Transition Facility Multi-Beneficiary Statistical Co-operation Programme 2005 Lot 2: Pesticide Indicators Survey on Pesticide Use on Wheat Crops 2006 in Estonia Kaia Oras Triin Jakimov

Pesticide Usage in Estonia, Kg of active substance per agricultural land hectare Statistics Estonia has carried out the pesticide use survey for a decade now but the quality of data is still a major problem.

Project Time Scale Project stageAprMayJunJulAugSep Sampling Questionnaire design Postal survey Telephone interviews Data entry Data analysis

Sampling method: simple random stratified Sampling unit is agricultural holding. Sampling frame is the Estonian Agricultural Registers and Information Board database of agricultural supports. Frame is stratified according to area of wheat. Holdings with area greater or equal to 20 ha are surveyed completely. Holdings with wheat area less than 20 ha were divided into 5 strata. Simple random sample is drawn in each strata with different inclusion probabilities. Method of permanent random numbers is used for sample selection. Sample is designed using Neyman optimal allocation method according to variability of the area of wheat.

Sample characteristics Area group Total frame SampleSurveyed by routine crop production survey Pilot study 0…1 ha …2 ha …5 ha …10 ha …20 ha …30 ha …50 ha …100 ha > 100 ha Total

Questionnaire design Focus was set on designing the questionnaires as understandable as possible for the farmers, which should assure the presentation of correct data.

Sample characteristics Area groupTotal frame SampleResponses%Impu- tated Weight 0…1 ha ,712,6885 1…2 ha ,910,4423 2…5 ha ,24,0000 5…10 ha ,22, …20 ha ,51, …30 ha ,11, …50 ha ,11, …100 ha ,4151,0000 > 100 ha ,2111,0000 Total ,5

Reasons for non-response Non-response: Not co-operative23 Did not grow wheat43 Incorrect contact details70 Total number of non-response136

Imputation of missing data - “Hot deck” method - Nearest neighbour as a donor - Nearest neighbour is the one who has the most similar wheat area in respective geographical category (county)

State of the Art At present all the needed data – sown areas, treated areas, products used, number of sprayings – are checked for mistakes. The grossing up will start with help of ESO´s Methodological Service in October.

Benefits of the “Use Survey” Often than PPI inspectors are talking to farmers, respondents are scared of penalties and make their pesticide use quantities smaller than they really are. In ESO survey the use of several forbidden products was also mentioned. From the viewpoint of pesticide risk and environmental impact, the usage data crop by crop (not total usage only) are essential. Sales data are unsuitable.

Benefits of the “Use Survey” ESO has to keep confidential any information gathered, farmers are more honest with ESO interviewers than they are usually with PPI. Farmers were told that their answers are confidential and that the study needs realistic data, not the numbers derived from PPI´s nomenclature.

Some lessons learned Summer is not the best season for surveying agricultural holdings – busiest time for farmers Returning the questionnaires could have been made more convenient e.g. by: -adding a return envelope -making the form available digitally on Statistics Estonia website

Data not available when: seeds are already treated by the importer treatment is carried out by a special service, not by farmer fields are rented to someone else

Open questions: definition of treated area Four categories listed in “Guidelines for the collection of pesticide usage statistics within agriculture & horticulture” by Miles R. Thomas: Basic area treated Application area treated Formulation area treated Active substance area treated Which of the definitions is applicable and most relevant?

Reporting format categories Total area surveyed Basic area treated Average number of treatments Quantity of active substance applied Average quantity applied per treated area Average quantity applied per total cultivated area

Thank you.