1. A Work Session on Statistics connected with Environment-related Agriculture Problems, convened jointly by ECE, Eurostat, FAO and OECD was held in Geneva from 24-26 October 1994. It was attended by Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States.
2. The Work Session adopted the provisional agenda.
3. The Work Session was chaired by Mr. A. Niphuis (the Netherlands).
4. The following substantive topics were discussed at the work session on the basis of papers prepared by: Croatia; Denmark; France; Ireland; Netherlands; Russian Federation; Switzerland; The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; USA; Eurostat; the FAO; and the OECD:
Recommendations for future work are given below. Other conclusions which the participants reached at the Work Session on each of the above topics are reproduced (in English only) in the Annex of this note.
5. The Work Session considered future work in this area taking into full account the description of the programme element "agricultural statistics" from the integrated presentation of programmes of international statistical work in the ECE region, 1994/95 and 1995/96, approved by the Conference of European Statisticians at its forty second plenary session (Paris, 13-17 June 1994), which was made available to participants.
6. In view of the importance of environmental aspects of agricultural statistics, the Work Session proposed to extend the first sentence of the "objectives" to read: "To exchange information on experiences in collecting and compiling food and agricultural statistics to ensure that such data are integrated, comply with comparable conceptual frameworks and help answer current agricultural policy concerns, including environmental aspects."
7. The Work session also proposed to add to the "expected output" the following sentence: "A work programme to develop the use of agriculture statistics to give environmental information".
8. The Work session agreed that the regular (every two years) meetings of the Joint FAO/ECE Study Group on Food and Agricultural Statistics in Europe could be used to inform Member States on the ongoing international work in this field. The Work session insisted that international organisations closely coordinate their activities in the area of questionnaires and data collection excercises. The meetings of the Study Group could also be used to discuss issues of environment-related agriculture statistics. The Work session suggested that the name of the Study Group could be changed to reflect its involvement in the development of environment-related agriculture statistics.
9. Drawing on the discussions which took place at the Work session, the participants stressed the need to further develop the use of existing agricultural statistics, extended if necessary, to obtain environment-related information. An idea of bringing together agricultural and environmental statisticians at an ad-hoc four-day seminar in the first half of 1996 was put forward and was supported by the Work session. The following items were provisionally suggested for an in-depth discussion at the seminar:
Results of pilot surveys, expanding agricultural surveys for environment statistics purposes, data profile of GIS, harmonisation of agri-environmental indicators and the possibility of developing a classification of pesticides were also mentioned in this respect. Other issues may come up for the inclusion in the agenda of the seminar as the work in this area advances in national statistical offices and in international organisations.
10. The Work session recommended to add to the "activities of ECE" the following: "Seminar on environment-related agriculture statistics (jointly with Eurostat, FAO and OECD) in 1995/1996, to consider the following subjects: pesticide use statistics; fertiliser use statistics; statistics of crop yields; livestock density statistics; statistics related to farm management practices; land use statistics; nutrient balance compilation, and other topics."
1. The Work Session was convened to discuss possible ways of developing environment-related agriculture statistics and to advise the Conference of European Statisticians on its future work in this field.
2. The work session had before it discussion papers prepared by: Croatia; Denmark; France; Ireland; Netherlands; Russian Federation; Switzerland; The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; USA; Eurostat; the FAO; and the OECD.
Documentation: Working paper by the FAO.
3. The FAO paper on the role of International Statistical Agencies in the development of environmental indicators was presented. Outlined were three approaches currently in use for developing environmental indicators and defining primary indicators for analysis. The focus was on the economic framework and three basic indicator types.
4. FAO explained that the agricultural statistics maintained and collected by FAO were in five categories: (1) agricultural production, (2) forestry, (3) fisheries, (4) land use and inputs, (5) agricultural industrial products. These are all basic primary agricultural statistics, but all have potential to contribute to the development of environmental indicators. Several indicators were itemized as examples.
5. It was pointed out that agricultural statistical systems cannot make drastic changes to address all environmental indicators because of ongoing programme priorities and limited resources. The changes to address environmental data needs could come by modifying or adding a few items on questionnaires during current surveys.
6. The Work session agreed that agriculture statistical agencies need to know data user needs in identifying environment-related agricultural indicators. However, they should continue to concentrate on basic or primary agriculture statistics as an input to environmental indicators. It was suggested that the Work session agree on five or six areas that could be more closely addressed by agriculture statistical agencies. This was regarded as a possible input to the forthcoming OECD Meeting of Experts on Agri- environmental Indicators to be held in Paris on 8-9 December 1994. At this meeting experts will be requested to select a set of indicators, establish the priority of work amongst the indicators selected, and recommend methods to measure each of them. Suggestions regarding these areas are presented in the section on future work of this report.
7. The Work session underlined the need for addressing spatial or georeferenced environmental data (local, regional, national) by statistical agencies in presentation of environmental data in the future. Many indicators compiled at national level do not reflect local environmental problems.
8. The four secretariats were asked to prepare a list of departments, working parties and other units and fora of ECE, European Communities, FAO and OECD which are active in the field of environment-related agriculture statistics.
Documentation: Working papers by OECD, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Croatia and Ireland.
9. The paper presented by OECD provided a brief of the OECD work to develop a set of agri-environmental indicators. It emphasized the importance of considering the policy context for developing indicators, the need for criteria to select indicators and the usefulness of a framework to organise and link indicators. It was suggested by OECD that indicators might be organised in a modified Pressure-State-Response framework to better reflect the characteristics of agriculture, for agriculture has both negative and positive impacts on the environment. It was stressed that different international organisations (FAO, Eurostat, OECD) should closely coordinate their work on establishing a set of indicators and requesting data.
10. An example of the use of the regular agricultural and horticultural survey to produce environment-related agriculture statistics was explained in the paper presented by Denmark. The definition of indicators which could be used to describe farms as being in harmony with the environment was pointed out as a useful approach for the development of environment-related agriculture statistics. More generally, it was agreed that a great number of indicators including those related to different agricultural practices and to carrying capacities of ecosystems should be monitored to enable sound judgements about the influence of agricultural activities on the environment. Participants were particularly interested in a rather new concept of treatment frequency enabling a better comparison of pesticide use over time.
11. The paper on pesticide use in the European Communities, presented by the Netherlands, showed sales of pesticides by product group and country, and expenditure on pesticides at regional level and by farm type. The Work session supported one of the conclusions of the paper that sales and use of pesticides need to be better monitored. The Farm Structure Survey, particularly if linked with the FADN, was identified as another potential source of data.
12. The paper by Ireland explained how data from the national agricultural census and fertiliser use surveys were used to develop maps and tables for assessment of groundwater nitrate risks from agricultural sources. The meeting noted the Irish experience as a successful application of a GIS (geographic information systems) approach to manage and combine the spatial and database elements of the data at a local (district) level. It was thought that other countries could benefit from this experience.
13. A model for defining the place of agri-environmental indicators in a general context of the evaluation of the agricultural sector in Switzerland was presented. The model was developed as a reply to the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of an increasing number of rules on agricultural activities set up by the Government. The Work session pointed out the usefulness of such a model for monitoring and evaluating effects of agricultural policies.
14. The Work Session took note of the national practice in compiling statistics on agriculture and environment in Croatia. The paper raised the issue of the influence of good farm practices on the environment. In this respect, the meeting was informed about two separate pieces of EC regulation, one, the Nitrate Directive (676/91) for the protection of waters, the other (2078/92) -- part of the 1992 CAP reform, refer to codes of good agricultural practices. The Nitrate Directive describes codes of good agricultural practices to be applied in designated "sensitive areas" and requires action programmes to be drawn up for these zones. Council Regulation 2078/92 allows financial aid for "agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside". The meeting also took note of the existence of national codes of good agricultural practices in some countries.
15. The meeting was informed of the UNECE Statistical Monograph on Agriculture and the Environment, published as Part Two of the ECE 1992 Compendium of Environment Statistics. The monograph aimed at providing a comprehensive statistical description of the linkages between the actual environmental effects and the agricultural production. The preparation of the monograph revealed, among other things, the need for improved statistics on agricultural production processes for use in the consideration of environmental stresses by agriculture. The most difficult part of the study in terms of data compilation was agricultural impact on the state of the environment, modification of landscapes and biotopes being a few examples. It is in this area that further development of statistics on agriculture and the environment is to be foreseen. It was noted that the on-going conceptual development work in the ECE secretariat regarding selected fields of environment statistics could benefit from the development of environment- related agricultural statistics. The use of International Environmental Data Service (IEDS) and the underlying database was also discussed in this context.
16. Eurostat presented the potential use of GIS as a tool for environmental purposes to analyse data with a spatial component. A number of maps were presented showing the nitrogen balances at regional level and for major watersheds for the EC countries. The Work session agreed that GIS provides a potentially useful tool to analyse the impact of agriculture on the environment, although a certain amount of caution is needed in interpreting the results.
Documentation: Working papers by the United States and France.
17. The use of data from the existing surveys in agriculture to obtain environmental information was discussed in the paper presented by France. The Work session considered the French experience as a good example of how regular sources of agricultural statistics with some extentions for environment statistics purposes could be used to obtain useful environmental information. Data from the agricultural census and other exhaustive surveys are used as input for models to obtain information for small geographical areas. Specialised agricultural sample surveys are extended by adding specific environment-related questions. Area frame surveys (surveying by segments and points) provide some information for the analysis of the land use from the environmental point of view. Particular attention was shown in the survey (within the framework of the TER-UTI system) in which the activities carried out on individual plots were followed throughout the season.
18. The paper by the United States explained statistical surveys on the agricultural chemical use in this country. The surveys which began in 1990 were conducted because of limited reliable data availability to address the concerns for food safety and water quality. The primary objective of the surveys is to measure pesticide usage and monitor change. In addition, data on cropping practices and economic characteristics are collected and linked to chemical usage to assess the economic and environmental impact. A few questions were raised about change in toxicity of chemicals. It was clarified that this was not measured, only quantity used. A very high response rate to the surveys is explained by the willingness of the farmers themselves to let the public know the truth about pesticide use.
19. This item was covered in the discussion on future work.
20. The Work Session's conclusions on future work are given in para. 5-10 of the body of this report.
21. The Work session adopted the present report before it adjourned.