micro-data | |||
No | |||
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 | |||
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 | |||
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 | |||
NO | |||
9.7.4. Link to quality report | |||
|
|||
Cost and burden: EUR 120000 |
|||
10.1. Efficiency gains | |||
On-line surveys | |||
10.2. Specification efficiency gains | |||
10.3. Measures to reduce burden | |||
More user-friendly questionnaires | |||
10.4. Specification burden reduction | |||
|
|||
11.1. Confidentiality - policy | |||
All necessary methods assuring confidentiality have been applied to the data as described in the Act on Official Statistics and Statistics Norway (Statistics Act) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2019-06-21-32?q=statistikklov |
|||
11.1.1. Transmission of confidential national data to Eurostat | |||
No | |||
11.1.2. Confidentiality according to Regulation | |||
11.1.3. Data confidentiality policy | |||
It is not possible to identify individuals or companies since only aggregate data is published. |
|||
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment | |||
Only aggregated data are published based on many observations. It is thus not possible to identify individual companies or individuals. Microdata cannot be published. |
|||
11.2.1. Procedures for confidentiality | |||
Raw data is only processed in Statistics Norway's internal secure databases and no microdata is disseminated. |
|||
11.2.2. Additional comments confidentiality - data treatment | |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
ESQRS_ANNEX_PESTUSE_2015-2019 |