/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Eurostat
Directorate E: Sectoral and regional statistics /

Luxembourg, 20 April 2012
ESTAT/E1/AMK/JS/

Doc. CPSA/649 - Available in EN only
* Please note that paper copies of the documents will not be provided at the meeting*

Standing Committee
for Agricultural Statistics (CPSA)

10 and 11 May 2012

Bechbuilding – Quetelet
Kirchberg, Luxembourg

Chaired by: M. Díaz Muñoz

3.4.1. Current work on gross nutrient balances and fertiliser statistics *

* Document available on Circa:

1

Executive Summary

The aim of this document is to summarise the actions to be taken in relation to the development of Gross Nutrient Balances and related data needs.

The Members of the SCAS are invited to:

  • provide their opinion on the raised issues and to approve the proposed actions;
  • take note of the items for information.

1.Introduction

The CPSA meeting 8-9 November 2011 acknowledged and supported three main activities in the domain, a Task Force on Gross Nutrient Balances on 14-15 November 2011, a Task Force on Fertiliser Statistics on 8 February 2012 and a Working Group on Agri-environmental Statistics on 9-10 February 2012.

The common denominator for these events was the need to strengthen the possibility of following the nutrient flows in agriculture, including the potential leaching to water and emissions into the air, and the need for improved statistical information to support these analyses. The Working Group discussed the work carried out in the Task Forces and agreed to a number of actions to be presented to the CPSA for discussion/approval.

2.Roadmap to establish Gross Nutrient Balances

In the previous CPSA meeting in November 2011, the developments with regards to improve the methodology and data of the Gross Nutrient Balances (GNB) were addressed, see document CPSA/632, togetherwith a roadmap to a long-term data collection of GNB, see Figure 1.

It is important to note that the data needed for the Gross Nutrient Balances will also be used not only for several other AEI, but they are required for several other purposes, especially for the compulsory reporting greenhouse gas emissions to the UNFCCC and NH3 emissions to the UNECE. Any improvement of the data mentioned here for the GNB will therefore automatically also lead to improved emission estimates. As this in most cases means that countries don't need to use default values, emission estimates often are reduced.

Figure 1. A process overview of setting up a long-term GNB system

The Eurostat notion of the process to come to a sustainable data collection approach with regards to GNB is as follows:

  1. A Task Force on GNB was organised on 14/15 November 2011 to identify the necessary improvements and actions to be carried out in detail, as well as the type of balance and items included;
  2. One of the proposed actions identified in the GNB Task Force, was to organise another Task Force on fertiliser statistics, which was organised back-to-back with the Working Group in February 2012. This Task Force identified additional issues to be taken into account.
  3. The results of these Task Forces, the roadmap, were discussed in the WG on AEI 9–10February 2012;
  4. In this document the short term actions identified (2012-2013) are submitted to the CPSA in May 2012. Once approved in the CPSA, countries are expected to commit themselves to achieving the identified actions and improvements;
  5. Potential further actions approved by the CPSA (tenders, TF, grants, workshops, written consultations etc)will be carried out;
  6. The results of the actions will be discussed in Working Group meetings;
  7. A handbook will be put together describing the compilation of the GNB, the data required, methodological issues, definitions etc, a first version is foreseen for the end of 2012. Rules for quality reporting will be established. A validation procedure has to be elaborated. This step could include, if necessary, the establishment of legislation. The final proposals will be submitted for opinion to the CPSA.

3.List of actions

Below the actions identified and discussed in the WG meeting for the short term (2012-2013) are presented, either for information or approval. The actions are shortly described in the Annex, but the detailed technical issues have been discussed and decided on in the WG meetings. For more details please refer to the documents available at the Circa site.

Actions for CPSA approval:

1.What:Inventory of existing data on manure management and application. When: Launch in June 2012.

2.What:Data collection: Basic fertiliser statistics. When: Deadline data transmission 1 May, starting in 2013.

3.What:Data collection: Gross Nutrient Balances 2009 – 2011, NUTS0. When: Deadline data transmission 30 September 2013.

4.What:Setting up national discussion groups on fertiliser statistics. When: By 1 September 2012.

Further planned actions:

5.What:Pilot-project CAPRI regionalisation GNB (we would like at least 2
countries to volunteer).
When:2013?

6.What:Update the handbook on Gross Nutrient Balance. When: End 2012.

7.What: Decisions on a long term system of fertiliser statistics. When: 2013?

8.What:Tender on excretion coefficients. When: Autumn 2012 – 2014.

9.What:Tender on grassland production methodology. When: Autumn 2012 – 2014.

10.What:Grants on crop coefficients. When: 2011 – 2013.

Annex: Brief description of proposed actions linked to GNB

1.Inventory of existing data on manure management and application

The DireDate project identified several data requirements, of which the most urgent are those on manure management and -applications.The data requirements are also being discussed in the discussion on the list of characteristics to be included in the new FSS system.However, as such data are currently not available for all MS from a central database anddata from the new FSS will not become available before 2017 at the earliest, it is necessary to take some action before that. In the Task Force on Fertiliser statistics a suggestion was made by the participants to solve the most urgent needs in the short term. As many Member States already collect data on manure management and applications, required for GHG and NH3 reporting, it was suggested to make an inventory on the data already available in the countries and, depending on the outcome, collecting these data. Eurostat proposes to do this for the following topics:

  • Animal housing systems
  • Manure storage systems
  • Manure treatment
  • Grazing (time and days per year)
  • Manure application techniques

Eurostat suggests that a questionnaire is sent to MS on what data they have on these topics with the deadline on1 September 2012. As other institutions than agricultural statistics may be involved in data collection on these topics, Eurostat will also sent this questionnaire to contact persons in the countries it has received from the partners in the MoU on AEI for GHG Inventories, Nitrates Directive, NH3 emissions etc. Depending on the results of the inventory, Eurostat will make a questionnaire to be send to the countries which have indicated to have data available to collect these data in an agreed format. This questionnaire would be discussed in the next CPSA meeting in November 2012 and sent out by the end of 2012. It is recommended to involve the institutions involved in the GHG emission calculations in this work.

2.Data collection: Basic fertiliser statistics

Eurostat has, based on the DireDate report, identified the most urgent data needs to be established in the short term (2013). These data needs have been discussed with the MS in the Working Group meeting on AEI in February and via a written consultation.The written consultation and the replies from MS can be found at Circa. Eurostat proposes to collect data on all of the items mentioned in Table 1 starting in 2013. Provisional data for year t will be transmitted by 1 May year t + 1, final data can be submitted by 1 December after which Eurostat will update the figures in Eurobase accordingly.If MS cannot provide data, Eurostat will estimate data for the countries from other data sources, see addenda to Table 1. Eurostat estimations will be presented to the countries for commenting before publishing. The reference period is the calendar year; data collected for crop years (t-1/t) can be reported in calendar year t, no corrections are necessary to be made.

Table 1 Annual data requirements on mineral fertiliser use

1. N mineral fertiliser use, tonnes of N, NUTS0, annual 2000-
2. P mineral fertiliser use, tonnes of P, NUTS0, annual 2000-
3. N mineral fertiliser use, tonnes of N, NUTS2, annual 2012-
4. P mineral fertiliser use, tonnes of P, NUTS2, annual 2012-
5. N mineral fertiliser use by type*, tonnes of N, NUTS0, annual 2012-

* Ammonium sulphate, ammonium nitrate, calcium ammonium nitrate, anhydrous ammonia, ammonium phosphate, urea, urea-ammonium nitrate solution (UAN), and other N fertilisers. If confidentiality issues prevent differentiation in these mentioned types, countries are required to identify whether other aggregations are possible and transmit data on the identified aggregations.

Addendum to item 1 of Table 1:

Please note that these data should be available in all countries as they are reported to UNFCCC GHG Inventories[1] of which all EU Member States are signatory. The IPCC 2006 Guidelines propose to use country specific data, and Fertilisers Europe or FAO data in the case country-specific data are not available. Data on production and trade of fertilisers by type are also available in all countries from PRODCOM and COMEXT, which could be used to validate estimations on N fertiliser consumption.

As one of the goals is to harmonise and/or improve coherence and consistency between data reporting on fertilisers, it is proposed to report here the same data as reported to UNFCCC, unless data reported to UNFCCC includes non-agricultural use and country has data available on agricultural use separately. In that case country should report data on agricultural use to Eurostat and note that the differences are due to different population covered (UNFCCC: all uses, Eurostat only refers to agriculture).

In principle, the data reported to UNFCCC should refer to total mineral fertiliser use (not only agriculture), however data limited to agricultural use is accepted as fertiliser use including on other areas may not be available (IPCC 2006). Data estimated from sales statistics or production and trade statistics in general include other uses, whereas data from farm surveys do not. Countries are advised to discuss the data reported to UNFCCC in the national discussion groups to ensure and improve coherence and consistency between data reported to UNFCCC and Eurostat. Please note that coherence does not necessarily equal harmonisation, as data reported to UNFCCC can include non-agricultural use whereas data reported to Eurostat should in principle only relate to agriculture. However there should be coherence between estimates of total fertiliser use and fertiliser use by agriculture. Data at national level (all uses) can be used to check estimates on agricultural use.

Addendum to item 2 of Table 1:

If a country does not have data available in the short term (2013-2014), Eurostat will use data from Fertilizers Europe as an estimate for the country.

Addenda to items 3 and 4 of Table 1:

Ideally, countries should collect data at farm level (crop application rates) to provide data at NUTS2 level. Please note that in the short term, Eurostat does not expect MS to set up new data collection. No decision has yet been taken on whether the new FADN Farm Return will contain data on fertiliser use. If this will not be the case, Eurostat plans to propose a fertiliser module/satellite to be implemented in the new FSS system[2], this survey could then be used to provide statistics at NUTS2 level.

In the meantime (2013-2016?) countries which do not have data available at NUTS2 level can apply several disaggregation procedures to derive a first rough estimate for NUTS2 level from data at NUTS0 level, to meet the requirements of the Commission. Disaggregation procedures could include crop application rates based on crop requirements, expert judgement, modelling etc multiplied with data on land use. If a country is not able to implement a solution in the short- and medium term to derive data at NUTS2 level, Eurostat proposes to estimate the data for the country using data from Fertilizers Europe[3] or based on modelling approaches such as CAPRI.

Addendum to item 5 of Table 1:

Data are in principle available from production and trade statistics, however confidentiality issues may make it difficult to estimate the use by fertiliser type from these statistics. Eurostat does not expect MS to set up new data collection in the short term. If a fertiliser survey in the new FSS system3, this survey could then be used to provide statistics by fertiliser type as well. In the meantime (2013-2016?) countries who do not have data available by fertiliser type can apply several procedures to derive a first estimate of these data, , to meet the requirements of the Commission. Disaggregation can be based e.g. on trade/production statistics, expert judgement, modelling etc. If a country is not able to implement a solution in the short-medium to derive data by fertiliser type, Eurostat proposes to estimate the data for the country using data available at FAO. In the medium-long term Eurostat suggests to improve these first rough estimations through improved collaboration with the industry.

3.Data collection on Gross Nutrient Balances 2009 - 2011

Eurostat has proposed to collect data on GNB every two years to avoid burdening NSI's too much. The next data collection should cover the years 2009 – 2011 at NUTS0 with a deadline of 30 September 2013. Eurostat will estimate the balances for all countries which have not submitted data by this deadline.

Data at NUTS2 will not be required. Eurostat proposes to start a pilot-project most likely in 2013 with 2 countries on estimating regional balances with CAPRI, see the paragraph on Regionalisation.

4.Setting up national Discussion Groups on fertiliser statistics

There is a lack of harmonised data on fertiliser use at European level, but also in many countries. Currently countries use several different sources for reporting on mineral fertiliser use in GNB, GHG/NH3 inventories and other policy requirements: farmer surveys, trade/production statistics, sales data, expert judgement/modelling etc. Eurostat recommends that each MemberState establishes a discussion group with members from e.g. statistical departments, environmental and agricultural institutes, fertiliser industry, GHG/NH3 inventory responsibles, etc., with the objective to improve the coherence (''one single official figure'') of mineral fertiliser statistics and to improve the quality and availability of data on mineral fertiliser consumption. The fertiliser statistics have been discussed in several meetings, for detailed information readers are referred to the Background Document for the Task Force on Fertiliser statistics on 8 February 2012, available on Circa.

These national discussion groups would:

  • discuss the quality of existing data sources on mineral fertiliser consumption;
  • propose and implement improvements or data collection needed[4];
  • propose and implement a strategy to estimate data as required by Table 1;
  • establish official statistics on mineral fertiliser consumption data as required by Table 1;
  • ensure coherence and consistency between different reporting requirements on fertiliser statistics.

These official statistics will not only be used to fulfil requirements for Eurostat, but also for UNFCCC and CLTRAP for the GHG and NH3 emissions, FAO, OECD and other organisations.

Eurostat proposes that Member States should establish such national discussion groups by 1September 2012.Countries are free to choose if and how to set up such groups and what kinds of institutions are represented.

Please note that several data sources exist in MS which need to be taken into account in the discussions in the national workgroups:

  • All countries report data on national consumption of N mineral fertilisers to UNFCCC and to UNECE CLTRAP. It is therefore advised to include the institute responsible for GHG and/or NH3 emissions inventories.
  • All countries report data on production (PRODCOM) and trade (COMEXT) of N and P fertilisers by main fertiliser types. These data could be used to derive apparent consumption, data on distribution by fertiliser types and to verify other data sources, though estimating fertiliser use from these data sources has proofed to be difficult due to confidentiality issues, translation of amounts in nutrient contents, inclusion of non-agricultural use, double-counting of intermediate products etc. It is advised to include the institute responsible for trade and production statistics in the working group, to make use of existing data or expert knowledge in case of confidentiality.
  • Some countries collect data on mineral fertiliser use (farmer survey, sales statistics, administrative records). Clearly these data sources should be included in the discussions on establishing official statistics.
  • Fertiliser industry, farmer advisory institutes etc could also provide expert knowledge which can be used to establish reliable figures at national level and/or provide estimates at sub-national level.

Eurostat recognises that countries may need some time to harmonise reporting requirements and discuss and implement a strategy to derive and improve official statistics for the items mentioned in Table 1. Eurostat proposes therefore to have a transitional period until 2015, in which Eurostat will collect data from MS existing data sources or estimate data from other data sources, see addenda to Table 1.

5.Regionalisation

Eurostat proposes to use the CAPRI model to regionalise the balances to flexible geographical regions such as NUTS regions, river basins, nitrate vulnerable zones etc, the level at which Commission policies to reduce nutrient pollution are directed, such as Rural Development Programs, Nitrates Directive and Water Framework Directive. This will allow to assess these policies at the appropriate scales and to identify areas potentially vulnerable to nutrient pollution. This option would provide a harmonised and transparent approach (CAPRI is an open source model) to estimate balances at the required flexible geographical scales at least costs (the alternative being each country to set up such a model/system). The approach is not completely without costs for the Member States, as they would need to provide certain data at NUTS2 level that would allow to increase the accuracy of the model.

JRC has proposed a workflow which ensures the involvement of country experts. Eurostat proposes to carry out a pilot-study with 2 countries possibly in 2013 to assess the possibilities and limitations of estimating regional balances with the CAPRI model. Countries volunteering for this pilot-study would be preferably be those that already estimate regional balances themselves, so that a comparison/validation of the model results could be made. The results of this pilot-study would be discussed in the Working Group meeting on AEI. For more information, please see the background document for the Working Group meeting on this topic (CPSA/AEI/101).Member States are welcome to volunteer. The actual timetable will depend on the human resources of both the JRC and the volunteering countries.