1. Fertilizers statistics in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia Fertilizers statistics in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia Guna Karlsone, CSB of Latvia

2. Necessity of the information  Consumption of mineral fertilizers, like all agri-environmental indicators, are important in the assessment of over-time trends of the agricultural effects on environment;  Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) are «primary» nutrients and they are the main nutrients limiting crop growth in agriculture;  Losses of N and P into the wider environment have major ecological impact;  Indicator ‘consumption of mineral fertilizers’ is very important for the calculation of:  N and P balances;  Ammonia emissions;  Greenhouse gas emissions.  Indicator can be calculated in a uniform way, which facilitates comparison between regions and over time. 2

3. Summary of national replies to the questions 3

4. Conclusions  11 countries filled in the questionnaire;  63% of the countries indicated that the body responsible for the data compilation on fertilizers is national statistical institution;  Only Ukraine mentioned an issue related to interagency cooperation – there is a problem of the coordination between institutions involved in data compilation from one side and national statistical institution being responsible for the compilation of country totals from other side. HOW THE CURRENT SITUATION MAY BE IMPROVED  As proposal for EU Member States suggests to set up national workgroups, also EECCA countries could organize national workgroup to discuss problems on fertilizer statistics;  Free to choose members, they could be: national statistical office, relevant ministries, agricultural institutes, fertilizer industry etc. 4

5. B. Description of data quality assurance and control procedures for the production of indicator 5

6. Quality assurance - conclusions  4 countries (Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine) set up arithmetical and logical control procedures, and in case of mistakes, corrections are made;  Georgia described the problems;  Uzbekistan did not leave answer to the question;  In case of Tajikistan reply is too general and it is not possible to make some conclusions. HOW CURRENT SITUATION CAN BE IMPROVED  Accuracy and completeness are the key aspects of quality;  Try to describe what quality control procedures have been applied by the responsible institution (not only mentioned responsible institution);  Additional methodological and explanatory information on the issue is needed. 6

7. Indicator publication 7

8. Conclusions  In general, the countries, which published data in paper form, have data available also on the Internet. 8

9. Main information holders and use of the indicators at national level  The main information holders are:  Ministry of Agriculture (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan);  National statistical institutions (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Ukraine);  Uzbekistan did no respond.  The main information users mentioned are following:  Ministry of Environment (Georgia, Tajikistan);  Government, state departments, universities, scientists, media etc. (Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan);  For GHG Emissions (Ukraine). 9

10. Time series of the data 10 1

11. Time series of the data (continued) 2 11

12. Total consumption of fertilizers, % over previous year (% change) 12

13. Consumption of mineral fertilizers per unit of land, kg/ha 13

14. Fertilizer consumption among countries, 2011 14

15. Fertilizer consumption by type in 2011, % 15

16. Share of area treated, % 16

17. Comparison between use of mineral and organic fertilizers in 2011, kg/ha 17

18. Conclusions 18  11 countries replied to the questionnaire and indicated that they have statistics on consumption of mineral and organic fertilizers;  6 countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine) have been admitted to gather data on use of fertilizers;  Ukraine indicated the problem with complex mineral fertilizers recalculation in 100% of nutrient, thus total for the country have not been indicated;  Ukraine indicated also problems with coordination between the institutions involved in data compilation.

19. (continued) (continued)  Russian Federation calculated data on use of fertilizers on sown areas;  Additional problems have been indicated:  Survey on the use of fertilizers includes only agricultural organizations (without microenterprises).  Data on complex mineral fertilizers are included in respective type of fertilizers;  Georgia: national statistics office indicated that data of the survey on fertilizer use are not reliable, thus there are no data for fertilizers phosphate and potash, however table indicates the data on total consumption and nitrogen fertilizers consumption what are not similar figures;  There is no data on production, that is the reason why it is not possible to use formula. 19

20. (continued) (continued)  Tajikistan indicated that statistics on fertilizer consumption is not available per fertilizer type;  Several countries are using some data quality checks, but there is no easy accessible information about the quality of the data;  The most urgent needs for data are:  Annual N and P mineral fertilizer use in tons of nutrients;  N fertilizers in tons broken down by grassland and arable/permanent crops;  This official statistics should be also the basis for the reporting to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), UN Convention on Long Range- Transboundary Air Pollution (CLTRP), FAO, OESD etc. 20

21. Fertilizer application on fodder grasses 21

22. Thank you for your attention! 22