Transcript Pesticide statistics in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia Guna Karlsone, CSB of Latvia.

Pesticide statistics in Eastern
Europe, Caucasus and Central
Asia
Guna Karlsone, CSB of Latvia
Necessity of the information
 Consumption of pesticides and pesticide risk are one of the key agrienvironmental indicators;
 Along with the development of agricultural production also pesticide use
is growing and the data on pesticides in the monitoring and management of
the pesticides in the ways that minimize risks to public health and the
environment are sufficient
 Calculation of indicators requires high-quality and appropriate-level
statistical data and information on pesticides;
 Information is necessary for policy-makers as well as agricultural and
environmental researchers.
2
Existing legislation on pesticide
statistics
 It is considered that currently in Europe there is legislation for
each stage of the plant protection product circulation;
 Plant protection in EU is regulated by:
 Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 21 October 2009
establishing a framework of Community action to achieve the sustainable use of
pesticides;
 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and Council of 21
October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market;
 Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 of the European Parliament and Council of 25
November 2009 concerning statistics on pesticides;
 Regulation (EC) No396/2005 of the European Parliament and Council of 23
February 2005 on maximum residue levels on pesticides in or on food and feed of
plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/144/EEC;
 Directive 2009/127/EC amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery
for pesticide application.
3
Indicator characterising
intensity of pesticide use
 The most obvious indicator characterising intensity of pesticide use is
quantity of active substances applied per hectare of cultivated area.
 Why does new Regulation stipulate the collection of data on pesticides by
crop and per each active substance?
 When statistical data on volume applied shows a reduction in the weight of
active substances it does not allow concluding that it results in the
reduction of use or risks.
 The reason behind it – many new active substances are applied at much
lower rate per hectare than older products they are replacing, causing
significant reduction in the weight applied.
4
Data collection
 Sales statistics is a base for providing simple statistics on pesticide use;
 Total sale includes sale in sectors outside agriculture – non-agricultural use,
e.g., forestry, weed control in industry or application on public areas;
 Collection of sales data can be used to substitute data from the survey on
pesticide usage. Such data collection is much cheaper, and therefore it can
be performed annually, still it is not sufficient for detailed risk analyses.
5
International Code of Conduct
 The International Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides
(adopted by the Hundred and Twenty-third Session of the FAO Council in
November 2002 – this is voluntary instrument affecting pesticide use;
 Box 3 lists Code of Conduct articles related to the data collection and
analysis:
 Necessary to set up programmes for collection and storage;
 6.1.8. of the Box – have to collect and record data on the import, export,
manufacture, formulation, quality, quantity and use of pesticides, to follow
trends in pesticide use for economic and other purpose.
 The International Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides is
supported by the FAO member states, crop protection industry etc.,
including all 12 EECCA countries;
 Binding instrument that primarily is related to pest management or trade,
but have implications for pesticide use in International Plant Protection
Convention (IPPC) – international agreement on plant health, aim to
protect plants also using pesticides.
6
Countries responded to the questionnaire
        
A. Inter-agancy cooperation mechanisms to
produce the indicator.
     
 
Responsible institutions for data compilation:
Ministry of Agriculture
 
 
 
National statistics


Uzbekistan
Ukraine
Turkmenistan
Tajikistan
Russian Federation
Moldova
Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan
Georgia
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Summary of national replies to the
questions
 
 


7
Conclusions
 11 countries filled in the questionnaire;
 70% of the countries indicated that data on pesticides are obtained by
institutions supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture;
 In 3 countries data were compiled by the national statistical institutions
(Armenia, Georgia and Ukraine), basing on the information obtained from
customs information; in the case of Georgia – from survey;
 Unfortunately Uzbekistan mentioned only the responsible institution
(Ministry of Agriculture) and no data were sent.
8
How current situation may be
improved
 Code of Conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides recommends to:
 set up cooperation and coordination among relevant ministries and involved
stakeholders to identify issues and look for solutions how to improve dataset on
pesticide consumption;
 set up competencies and responsibilities (agreements, responsible persons, data
transmissions with deadlines etc.).
9
1.Comparative analysis made by experts

2. In the system of phytosanitary supervision
3.Under control of Main State inspection on
Seed Growing Quarantine and Plant Protect and
its territorial divisions
4.Control under responsibility of Ministry of
Agriculture
5.Quality of calculations have not been
evaluated
6.Information unreliable
Uzbekistan
Ukraine
Turkmenistan
Tajikistan
Russian Federation
Moldova
Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan
Georgia
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Armenia
B. Description of data quality assurance and control
procedures for the production of indicator



 



10
Quality assurance - conclusions
 Countries were asked to deal with problems, solutions found, further steps
envisaged or needed;
 Georgia described the problems, and Russian Federation gave explanation
on how to collect data;
 Quality assurance has not been described;
 Question linked to quality were not correctly understood and /or left blank.
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
responsible institution (not only mentioned responsible institution);
 Additional methodological and explanatory information on the issue is
needed;
11
1. Statistical book, paper publications
2. Publication on Internet
3. Only for administrative use for limited
number of users
4. Not published
   
   

Uzbekistan
Ukraine
Turkmenistan
Tajikistan
Russian Federation
Moldova
Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan
Georgia
Belarus
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Indicator publication




12
Conclusions
 Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides
stipulates that transparency and public access to information
are important elements;
 In general, the countries, which published data in paper form,
have data also on the Internet.
13
1. Indicator on pesticide use per unit of land in
kg/ha available since:
1990
2000

2003

2006
2007

2. Comparable indicator on pesticide use, kg/ha  
Uzbekistan
Ukraine
Turkmenistan
Tajikistan
Moldova
Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan
Georgia
Belarus*
Azerbaijan
Armenia
1
Russian Federation
Time series of the data




 

14
Conclusions and how situation may be
improved
 Situation in regional pesticide statistics is not satisfactory yet;
 Only 5 countries (41.7%) have data usable for the calculation of the
comparable indicator – pesticide use per unit of agricultural land (kg/ha)
 Belarus:
In principle very good and complete data set (also at regional level), but
due to methodology inconsistencies it is incomparable. Data are provided
in terms of physical weight, but not in terms of active substances.
 Russian Federation:
It is not clear weather total pesticides consumption corresponds only to the
agricultural sector (if yes, how it has been calculated). If total consumption
includes also forestry and other non-agricultural sector and agricultural area
is available from crop or land use statistics, the indicator becomes
comparable.
15
(continued)
 Tajikistan:
It was mentioned that in statistics system data on pesticides are not
available (responsible institution-Ministry of Agriculture). Data have been
submitted (in tons) only for major groups of substances without total
consumption and total area of agricultural land.
 Uzbekistan:
Country reported that data on pesticides are obtained in the system of
Ministry of Agriculture, unfortunately information was not submitted.
 Moldova:
Reported that there is no pesticide statistics developed in the country. It
was recommended to start collecting data (sown area of crops in 2011
comprises 1447.2 thsd ha, also area of vineyards is significant).
16
(continued)
 Georgia:
As data in the survey on pesticide use were considered to be unrealistic and
only areas treated are known, it is recommended to collect data using other
information sources (customs information etc.).
 Main findings:
 Data sources were not defined clearly enough. This led to misunderstandings
and difficulties when interpreting the results;
 In order to be able to calculate comparable pesticide use indicator, data should
be as complete as possible;
 Metadata should accompany all datasets and sources;
 Countries with missing data are kindly reminded to provide the missing data or
to start collecting them;
 Thanks to the countries that provided complete and comparable datasets.
17
Total consumption of pesticides, thsd t
18
Pesticide use per unit of agricultural land, kg/ha
19
Thank you for your attention!
20