EUROSTAT
Directorate E: Sectoral and regional statistics
Unit E-1: Agriculture and fisheries
Luxembourg, 15October 2013
ESTAT/E1/ME/JS/SV/ga
DOC. CPSA/AEI/122
Available in EN only
Working Group
"Agriculture and Environment
– Pesticides Statistics"
Bech building – Room Quetelet
Kirchberg, Luxembourg
26 and 27 September, 9:30 A.M.
Chaired by: Mr. Marcel Ernens
2.1. DRAFT MINUTES*
SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION:
From: EN, DE,PT
To: EN, DE
* Document available on Circabc:
1
Note on the minutes
As all presentations are available on Circabc, only the content of the discussions is reported in these minutes.
All presentations can be downloaded from >Agri-environmental indicators >WG Pesticides 26-27 September 2013.
Opening
The chairman welcomed the participants, and reminded the meeting of the importance of reliable data on pesticide sales and use to monitor community and national policies on agriculture and environment and for developing appropriate agri-environmental, sustainable development, and risk indicators.
2.Items for approval
2.1Adoption of the agenda (Doc. CPSA/AEI/116)
The agenda was approved without changes.
2.2.Minutes of
-Working Group meeting on pesticide statistics 14 October 2009 (Doc. PPP/09/002)
-Task Force meeting on pesticide statistics 6 May 2010 (Doc. PPP/10/004)
No remarks were made by the participants and the chairman concluded that no formal approval of the minutes was needed.
3.The Pesticide legal package and related aspects
DG SANCO informed the meeting that the responsibility for the Sustainable Use Directive was transferred from DG ENV to DG SANCO in 2010 as a result of reorganisation. The workcould only be resumed in 2011 since the transfer of the file was not accompanied by transfer of additional human resources.
DG SANCO presented an overview of the legislative framework and on-going work related tothe authorisation and sustainable use of pesticides, with special emphasis on
- Regulation (EC) No1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products (PPP) on the market.
- Article 67 and the set responsibilities for records keeping and records providing
- A database with the list of authorised active substances is available on SANCOs website.
- Further, a PPP database with information on active substance concentration, criteria of approval, authorised uses by crop, authorisation application process, and the GAP table is expected to be operational soon. As a 1st step, this PPP database was tested via a pilot collaboration project with 8 MS.
- IPM (according to provision laid down in the SUD) will be mandatory from 1.1.2014 onwards for the use of PPPs.
- Sustainable Use Directive 2009/128/EC
- National Action Plans were submitted by (almost all) MS so far, and are available at DG SANCOs website:
- art 15 for the development of Harmonised Risk Indicators. Work is on-going. Regarding the HAIR project (“suite” of risk indicators), a workshop with MS was carried out in 2012, and MS were asked to provide feedback on the potential use of HAIR. Further, anOECD WG on risk indicators resumed work which is followed also by COM. Further reflections / discussions are needed.
- art 7.3 for developing a strategic GD for monitoring and surveying the impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment. A study was commissioned in 2012 by DG SANCO to an external contractor, compiling information regarding on-going monitoring and surveillance activities currently carried out in MS. On the basis of this report and other considerations, DG SANCO is working on a 1st draft which will be used as a basis for discussions with other services and MS. Data on the use of PPPs and improvement on the interlinking of data coming from different sectors / monitoring programmes / authorities will be important.
DG SANCO clarified to NL that besides developing harmonised risk indicators, MS can still use their own risk indicators. In addition, the final decision on risk indicators (Annex IV of SUD)is taken by the MS via Comitology. DG SANCO confirmed to BE that the HAIR indicators do contain eco-toxicological data.
The chairman highlighted the overall importance of collaboration and information sharing between MS, and different authorities within MS, in the domain.
4.Issues for discussion and decision
4.1.Data transmission format for pesticide statistics (Doc. CPSA/AEI/117)
Eurostat presented a proposal for amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 408/2011 on datatransmission, to include also the transmission format on pesticide use for 2015. In addition, the transmission format for pesticide sales statistics would also be slightly adapted. It further stressed the importance of ensuring that the implementing Regulation should enter into force early enough, to allow Member States enough time to adapt their systems accordingly. Concerning the legal procedure itself, Eurostat informed the participants that the issue will be also discussed in the CPSA (November 2013) to allow for the input of agricultural statistics experts, and be voted in the ESSC (February or May 2014).
The Working Group took note of the Roadmap,acknowledged the complexity of pesticide use statistics, and agreed on the transmission format being SDMX-ML exclusively. Countries will have 3 choices: manually converting the xls file provided by Eurostat into SDMX-ML, automatically exporting into an SDMX-ML file from their databases, or creating an SDMX-ML file via an SDMX Web Service.
The transmission file specifications will be made available duringthe second or third quarter of 2014, after approval of the Commission act.
The tools (xls file and SDMX converter) plus all relative information will be made available as soon as possible, and Member States will be able to transmit data even before end-2015.
The Working Group also agreed that:
-the codes listed in Annex III of Regulation 1185/2009 will not be part of the proposed amended Commission Regulation
-the same crop list as for crop statistics will apply.
Moreover, Eurostat clarified, that insofar as pesticide-sales transmissions were concerned, countries would still have the choice between web-form and SDMX-ML.
Further on, the following technical issues were discussed:
SI requested that Eurostat specified whether or not the data transmitted should be reported as whole numbers –integers, or as decimal numbers. Eurostat suggested that countries could report using 2 significant digits after the decimal separator, if they so require.
A number of countries (AT, BE, DE, IT, FR, PT, UK) inquired which 12 month period should be interpreted to be the “reference year”for pesticide-use statistics. It was decided that in principle, this should be interpreted as stated in the basic Regulation and the implementing Commission Regulation 656/2011. Specifically, the reference year should be the calendar year the crop was harvested, but if countries have used another approach, the crop year would also be accepted, provided this is mentioned in the Quality Report.
Eurostat confirmed further, that the reference period would thus be different depending on the crop, but still in line with the Regulation’s provisions. Should data on the use of pesticides be collected for the same crop twice or more in the 5 year period, countries could submit all available years individually and not the average amount used. Should the same crop be harvested twice in the 12 month period e.g. lettuce, then the total amount of pesticides used should be reported. Replying to questions about how crops with short-cycle production should be reported, Eurostat clarified that countries should apply the same principle as in crop statistics which infers that all crops harvested, along with the total “Area Treated”, during a 12 month period, should be reported. If the same crop is harvested twice or more, then the area would not be multiplied, but would be taken as only one crop.
4.2.Confidentiality and data dissemination (Doc. CPSA/AEI/118)
Eurostat introduced the issue referring to the provisions of Regulation 1185/2009, and elaborated on the fact that confidentiality in pesticide sales appears to have been treated differently depending on the Member State and/or the data source (importers vs. retail sellers). This makes the 2011 pesticide sales data very difficult to publish as such or in the form of risk indicators. Eurostat stressed that Regulation 1185/2009 doesn’t allow Eurostat to disseminate statistics on active substance level, only aggregated as indicated in Annex III of the regulation.
Eurostat presented a Confidentiality Charter (based on the assumption that MS use the threshold rule) created in collaboration with the Methodological Unit in the house, and how it could be applied to pesticidesales and pesticide use statistics. Moreover, Eurostat considers that pesticide use data cannot be deemed confidential as the data is collected from the farms.
BE, DE declared that they agreed with the proposal, providing that all countries follow it as a Eurostat rule.
BE, NL mentioned that published national sales data is at the highest aggregation level and it is the Government’s prerogative to publish it.
FR informed the WG that both the dominance and threshold rules are applied.
BE requested clarifications on the definition of the “reporting unit”. Whilst Eurostat explained that the statistical/reporting unit should be deemed the one providing the data (i.e. cannot thus be the producer if the data is collected from the retail sellers), the overall consensus was that the issue needed detailed methodological analysis at country and Commission level.
DE recommended that Eurostat could seek the advice of the Plant Protection Companies Association (ECPA), and SI added that the Association of Pesticide Producers could be also contacted. SI continued that after having approached the latter association was informed that they did not object to publishing historical data.
It was decided to investigate further between the MS and the Commission on possibilities to reduce the confidentiality flags in pesticides statistics by applying the same rules (Dominance and/or Frequency/Threshold rules), and by rephrasing the proposed Confidentiality Charter. A Task Force on this subject could eventually be proposed to the CPSA in November 2013.
A circular note will be addressed to the countries after the WG on this issue. Among other, countries will be expected to provide the Commission with feedback on
-whether they agree to revise their confidentiality flags in the 2011 pesticide sales data;
-whether they agree to Eurostat publishing sales data at the highest aggregation levels, after sending the data for approval to countries;
-whether they agree with the proposed Confidentiality Charter;
-information on the national confidentiality rules;
-URL links to national pesticides statistics published on the web.
4.3.Quality reports (Doc. CPSA/AEI/119)
Eurostat commenced by giving an overview of the Euro-SDMX Metadata Structure (ESMS),the ESS Standard for Quality Reports Structure (ESQRS), and the National Reference Metadata Editor (NRME). It followed by highlighting the increasing importance of the quality aspect of statistical data, and the ensuing reporting obligations of Regulation 1185/2009 for both pesticide sales and use statistics. Eurostat went on by presenting the results of the first wave of quality reports on pesticide sales, adding that these will be further analysed as well as loaded in Circabc and Eurobase (the latter possibly in the form of a metadata file). The Quality Reports will also be used in drafting the 5 yearly report, to the Council and Parliament as stipulated in the Regulation.
Eurostat added that the quality reports received so far are quite satisfactory taking into consideration the diversity/complexity of the sources (administrative data vs. surveys) and the difficulty in validation.
Eurostat’s proposed draft Quality Reports (refined version for pesticide sales and suggested new version for pesticide use) were accepted by the WG, and there were no objections about carrying on reporting via the NRME tool. The Quality Reports will presented for approval to the CPSA in November 2013.
Regarding specific issues,DE remarked that more feedback (from Eurostat and/or from other MS) is necessary concerning the adequacy of information already transmitted. DE also proposed the setting up of a discussion group amongst MS for the exchange of best-practice approaches on reporting difficult concepts.
NL queried on the possibility of annexing national reports, and Eurostat replied that since such reports would be in the national language, countries could provide a brief summary in EN. If such annexes were very important then Eurostat could possibly envisage having them translated.
AT inquired on the need to resend the sales Quality Report for the 2012. Eurostat replied that if there are no change in the content, countries could just inform Eurostat by e-mail confirming that the previous report is still valid.
PT queried on “user needs” and “cost & burden to users”. Eurostat replied that the Handbook on Quality Reporting (2009 edition) will be uploaded in Circabc as well as a new Eurostat document with guidelines will be made available as soon as it is approved by ESSC in November 2013.
Overall, Eurostatwill investigate how feedback can be delivered on the provided quality reports for sales statistics, how to improve their content further, and how sharing of best practices can be achieved. Countries are encouraged to send additional useful methodological information.
5.Issues for information and discussion
5.1.Issues related to Annex III of Regulation 1185/2009 (Doc. CPSA/AEI/120)
Eurostat presented issues related to the list of active substances,received from the MS in the framework of data delivery for reference year 2011. It was agreed, that the list will continue to be updated annually with the support of DG SANCO, whilst a full revision of the list will only take place in 2016, avoiding thus the implicated lengthy legal process, but more importantly providing MS with certitude that the same list will be kept for the whole 5-year reference period associated with reporting data on agricultural use of pesticides.
Regarding specific matters, SI questioned why the substances in the “X99_99” categories are flagged as “non-classified” in the “category of products” column as they should be part of “the “other” group. Eurostat informed that this was in fact only for information and proposed to delete them in future.
NL questioned the usefulness of Chemical Classes in risk evaluation. Eurostat proposed to investigate this issue in the context of all pending reclassification issues, in collaboration with DG SANCO, leaving open the possibility of restructuring in future, should this be deemed necessary.
5.2.Data on biological substances
Many Member State experts hadreported that the biological active substances could not be measured in kg, as foreseen in the Regulation 1185/2009 and hence they had encountered problems in reporting their pesticide sales data.
Ms Seng from theGerman Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) presented a proposal for a potential solution putting emphasis on the lack of a universally accepted meaningful unit of measurement for reporting “active substance content” of biological substance sales.
BE informed the participants that these substances were initially kept out of the list of substances due to their inherent measuring difficulties. However, Eurostat reminded that Regulation does not allow the exclusion of active substances.
NL queried if microorganisms are considered low risk and DG SANCO replied that criteria for "low risk" are at the moment included in the Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as "exclusion conditions" and a group of experts is currently discussing the matter also in view of possible future amendments. In any case, the application of such criteria is set by the Regulation at the phase of possible renewal of the approval of the substances.
Eurostat concluded that for the time being there was no solution on this issue. We have to abide by the Regulation, elaborate further with the co-operation of DG SANCO, and conceivably approach Eurostat’s Legal Service for guidance and assistance in case we can change the scope of the Regulation in question.
Nevertheless, any feedback from the MS would be useful especially on:
-How is sales data collected in each MS, by product or by active substance?
-Does the definition of number of potential applications need to be revised to maximum potential treatment?
-How do product-release rates affect total amount used?
5.3.Pesticides data for 2011 and the future (Doc. CPSA/AEI/121)
The aim of this discussion was for participants to share practises and opinions in problematic areas that have emerged so far, with the view to creating common guidelines for pesticide statistics.
Concerning the issues that had been already identified, the general conclusion was that further elaboration was needed from Eurostat with the collaboration of DG SANCO. These issues comprise the following:
-Pesticide National Registers and their use to improve the quality of pesticidestatistics (some countries have reported a zero value =not sold but in Nationalregister and a blank cell= not in National Register). NL and AT requested that the zero can also be attributed with a confidentiality flag. FR could not make the distinction. BE agreed only for the sales data.
-Exports should not be included in the reported data. In the case of exported seeds AT, DE, LU and NL stated that the correct information is very difficult to obtain because the farmers are not provided with such information.
-Pesticides used for seed treatment
DE considered that they should not be reported in pesticide use data
SI informed that they are reported in pesticide sales but not in pesticide use
-How to deal with aluminium phosphide and magnesium phosphide. These substances are presently not allocated to the right major group in Annex III, due to a mistake. Eurostat has tried to find out in which category they should be allocated, but as they can be both insecticides and rodenticides, this has not yet been successful. In any case, Eurostat considers that the annex should not be changed at this time, but that Eurostat can allocate them to the right group for dissemination. It was agreed that Eurostat with the help of DG SANCO would find the correct allocation.
Eurostat reminded the WG that the surveyed crops, the pesticides used, and the UAA must be representative of each MS, especially because the Commission relies on this information in order to calculate Risk and EU Indicators. It was also clarified that no financial support was foreseen in the Regulation with the view to enlarge the number of crops surveyed in MS.
6. AOB
6.1.Eurostat grants on non-agricultural use of pesticides.