REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL on the operation of the EUROFARM-project (according to Article 13 of Regulation 571/88/EEC)
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 23. 07. 1996 COM(96) 370 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL on the operation of the EUROFARM-project (according to Article 13 of Regulation 571/88/EEC) 1, Preliminary remarks: Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/881) of 29 February 1988 provides for four Community surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings to be carried out between 1988 and 1997. In accordance with Annex II of this Regulation, the results of these surveys are stored, processed and disseminated via the Eurofarm system to be set up by the Commission. Article 13 of the Regulation states that every three years, and in the first instance not later than 31 December 1992, the Commission shall submit to the Council a report on the operation of the Eurofarm project. It shall also propose any necessary changes to Regulation 571/88. 2. Importance of the Community surveys The structure of agricultural holdings largely determines potential income in agriculture. Statistical information on changes in the structure of agricultural holdings is therefore an essential factor in directing Community policies, particularly the Common Agricultural Policy and regional policy. Decisions taken by the Community should increasingly be quantified in order to assess their scope and their affect on European agriculture and hence on the Community budget. The structure surveys enable the effects and results of decisions on agricultural and regional policy to be checked and monitored over time. Consequently, reliable and objective statistical information collected through these surveys is indispensable for forecasting and administering the Community agricultural budget. It enables measures taken under the various Community policies to be rationalized and made more effective and realistic. 3. Importance of the EUROFARM project In order to reduce the workload of the national statistical offices and make the survey results available to the users more quickly, the Commission has devised the EUROFARM project which makes for rationalization of data analysis. The survey results, in the form of tables, will be available more readily, more rapidly, at less cost and in a more standardized form than hitherto. In addition, the EUROFARM project makes it possible to produce, on demand, special tables, not covered by the standard programme of tables, from the information received from the Member States. The EUROFARM project is a long-term investment which is available not only to the Community Institutions, but also to the statistical offices and government departments of the Member States. V OJ L 56 of 2. 3. 1988, p. 1. 4. Importance of the EUROFARM renort. The first report of the EUROFARM report was submitted to the Council in 19922>. This is the second report. The object is to provide an overall picture of technical developments in the Eurofarm system and of the two surveys processed under the Eurofarm system - the 1989/90 basic survey and the 1993 interim survey. The report also contains details of the extent to which the conclusions contained in the first report have been taken on board, and gives pointers for future surveys, particularly those after 1997. 2> Doc. SEC (92) 2084 final SUMMARY 1. In accordance with Annex II of Council Regulation 571/88/EEC, the results of the farm structure surveys are stored, processed and disseminated via the Eurofarm system to be set up by the Commission. Article 13 of the Regulation states that every three years, and in the first instance not later than 31 December 1992, the Commission shall submit to the Council a report on the operation of the Eurofarm project. It shall also propose any necessary changes to Regulation 571/88. The first report was submitted to the Council in 19921) ). This is the second report. 2. The Eurofarm system consists of the database system, comprising the database for anonymous individual data and the database for tabular data that can be accessed by statistical users, and the processing software. The contents of the database system are defined in the Annex to Regulation 571/88 and described in the first Eurofarm report. 3. Development of the main functions of the processing software was largely complete when the first Eurofarm report was submitted, and the relevant details can be found in the said report. There were thus no real difficulties in storing individual data from the 1989/90 and 1993 surveys, checking them for completeness and plausibility and converting them into tabular results that allow statistical confidentiality to be maintained. 4. Increasing importance is being attached to the guarantee of statistical confidentiality on the part of the competent services in the Member States. For the subsequent development of processing functions, every effort was thus made to take account of the concerns expressed by the Member States' representatives about physically protecting individual data from unauthorized access and preventing the identification of individual agricultural holdings included in tabular data released for use. 5. As the Eurofarm system is specifically tailored to the processing of results from the surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings, any changes to these surveys necessarily mean modifying the Eurofarm system. Since 1992, allowance has had to be made for the following: - changes to the list of survey characteristics ; - changes/simplifications to the standard tabulation program; - checking of table consistency (intra- and inter-table coherence tests) with a view to simplifying the approval procedure; - calculation of the coefficient of variation (relative standard error) for a stratified sample (rather than for a random sample, as before); - modification of the rounding procedure ; - bringing the typology into line with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; - impact of the procedure used to calculate the relative standard error (for a stratified sample) on the FILTER program used to maintain statistical confidentiality. The surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings not only incur very high survey costs but are also very labour-intensive. This effort is justified, however, because the results of the surveys provide an indispensable decision-making basis for the orientation of both Community and national agricultural policy. It is therefore very important that the survey results be made available for users as quickly as possible. Survey results which only become available after a long delay may already have lost much of their informative value. J)> Doc. SEC (92) 2084 final Ah> The survey results of the 1989/90 farm structure surveys were available in tabular form for all Member States (and EUR-12) 31 months after the latest deadline for transmission of individual data. By simplifying both the organisational and the technical procedure of consulting Member States an improvement could be achieved so that the results for the 1993 surveys could be released for the users after 11 months. The survey results could be available even earlier if the competent bodies of the Member States succeeded in meeting the deadlines for the supply of individual data, delivering "clean" individual data at the first attempt, delivering the checked control tables at the same time which would markedly reduce the time needed for the release procedure. 7. The Commission has taken up the conclusions of the "Agricultural Statistics" Council Working Party (after the first EUROFARM report had been submitted in November 1992) and taken some follow-up measures. These are the results : 7. 1 In collaboration with the competent working party of the Agricultural Statistics Committee the Commission has prepared a draft Council Regulation. This draft Council Regulation envisages that the validity of Regulation 571/88 be extended by a ten-year period and that a new basic survey (1999/2000) and three interim surveys (2003, 2005, 2007) be carried out in that period. 7. 2 The Commission intends to take up the discussion on questions of how to establish a common information system at subregional level again in connection with the next basic survey of 1999/2000. For example, in the list of characteristics to be surveyed in the next basic survey it is planned to record for each holding surveyed the objective zone in which it is located. 7. 3 The result of the discussions, suggested by the Council working group, between the German bodies and Eurostat is that Germany is prepared to supply individual data in future (from the 1997 survey onwards) if the legal conditions are created. 7. 4 The financial requirements for the EUROFARM work shall be appropriately taken into account when making the planned amendment to Regulation 571/88 with regard to the farm structure surveys after 1997. 7. 5 The proposal to set up a data subset with data which are semi-aggregated at national level in Eurostat to which the competent services of the Member States should have direct on-line access has not been pursued any further so far. The Commission still has major misgivings about this proposal, as such a project would hardly be reconcilable with the exacting demands made on the EUROFARM system as regards the protection of individual data. 8. Experience with the Community agricultural structure surveys has shown that the survey programme and the methodology used for the surveys should be left unchanged wherever possible and, with a view to the surveys carried out after 1997, should only be amended if new developments in agriculture, agricultural technology or changes to the thrust of the common agricultural policy make this necessary. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Preliminary remarks: 2. Further development of components of the Eurofarm system 2. 1 Components of the EUROFARM system 2. 2 Safeguard of statistical confidentiality of the individual data 2. 3 Changes made to the software in the light of the 1993 and 1995 surveys 2. 3. 1 2. 3. 2 Changes to the list of characteristics Checking table consistency and simplifying the standard tabulation program and the approval procedure Calculation of the coefficient of variation (relative standard error) Modification of the rounding procedure Bringing the typology into line with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy Impact of the procedure for calculating the relative standard error on the FILTER programme and on the standard table generating programme 2. 3. 3 2. 3. 4 2. 3. 5 2. 3. 6 3. Supply, processing and dissemination of the results of the 1989/90 and 1993 surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings 3. 1 Supply of survey results 3. 2 Checking of individual data for plausibility and completeness 3. 3 Preparation of BDT standard tables and procedure for their release 3. 4 Dissemination of tabular survey results 3. 5 Conclusions 4. Measures in view of the conclusions from the first report of the Commission to the Council (November 1992) 4. 1 Next basic survey 4. 2 Setting-up of a common information system at subregional level 4. 3 EUROFARM and the special situation of the F. R. of Germany 4. 4 Financing and development of the EUROFARM project 4. 5 Direct access for competent services of Member States to data which are semi- aggregated at national level 4. 6 Other questions 5. Amendments needed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 5. 1 Preliminary note 5. 2 Period of validity of the legal basis 5. 3 Reference year for the next basic survey 5. 4 Periodicity of the surveys 5. 5 List of survey characteristics 5. 6 Revision of the Community classification of agricultural holdings (typology) 5. 7 Regional breakdown of survey results 5. 8 Community contribution to survey costs 1. Preliminary remarks: Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 *> of 29 February 1988 provides for four Community surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings to be carried out between 1988 and 1997. In accordance with Annex II of this Regulation, the results of these surveys are stored, processed and disseminated via the Eurofarm system to be set up by the Commission. Article 13 of the Regulation states that every three years, and in the first instance not later than 31 December 1992, the Commission shall submit to the Council a report on the operation of the Eurofarm project. It shall also propose any necessary changes to Regulation 571/88. The first report was submitted to the Council in 19922>. This is the second report. The object is to provide an overall picture of technical developments in the Eurofarm system and of the two surveys processed under the Eurofarm system - the 1989/90 basic survey and the 1993 interim survey. The report also contains details of the extent to which the conclusions contained in the first report have been taken on board, and gives pointers for future surveys, particularly those after 1997. 2. Further development of components of the Eurofarm system 2. 1 Components of the EUROFARM system The Eurofarm system consists of: the database system, comprising the database for anonymous individual data, the database for tabular data that can be accessed by statistical users, and the processing software. The contents of the database system are defined in the Annex to Regulation 571/88 and described in the first Eurofarm report. Development of the main functions of the processing software was largely complete when the first Eurofarm report was submitted, and the relevant details can be found in the said report. There were thus no real difficulties in storing individual data from the 1989/90 and 1993 surveys, checking them for completeness and plausibility and converting them into tabular results that allow statistical confidentiality to be maintained. *) OJ L 56 of 2. 3. 1988, p. 1 2> Doc. SEC (92) 2084 final 2. 2 Safeguard of statistical confidentiality of the individual data It became clear during the course of work that increasing importance was being attached to the maintenance of statistical confidentiality on the part of the competent services in the Member States. For the subsequent development of processing functions, every effort was thus made to take account of the concerns expressed by the Member States' representatives about physically protecting individual data from unauthorized access and preventing the identification of individual agricultural holdings included in tabular data released for use. Physical $m protection The object of physical data protection is to ensure that individual data are protected from any type of direct dissemination or misuse, i. e. to guard against unwanted access of any kind. The organization of work within Eurostat and the functionalities of the data processing system guarantee such protection, access being granted to a very small number of expressly authorized personnel only. Maintenance of statistical confidentiality Measures to maintain statistical confidentiality are designed to prevent the indirect dissemination of individual data contained in tabular results. Processing programs have been developed for rounding off results and deleting them if tabular field occupancy is too low and for detecting and deleting tabular fields in which a few large holdings predominate. In addition, the DERIV programme can prevent the derivation of deleted values by difference. These programs are specifically geared to Eurofarm requirements. The programs used as part of the measures to maintain statistical confidentiality during Eurofarm processing are tailoured to the requirements of the farm structure surveys and to the EUROFARM system, and they are adequate in view of the objectives. However, this model might prove inadequate if transferred to other sectors. 2. 3 Changes made to the software in the light of the 1993 and 1995 surveys As the Eurofarm system is. specifically tailored to the processing of results from the surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings, any changes to these surveys necessarily mean modifying the Eurofarm system. Since 1992, allowance has had to be made for the following: changes to the list of survey characteristics; changes/simplifications to the standard tabulation program; checking of table consistency (intra- and inter-table coherence tests) with a view to simplifying the approval procedure; calculation of the coefficient of variation (relative standard error) for a stratified sample (rather than for a random sample, as before); modification of the rounding procedure; bringing the typology into line with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; impact of the procedure used to calculate the relative standard error (for a stratified sample) on the FILTER program used to maintain statistical confidentiality. 2. 3. 1 Changes to the list of characteristics The competent bodies in the Member States, DG VI (Agriculture) and Eurostat all agree in principle that, in order to secure long-term data series and limit survey and data processing costs, the structure and contents of the list of survey characteristics should - as far as possible - remain unchanged from survey to survey. However, the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and changing farming practices in Europe mean that certain adjustments must be made to the list of characteristics to meet new statistical requirements. Account had likewise to be taken of these changes in the Eurofarm system. 2. 3. 2 Checking table consistency and simplifying the standard tabulation program and the approval procedure As they have reserved the right to be consulted prior to the scheduled release of a table, the competent services will have a considerable amount of work to do if they wish to check every table submitted in this way. Several Member States thus suggested simplifying the standard tabulation program. The Commission has met these wishes as far as is currently possible. There are, however, limits. Account must be taken of the following: Statistical users are extremely interested in time series. Continuity in respect of standard tables from previous surveys must therefore be guaranteed. Any changes to the standard tabulation program would mean making extensive and costly changes to the Eurofarm processing program. Given the lack of staff and financial resources within the Eurofarm team, this is currently not possible. The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy calls for even more detailed structural data. However, the prime requirement is for more detailed and complex statistical data that are available on time and at regular intervals (e. g. on land set aside and agricultural labour force), so that policy decisions in the agricultural field can be based on correct information about the preconditions, the financial consequences and the expected impact on the structure of agricultural holdings and thus on potential income in agriculture. This type of information is increasingly important, particularly at regional level. The fewer standard tables are made available to statistical users, the more frequently ad hoc tables can be expected to be requested, meaning that the workload on the relevant services in the Member States (as part of the "approval procedure") and on the Eurofarm team as a whole would probably change very little. In order to reduce the amount of work done by the Member States in connection with the approval procedure, the Eurofarm team has developed programs to check the coherence of data both within and between tables. These tests were subsequently extended to the control tables that the Member States must forward to Eurostat together with individual data. Member States need therefore only carefully check the control tables (containing all the important basic data) when forwarding individual data. Eurostat subsequently checks coherence between the standard tables and the control tables. It was agreed with the Member States that standard-table results which were not incoherent with the control tables should be considered authorized. This procedure did much to simplify the release procedure. It allows a large number of tables to be checked using computer programs. 2. 3. 3 Calculation of the coefficient of variation (relative standard error) For sample surveys, the Eurofarm system calculates field occupancy and the relative standard error for each field of tabular results in order to assess the statistical reliability of the results. As it transpired that using the relative standard error for a random sample can lead to erroneous conclusions, and as Member States select stratified samples (except in Greece), Eurofarm now calculates the relative standard error for a stratified sample. The Member States supply the requisite data on the stratified samples. 2. 3. 4 Modification of the rounding procedure A table field contains normally a counter (number of cases), e. g. number of holdings, or the value of a characteristic, e. g. total agricultural area of these holdings. The view initially taken by the working party responsible for farm structure surveys was that, during rounding, totals (and the corresponding average values, e. g. average agricultural area per holding) should be changed as little as possible, meaning that, in certain cases, greater changes would have to be made to individual values in order to maintain the total. However, experience has shown that it makes more sense to change the counters and the values of characteristics (both as concerns individual values and totals) independantly and as little as possible and accept that the average based on rounded data (value of a characteristic and a counter) may differ more or less from the average before rounding. 2. 3. 5 Bringing the typology into line with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy Adjustment of the typology to bring it into line with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy was necessary in view of the following: changes to the list of characteristics: as from 1995, the structural survey uses new categories to record land set aside; changes to the classification system: the general type of farming "1. Specialist field crops" is now subdivided into "13. Specialist cereals, oil-seeds and protein crops" and "14. General field cropping". 2. 3. 6 Impact of the procedure for calculating the relative standard error on the FILTER programme and on the standard table generating programme Changeover from the relative standard error for a random sample to the relative standard error for a stratified sample affected the FILTER program used to guarantee the confidentiality within tabular results and estimate the reliability of tabular results from sample surveys. The FILTER program had to be adjusted accordingly. Considerable modifications were also necessary in the standard table generating programme. 3. Supply, processing and dissemination of the results of the 1989/90 and 1993 surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings 3. 1 Supply of survey results Pursuant to Annex II, paragraph 5, of Council Regulation No. 571/88, individual data are forwarded to Eurostat within time limits which are discussed in the competent working party and established by Commission Decision after an opinion has been issued by the Standing Committee for Agricultural Statistics. A uniform code specified by the Statistical Office of the European Communities in agreement with the Member States is used. The time limits for supplying survey results were specified for the 1989/90 basic survey by Commission Decision 89/652/EEC1} and for the 1993 survey by Commission Decision 93/502/EEC2). All Member States carried out the 1989/90 basic surveys and the 1993 survey within the envisaged survey period, but only a few Member States forwarded the survey results to Eurostat in good time. The longest delays occurred for the 1989/90 basic survey, amounting to as much as 12 months in individual cases. 3. 2 Checking of individual data for plausibility and completeness When individual data are received, they are checked by the EUROFARM team for plausibility and completeness. Considerable additional delays occurred because the individual data supplied by most Member States were beset with errors to a greater or lesser degree. Manifestly systematic errors were corrected directly in the EUROFARM system in agreement with the national statistical services if the cause of the error was known. In all other cases, Eurostat had to request a new data tape. In this way, further delays of up to 30 months were experienced in some cases before "clean" data were available in Eurostat. Eurostat had made a (COBOL) checking program available to all Member States, enabling them to check individual data before furnishing them to Eurostat. The latter was informed that not all Member States were able to instal these programs in their data-processing systems. In addition, for the 1989/90 basic survey only three Member States supplied the checking tables specified in paragraph 9 of Annex II to Regulation No 571/88. For the 1993 structural survey, an additional three Member States did so. It is striking that individual data furnished by those Member States which also supplied checking tables did not contain any errors worthy of note. The difficulties and appreciable extra work which the EUROFARM team had to cope with as a result of late or erroneous individual data being supplied were discussed in detail by the competent working party. The representatives of the competent services of the Member States were asked to take the utmost care when transferring individual data to the EUROFARM file layout, to check these data using the EUROFARM checking program before forwarding them to EUROFARM, and also to use the control tables as a checking aid. The representatives of the Member States were also asked to attach priority to data tapes intended for Eurostat, i. e. not to delay their compilation until after individual data had been evaluated for national purposes. 3. 3 Preparation of BDT standard tables and procedure for their release l) 2) OJ No L 391, 30. 12. 1989, p. 42 OJ No L 236, 21. 09. 1993, p. 13 If, following correction and/or clarification of facts and circumstances, the individual data can be regarded as "clean", the EUROFARM team prepares the BDT standard tables as provided for in the corresponding Commission Decisions. As already mentioned, the competent services of the Member States have reserved the right to be consulted prior to release of these tables. Checking the standard tables has proved to be extremely time-consuming although the competent bodies were provided with extensive material as an aid to checking, e. g. overviews of individual tabular field occupancy, relative standard errors for each tabular field, results of consistency tests etc. Owing to this time-consuming release procedure, much valuable time was lost, in individual cases as much as up to 15 months. As a result of all these delays, released EUR 12 tabular results for the 1989/90 basic survey were not available until November 1995, i. e. 31 months after the final supply deadline (31 March 1993) for individual data. By agreement with the Member States, therefore, this release procedure was radically simplified, starting with the 1993 survey (see point 2. 3. 2 of this document). Appreciable delays also occurred in the supply of the 1993 structure survey results. It can be stated, however, that these delays were less serious than in the case of the 1989/90 basic survey. Consequently, released EUR12 results were available at the end of January 1996, i. e. 11 months after the final supply deadline (28 February 1995) for the individual data. 3. 4 Dissemination of tabular survey results On-line interrogation for privileged users As soon as the competent services of the Member States have released the standard tables drawn up by the EUROFARM team, the tabular data are input into the "publicly" accessible part of the EUROFARM system (BDT tabular database) and are then available to all data suppliers (statistical offices and agricultural ministries of the Member States) and Directorate-General VI (Agriculture) on-line with the aid of the communications network. On-line users are also able to extract parts of tables in order to compile data which directly match the analyses they intend to perform. Publications The preliminary results of the 1989/90 basic survey (depending on the Member State, implementation of the basic survey extended from 1988 to 1991) were published in mid-1993 in the form of a rapid-information report; this was followed in October 1995 by an extensive Eurostat publication setting out the key results of the basic surveys. In mid-1995, the preliminary results of the 1993 structure survey were published, likewise as a rapid-information report. Other mefoa The results of the 1989/90 basic survey will also be available on CD-ROM. CD-ROM with the results of the surveys from 1975 to 1987 (formerly stored in the FSSRS database) is already available. Extracts from the EUROFARM-BDT database can also be supplied as hardcopy (listings), on tape or on diskette. 10 3. 5 Conclusions The surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings not only incur very high survey costs but are also very labour-intensive. This effort is justified, however, because the results of the surveys provide an indispensable decision-making basis for the orientation of both Community and national agricultural policy. It is therefore very important that the survey results be made available for users as quickly as possible. Survey results which only become available after a long delay may already have lost much of their informative value. Experience gained over several years has shown that it takes relatively little time to process individual data in the EUROFARM system. In Italy's case, for example, the time requirement is as follows (1989/90 basic survey: around 2. 6 million holdings surveyed, equals 2. 6 million records): check for completeness and plausibility: about one day (computing time); analysis of error messages and report to ISTAT: depends on the number of error messages; compilation of BDT tables and performance of consistency test: just under one month; storage of BDT tables in "private" section of EUROFARM system: takes place automatically with compilation of BDT tables; transfer of BDT tables (after release) from the "private" to the "public" section of the EUROFARM system: about 0. 5 days; in all (not including analysis of error messages): around 1 month. For a sample survey, the times required are slightly shorter than those given above. The EUR 12 BDT tables were available: for the 1989 basic survey: 31 months after the final supply deadline for individual data; for the 1993 survey: 11 months after the final supply deadline for individual data. This outline illustrates that the survey results could be available much earlier if the competent bodies of the Member States succeeded in: meeting the deadlines for the supply of individual data; delivering "clean" individual data at the first attempt; delivering the checked control tables at the same time and markedly reducing the time needed for the release procedure. 11 4, Measures in view of the conclusions from the first report of the Commission to the Coundn (November 1992) 4. 1 Next basic survey Pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88, the 1989/90 basic survey was carried out in the period 1988 to 1991. This very long period proved to be very disadvantageous. As was to be feared, it took a long time for the results of the 1989/90 survey to become available for all Member States (mid-1994). What is more, as the results aggregated at Community level reflect situations in the individual countries recorded at widely varying times, the comparability of the data is restricted. In its first EUROFARM report, therefore, the Commission proposed that the reference period for the next basic survey (around the year 2000) be limited to one year. At its meeting on 20 November 1992, the Council's "Agricultural Statistics" working party consequently called upon the Commission to "take the necessary steps to ensure that a formal proposal to this effect was put to the Council"1). Tne responsible services of the Commission thereupon submitted (in 1995) a draft Council Regulation in form of a working document to the competent working party of the Agricultural Statistics Committee for discussion. This draft Council Regulation envisages that the validity of Regulation 571/88 be extended by a ten-year period and that a new basic survey (1999/2000) and three interim surveys (2003, 2005, 2007) be carried out in that period. The said draft Council Regulation is to be submitted to the Council by mid-1996 at the latest. 4. 2 Setting-up of a common information system at subregional level In its first EUROFARM report, the Commission stated that the geographical breakdown of survey results envisaged in Regulation 571/88 was not sufficient to obtain aggregated statistical information on areas or subrogions coming into consideration for certain Community funding projects, e. g. objective zones Nos 1 or 5b. In view of the statistical requirements of Community regional policy, the Commission set up an information system at subregional level (in Eurostat) and therefore proposed that the results of the 1989/90 basic survey be used for that information system. The Commission proposed that, to this end, the competent services of the Member States should provide Eurostat with either the corresponding municipality code for each holding or corresponding tabular survey results in the desired subregional breakdown, based in each case on the individual data of all the holdings covered in the 1989/90 basic survey. At the meeting of the Council's working party on 20 November 1992, several Member States expressed certain reservations about this proposal by the Commission; they referred in particular to possible difficulties in respect of maintaining the statistical confidentiality of the survey data collected. The Commission was also confronted with other difficulties concerning its proposal, e. g. difficulties of an administrative and financial kind. It therefore intends to address these questions again m connection with the next basic survey in 1999/2000. For example, in the list of characteristics to be surveyed in the next basic survey it is planned to record for each holding surveyed the objective zone in which it is located. 1 ) Meeting report of Council working party No 10272/92; AGRISTR 36 12 4. 3 EUROFARM and the special situation of the F. R. of Germany In accordance with paragraphs 6 and 8. 1 of Annex II to Regulation 571/88, Germany does not forward individual data but tabular data for the BDT tabular database. With the Community having adopted common arrangements for the protection of confidential statistical information (Regulation 1588/90^, and in view of the measures which have been taken in Eurostat2) and in the context of the EUROFARM system for maintaining statistical confidentiality of collected data, the Commission is of the opinion that the derogation granted to the F. R. of Germany (paragraph 6 of Annex II to Regulation 571/88) is no longer necessary. This view was shared by several delegations at the meeting of the Council's "Agricultural Statistics" working party. The result of the proposed discussions between the German bodies and Eurostat is that Germany is prepared to supply individual data in future (from the 1997 survey onwards) if the statutory conditions are created, i. e. if Council Regulation 571/88 is correspondingly amended in good time (by the late summer of 1996 at the latest). 4. 4 Financing and development of the EUROFARM project In its first EUROFARM report, the Commission stated that the funding estimated in Regulation 571/88 for the development and operation of the EUROFARM system in the period 1989 to 1998 had not been sufficient Additional funds of around 400 000 ECU annually were required. As the EUROFARM system has to be adapted to every change to the structure surveys and to the typology, it is to be expected that, in future too, appreciable funding will be required every year in order to assure the processing of individual data and the dissemination of the tabular survey results. The financial requirements for the EUROFARM work should therefore be appropriately taken into account when making the planned amendment to Regulation 571/88 with regard to the farm structure surveys after 1997. 4. 5 Direct access for competent services of Member States to data which are semi- aggregated at national level At the meeting of the Council's working party on 20 November 1992, it was proposed that a data subset with data which are semi-aggregated at national level be set up in Eurostat, to which the competent services of the Member States should have direct on-line access. While this proposal met with the support of several delegations, a number of delegations expressed distinct misgivings. The proposal has not been pursued any further so far. The Commission still has major misgivings about this proposal, as such a project would hardly be reconcilable with the exacting demands made on the EUROFARM system as regards the protection of individual data ^ Council Regulation (EEC) No 1588/90 of 11. 06. 1990, in OJ L151 of 15. 06. 1990. p. 1 2) See also Eurostat handbook: "Protection of confidential data in Eurostat", Luxembourg, March 1994 13 4. 6 Other questions A delegation had suggested that a justification procedure be introduced for every kind of intended survey in order to ensure that statistical information only be collected as and when required and at appropriate intervals in each case. It also felt the survey threshold should be redefined. In the context of the preparatory work for the draft of a new Council Regulation for surveys after 1997, the competent working party of the Agricultural Statistics Committee held an in-depth discussion of the significance and periodicity of the farm structure surveys and other aspects of these surveys. 5. Amendments needed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 5. 1 Preliminary note Experience with the Community agricultural structure surveys has shown that the survey programme and the methodology used for the surveys should be left unchanged wherever possible and, with a view to the surveys carried out after 1997, should only be amended if new developments in agriculture, agricultural technology or changes to the thrust of the common agricultural policy make this necessary. The Commission therefore intends to propose to the Council that the validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 be extended for a further 10 years. To this end, the Commission has drawn up a draft Council Regulation amending Council Regulation 571/88 and presented it to the relevant Working Party1) of the Agricultural Statistics Committee for discussion. A large majority of the Working Party supports this initiative. Agreement has already been reached on most questions. The Working Party attached particular importance to the following issues: 5. 2 Period of validity of the legal basis In the light of the discussions held thus far, a large majority of the Member States believes that the legal instrument for surveys carried out after 1997 should be valid for a ten-year period. The Commission will therefore propose that the Council take appropriate action. 5. 3 Reference year for the next basic survey Although it would be desirable to allow only one reference year for the next basic survey, several Member States have pointed out that other major surveys are planned for the turn of the century (e. g. a census of population), and that a degree of flexibility is therefore required. A clear majority of Member States is in favour of using the years 1999/2000 as period for carrying out the next basic survey. Ireland and Greece would like to carry out the next basic survey in 2001. 5. 4 Periodicity of the surveys A large majority of Member States is also in favour of maintaining the periodicity used hitherto, i. e. a basic survey in 1999/2000 and intermediate surveys in 2003, 2005 and 2007. The Commission will therefore propose this arrangement to the Council. *) The Working Party on Agricultural Structure Statistics. 14 5. 5 List of survey characteristics The established practice of laying down the list of survey characteristics for each survey in a Commission Decision, after consultation with the appropriate Working Party and after the Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics has given its opinion, has proved its value in that it allows flexible responses to changes in the thrust of the CAP and in agricultural practice. The Commission therefore intends to propose to the Council that these arrangements be maintained. It has the support of the relevant departments in the Member States. The agricultural structure surveys are the most comprehensive surveys in European agriculture. They are labour-intensive and expensive. The scope for surveying additional characteristics (e. g. in the environmental and ecological field) is therefore limited. Several Member States have repeatedly pointed out that the structure surveys should not be burdened with problematic questions, which could jeopardize the willingness of the information providers to take part in the survey and also the reliability of the information obtained. The Commission therefore takes the view that the list of survey characteristics should continue to be drawn up by the appropriate Working Party with the accustomed care and taking account of all relevant arguments. 5. 6 Revision of the Community classification of agricultural holdings (typology)1) The competent departments of several Member States and the Directorate-General for Agriculture have repeatedly called for a thorough revision of the Community typology. There is a perceived need for simplification, which would make the typology less susceptible to changes in the thrust of the CAP. The Commission intends to take up these suggestions as soon as possible and, assuming that the typology is amended, bring it more into line with the NACE2>. 5. 7 Regional breakdown of survey results In the wake of the CAP reform and for the purposes of regional policy, there is a growing need for structural statistics with a high level of regional breakdown. The Commission therefore intends to propose an additional breakdown by "objective zones" for the next basic survey. Moreover, the Commission proposes to define each agricultural holding surveyed in the 1999/2000 basic survey by a code allowing for tabular results to be obtained at sub-survey district level. 5. 8 Community contribution to survey costs In the light of the Working Party's deliberations, almost all Member States have stressed that it will not be possible to carry out the Community agricultural structure surveys on a biennial or triennial basis without a Community contribution towards the cost. They argue that a contribution of this type is essential for covering variable survey costs, such as the costs of temporary survey staff and EDP. The Member States also argue that a Community contribution would be justified on the grounds that the structure surveys primarily serve the Commission's own information needs. Examples given include the highly detailed information collected on agricultural labour force and the high level of regional breakdown of the survey data. !) Commission Decision No 85/377/EEC of 7 June 1985 establishing a Community typology for agricultural holdings 2) Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community. 15 ISSN 0254-1475 COM(96) 370 final DOCUMENTS EN 17 03 Catalogue number ; CB-CO-96-373-EN-C ISBN 92-78-07270-2 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg J(~