Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Statistical Information needed for Indicators to monitor the Integration of Environmental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy
Date: 2001-03-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, agricultural statistics, common agricultural policy, data collection, environmental protection

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 20.03.2001
COM(2001) 144 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Statistical Information needed for Indicators to monitor the Integration of
Environmental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Statistical Information needed for Indicators to monitor the Integration of
Environmental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy

1.

THE MANDATE

Successive European Councils1 have reaffirmed a commitment
to integrate the
environment into all Community policies and to ensure that these policies contribute
to sustainable development. A Commission Communication to the Council and the
Integration of
European Parliament, COM (2000) 20 “Indicators
Environmental Concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy”, presented the
context within which indicators are being developed to monitor the effectiveness of
the strategy to integrate environmental concerns into agricultural and rural policies
within the EU. The report emphasised the need for appropriate and reliable statistical
information on which to base these indicators and (in section 4.2) gave a
commitment to prepare a further Communication dealing with this topic.

the

for

The present document has been prepared in response to this commitment. It will not
repeat the in-depth discussion of the previous Communication and in the Council
Strategy adopted in November 1999, nor will it deal with sustainability, as the
Commission will produce a separate Communication specifically on sustainable
agriculture. The consequences for environmental concerns outside the Union, and
particularly in developing countries, go beyond the scope of this Communication and
are not dealt with here. The present text focuses on the data needed to compile the
indicators already identified in COM(2000) 20, and the steps envisaged to supply
that data. As with all Commission activities, the success of these steps will depend
on commitment and resources not only within the Commission, but also within
Member States who are the principal partners of the Commission in the European
Statistical System.

The European Parliament and the Council are invited to consider the proposals
presented in this communication and to give a mandate to the Commission to pursue
work in this area.

1

The European Council at Cardiff in June 1998 invited all relevant formations of the Council to establish
their own strategies for giving effect to environmental integration and sustainable development within
their respective policy areas. It invited among others the Agriculture Council to start this process. The
European Council
to integrate the
in Vienna in December 1998 reaffirmed the commitment
environment and sustainable development into all Community policies.. The Agriculture Council was
invited to continue its work with a view to submitting a comprehensive strategy, including a timetable
for further measures and a set of indicators, to the Helsinki European Council. The European Council in
Cologne in June 1999 took the process further and the European Council in Helsinki (December 1999)
called for the submission to the European Council in June 2001 of comprehensive strategies including a
timetable for further measures and a set of indicators for the main sectors

2

2.

AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Agriculture interacts with the environment in many ways. The rural landscape in
Europe has been formed by agricultural practices over the centuries and the
symbiosis between farmers and the environment is complex and close. Agriculture,
the major user of land and provider of food for the EU, relies heavily on healthy eco-
systems to function properly and efficiently. Farmers are guardians of
the
countryside, of eco-systems and of the rural landscape. Disrupted eco-systems can
result in water pollution, plagues of insects, spread of plant and livestock diseases,
flooding, loss of soil fertility, etc. The challenge for policy is to protect eco-systems
while minimising unwanted impacts inside and outside the sector concerned. This
implies encouragement and support for the activities which protect and enhance the
environment (activities widely practised by the agricultural sector as a matter of
enlightened self-interest) and discouragement of those which have negative effects.

In November 1999 the Agriculture Council adopted a strategy to address the
integration of environmental requirements into the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) through the reforms adopted under Agenda 2000. Objectives were set for
land use and soil, climate change and air quality, and
water, agri-chemicals,
landscape and biodiversity.

3.

INDICATORS

Detailed policy objectives have to be set and progress in reaching these objectives
measured.

Thus a solid set of indicators is needed:

– to help monitor and assess agri-environmental policies and programmes, and to

provide contextual information for rural development in general;

– to identify environmental issues related to European agriculture;

– to help target programmes that address agri-environmental issues;

– to understand the linkages between agricultural practices and the environment.

The work of the Commission services is developed from that of the OECD2, adapting
and extending it to cover the European Agricultural system. The Commission's work
goes further
in trying to define not only the necessary indicators, but also
methodologies to be applied, and possible data sources or data collection methods, so
that indicators for EU Member States are harmonised and comparable.

The main criteria for choosing agri-environmental indicators are:

• policy-relevance –address the key environmental issues

2

For more detail, see OECD publication "Environmental Indicators for Agriculture" :Volume 1 :
Concepts and framework, OECD 1997; Volume 2 : Issues and Design, OECD 1999: Volume 3 :
Methods and Results, (foreseen for 2001)

3

• responsiveness –change sufficiently quickly in response to action

• analytical soundness – based on sound science

• measurability – feasible in terms of current or planned data availability

• ease of

interpretation –communicate essential

information in a way that

is

unambiguous and easy to understand;

• cost effectiveness–costs in proportion to the value of information derived

COM (2000) 20 presented an initial set of indicators and areas where indicators are
needed. These are summarised, together with additional information, in a table at the
end of the present document. The level of development of these indicator areas varies
and they can be divided into four groups.

(a) A first group contains indicators for which it

is immediately clear what

statistical data need to be collected.

(b)

(c)

(d)

For the second group, statistics are not the appropriate source of information,
though statisticians may make a contribution to the overall picture, by
structuring and integrating data from different sources.

In the third group the indicators have not yet been sufficiently well defined to
identify the most appropriate data.

For a fourth group, indicators are needed, but no indicator could yet be defined.
Recommendations on data requirements cannot yet be made.

The challenge now is i) to provide the inputs needed to calculate and maintain
identified indicators, by finding and integrating data from statistical, administrative
and environmental information sources within a sound analytic framework, ii) to
define more clearly the indicators in the third and fourth groups.

This Communication looks at the data needs which are readily identifiable (group a),
and makes some proposals for tackling the issues in groups b and c.

In providing data for indicators efforts will in the first place maximise use of existing
sources. Secondly, additional
information will where possible be obtained by
extending the scope of existing statistical or administrative data sets. Only where
these possibilities cannot meet requirements will new data be collected.

4.

EXISTING STATISTICAL AND OTHER SOURCES OF RELEVANT INFORMATION

The European Statistical System (ESS), consisting of Eurostat and the appropriate
bodies in Member State administrations, ensures that the statistical needs of policy
makers are met. Data derived from administrative procedures provide a rich source
of information although considerable effort may be needed to ensure that
this
information is correctly integrated into a statistical environment. Geo-spatial tools
could be used to integrate statistical, administrative and environmental data (soil,
land-cover, catchment, rivers, climate …) in a sound analytical framework and

4

the Commission but

provide relevant indicators. Outputs of the activities of the ESS are readily available
at
the information collected for
administrative purposes is currently unavailable for Community use or even
unknown at Community level. Progress in this area is being advanced by gathering
information on local studies (sub-regional) as well as national or regional surveys of
agricultural practices.

significant detail of

The ESS produces a set of basic data, which can be combined in different ways to
produce a variety of indicators which can be modified as policies evolve. So, special
emphasis will be given to:

– providing data at

level
geographical areas, e.g. river basins, vulnerable zones, etc.

local

for combination into a number of different

– providing new data through existing surveys, as this is cost effective and ensures

compatibility with the other survey data.

4.1.

Data sources

4.1.1.

The Farm Structure Survey

A Farm Structure Survey (FSS), covering all EU Member States and a wide range of
questions, has been carried out every two or three years since 1966/67, permitting
analysis of associations between characteristics. The next survey will be in 2003. For
the full decennial censuses a detailed geographic analysis is possible.

4.1.2.

Livestock, crop and related statistics

The ESS has long experience in the production of statistics of livestock and crop
products and their prices. Thus,
livestock numbers and
composition, crop areas and farm produce together with the corresponding product
prices are available.

long time series for

4.1.3.

Forestry statistics

Much forestry activity is associated with agricultural holdings and has clear
environmental
implications. A Communication (COM (1998) 649) on forestry
strategy was followed by a Council Resolution3 on the same subject. There is a need
for further indicators to ensure adequate monitoring of this strategy, by taking
account of progress in the work on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management. This work has been undertaken, inter alia, in the context of the follow-
up process to the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe.

4.1.4.

Land use statistics

The LUCAS (Land Use/Cover Area Frame Statistical Survey) project will give
detailed geo-referenced information for agricultural and environmental analysis. First
results will relate to 2001 and the value of this tool will be fully realised as

3

Council Resolution 1999/C 56/01 of 15.12.1998, OJ C56, 26.02.1999

5

information from successive surveys provides a clear picture of agricultural and
environmental trends.

4.1.5.

Environment Statistics questionnaire

The ESS collects its main environment statistics every two years in co-operation with
OECD through a joint questionnaire. Collaboration with the European Environment
Agency and UN agencies ensures coherence of work in this field.

4.1.6.

The Farm Accountancy Data Network

The Farm Accountancy Data Network of the European Union (FADN) was
established in 1965 4 to collect accountancy data for the determination of incomes
and for the business analysis of agricultural holdings. It is based on a sample of
60000 holdings.

4.1.7.

The Integrated Administrative and Control System (IACS)

This system5 integrates the control of Community aid systems and generates a range
of administrative information of potential use for agri-environmental indicators. How
best to exploit this source is under study (new legislation will be required).

4.1.8.

The Rural Development Programme

The monitoring and evaluation of the rural development programmes6 is partly based
on common indicators, several of which concern specific agri-environmental
measures7 or environmental aspects of other
rural development measures.
Monitoring concerns the direct programme outputs while evaluation examines the
results/impacts on, for example, biodiversity, landscapes and natural resources such
as water and soil. Such indicators cover the zone of the programmes and relate
mainly to the direct or indirect beneficiaries. The common evaluation indicators help
answer a predefined set of questions through a number of judgement criteria.

Rural development programmes hence provide agri-environmental indicators for the
zones covered, but information from other sources about the context has to be added
(e.g., agri-environmental indicators relating to all farmland in the sector/region) in
order to compare the evolution within the programme with the general trend.

4.1.9. Other administrative sources

A significant amount of potentially useful data is generated as a by-product of
Community regulatory procedures. Not all of this is currently available to the

4

5

6

7

Council Regulation (EEC) 79/65 of 15.6.1965, OJ 109, of 23.06.1965

Council regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27.11.1992, OJ L 355, 05.12.1992

Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, on support for rural development from European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L160, 23.6.1999, p. 80) and Commission Regulation No
1750/99 of 23.07.1999 laying down the detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation No
1257/99 (OJ L 214, 13.08.1999, p.31).

Previously Regulation 2078/92

6

Commission’s services. The costs and benefits of
acquisition of relevant data; integration with other data) are being examined.

its use (identification and

4.2.

EU research and development activities

4.2.1.

The Joint Research Centre (JRC)

The JRC carries out research in support of EU policies. The “Agri-Environment
to assessing,
Cluster” provides scientific and technical expertise in support
quantifying and monitoring the evolution of agri-environmental indicators.

Therefore, JRC has developed pan-european geo-environmental databases on soil,
land-cover, catchments,
river networks and climate to be combined with
administrative statistics using spatial modelling tools (GIS) as a key feature.

4.2.2.

The Community Research Framework Programmes

Research activities to improve our knowledge on the relationships between
agriculture and the environment and to develop indicators have been funded under
include
the successive EU RTD Framework Programmes. Addressed topics
desertification, soil erosion, pressures upon natural resources from fertilisers and
pesticides,
landscape and biodiversity and agricultural emissions of greenhouse
gases. The current Fifth Framework Programme provides such support, in particular
under the key actions “Sustainable Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry” and “Global
Change, Climate and Biodiversity” and the generic research activities on socio-
economic aspects of the environment.

4.2.3.

The European Environment Agency (EEA)

information on air emissions,

Through its specialised European Topic Centres, the EEA is the lead organisation for
land cover, water quality, and
collection of
nature/biodiversity. In particular, the CORINE landcover inventories provide a basis
for representing statistics on a more detailed spatial level as well as being a source of
basic data needed to compile indicators on changes in the landscape.

4.2.4.

TAPAS

The TAPAS (Technical Action Plans for Agricultural Statistics) programme8
facilitates improvements in the Community system of agricultural statistics. One of
the areas identified for support is agri-environmental indicators.

8

Council decision 96/411/EC of 25 June 1996 “On improving Community Agricultural Statistics” OJ
L162, 01.07.1996 most recently prolonged by European Parliament and Council Decision 2298/2000 of
28.09.2000, OJ L263, 18.10.2000.

7

5.

THE INDICATORS

9:

5.1.

Indicator 1: Area under agri-environment support (group b)

Concept: Council Regulation 1257/99 provides for programmes to encourage
farmers to carry out 'environmentally beneficial' activities on their land

Indicator: The area of farmland covered by the agri-environmental programmes
under Regulation 1257/99, classified by type of activity.

Proposal: No new data collection needed.

5.2.

Indicator 2: Regional levels of good farming practice (group b)

Concept: Farming practices have a direct impact on the environment; therefore
regional information is needed on farming practices. Codes of good agricultural
practice exist in all Member States, at national or regional level. Consolidation of
existing documentation is needed.

Indicator: Number of farms complying with regional standards of good farming
practice. Minimum standards are laid down by Commission Regulation 1750/1999.

Proposal: Additionally, document those regions which have established specific
codes of good agricultural practice which go beyond the requirements of Community
legislation. Establish system to collect information on actual practices at regular
intervals to monitor trends.

5.3.

Indicator 3: Regional levels for environmental targets (group d)

Further work is needed to develop this indicator; an approach might be to determine
which regions have environmental targets and to measure the success in meeting
these targets using either administrative or statistical data.

5.4.

Indicator 4: Area under nature protection (group b)

Concept: Some farmland is subject to restrictions on what may be produced and on
the farming practices which can be used because the area is part of a nature
protection zone covered, for example, by Natura 2000 or by voluntary agreements.
Farmers may be compensated for these restrictions.

Indicator: Area and percentage of farmland subject to such restrictions, classified
by type of farmland (see indicator 26).

Proposal: Use of information derived from monitoring of Natura 2000 and Rural
Development programmes, initially in the context of a pilot study. The possibility of
classification by type of restriction and programme will be studied.

9

Comments on the set of indicators in COM 2000 (20) section 3.3.2. The groups are described in section
3 above.

8

5.5.

Indicator 5: Market signals: organic producer price premiums (group a)

Concept: The difference between the market prices of conventional produce and
organic produce is an indicator of the premium attached to organic products. A
second issue affecting the conversion to organic farming practices is the income for
organic farmers.

Indicator: 1) Index of the relationship between the prices of organic products and
those of conventional products and 2) Economic results of organic farms compared
to similar sized farms in the same area.

Proposal: Pilot projects 1) to use the system of agricultural price statistics to
distinguish organic produce from conventional produce. 2) to test whether FADN
data give sufficient information to calculate indicator 2.

5.6.

Indicator 6: Technology and skills: holder's training level (group a/c)

Concept: Additional technology and skills may be expected to lead to efficiency in
the production process which manifests itself as productivity gains,
improved
in turn, have an impact on the
working conditions and product quality which,
environment.

Indicator: Agri-environmental training of farmers

Proposal: The FSS records the level of training of heads of holdings. However,
neither the date of training nor the age at which it was received is recorded.
Refinement of
supplemented by questions on agri-
environmental development activities followed by the farmer should be the subject of
a pilot study.

the FSS information,

5.7.

Indicator 7: Area under organic farming (group a/b)

Concept: Organic farming involves a less intensive use of land, more varied
cultivation practices and entails significant restrictions on the use of fertilisers and
pesticides. Council Regulation 2092/91 sets out strict requirements which producers
must meet before agricultural products can be marketed in the EU as organic.

Indicator: Area under organic farming: This is available from the voluntary
questionnaire developed to ensure a common set of information is available to
monitor implementation of this Regulation.

Proposal: The questionnaire will be reviewed to validate its coverage and whether
voluntary responses to all parts of the questionnaire yield adequate information or
whether some elements should be obligatory.

5.8.

Indicator 8: Quantities of nitrogen (N) and phosphate (P) fertilisers used
(group a)

Concept: Risks of negative impact to human health and environment, associated
with the use of fertilisers in agriculture, may grow with increased consumption of
fertilisers, particularly in the case where the volume of nutrients provided is higher
than the uptake capacity of crops.

9

Indicator: Fertiliser use by crop and by region.

Proposal: this indicator should be considered in conjunction with indicator18.

5.9.

Indicator 9: Consumption of pesticides (group a/c)

Concept: The use of pesticides should not involve unacceptable risks to human
health or to the environment. The risks vary considerably from one pesticide to
another, depending on specific characteristics (i.e. toxicity, persistence) of their
active ingredients and use patterns (i.e. volumes applied, application period and
method, type of crop treated, type of soil).

Indicator: Two complementary indicators can be envisaged: 1) Index of pesticide
use, weighted to take into account different types of toxicity and use patterns, etc. 2)
pesticide use, classified according to intrinsic characteristics e.g. toxicities to non-
target species, long term effects, persistence in the environment, etc.

Proposal: 1) Continue to collect data on the use of individual herbicides, fungicides
and insecticides from the major pesticide producers and, where available, from
Member States. Encourage Member States to complement this through the TAPAS
programme with direct surveys of farmers.

2) Develop pesticide classes, based on the characteristics of the active ingredients.
(This could be the subject of a research project.)

5.10.

Indicator 10: Water use intensity (group a)

Concept: In countries with dry growing periods, the use of water for irrigation can
put limited water resources under stress. Crops grown should reflect the climate and
the availability of water, and appropriate irrigation techniques should be used (e.g.
drip irrigation) with a view to increasing irrigation efficiency and minimising water
loss.

Indicator: Use of water per

€

1000 output of irrigated crops.

Proposal: No data source currently exists. Data on water purchased/used could be
incorporated into the FADN, starting with Member States in which these data are
already available. Specific surveys of water use may need to be developed

5.11.

Indicator 11: Energy use (group a)

Concept: In order to reduce emissions of CO2, all sectors of the economy have to
use energy rationally and to improve energy efficiency.

Indicator: Annual use of energy, by fuel type. The available data on energy use by
agriculture is mainly limited to petroleum products, easily distinguishable because of
specific tax regimes applied to diesel used for agricultural purposes. Other fuels used
in agriculture are mainly electricity and, in a few countries, natural gas.

Proposal: In FADN, information on total expenditure on fuels is collected, without
details concerning types of fuels and volumes purchased. The FADN survey could be
extended to cover the missing information, starting from those Member States in
which these data are already available.

10

5.12.

Indicator 12: Land use: topological change (group b)

Concept: Development activities have an important impact on the environment and
landscape. These developments have their origins in the needs of different sectors,
transport, urban development, energy production and distribution,
(agriculture,
industry….) and have a wide variety of impacts (on wildlife habitats, plant life,
surface and underground water, landscape,..).

Indicator: An inventory of developments classified by type and location.

Proposal: Many development activities receive support from public finances (local,
national or European) and most are subject to regulatory processes. Accordingly
administrative records exist covering the location, nature and scale of these changes.
A pilot study to establish the feasibility of using such records is needed and
legislation to permit their use for statistical purposes will probably be required.

5.13.

Indicator 13. Land use: cropping/livestock patterns (group a/c)

Concept: Management of livestock and individual parcels of agricultural land is a
matter for the individual strategies of farmers. Changes in land use may have an
impact on environment (on wildlife habitats, landscape,..), even if this impact is often
poorly documented and little understood.

Indicator: Based on a Community typology of agricultural practices and strategies
(to be developed) the share of each holding in each category of the typology,
possibly extended to cover all rural activities.

Proposals: Some Member States already have carried out studies to classify
strategies and practices of farmers in the context of national or local policies. A pilot
study based development of the methodologies and data will permit a consolidation
of existing experience.

5.14.

Indicator 14: Management: see also indicator 2 (group d)10

Further work on the definition of this indicator is needed.

5.15.

Indicator 15: Trends: intensification/extensification, specialisation (group a/c)

Concept: Specialisation of holdings yields economies of scale both in production
and in transport costs. Intensification of farming improves the viability of holdings
and the maintenance of employment; however
the combination of increasing
specialisation and intensification leads to higher environmental and other risks as
well as a reduction in diversity. In view of the externalities involved, assessment
should be related to the appropriate spatial units (e.g. river basins, employment
catchment areas, agri-industrial collection centres).

10

The indicators needed in relation to the indicator areas 14, 30 and 31 have not yet been identified and
are thus not dealt with in this Communication)

11

Indicator: Since intensification can concern all factors of production the number of
possible indicators is high. For example, the relation between livestock numbers and
fodder areas may be appropriate for some types of livestock farming.

of Agricultural Holdings

permits
Proposals: The Community Typology
identification and measurement of aspects of intensification and specialisation of
farms and of production zones. Refinements of
improve
information on the geographic distribution of different types of farm and of their
management practices. Bringing together production data with those from the FSS
and FADN will contribute to the establishment of an appropriate typology This will
not involve the collection of any new data but a pilot study will provide the
information necessary to refine the choice of appropriate indicators.

the typology will

5.16.

Indicator 16: Trends: Specialisation/diversification (group a)

Concept: Diversification of activities is a medium term strategy to manage risk.
Diversification may be purely agricultural, may involve non-agricultural activities on
the holding (multi-functionality) or may involve off-farm activities (pluriactivity)
whether in agriculture or in other sectors. While the income effect may be limited
these strategies have a positive effect on farm viability.

Indicator:
Proportion
agricultural/non-agricultural incomes.

Importance of different categories
gainful
of

farmers with

other

in the Community Typology.
farmers’
activities. Ratio

of

Proposals: Additional FSS questions are needed to measure the scale of pluriactivity
(and not only its presence). Statistics on farm household income with sufficient detail
to measure the impact of pluriactivity on the viability of farms will be an important
input to this work.

5.17.

Indicator 17: Trends: marginalisation (group a/c)

Concept: Marginalisation may be defined in terms of the inability of holdings to
provide an acceptable income. This may be the result of deterioration in the
economic or physical environment and lead to an increased risk of the cessation of
agricultural activity on the farms concerned.

Indicator: State and evolution of the density of farms with and without successors.
The
administration,
communications,..) may also contribute to this indicator.

infrastructure

supporting

(services,

state

the

of

Proposal: Much of the necessary information is available from the FSS; appropriate
(fine) geographic detail may be obtained by a redistribution of these data. This would
be supplemented by national information on the supporting infrastructure and, if
necessary by additional FSS questions. This proposal will require validation by
means of a pilot study.

5.18.

Indicator 18: Soil surface nutrient balance, including indicator 8: fertiliser use
(group a)

Concept: Nutrients are essential for plant growth. Applied in excess they can run off
to
to surface water and/or leach to ground water, raising the nitrate content

12

unacceptable levels. The most appropriate method of estimating the excess nutrient
use is the soil surface nutrient balance. Appropriate data may be derived from the
FSS. However, real insight is provided only at regional, local or river basin level.

input
Indicator: The soil surface nutrient balance is defined as total nutrient
(organic and mineral fertilisers, atmospheric deposition, fixation by leguminous
crops) minus the uptake by crops (including removals by grazing).

Proposals: 1) Nutrient balances at NUTS 2 level are available, but further work is
needed to address some methodological problems, i.e.

a) Fertilizers: Figures are available for sales of mineral fertilisers by country, but
allocating these to the regions is problematic. Farmers in the FADN panel report on
expenditure on fertilisers. This could be expanded to cover quantities purchased,
broken down by type of fertiliser (N, P) and begin with those Member States in
which this data is already available.

b) Livestock manure: Manure coefficients vary widely from one country to another,
because of different measuring or modelling methods.

c) Uptake by crops: Improved models to estimate N removed in fodder crops and
through grazing are needed.

2) Pilot project to test feasibility of developing tools to calculate balances for river
basins or drainage basins is proposed.

5.19.

Indicator 19: Methane (CH4) emissions (group a)

Concept: Agriculture is a major source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, both
greenhouse gases many times more powerful than CO2. These gases are given off
mainly from livestock manure. The commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by 8%
by 2008-2012 is a high political priority in the EU.

Indicator: Aggregated annual agricultural emissions of CH4, N2O and CO2,
weighted by global warming potential.

Proposal: Data on emissions of all of greenhouse gases are available from the
European Environment Agency. The data could be refined by collecting information
on the deliberate production (in anaerobic digestors), capture and use of methane
(identical to natural gas) as an energy source on farms. This use has the double
benefit of reducing methane emissions as well as the amount of conventional fuel
used on the farm. The FSS list of characteristics could be extended to collect
information on installations, their capacity and use.

5.20.

Indicator 20: pesticide soil contamination (group c)

Concept: Show the extent to which pesticide residues accumulate in the soil.

Indicator/Proposal: Definition and production of
requires a
considerable effort, validated by soil sampling, in collaboration with environmental
authorities.

indicator

this

13

5.21.

Indicator 21: water contamination (group c)

Concept: The approach is similar to that adopted for indicator 20. The focus is on
pollutants such as heavy metals and organic chemicals including residues of
veterinary products (i.e. potential pollutants not covered by indicator 30).

Indicator/Proposal: Similar to indicator 20.

5.22.

Indicator 22: Ground water abstraction (group a/c)

Concept: Direct pumping of ground water by farmers is generally unrecorded, but
widely believed to be one of the main causes of falling water tables.

Indicator: Annual amount of ground water pumped directly by farmers from ground
water sources.

Proposal: Indicator 10 proposed data collection in this area. This requirement could
be extended to cover self-supply and would include the source of the water pumped,
i.e. ground water (from a well) or from a river or stream.

5.23.

Indicator 23: Soil erosion (group a/b/c)

Concept: More than half of the land in Europe suffers some degree of soil erosion,
reducing the productivity of the land and degrading ecosystems. The phenomenon is
more severe in the southern European countries but, even in the northern part of
Europe, the potential erosion risk can be important due, for example, to the lack of
protective vegetative cover during the winter period. Physical factors such as climate,
topography and soil characteristics are important in the process of soil erosion, but
the most
important factors are the land cover and the agricultural practices.
Furthermore, soil erosion can be linked to agri-environmental measures.

Indicators: Location and estimation of the amount of topsoil loss and maps of soil
erosion risk. Land cover and agricultural practices in areas at risk.

land-cover, digital

Proposals: Based on combining geo-referenced and harmonised data on European
soils,
terrain models and meteorological data, a geo-spatial
modelling approach could provide consistent and harmonised maps of soil erosion
risk.

5.24.

Indicator 24: Resource depletion: Land Cover change (group a)

Concept: A matrix of changes in land cover (LC) is essential in order to track
developments. From the agri-environment viewpoint, a matrix of agricultural uses
showing entries, exits and internal changes of use is the key requirement.

Indicator: Matrix of changes in LC classified by type and size.

Proposal: The implementation and regular updating of LUCAS11 will permit
production of the matrices required.

11

See 4.1.4 above.

14

5.25.

Indicator 25: Genetic diversity of species (group b)

Concept. Biodiversity is the variety of life and its processes and is generally
recognised on three levels:

• Genetic diversity - the variety of genetic building blocks found among individual

representatives of a species;

• Species diversity – the variety of living organisms found in a particular place; and

• Ecosystem diversity- the variety of species, ecological functions and processes,

that occurs in different physical settings.

While genetic improvements can contribute to agricultural productivity they may
also pave the way to a process of progressive erosion of the genetic stock whereby
agricultural production would become more and more vulnerable to the risks linked
to the spread of new pests and diseases or climatic change.

Indicator: 1) The total number and shares
in production of main crop
varieties/livestock breeds and 2) The number of national crop varieties/livestock
breeds that are endangered.

The first indicator reveals the extent of biodiversity in agricultural production and
tracks any increase/decrease. The second provides information on the risk of genetic
erosion and irreparable loss of part of the existing genetic pool.

Proposals: For indicator 1 the basic crop information comes from the Common
catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species12. This will need to be
supplemented by a specific information network.

5.26.

Indicator 26: Area of high nature value, grassland, etc. (group b)

This indicator is a subset of indicator 4

5.27.

Indicator 27: Production of renewable energy sources (group a)

Concept: Renewable energy sources such as biodiesel and wood can contribute to
reductions in use of fossil fuels and net emissions of CO2 emissions.

Indicator: Area and volume of production of coppice woodland and of oilseed crops
intended for production of biodiesel.

Proposal: Administrative data on this topic are collected. Alternatively FSS and crop
production statistics could be expanded to cover production concerned.

12

The common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species is published in accordance with
provisions of Article 18 of Council Directive 70/457/EEC of 29 September 1970, on the common
catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ L225, 12.10.1970, p.1). The catalogue was
published for the first time on 21 July 1975 (OJ C164, 21.7.1975, p.1). It is periodically updated. Thus,
the 21st edition was published on 9 November 1999 (OJ C321A, 9.11.1999, p.1).

15

5.28.

Indicator 28: Species richness (group d)

Concept: Some species, linked to typical agricultural habitats, can be used as bio-
indicators for certain developments in agriculture although species diversity and
number of individuals may be influenced by non-agricultural events. The choice of
species and the availability of a long-enough monitoring period to distinguish natural
influences, like weather, from man-induced changes are some of the difficulties
encountered in producing this indicator. Some national examples exist, mainly based
on bird-counts. Because of their less technical nature these bio-indicators appeal to a
wide public.

Indicator: To be defined, based on available data. Current data availability is an
important argument because of the length of the time series needed.

Proposal: Further development of this indicator is needed.

5.29.

Indicator 29: Soil quality (group c)

Concept: The key policy objective for soil management in agriculture is to ensure
the appropriate functioning of soils as a limited resource for agricultural production,
in ways that are environmentally sound, economically viable and socially acceptable.
Comparison of soil “capability” maps with actual land use maps can identify areas of
mismatch, indicate areas with potential risk of soil degradation and be relevant
information for policy evaluation / monitoring / orientation.

Indicator: Agricultural areas where there is a mismatch between soil capability and
the actual or impending land-use.

limitations (topography, rooting depth, fertility,
Proposals: (1) Determine soil
organic carbon, water
texture) of European soils (using
harmonised European soil information system); (2) derive crop suitability zones and
(3) compare the capability maps with land use maps.

retaining capacity13,

5.30.

Indicator 30: Nitrates/pesticides in water (group d) 14

Concept: Agriculture is one of the main sources of nutrients and pesticide-residues
in ground and surface water. The evolution of the concentrations in ground and
surface water is an indicator of the success of measures taken by the agricultural
sector. A geographical analysis of results would permit the localisation of problems.

Indicator: The definition of the indicator has to be further developed

13

14

Water retaining capacity has been identified as an indicator in itself in the OECD work. It is
considered very important for regions where there are alternate periods of drought, which
limits soil vegetation cover, followed by heavy rainfall. For countries with steep and rapid
rivers and heavy rainfall, a good soil structure with high water retaining capacity is essential
for flood and landslide prevention, the consequences of which can be costly to the economy.

The indicators needed in relation to the indicator areas 14, 30 and 31 have not yet been identified and
are thus not dealt with in this Communication)

16

Proposal: In principle data are available at national and EU level, though more on
nitrates than on pesticides. Data can be selected and presented in various ways,
taking for instance the main land use in the catchment area into account. Further
discussion is needed between policy makers, data providers and environmental
experts to define and construct the indicator.

5.31.

Indicator 31: Ground water levels (group d)

Concept: The over-abstraction of groundwater by agriculture (see indicator 10), but
also by other users leads to a lowering of groundwater tables. The disturbance of the
hydrology of an area may have other consequences such as intrusion of saltwater in
aquifers, further reducing supplies of fresh water.

Some countries have gathered long time series of groundwater levels at selected
measuring stations, which is necessary to discern weather induced changes from
man-made influences. No systematic data collection at EU level is known.

Indicator: To be specified.

Proposal: Further work is needed to formulate the expectations from this indicator
and to define it.

5.32.

Indicator 32. Landscape state (group b)

Concept: Landscape state can be interpreted by analytic indicators at different
levels. Diversity and composition play their part in its description; elements such as
the structure and organisation of agricultural parcels, overall land cover, distribution
and types of buildings, visual elements, (including aspects such as homogenisation,
derelict land, building encroachment etc.) all make a contribution. For an agri-
environmental approach agricultural components have a particular importance.

Indicator: Number and diversity of memorable elements visible. (To be refined)

Proposal: The Commission has established an inventory of national systems used for
the landscape evaluation. Ongoing work to validate and extend these approaches for
use at a Community level should be continued and intensified. Environmental
questions will be introduced into LUCAS; the responses to these, together with
photographic information from the survey points, will contribute to the construction
of indicators.

5.33.

Indicator 33. Impact on habitats and biodiversity (group c)

Concept: Agriculture contributes to the management of the natural habitat both in
cultivated areas and in the interstices between them such as hedges, ditches and other
boundaries. Farmers’ contribution to protection of the habitat consists of managing
cultivated areas so as to preserve the natural flora and fauna as well as maintaining
the boundary features in a good state. These actions may conflict with economically
optimum practices.

Indicator: Density of linear elements and diversity of land cover at the level of the
holding.

17

Proposal: Use of environmental questions in LUCAS and additional questions in
FSS. Development of methodologies for estimation of diversity based on FSS data
and possible use of Corine Land Cover (CLC) information for spatial redistribution
of these data.

5.34.

Indicator 34: Share of Agriculture in emissions, nitrate contamination, water
use (group b)

Concept: Agriculture is but one sector contributing to emissions, contamination and
water stress. Assessing the relative contribution of agriculture compared to other
sectors is important to evaluate whether targeting agriculture is the most effective
way of addressing the problem.

Indicator: 1) Greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector. 2) Nitrogen emissions
to water by economic sector. 3) Water use by economic sector.

1)

For

greenhouse

Proposals:
available.
gases
2) There is no simple way of distinguishing nitrates from agriculture from nitrates
from other sources. Therefore models will need to be developed to estimate the run-
off from agricultural land, the nitrate inputs from (mainly the food) industry and the
nitrates from other sources. 3) The current water statistics questionnaires should be
completed more exhaustively by Member States.

dataset

full

is

a

5.35.

Indicator 35: Impact on landscape diversity (group c)

Concept: The diversity of landscape is the result of natural conditions, the working
of the land, and the interactions between agriculture and other users of land. This
diversity should be regarded as a resource and is perceived at a more inclusive level
than is the case for habitat.

Indicator: Indices of overall and of agricultural diversity and of their evolution
through time.

Proposal: A study of the diversity of land use based on CLC has been undertaken15.
This approach will be refined using environmental questions and the internal
diversity of the network of points in LUCAS. The integration of data on soils
together with topographical information and climate data will be used to establish a
“natural” baseline of diversity. Matrices of change from LUCAS will permit
isolation of the contribution of agriculture to diversity and to its evolution.

6.

CONCLUSIONS

6.1.

General requirements

The previous section set out the Commission’s proposals for each of the indicators
proposed in the Communication COM (2000) 20. They include identification of a
number of requirements to be met for the definition or calculation of some indicators.

15

From land cover to landscape diversity: European Commission/European Environment Agency joint
report, 2000.

18

These are set out in summary form in the table below. It should be stressed that work
on these tasks cannot be confined to the Commission as their
successful
implementation will require the full participation and commitment of national
administrations and other agencies. The timetable and even the feasibility of the
work identified will depend critically on the resources allocated to these tasks by all
participants. The support of
the European Parliament and Council will be
indispensable if this endeavour is to make satisfactory progress. "Enlargement of the
European Union also has to be taken into account. Following their accession, the
new Member States will presumably be able only gradually to work their way up to a
full part in the work which has to be done".

6.2.

Further work (List of Recommendations and Timetable)

6.2.1.

Priority

The Commission will continue to draw the attention of decision-making bodies to the
importance of work on agri-environmental indicators and to the need for appropriate
resources to be committed to the associated tasks. In particular, efforts to highlight
the statistical implications of policy decisions will be reinforced. This will be a
continuing exercise.

6.2.2.

Inventories of data sources

The European Statistical System network for agricultural statistics is being used (via
the regular programme of Working Party meetings) to update and complete the
inventories of data sources relating to agri-environmental issues in Member States
and in Candidate Countries. This inventory will cover all relevant data sources and
not to be confined to traditional statistical sources.

6.2.3.

Survey coverage of Farm Structure Survey and Farm Accountancy Data Network

The coverage of environmental characteristics by these two data sources will be kept
under continuing review. This review is an ongoing process for
the Farm
Accountancy Data Network. The characteristics for the Farm Structure Survey are
reviewed on the occasion of each survey. Examination of the Commission’s
proposals for the 2003 survey will be completed during the first half of 2001.

6.2.4. Geographic resolution

Proposals for an evaluation project to study redistribution of existing data to a more
environmentally meaningful geographic presentation have been drawn up. First
results are expected in 2002.

6.2.5.

Administrative data

The analysis in preceding sections of this Communication leads to the conclusion
that the use of administrative data represents the most cost effective solution for the
calculation of a number of indicators. Availability of administrative data for
statistical purposes is frequently restricted by legislation. Proposals for changes to
such legislation will be brought forward by the Commission. Since these changes
will be subject to co-decision the views of Council and the Parliament on this
analysis and their support for the approach proposed will be vital.

19

The technical issues involved in useful linkage of administrative and statistical data
will be further studied and proposals made. In particular,
the need to report
administrative data in a structure consistent with the statistical system, especially
with respect to the physical unit of reporting, should be emphasised so that further
analysis and cross-checking will be possible.

The close collaboration which already exists between administrators and statisticians
in relation to the management of statistical sources will be extended to the
specifications of new and existing administrative sources.

6.2.6.

Pilot studies and research

For a number of indicators, pilot studies or further research, have been identified as
the best approach to making further progress. These are indicated in the text and in
the summary table below.

20

Impact

State

Pressures

Driving forces

Responses

P
=

p
i
l
o
t

s
t
u
d
y
E
n
=
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

d
a
t
a

b
a
s
e
s

I

s
u
c
h
a
s
C
O
R
N
E
L
a
n
d
C
o
v
e
r
,

s
o
i
l
,

c
l
i

m
a
t
e
,

e
t
c
.

E
=
B
a
s
e
d

o
n

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

s
u
r
v
e
y
s
,

M
=

u
s
e

o
f

d
a
t
a
/
m
e
t
h
o
d
s

f
r
o
m
M

e
m
b
e
r

s
t
a
t
e
s
,

S
=
s
t
u
d
y
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

L
=
L
U
C
A
S

s
u
r
v
e
y
,

A
c
t
i
o
n
:

R
=

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

w

i
t
h

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

w
h
e
r
e

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,

2
1

d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e

b
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s

a
n
d

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

B
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n

c

b

b

b

c

b

d

d

c

d

a

b

b

a

a
/
b
/
c

a
/
c

c

c

a

a

3
3

3
2

3
1

3
0

2
9

2
8

2
7

2
6

2
5

2
4

2
3

2
2

2
1

2
0

1
9

1
8

d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

3
5

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

a
n
d

g
l
o
b
a
l

C
L
C

L
U
C
A
S

U
p
d
a
t
e

S
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l

d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

3
4
.
3

W

a
t
e
r

u
s
e

W

a
t
e
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e

A
d
d

i
t
e
m

s

t
o

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e

3
4
.
1

G
H
G
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

3
4
.
2

N

i
t
r
a
t
e

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

L
a
n
d
u
s
e
m
a
t
r
i
x

H
a
b
i
t
a
t

a
n
d

b
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
U
C
A
S

F
S
S
/
C
L
C

L
U
C
A
S

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

d
a
t
a

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
s

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

d
a
t
a
?

N

i
t
r
a
t
e
s
/
p
e
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s

i
n
w
a
t
e
r

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

d
a
t
a
?

M
o
d
e
l
l
i
n
g

M
o
d
e
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d

n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

d
a
t
a

S
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l

d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
n

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

S
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l

d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

s
t
u
d
y
a
n
d

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

s
t
u
d
y
a
n
d

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

H
i
g
h

n
a
t
u
r
e

v
a
l
u
e

a
r
e
a
s

N
A
T
U
R
A

2
0
0
0

,

I

C
O
R
N
E
C
L
C
u
p
d
a
t
e

l
a
n
d

c
o
v
e
r

(

C
L
C

)

a
n
d
F
S
S

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

S
o
i
l

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

G
e
n
e
t
i
c

d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
a
n
d

c
o
v
e
r

c
h
a
n
g
e

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a

S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

s
u
r
v
e
y

L
U
C
A
S

S
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l

d
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

s
t
u
d
i
e
s
a
n
d
G
I
S

M

e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

W

a
t
e
r

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

P
e
s
t
i
c
i
d
e

s
o
i
l

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

*

*

F
S
S

S
u
r
v
e
y

a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
/
w
a
t
e
r

s
t
r
e
s
s

S
o
u
r
c
e

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

c
f
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
1
0

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

f
r
o
m
M
S

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

w
o
r
k

n
e
e
d
e
d

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

w
o
r
k

n
e
e
d
e
d

N
e
w
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

C
H

4
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
i
e
s

(
E
E
A

,

M
S
)

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
i
e
s

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

n
u
t
r
i
e
n
t

b
a
l
a
n
c
e

F
S
S
a
n
d
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a

M

e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

S
o
i
l

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

S
p
e
c
i
e
s

r
i
c
h
n
e
s
s

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

d
a
t
a
?

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

w
o
r
k

n
e
e
d
e
d

C
L
C
a
n
d

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

d
a
t
a

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

t
h
e
m
o
s
t

u
s
e
f
u
l

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

R
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a
,

F
S
S

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

d
a
t
a
,

N
e
w
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

T
r
e
n
d
s

M

a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

a

a
/
c

d

1
6

1
5

1
4

M

a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

N
o

p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

s
t
u
d
y
a
n
d

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
S
S
a
n
d
F
A
D
N
d
a
t
a

F
u
l
l
y

e
x
p
l
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

D
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
S
S

,

G

I
S

N
e
w

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

F
S
S
d
a
t
a

a
/
c

1
7

M

a
r
g
i
n
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

F
S
S

,

n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

d
a
t
a

R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
a
t
a
,

n
e
w

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
,

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
/
c

1
3

C

r
o
p
p
i
n
g
/
l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k

p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
u
d
i
e
s

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
g

h
a
r
m
o
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

L
a
n
d

u
s
e

I
n
p
u
t

u
s
e

A

t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s

a
n
d

s
k
i
l
l
s

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

s
i
g
n
a
l
s

M

a
r
k
e
t

P
u
b
l
i
c

p
o
l
i
c
y

b

a

a

a
/
c

a

a
/
b

a
/
c

a

a

b

d

b

b

1
2

1
1

1
0

9

8

7

6

5
.
2

5
.
1

4

3

2

1

E
n
e
r
g
y

u
s
e

W

a
t
e
r

u
s
e

T
o
p
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

c
h
a
n
g
e

r
e
c
o
r
d
s

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
A
D
N

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

d
a
t
a

N
e
w
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
T
A
P
A
S
a
c
t
i
o
n
s

D
a
t
a

a
c
c
e
s
s

F
A
D
N

,

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

s
u
r
v
e
y
s

N
e
w
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
,

s
e
t
u
p

O
r
g
a
n
i
c

f
a
r
m
i
n
g

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a

A
d

h
o
c

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e

N
e
w
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

d
a
t
a

F
e
r
t
i
l
i
s
e
r

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

F
A
D
N
a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

N
e
w
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

A
d

h
o
c

s
u
r
v
e
y

S
e
t
u
p

S
t
a
t
e
s

N
a
t
u
r
e

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

M

e
m
b
e
r

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

i
n
c
o
m
e

o
f

F
A
D
N

I

m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

O
r
g
a
n
i
c

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
r

p
r
i
c
e
s

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

p
r
i
c
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

H
o
l
d
e
r
s
’

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
s

F
S
S

N
e
w
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

R
u
r
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

d
a
t
a

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a
.

P
e
s
t
i
c
i
d
e

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

o
n
a
q
u
a
t
i
c

r
i
s
k

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

D
P
S
I
R
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

G
r
o
u
p

N
o
.

I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
s

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

G
o
o
d

f
a
r
m
i
n
g

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o
m
e
t
h
o
d

,

M
S
s
u
r
v
e
y
s

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

A
r
e
a

u
n
d
e
r

a
g
r
i
-
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

t
a
r
g
e
t
s

*

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

s
t
u
d
y
a
n
d

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

M

LE

E

M
S

,

S

LS

L

M
E
n

M
E
n

,

P
M
E
n

M

R
E

,

ES

R
S

,

L

S
E
n

,

R
M

E
n

E
n

ME

,

S
M
R

,

,

,

P
R
E
M

,

E
S

,

,

P
S

S

,

S
M

,

R
M

,

P
M
R

,

E

E

,

P
S
R

,

,

P
E

R
E

,

,

E
M
R

E

,

P
E
S

,

,

P
M
R

,

,

M
R
S

,

R

A
c
t
i
o
n