EUROPEAN COMMISSIONLuxembourg, February 2002 EUROSTAT CV

------

Directorate F: Agricultural, environmental

and energy statistics

Doc.AEI/07

(available in DE, EN, FR)

Meeting of
Working Party On “Agri-Environmental Indicators“
On 11 and 12 March 2002 in Luxembourg
BECH Building, Room QUETELET
Beginning : Monday 11 March 2002 at 9h30

Working document on

item 8 of the agenda

Follow-up of COM (2001) 144 “Statistical Information needed for Indicators to monitorthe Integration of Environmental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy”

Summary descriptions for the 35 indicators proposed
in Communication COM (2001)144

Communications COM(2000)20 and COM(2001)144 cover 35 indicators or domains for which agri-environmental indicators are to be defined. Communication COM(2001)144 briefly outlines these indicators and the means of obtaining them. This document is a supplementary stage offering a summary outline of the indicators for which the methodology is tested and for which the data sources have been identified. These outlines will provide a basis for discussion and proposals for the Working Party on Agri-Environmental Indicators. They will need to be supplemented by the Member States in the light of national or infra-national developments.

Each summary contains the following headings:

1 - Title

Name of indicator (or domain in which one or more indicators are needed) preceded by the number used in COM(2001)144.

2 - Level of development of indicator

Communication COM(2001)144 presents a set of indicators and domains in which indicators are needed. These indicators and/or domains are subdivided into four groups:

"(a)the first group contains indicators for which it is immediately clear what statistical data need to be collected;

(b)for the second group, statistics are not the appropriate source of information, though statisticians may make a contribution to the overall picture by structuring and integrating data from different sources;

(c)in the third group, the indicators have not yet been sufficiently well defined to identify the most appropriate data;

(d)for the fourth group, indicators are needed but no indicator could yet be defined; no recommendations can be made on data requirements; conceptual work is still needed."

This heading indicates the group to which an indicator belongs. So far, summaries have been prepared only for the indicators in groups (a) and (b).

3 - Description

Short description of the indicator.

4 - Source

Potential data sources, whether at European, national or infra-national level.

5 - DPSIR reference

The DPSIR model (Driving forces-Pressures-State-Impact-Responses) proposed by the European Environment Agency provides a framework for the agri-environmental indicators. It was also used in COM(2001)144 (Figure 1).

Figure 1: DPSIR model

This model describes how the impact of human activities on the environment is regulated:

-society emits signals (R) by which it expresses its preferences and concerns, especially through public policies and markets;

-the driving forces (D) adapt their behaviour to these more or less restrictive conditions; in the agri-environmental case, these forces are primarily the farmers;

-the pressures (P) which they exert on the environment change it; these pressures may be positive (improvement) or negative (deterioration);

-the state (S) of the environmental components affected by these pressures is changed;

-the impact (I) on the environment as a whole is reflected in overall improvements or deterioration;

-society's response (R) is expressed by means of signals and reflected in political measures.

This cycle of guiding and controlling the economic and regulatory situation is more or less effective. Understanding changes to the various factors makes it possible to boost effectiveness, either by "short-circuiting" some stages or by improving the quality of the information they generate.

Under this heading, a placing of the indicator in question on of the components of the DPSIR cycle is proposed.

6 - Feasibility of calculating the indicator

The feasibility of the calculation is shown by four components:

-the geographical level of the data indicates the feasibility of obtaining the indicator at Community level (Community level);

-methodological feasibility, validation of the methodology and its reliability(methodology);

-validity of concepts, universally recognised or of questionable or disputed relevance (concept);

-expected cost of compilation and calculation at Community level (cost).

7 - Concept

Description of the link between the phenomenon observed and the indicator.

8 - Limits

Domain of validity of the indicator, basically recommendations and restrictions on use.

9 - Tools

Method of collecting the information and calculating the indicator.

10 - Proposal

This box indicates the working method proposed by the Commission, for discussion with the Member States and improvement in suitable working parties. The main questions to be tackled by working parties are:

1) do the Member States agree with the proposed working method?

2) must task forces be set up, and a lead country appointed?

3) must some tasks be given to consultants?

It is hard to fill in all the boxes. Especially for the indicators on which least progress has been made - groups (c) and (d) - it is tricky to put forward concrete proposals. It is for this reason that the summaries shown refer only to the indicators for groups (a) and (b).

11 - References

Regulatory texts useful for the construction of the indicator and any bibliography.

Summary model

Title / Level of development
Description:
Source:
/ 1111

0000
POSITION (DPSIR model) / FEASIBILITY
METHOD
Concept: / Diagram
(possibly)
Limits:
Tool:
Proposal:
References:
1 - Area benefiting from agri-environment support / b
Description: / Areas of agricultural land covered by agri-environmental programmes under Regulation 1257/99, classified by type of activity
Source: / Administrative data for monitoring Regulation 1257/99 supplied by the Member States
/ ………
POSITION (DPSIR model) / FEASIBILITY
METHOD

1

Concept:
Council Regulation 1257/99 provides for the implementation of support for agricultural production methods designed to protect the environment and to maintain the countryside. The commitments undertaken by farmers must go beyond good farming practices.

1

Limits:
Area is a relevant measurement for many problems (protection of threatened species, planting of hedges, etc) (ABU, linear km, etc).
More suitable variables need to be found for others.
This indicator assumes that good farming practices are clearly defined in the regions where agri-environmental programmes are introduced.
Tool:
- Administrative data via indicators for monitoring the implementation of Regulation 1257/99 sent to the Commission every year by the Member States (Excel files).
Proposal:
Processing of these administrative records by the national statistical services and referral of the results to Eurostat with the usual precautions. Methodological reports and possible harmonisation work are foreseeable.
References:
- Working document VI/12006/00 on common indicators for monitoring the planning of rural development.
- Regulations 1257/99 and 1750/99 on implementing arrangements.
2 - Good farming practices / b
Description: / Percentage of holdings meeting regional levels of good farming practices (by region)
Source: / Administrative data (monitoring of Regulation 1257/99)
POSITION (DPSIR model) / FEASIBILITY
METHOD

1

Concept:
Farmers have to observe a minimum level of general requirements with regard to environmental protection without receiving compensation in return. This means that all farmers are required to comply with binding legislative provisions on the use of pesticides, fertilisers, water, etc. They are also required, where appropriate, to follow national and/or regional guidelines concerning good farming practices. There is provision for support to attain a level of environmental quality exceeding the minimum in Regulation 1257/99.

1

Limits:
Good farming practices are frequently defined for an administrative area and not for a specific agri-ecological area.
A holding may observe only some good farming practices (e.g. a proper fertilisation plan but improper use of pesticides). Categories of good practices must thus be defined (fertilisation, work and land cover, plant health treatments, etc) and an analytical approach, probably with several indicators, needs to be favoured.
Tool:
Administrative data for monitoring Regulation 1257/99
Introduction of a tool that allows real practices to be monitored regularly.
Proposal:
The holdings that come under Regulation 1257/99 are easy to identify, and the administrative data exist. Thought must be given to introducing a database on codes of good farming practices at national and regional level.
For other holdings, either a European tool must be developed (extension of LUCAS phase 2, for instance) and national surveys used.
This indicator requires thorough discussion because of its complexity.
References:
- Working document VI/12006/00 on common indicators for monitoring the planning of rural development.
- Regulations 1257/99 and 1750/99 on implementing arrangements.
4 - Protected area / b
Description: / Area and percentage of agricultural land located in a protected area.
Source: / Monitoring of Natura 2000, monitoring of rural development programmes.
POSITION (DPSIR model) / FEASIBILITY
METHOD
Concept:
Some agricultural land is subject to restrictions or constraints with regard to the crops and farming practices that can be used, since the land is part of a protected area (e.g. Natura 2000 network site, bird sanctuary, etc).
Limits:
There are many different types of protected area (protection of a plant or animal species, protection of the countryside, etc) with very different levels of constraint. Some agricultural land may even be included in a protected area without being subject to constraints (e.g. constraints regarding mowing dates will not apply to cereal crops).
Some protected areas are part of several "networks" (Natura 2000, ZNIEFF, etc). Double counting can be difficult to identify and thus to avoid.
Tool:
-information from monitoring Natura 2000 (DG ENV)
-information from monitoring rural development programmes (DG AGRI)
-information from Member States, e.g. national and regional parks in France and Ecological Sensitive Areas in the United Kingdom, and European federations.
-Location of holding in a Natura 2000 zone in the farm structure survey (FSS) from 2003, from which the indicator may be extracted.
Use of a GIS to delineate the various types of zone involved, the major types of land use and the various levels and types of constraint should be emphasised.
Proposal:
For the compilation of the first report on agri-environmental indicators (scheduled for the end of 2004), it seems difficult the calculate the indicator at European level. Only assembly of national data seems possible, inasmuch as they are available in the Member States at national or regional level.
References:
- Working document VI/12006/00 on common indicators for monitoring the planning of rural development.
- Regulations 1257/99 and 1750/99 on implementing arrangements.
- Regulation on monitoring Natura 2000 ?
5 - Organic farming: prices and income / a
Description: / 1)price differential of organic farming products
2)income differential of organic farming
Source: / 1)agricultural prices, 2)FADN
POSITION (DPSIR model) / FEASIBILITY
METHOD
Concept:
1) The price differential of organic farming products reflects consumer willingness to pay for guarantees with regard to the production processes and inputs, as well as for the quality premium attached to such products.
2)The income differential reflects the viability of such an approach to production. / Diagram

Limits:
1)Consumer willingness to pay is expressed in the price if the market is balanced.
2)It will be difficult to differentiate in the case of a holding involved in both forms of production (organic and traditional). Such instances appear rare.
It is also difficult to differentiate between organic holdings and those in the process of conversion.
Other types of farming respond to similar demands (integrated agriculture, PGI, label, etc). Information is difficult to collect in such cases because of a lack of harmonised definitions and fragmentation.
Tool:
Ratings of organic farming products exist. Centralisation at Community level should be introduced.
The FADN has defined a type of organic farming holding so that economic monitoring may be conducted.
National federations of organic farmers can also supply interesting information.
Proposal:
It ought to be possible for these two indicators to be compiled at Community level: by Eurostat using statistics on agricultural prices for the former, and for the latter by DG AGRI using the FADN to the extent that organic holdings are adequately represented in the FADN sample.
References:
- Regulations 2092/91 and 1804/1999.
6 - Holders' training levels / a/c
Description: / Two indicators are proposed for holders' training levels to take account of changes in training courses:
1) agricultural training of farmers
2) agri-environmental training of farmers
Source: / 1) FSS 2) monitoring of Regulation 1257/99
POSITION (DPSIR model) / FEASIBILITY
METHOD
Concept:
A well-trained farmer is better equipped to succeed in the daily running of his farm. He also adapts more easily to new economic circumstances (cost analysis, assimilation of technical progress, etc), environmental factors (production geared to respect for the environment) and social conditions (consideration of the rural context, new direct markets, etc).
Limits:
A farmer's awareness of agri-environmental issues is not linked solely to his level of education. The indicator is thus incomplete and thought will have to be given to adding some supplementary information.
Tool:
1) FSS
The FSS currently records the level of holders' agricultural training (3 levels). It does not contain information on agri-environmental training.
2) monitoring of Regulation 1257/99
The information covers the topic of training, the average number of days spent in training and the financing.
Proposal:
These two indicators are available at Community level. One is taken from statistical sources and the other from administrative declarations. Eventually, consideration will have to be given to merging the two indicators to make an overall indicator on the level of holders' training (for example, with new questions in the FSS), with possible questions about the date of training (to assess how recent it is).
References:
- Working document VI/12006/00 on common indicators for monitoring the planning of rural development.
- Regulations 1257/99 and 1750/99 on implementing arrangements.
7 - Organic farming: area / a/b
Description: / Area devoted to organic farming
Source: / Optional questionnaire designed to monitor the implementation of Regulation 2092/91
FSS (from 2000)
POSITION (DPSIR model) / FEASIBILITY
METHOD
Concept:
Organic farming can be defined as a method of production (crop growing or stock raising) designed to introduce integrated systems of agricultural production that are sustainable and respect the environment. It is thus based on less intensive cultivation of land, on crop practices that focus more on the conservation of the soil and the environment and a significant reduction in the use of fertilisers and pesticides.
Regulations 2092/91 and 1804/99 define strict requirements that producers must observe if they want to market their products in the EU as "organic farming products".
Limits:
Holdings involved in organic farming may be in the process of conversion or have completed conversion. The study of the factors involved thus becomes more difficult.
The FSS surveys holdings involved in organic farming but does not, currently, record the areas involved (total and by crop type).
From 2003, the area (for crops) and size of herds (livestock) will be recorded in the FSS.
Tool:
Crop type questionnaire (annual) to check the implementation of the regulation; however, the survey is voluntary.
It will be useful initially to validate the coverage. Depending on the results, the answers to some parts of the questionnaire could be made compulsory.
The FSS collects data at regional or even district level for the 1999/2000 basic survey, but only on the number of holdings involved. Thought should be given to compiling special tables on holdings involved in organic farming (problem of statistical confidentiality and/or representativeness).
Proposal:
The FSS can be used to construct indicators on the number of holdings involved on the basis of the 1999/2000 basic survey. These indicators can be calculated at regional level, if there is sufficient accuracy. Otherwise, these regional indicators will perhaps have to be supplied directly to Eurostat by the Member States.
References:
- Regulations 2092/91 and 1804/99
- Questionnaire on Regulation 2092/91
- "Organic farming" - Jakob Hansen - Statistics in Focus, theme 8 "Environment and Energy" - 5/2001 – 8pages
8 - Fertiliser consumption / a
Description: / Use of nitrogen (N) and phosphate (P) mineral fertilisers by region and crop type
Source: / 1) FAO - 2) EFMA - 3) FSS - 4) FADN - 5) Member States - 6)LUCAS
POSITION (DPSIR model) / FEASIBILITY
METHOD
Concept:
Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are absorbed from the ground by plants for their growth. Mineral fertilisers are the only source of nitrogen that is properly managed in the EU. Uptake from livestock manure is a significant additional source, however.
Limits:
The amounts of fertilisers that are marketed does not necessarily match the amounts that are used on farmland (fertilisers are also used for lawns, parks and gardens). Also, not all the quantities used are taken up by crops (storage, losses, etc).
Tool:
The Member States provide the FAO with national data on the consumption of mineral fertilisers.
In addition, farmers who are part of the FADN network report their expenditure on fertilisers. The LUCAS survey provides information on the amounts of N, P and K used and the number of uptakes for about 5 000 plots of georeferenced agricultural land.
Proposal:
The FAO data are converted into regional data using the application rates for the various crops (provided by EFMA) and the regional data on areas under such crops are taken from the FSS. This method allows mineral uptake to be calculated by region, albeit with some shortcomings. It will be a good idea to look at how complementary sources of information (FADN, LUCAS, etc) can improve the initial calculation method. In view of the fact that some Member States have information on fertiliser consumption at regional level, it would be useful to collect them at European level.
References:
"Nitrogen balances in agriculture" - Jakob Hansen - Statistics in Focus, theme 8 "Environment and Energy" - 16/2000 - 8 pages
"Nitrogen in agriculture" - Maria Pau-Vall, Claude Vidal - "Agriculture, environment and rural development: facts and figures - The challenges of agriculture" - 1999 - pp. 167-180.
9 - Pesticide consumption / a/c
Description: / Two indicators are proposed for pesticide consumption:
1) use of pesticides classified according to intrinsic characteristics
2) index of pesticide use
Source: / 1) pesticide manufacturers 2) Member States (+TAPAS)