feasibility assessment of an on-going data collection scheme for aquaculture

129 Pages·2009·1.55 MB·English

DEFINITION OF DATA COLLECTION

NEEDS FOR AQUACULTURE

Reference No. FISH/2006/15 - Lot 6

FINAL REPORT

April 2009

Part 2.

FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT OF
AN ON-GOING DATA COLLECTION SCHEME
FOR AQUACULTURE
1
This study has been prepared by

FRAMIAN BV (coordinator)
Achterburg 9
2641 LA Pijnacker
The Netherlands

Contact person:
Pavel Salz
Tel : [phone]
Fax : [phone]
E-mail : [email protected]

in co-operation with

Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information (VÚZEI), Czech Republic

Institute of Food and Resource Economics (FOI), Denmark
Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (FGFRI), Finland
French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea (IFREMER), France
COFAD Consultants, Germany
Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (HCMR), Greece
Agricultural Economics Research Institute (AKI), Hungary
Irish Sea Fisheries Board (BIM), Ireland
Economic Res. Institute for Fisheries and Aquaculture (IREPA), Italy
Lithuanian Institute of Agricultural Economics (LIAE), Lithuania
Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), Netherlands
Inland Fisheries Institute (INFISH), Poland
Eurico de Brito Consult (EBC), Portugal
University of Vigo, Spain
Swedish Fishery Board (Fiskeriverket), Sweden
Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd. (PARM), United Kingdom

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 6 
1.1.  GENERAL CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 6 
1.2.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................. 6 
1.3.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................ 7 
1.4.  SIZE OF THE SURVEY.......................................................................................................................... 7 
1.5.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ..................................................................................................................... 7 
1.6.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING .......................................................................................................... 8 
1.7.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS .......................................................................................................... 8 
1.8.  RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.  CZECH REPUBLIC ................................................................................................... 11 
2.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 11 
2.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 11 
2.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 12 
2.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 13 
2.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 14 
2.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 14

3.  DENMARK ................................................................................................................. 16 
3.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 16 
3.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 16 
3.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 17 
3.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 18 
3.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 18 
3.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 19

4.  FINLAND ................................................................................................................... 24 
4.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 24 
4.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 24 
4.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 24 
4.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 25 
4.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 26 
4.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 26

5.  FRANCE ...................................................................................................................... 30 
5.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 30 
5.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 30 
5.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 31 
5.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 32 
5.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 33 
5.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 33

6.  GERMANY .................................................................................................................. 40 
6.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 40 
6.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 41 
6.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 46 
6.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 47 
6.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 48 
6.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 48

3
7.  GREECE ..................................................................................................................... 53 
7.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 53 
7.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 53 
7.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 53 
7.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 55 
7.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 55 
7.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 56

8.  HUNGARY .................................................................................................................. 59 
8.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 59 
8.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 59 
8.3.  SIZE OF SURVEY .................................................................................................................................. 59 
8.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 60 
8.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 60 
8.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 60

9.  IRELAND .................................................................................................................... 63 
9.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 63 
9.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 63 
9.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 64 
9.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 64 
9.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 65 
9.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 65

10.  ITALY .......................................................................................................................... 69 
10.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 69 
10.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 69 
10.3.  SIZE OF THE PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY .................................................................... 70 
10.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 71 
10.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 72 
10.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 72

11.  LITHUANIA ............................................................................................................... 78 
11.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 78 
11.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 78 
11.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 78 
11.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 79 
11.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 79 
11.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 80

12.  NETHERLANDS ....................................................................................................... 83 
12.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 83 
12.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 83 
12.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 83 
12.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 84 
12.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 84 
12.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 85

13.  POLAND ..................................................................................................................... 89 
13.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 89 
13.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 89 
13.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 90 
13.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 91 
13.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 91 
13.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 92 
4
14.  PORTUGAL ................................................................................................................ 95 
14.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................... 95 
14.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 95 
14.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................... 95 
14.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................... 96 
14.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ........................................................................................................ 96 
14.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 96

15.  SPAIN ......................................................................................................................... 101 
15.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................ 101 
15.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................... 101 
15.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................ 101 
15.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................ 102 
15.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ..................................................................................................... 102 
15.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ..................................................................................................... 103

16.  SWEDEN ................................................................................................................... 108 
16.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................ 108 
16.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................... 108 
16.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................ 109 
16.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................ 110 
16.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ..................................................................................................... 111 
16.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ..................................................................................................... 111

17.  UNITED KINGDOM ................................................................................................ 118 
17.1.  SUITABLE ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................ 118 
17.2.  METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................... 118 
17.3.  SIZE OF PRESENT AND FUTURE SURVEY ............................................................................ 121 
17.4.  ESTIMATION OF COSTS ................................................................................................................ 122 
17.5.  AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING ..................................................................................................... 123 
17.6.  PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ..................................................................................................... 123 

5
1. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report presents the results of the feasibility assessment of the collections of costs and earnings data
for aquaculture in the participating countries.

1.1. GENERAL CONCLUSION

The survey has demonstrated that in principle it is feasible to collect detailed costs and earnings data
aquaculture in the EU. Definitions of Structural Business Statistics have proven to offer a suitable
framework for this purpose.

The survey has also demonstrated that usual problems arise when data is collected in a new area, with only
limited knowledge of the statistical characteristics of the population. For the design of the future on-going
data collection programme it will have to be determined what information is relevant (preferably
prioritising various indicators) and which level of precision and confidence should be achieved. The on-
going data collection programme will than have to be further developed to meet these requirements.

The EU aquaculture is a relatively small sector in terms of number of firms per Member State. Detailed
stratification by species and on-growing techniques may lead to strata with only low number of firms. In
order to generate data from homogenous groups it would have to be collected from a relatively large share
of the firms in each stratum not to compromise confidentiality. Such detailed approach is likely to
substantially increase the costs of the programme. The estimation of costs of data collection budgeted in
this study are based on experiences in other areas (e.g. DCR and FADN) and implicitly assume delivery of
a similar quality of data.

1.2. SUITABLE ORGANIZATION

Aquaculture is a relatively small activity, which means that collection of statistical information is more
complicated than when collecting data on large populations. Therefore it is essential that the data be
collected by organizations which are already experienced in data collection in other sectors. In this way
also the costs of overhead, ICT and personnel will be reduced. Therefore in most countries it is proposed
that organization already involved either in FADN or in DCR should be also selected for the collection of
data on aquaculture.

It may be also considered to involve the national statistical offices. The obligation of the national statistical
offices to collect specific data is determined by EU legislation. The ability and willingness of the NSOs to
collect data on such a small sector differs per country. In most MS the NSOs are focussing increasingly on
collection of data on relatively large sectors as defined by NACE, leaving compilation of data at a lower
level of disaggregation to other specialized institutes.

The suitability of an organization depends also on the subsequent use of the data. NSOs are most suited
to collect and publish data which is used by a broad group of users. On the other hand, specialised
statistics (like those on agriculture and fisheries and possible aquaculture) may be better compiled by
organizations which are also involved in the empirical analysis of these sectors as understanding the
quality of the data is often important for interpretations and analysis.

6
1.3. METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

There is a general agreement, supported by the experiences from the surveys, that reliable data can be
collected only with intensive contacts between the collectors and the firms. It is essential to build good
personal relations and use well trained staff. Surveys carried out by impersonal means (hard copy or digital
forms) are not likely to produce satisfactory results, and certainly not in the initial stage of the data
collection.

The following conditions must be met in order to collect reliable costs and earnings data:
• proper legislation must be in place;
• trained data collectors;
• software for data collection and verification at the firm level;
• central data processing;
• sufficient resources must be available.

One of the complicating factors is that many firms are small and are not obliged to maintain well
organized accounts, from which the various cost components can be quickly distinguished. Collection of
data from such firms will be very labour intensive.

1.4. SIZE OF THE SURVEY

Size of the future survey depends on the objectives to be achieved, i.e. what do we wish to know and at
which level of precision. This will determine the size of the population (field of observation) to be
surveyed and consequently how large the sample will have to be. In this way it will be possible to optimize
the data collection effort and minimize the costs.

Data from various countries show that the samples (and consequently also the populations) often consist
of small and large firms. Therefore it will be necessary to carry first a general survey of the whole
population on the basis of which a proper stratification and the definition of the field of observation will
be developed. Only after this first stage will it be possible to define a cost effective strategy for the data
collection.

1.5. ESTIMATION OF COSTS

The costs of data collection depend on the availability of accounts and the definition of the field of
observation (i.e. selection of a threshold). While application of a threshold is a common practice in
agricultural statistics under FADN, the data collection of fisheries (catching sector) does not allow use of a
threshold and requires sampling to achieve coverage of the full population. These two considerations have
evident implications (in most countries) on the level costs of the data collection programme on
aquaculture. Table 1.1 summarizes the national cost estimates. The total annual costs of the programme
can be at this stage estimated at 2.6 million Euro. Initial investment costs have been estimated at about 1
million Euro.

7
Table 1.1 Summary of expected operational and investment costs (1000 Euro)
Operational costs Investment
Without threshold With threshold costs
Country Accounts Accounts Estimated
Accounts Accounts
not not average
available available
available available
Czech Republic 174 174 55
Denmark 249 236 243 157
Finland 175 113 144 19
France 364 412 339 379 374
Germany 707 707 158
Greece 105 135 85 110 109 25
Hungary 131 150 106 123 128 15
Ireland 220 220 145 145 183 76
Italy 137 189 122 168 154 37
Lithuania 20 23 22 44
Netherlands 75 75 15
Poland 15 21 18 1
Portugal 6 6 6 6 6 250
Spain 97 182 66 153 125 47
Sweden 81 81 120
United Kingdom 67 25 67 53 18
Total costs 2,593 1,037
Source: national chapters

The differences of operational and investment costs between the various MS reflect the very different
conditions in terms of:
• Nature and size of the aquaculture sector
• Existence of infrastructure for data collection
• Level of costs, in particular labour
• Assessment of the complexity of the data collection scheme in general.

1.6. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING

There is a general consensus that the institutions suitable for the collection of the data on aquaculture do
not have own resources to execute it. Additional funding will be required to cover all costs connected to
this new activity.

1.7. PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

1.7.1. Extrapolation from sample to population

Extrapolation from sample to population has been carried out by different partners. The descriptions are
presented in the national chapters.

1.7.2. Evaluation of individual indicators

This section presents average values of the sample together with two statistical indicators:
• Relative standard deviation (also called coefficient of variation)
• Relative standard error.

Standard deviation is an indicator of the variability of the values of the firms in the sample. Relative
standard deviation expresses the standard deviation as a percentage of the sample mean. High relative
8
standard deviation means that the sample (and consequently also the population) is heterogeneous (e.g.
consists of small and large companies). In that case the sample average may not reflect any of the firms
well. This is particularly the case when the population is not normally distributed.

Relative standard error is a measures of the variability of the sample means, when various samples would
be drawn from the given population. The value of (relative) standard error may be reduced by increasing
the size of the sample. The relative standard error indicates how likely it is that a different sample mean
would be obtained if a different sample would have been drawn.

If the population would be normally distributed and the sample representative (random selected) than
68% of the population would be within +/- one standard deviation. Similarly, in 68% of the drawn
samples the sample mean would be within +/- one standard error.

It must be stressed that in most countries it is not known whether the population is normally distributed
or not. In fact there are indications that this is not the case. Furthermore, the surveys depended on the
willingness of the individual firms to cooperate and were too small to allow for incorporation of routines
to deal with non-response. Therefore it is not certain to which extent the requirement of ad random
selection has been met.

The presented indicators are based on Eurostat definitions for Structural Business Statistics. Although the
national surveys have been carried out in different ways (which is not unusual for data collection in the
EU), use of common definitions assures that the data are comparable across MS.

In conclusion, the presented data are valuable, as this is for the first time that this kind of information has
been collected. At the same time, care must be taken not to interpret the data in a deterministic way.

1.7.3. Cross-check with other sources

Production volumes from aquaculture are presently collected or estimated by national statistical offices,
ministries of agriculture and some external firms. The same national data is than transmitted to Eurostat
and FAO. Furthermore FAO1 estimates the values of production using average prices per species,
although it was not possible to obtain the precise methodology for this calculation.

Data from the samples have been extrapolated to the whole national populations. The results for volumes
and values have been compared to the already existing information at Eurostat and FAO. Level and
background of (in)consistencies are presented in the national chapters.

1.7.4. General problems

The most important problem encountered was the poor willingness to cooperate on the part of the
farmers. They see no direct benefit for themselves and on the contrary face additional costs, having to
devote their own time to facilitate the survey. In view of the general policy to reduce administrative costs
for businesses it is essential to determine how the aquaculture industry will directly or indirectly profit
from the availability of the data in order to increase the level of cooperation.

1 It must be pointed out that the methodologies used for the collection, provision and validation of data for FAO are
not known. Harmonization of concepts and definition and the resulting ‘handbook’ is expected to be completed in
2010.
9
1.8. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Maximum efficiency and effectiveness of an on-going data collection scheme can be only achieved if
the future intended data use is well defined, which will also allow a precise formulation of the
objectives of the scheme as well as prioritization of the indicators to be collected or estimated.

2. The pilot survey has demonstrated that a significant level of heterogeneity still exists within the
defined segments of aquaculture firms (based on species and on-growing technology). This
heterogeneity is caused by differences in size of the firms, but also by the level of vertical integration,
e.g. own production or acquisition of juveniles. Therefore it is recommended to define the ‘field of
observation’, including suitable thresholds (an approach also applied in FADN), and focus the on-
going data collection on it. The field of observation should be first of all defined selecting firms for
which aquaculture is the principle activity (see part 3, annex 4 for Eurostat definitions). Additional
criteria could be also applied, e.g. with focus on species or size. Data on segments which fall outside
the field of observation can be collected in ad hoc surveys to be carried out according to specific
needs once in several years. Average segment data should be based on at least five firms, none of
which should represent more than a specified percentage of the total production value.

3. In addition to the definition of the field of observation it is recommended to prioritize the indicators
to be collected. Data on high priority indicators (turnover, personnel costs, total operational costs,
employment) should be annually collected. Data on lower priority indicators (details on composition
to operational costs and capital costs) could be collected only once in several years in ad hoc surveys,
whilst estimation procedures should be developed to generate this data information whenever needed.

4. Co-operation of the aquaculture industry is indispensible for several reasons: a/ to obtain access to
the data, b/ to justify the additional administrative costs which the data collection will imply for the
surveyed firms and c/ to promote the legitimacy of analysis based on that data, so that the results are
not disputed or discredited as being based on biased information. Therefore the objective of the data
collection scheme as well as certain details of the implementation (prioritization of indicators) should
be developed in dialogue with the industry, e.g. within ACFA.

5. As the number of firms in new areas of aquaculture in individual countries is very low, it is
recommended to pool the data of the anonymised individual companies from several Member States
to calculate averages at EU level. This approach is likely to produce a lower relative standard error and
data confidentiality will be easier to guarantee. Submission of individual farm data is also practiced
under FADN.

6. Collection of the aquaculture data should be executed by organizations already involved in
compilation of statistical data scientific analysis in comparable areas, such as agriculture or fishing.
This approach will have several important advantages: a/ proximity of data collection and analysis
allows a better interpretation of the quantitative results due to precise knowledge of strengths and
weaknesses of the data, b/ the link between analysis and data collection will be beneficial for
prioritization and implementation of ad hoc studies on specific new aquaculture activities and/or
detailed indicators as proposed above, including various estimation procedures.

10