1. Gerard Velthof Alterra Wageningen University The Netherlands
DireDate Direct and indirect data needs linked to farms for Agri-Environmental Indicators
27/12/2018
Gerard Velthof
Alterra
Wageningen University
The Netherlands

2. Outline What is DireDate? Progress so far Lessons learned Next steps
Conclusions

3. What is “DireDate”?
Service Contract Project, commissioned EC, DG Eurostat
Deals with data & information needs for 28 AEI’s
Start: 27 November 2009
Will run for maximal 16 months
Consortium: 5 members
Advisory Group: 6 Members

4. Aims of the Diredate project
to identify the data that are needed to calculate the AEI, taking into account also other reporting requirements.
to ensure that these data are collected in a harmonised manner so that indicators can be compared between countries.
to give advice on how the data collection should be set up
present statistical surveys
introduction of new ideas?

5. Overview of the 9 tasks
1: Analyse the AEI for data requirements, availability, gaps
2: Analyse other reporting needs related to AEI (EU legislations)
3: Analyse methods for GHG & NH3 emissions and N & P balances
4: Summarise data needs and identify potentials for harmonisation
5: Analyse needs for data combination
6: Characterise Member State data collection & reporting systems
7: Organise expert meetings,
8: Document summarising tasks 1 to 7
9: Final workshop

6. Project team Alterra (consortium leader), NL University Aarhus, DK
ITP, PL
ADAS, UK
BOKU Wien, AT

7. Task 1. Analysis of AEIs requirements
Progress
Draft descriptions of factsheets made
Distinction between 1st and 2nd priority indicators
Many comments of Steering Group;
Need more compliance to working document
Detailed description of data requirements

8. Task 1. Analysis of AEIs requirements
Lessons learned
Discussions among scientists about notions and definitions of AEIs and the best estimation methods
no consensus
Likely, DireDate and Eurostat will not solve that
Need for further ‘institutionalisation’ of AEIs:
Institutional structure (Task Forces, Working Groups)
Protocols, Guidance documents, QC&QA, verification procedures for AEIs, to get consensus

9. Task 2. Analysis of Policy requirements.
Progress
Policy needs for AEI data described in detail
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Rural Development Programme (RDP)
Land-use, Land-use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)
Water Framework Directive (WFD)
Nitrates Directive (ND)
National Emissions Ceiling Directive (NECD)
Framework Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
Birds & Habitat Directive (NATURA 2000)

10. Task 2. Analysis of Policy requirements.
Lessons learned
Policies have huge reporting requirements
Similar data have to be reported more than once
Great need for data and information related to AEIs
RDP has largest need and relatively low compliance to AEIs
Next step would be to identify how the various policy needs could/should be harmonized (but this is beyond DireDate)

11. Task 3. Analysis of NH3 & GHG emissions & NP balances.
Progress
Methodologies and data requirements described
Recommendations for data & coefficient collection:
For NH3, CH4 and N2O a tiered approach
For N and P balances different systems descriptions
LULUCF not included (border problems)

12. Task 3. Analysis of NH3 & GHG emissions & NP balances.
Lessons learned
Strong ‘institutionalization’ around estimating GHG & NH3 emissions
Conventions
Task forces, protocols, guidance documents
Quality control and platform for discussions
No common ‘institutionalization’ around estimating N and P balances, though N and P balances are widely used.
Use of different methods and data
Results difficult to compare
OECD

13. Tasks 4 & 5. Recommendations for data collection & combination
Progress
Conceptual schemes for data collection and processing of AEIs made
Building blocks concept developed
Focus on ‘first priority’ indicators

14. Building blocks of AEIs
Inputs
Nutrients, pesticides, water, energy
Land use/nature/climate
Crop production
Livestock production
Management
Livestock
Farm
Soil and water quality

15. Example: Building blocks related to inputs

16. Building blocks Example: Building blocks for N balance
Example 1: N balance

17. Building blocks Example: Building blocks for ammonia emission

18. Building blocks

19. Potential for common data collection

20. Potential for common data collection

21. Tasks 4 & 5. Recommendations for data collection & combination
Lessons learned
Building blocks concept requires proper definitions, formats and guidelines
Building blocks concept has to be flexible as long as methodologies for AEIs estimation and science in general develop further
Building blocks have to built on detailed data

22. Tasks 6. Data collection & Reporting systems in MS
Progress
Low responses to Eurostat questionnaire to National Statistical Offices
New approaches developed:
Analysis of data flows of GHG emissions for all MS (UNFCCC)
Policy-specific questionnaires developed
Telephone interviews
Detailed analysis of data flows for 4 AEIs for NL & PL
Draft reports made.
Complexity of this task is overwhelming
Task cannot be completed fully

23. Tasks 6 Data collection & Reporting systems in MS
Lessons learned
Each MS has its own unique data collection/reporting system
None of the MS has a coordinating body for all AEIs
Nobody in a MS has a complete overview
Interviews via telephone provide insights
Diverse opinions and notions; no consensus
Huge complexity
Main recommendations:
Coordinated data collection structure needed per MS
Harmonization of data required for Policy reporting
Common protocols/guidelines/formats for data collection

24. Example: GHG emissions in NL

25. Task 7. Expert meetings
Progress: Topics and experts for the meetings defined:
Best procedures for ‘risk of phosphorus pollution’?
(Seville, 28 September 2010)
Best procedures for NP balances and NH & GHG emissions;
(Paris, 28 October 2010)
How to improve match data requirements for Policy & AEIs;
(Brussels, 9 December 2010)
Common denominators for the priority AEIs?
(Brussels, 10 December 2010)
Best instruments (sources) for collecting core data in MS?
(Amsterdam, 18 January 2010)

26. Task 7. Expert meetings Lessons learned Diverse opinions
Scientists are more interested in ‘methodologies’ than in ‘data requirements’

27. Task 8. Summary and synthesis and reporting
Progress
Three progress reports with underlying technical reports submitted and discussed
Final report to be made

28. Task 9. Organization of Workshop
Progress
Preparation of the final workshop;
Date fixed: Brussels, March 28, 2011
Experts selected: NGO, policy makers, scientists

29. Net steps

30. Next steps
What data are needed for the different AEI’s and at what scale?
More details in building blocks

31. More details in building blocks?
Which data are needed for AEI’s?
Obligations from regulations and policies?
What aim?
At which temporal and spatial scale
Spatial: field – farm – NUTS II – country
Feasibility
How accurate?
Which data are already collected?
Do we need to collect all data or are other methods available to scale data up or down?
Models
Scientific approaches
Expert judgement

32. Summary main general recommendations
‘Institutionalization’ of AEIs (protocols, formats)
Harmonization of policy reporting needs and data and information requirements
Categorization of data and information according building block concept
Coordinated structure and procedures for data collection per MS

33. 27/12/2018
Thank you!
© Wageningen UR