According to the statistical acquis communautaire in the field of the agricultural holdings structure, Romania conducted two general agricultural censuses in 2002 and 2010 and three farm structure surveys in the years 2005, 2007 and 2013.

The first general agricultural census 2002 (GAC 2002) was carried out over the period 2 December 2002 – 31 January 2003.

The GAC 2002 data were processed at national level, development region level, county level and locality level and they were transmitted to Eurostat to the required format for the Eurofarm database containing 4 484 893 agricultural holdings.

The farm structure surveys 2005 and 2007 (FSS 2005 and FSS 2007) were conducted in accordance with the EU requirements based on the Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/ 88 on the organisation of Community surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings with its subsequent amendments and the Commission Decision No 115/2000 regarding the surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings in 2005 and 2007 with its subsequent amendments.

The farm structure survey 2005 (FSS 2005) was a sample survey in keeping with the EU requirements and the national ones on the basis of a sample representative at national/development region/county level (NUTS 3) of approximately 8 % from the population registered in the Farm Register (FR) according the results of GAC 2002. Out the total of 4 484 893 agricultural holdings a sample of 361 169 holdings was drawn with a margin of error of less than 5 %.

FSS 2007 was a sample survey based on a sample representative at national/development region/county level (NUTS 3) of approximately 8 % from the FR-registered population, updated with the information of FSS 2005. Thus, out of the total 4 480 664 agricultural holdings a sample of 354 742 agricultural holdings was taken, with a margin of error of under 5 %. The survey sample consisted of 336 299 agricultural holdings without legal personality and 18 443 agricultural holdings with legal personality, the latter being exhaustively surveyed.

The data collection for the general agricultural census 2010 (GAC 2010) and the survey on agricultural production methods 2010 (SAPM 2010) took place during the period December 2010 – January 2011. The preparations started in 2008 by setting up the legal frame and they ended in 2012 with the data being transmitted over to Eurostat.

A single questionnaire was used for the data collection for GAC 2010 and SAPM 2010 including all the characteristics applicable to Romania mentioned in Regulation (EC) No 1166/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on farm structure surveys and the survey on agricultural production methods.

The farm structure survey 2013 (FSS 2013) was a sample survey, based on a sample representative at national/macro-region/development region/county level (NUTS3) of approximately 8,9 % from the FR-registered population, updated based on the information of GAC 2010. Thus, out of the total  3 859 043 holdings, a sample of 345 421 holdings was drawn, with a margin of error of less than 5 %. The survey sample consisted of 313 315 agricultural holdings without legal personality and 32 106 agricultural holdings with legal personality, the latter being exhaustively surveyed.

The national legal framework for FSS 2013 consisted of the following:

- Law No. 226/ 2009 on the organisation and functioning of the Romanian official statistics with its subsequent amendments and additions;

- Government Decision No. 957/2005 on the organisation and operation of the National Institute of Statistics with its subsequent amendments and add-ons;

- Government Decision No. 654/2013 on the approval of the National Annual Statistical Programme 2013;

- Government Decision No. 876/2014 on the approval of the National Annual Statistical Programme 2014;

- Law of the National Archives No. 16/1996, with its subsequent amendments and add-ons.

- Order of NIS President No. 1164/2012 on the setting up of the FSS 2013 team, changed and completed by the President’s Order No. 493/2013.

The first two judicial acts represent the general legal base for the conduct of statistical surveys in Romania, as well as the provisions relative to the National Institute of Statistics, the producer of the Romanian official statistics and the fundamental principles of official statistics.

The national annual statistical programmes for 2013 and 2014 respectively were approved through the Government Decisions No. 654/2013 and No. 876/2014 including the FSS 2013 sheets with the related activities for the two concerned years.

The FSS 2013 sheets contain information about:

- objective,

- survey type,

- coverage,

- number of observed units,

- main variables surveyed,

- data-providing units,

- collaborating institutions,

- responsibilities of the implied institutions,

- primary data collection manner,

- data collection support,

- moment/periods of reference,

- data registration/collection period,

- main indicators resulted,

- data processing profile,

- data dissemination ways,

- data dissemination deadlines.

The data collection for FSS 2013 was done by direct face-to-face interview with the holder or another adult member of the holding for the agricultural holdings without legal personality and by self-registration under the co-ordinator’s supervision for the agricultural holdings with legal personality.

Thus, in the case of the agricultural holdings without legal personality the data registration was ensured by the interviewers, who benefitted from the Interviewer’s Handbook and the methodological guide where every questionnaire chapter and indicator were explained in detail.

The data on the agricultural holdings without legal personality were collected with the help of some 3000 interviewers recruited from agricultural/economic/IT and other field experts with at least an average level of education. At county level, 42 co-ordinators were hired for a pre-established period (one co-ordinator for each county).

The interviewers identified themselves with a card signed by NIS President proving his/her official identity for the position assigned.

- In performing his/her duties connected to FSS 2013, the interviewers were given the protection guaranteed by the law to the people implied in the exertion of the state authority.

The interviewers were given a fee set by a NIS President’s order.

The interviewers assignments were the following:

- acceptance by signature of his recruitment as interviewer,

- participation in the training sessions organised by the county statistical offices,

- receiving against signature the interviewer’s folder (list of holdings to be interviewed, questionnaires, manuals, etc.) and checking the related contents,

- studying the instructions for filling-in the FSS 2013 questionnaires and observing their provisions,

- preserving the confidentiality of the data and information contained in the questionnaire (this obligation was included in the interviewer’s work contract),

- mandatory carriage of the card over the whole data collection period to prove the interviewer’s official quality,

- interviewing the declarants,

- informing the co-ordinators on the data collection stage on a permanent basis,

- handing over the folders with the FSS 2013 statistical tools (filled-in questionnaires, unfilled/ biased/ damaged ones, interviewer’s handbook, methodological guide and personal card).

FSS – Farm structure survey

DTS – County statistical offices

DSAM – Department of Agricultural and Environment Statistics

DGITIS – General Department for IT and Statistical Infrastructure

DAISAG – Department for Purchases, Investment and General Administration Services

The definition of the agricultural holding respects the definition established in Regulation (EC) No. 1166/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on farm structure surveys and the survey on agricultural production methods, namely:

The agricultural holding as a statistical observation unit represents a techno-economic agricultural unit carrying out its activity under a single current management and performing agricultural activities by using agricultural areas and/or animal husbandry or activities meant to maintain the agricultural land in good agricultural and environmental conditions either as a main activity or as a secondary one.

The concerned agricultural activities are the following:

- cultivation of non-permanent crops,

- cultivation of permanent crops,

- crop breeding,

- mushroom cultivation,

- animal breeding,

- crop cultivation combined with animal breeding,

- agricultural land maintained in good agricultural and environmental conditions.

The following categories of units are considered agricultural holdings only if they carry out agricultural activities as well:

- stables for racing/riding/galloping horses (i.e. the land used for riding horses training),

- fairs, slaughter houses (without animal breeding),

- hunting, forestry and logging,

- fish breeding.

In the records sent to Eurostat, there are 6 320 holdings with standard output equal to zero. Most of these holdings have UAA, but  their standard output is equal to zero as no standard output was calculated for the concerned areas, as follows:

- 6 306 holdings with fallow land and permanent grassland, no longer used in production and eligible for payment of subsidies, the land for all of them being maintained in good agricultural and environmental conditions;

- 8 records with male rabbits (and some holdings with scattered trees), characteristics which are eligible, but not valued with SO coefficients;

- 6 records with hamsters, guinea pigs and chinchilla, grown for reproduction and for marketing - characteristics which are eligible only in the national survey.

The holding was located where most of or all agricultural activities are performed.

The holding location was made by a strict observance of the elements hierarchically shown below according to:

- the most important parcel,

- location where most of the holding agricultural activities take place,

- address of the holder.

All the reference periods or moments of the survey were observed according to Regulation No.1166/2008.

As regards the national characteristics the reference period was the 2012-2013 crop year.

The reference periods were as follows:

1. Crop year 2013 (1 October 2012 - 30 September 2013) for:

• Land use
• Information on the irrigation
• Organic farming – crop sector
• Agricultural machines and equipment
• People having worked in agriculture
• Other gainful activities

• Rural development measures

3. The moment of reference was 31 December 2013 for:

• Livestock numbers
• Organic farming – animal sector

 The FSS principal activities are presented in the General FSS 2013 organisation and conduct programme:

The National Institute of Statistics was charged with the whole organisation and conduct of the concerned survey. The following internal departments were directly involved in the FSS 2013 organisation and conduct:

• At central level: Department of Agricultural and Environment Statistics, General Department for IT and Statistical Infrastructure, Department for the Budget and Accountancy, Department of Human Resources, Department for Purchases, Investment and General Administration Services, Department of European Affairs and International Cooperation;
• At county level: all 42 statistical county offices.

The main tasks of NIS were:

• The following activities were carried out within the Department of Agricultural and Environment Statistics: drafting of legal acts, questionnaire design and interviewer’s handbook, establishing the processing requirements at county and central level, data verification and validation, drafting the control tables, IT application use, data integrity analysis, non-response treatment, data expansion, final tables design making, publication preparation and making. The IT application for survey data processing was outsourced to a specialised IT firm.
• The recruitment and training of the interviewers, monitoring their activity throughout the survey and reception and analysis of questionnaire filling was the responsibility of the county offices.
• Coordinators were designated for the good conduct of the survey at county level, one for each county. They were trained by the county offices staff and in their turn they trained the local interviewers.
• The data collection was done by direct interview of the holder or any other adult member of the holding in case of the agricultural holdings without legal personality or on self-administered questionnaire by the holding head or any competent person for the agricultural holdings with legal personality. 3 000 interviewers were hired for FSS 2013 needs and each had to fill in 105 questionnaires on average. As a rule, the interviewers had an agricultural or economic training and most of them took part in the previous structural surveys.
• The completed questionnaires were received at county offices level, the data entry being ensured by additionally-hired staff. Also the county offices provided the first data validation. The county offices sent the data files to the centre where the other survey stages took place until obtaining the final results.
• The data processing was performed as follows:

- at county level: the data inputting (by additionally-hired staff), data validation, error solving, comparison with other sources, data integrity control, control tables, sending the files with correct data to the centre;

- at central level: data files reception from the county offices, data validation, error solving, control tables, non-response treatment, data expansion, estimations of the main characteristics at county level and sending them for validation to the county offices, final estimations of all the surveyed characteristics, making the final tables, the publications and the Eurofarm file in order to send it to Eurostat in the specific format.

The source of the frame is Farm Register (FR).

The sampling frame is a list frame of agricultural holdings.

The Farm Register is updated according to the GAC 2010 results and the information obtained through the annual surveys on crops and livestock.

The FSS 2013 sample was drawn according to the probabilistic one-stage stratified random sampling of holdings method.

The holdings were stratified according to the following variables:

- county (NUTS 3);

- UAA size class (8 classes): 0-0,1; 0,1-0,5; 0,5-1; 1-5; 5-10; 10-50; 50-100; >100;

- for animal statistics indicators: bovines 20 heads and over, sheep 300 heads and over, goats 40 heads and over, pigs – 100 heads and over, poultry – 300 heads and over, horses – 10 heads and over, rabbits – 100 heads and over, at least 200 bee families;

The final FSS 2013 sample was of about 313 315 agricultural holdings without legal personality and all the agricultural holdings with legal personality (32 106). The total sample size was 345 421 agricultural holdings.

The representative sample was drawn using the Neyman stratified random method by applying SAS procedures for the agricultural holdings without legal personality and by exhaustive coverage for the agricultural holdings with legal personality.

The national legislation foresees the possibility of using administrative sources. However administrative sources cannot be used, due to various reasons, see item 4.7 below.

- lack of an unique identifier between statistical Farm register and other administrative agricultural registers;

- different definitions and methodologies for the observation units;

To increase the response rate, several measures were taken targeting:

• The duty to prove the official position as interviewer by showing the personal card when first visiting the agricultural holdings without legal personality;
• Interviewing a competent person within the agricultural holdings without legal personality, preferably the holder or any other adult member of the holding in full working capacity;
• Avoiding taking the interview in front of people who do not belong to the respective holding by explaining the fact that the information is confidential and can only be used for statistical purposes;
• Handing over a basic unfilled questionnaire to the interviewee so that he/she may follow the questions more easily. After the data are filled in, the basic unfilled questionnaire must be returned;
• Getting precise and sincere replies, the questions were clearly and politely formulated;
• In case the questions have several answering variants, the interviewee was shown a complete list of those so he/she may choose the correct variant;
• The interviewee must not be interrupted before finishing to answer even that he/she hesitates (the hesitation may be due to the fact that the respondent tries to remember various aspects related to the information requested);
• Interviewer’s return to the holdings that could not be contacted;
• Re-contacting the respondents (in the case of agricultural holdings without legal personality).

Number of holdings in the survey frame plus possible (new) holdings added afterwards

In case of a census 1=3+4+5

Number of holdings in the gross sample plus possible (new) holdings added to the sample

Only for sample survey, in which case 2=3+4+5

Number of ineligible holdings with ceased activities

This item is a subset of 3.

Number of holdings with unknown eligibility status

4>4.1+4.2

Number of eligible holdings

5=5.1+5.2

Number of eligible non-responding holdings

5.1>=5.1.1+5.1.2

Number of the records in the dataset 

6=5.2+5.1.2+4.2

The data check took place in several stages throughout the survey:

• at interviewer’s and coordinator’s level:

          - observance of work methodology;

          - reliability of questionnaire-registered data (correlations among indicators, comparisons with other sources, agreement with the sample, etc.);

          - observance of questionnaire filling rules.

• at county office level: automatic control made by the IT application.

The IT application was designed according to the processing requirements for the validation rules and the correlations established to enter the questionnaires into the database. The use of this application determines the input and logic validation of the questionnaire-registered data and if necessary the drawing up of a checklist. The validation rules included in the IT application contained checkings for every questionnaire chapter and among chapters. These lists were analysed by authorised staff and corrections were made where appropiate.

• at central level:

- Automatic control made by the IT application after the validation rules: the data centralised at NIS head office underwent an automatic control following the same procedures as at county office level. The errors spotted were also solved at county office level and the correct files were retransferred to NIS.

- Automatic control of data integrity, completeness and other aspects originally not included in the processing requirements. Automatic procedures were developed to analyse the agreement between database data and the ones in the sample taking into account the non-response and also procedures for analysing the data completeness against the completeness code and other analysing procedures for correlations and limits. Following such analyses automatic corrections were applied to the database.

- Data control in comparison with other sources. To this purpose, a specialist team was formed at NIS level in order to achieve the check of the centralised expanded data versus other sources: GAC 2010, other current own surveys etc. In this stage, one could detect the situations when the estimator caused biases in certain variables and consequently, adjustment and recalibration methods and procedures were used for the grossing up coefficients.

- The Validation Rules included in the Data Supplier Manual  were used to validate the Eurofarm file.

Tools used for data validation:

The data were validated by means of several tools:

- manual control of the questionnaire-registered data;

- automatic control made by the IT application through the validation rules implemented;

- control by control tables;

- checking the extreme values in the database.

The list of characteristics included in FSS 2013 only for national purposes contained:

- accounting records of the work on the holding (Y/N);

- sparse fruit trees – numbers;

- equipment used to produce renewable energy (installed power and production).

To avoid errors of measurement, the FSS 2013 questionnaire was developed by chapter (General information, Land use, Livestock etc).

• The reference moment or period was specified on every chapter heading;
• The questionnaire included the arithmetical checks between rows;
• If the queries had to be ticked off, mention was made on the questionnaire if it was a single or multiple answering variant.

Throughout the interview, the interviewer had several obligations that contributed to the reduction of measurement errors:

• The obligation to decline his/her official quality as interviewer by showing the personal card when first visiting an agricultural holding without personality;
• Interviewing a competent person from the agricultural holding without personality, preferably its holder or any other adult member in full working capacity;
• Avoiding the interview in front of people that do not belong to the concerned holding by explaining the information is confidential and to be used only for statistical purposes;
• Handing over an unfilled questionnaire to the interviewee in order for him/her to be able to follow the questions more easily;
• To get precise and sincere replies, the questions were formulated clearly and politely;
• If the questions had several answering variants, the interviewee was presented a full list of them so he/she may choose the correct one;
• The interviewee was never interrupted before finishing answering the questionnaire even if he/she hesitated (the hesitation may be due to the fact that the respondent tried to remember various aspects related to the information requested);
• Taking down the replies as they were provided by the interviewee;
• Coming back to certain questions where the answer did not meet the arithmetical checks or if they did not correlate;
• Requesting the interviewee’s signature on the completed basic questionnaire to certify data quality.

The reasons for the non-response at unit level were: refused interview and other situations. In such cases, a re-weighting to adjust the grossing-up coefficients and also imputations were made for the eligible non-respondent units only.

In Romania the non-response rate is very low, which makes the non-response bias to be not significant.

Once the questionnaires were collected a first data pre-validation was performed.

The filled-in questionnaires were re-checked by the co-ordinators and by county offices staff. In case of missing data, the unit was contacted. If this procedure did not function, the data were adjusted or imputed.

Imputations were made when detecting the certain missing information on the questionnaires, particularly relative to the people having worked in the agriculture (gender, age, etc.). If so, the information providing useful data was checked in the first place (family and Christian name, personal identification code, etc.). If even such information was missing then imputations were made to complete the missing data, taking into consideration the frequency in the answers on the questionnaires containing full information.

For each of the above-mentioned situations, the weight of the holdings submitted to imputation was smaller than 2% of the total number of surveyed holdings.

The processing errors occured at data input and this was due to the wrong typing of certain values. They were not quantitatively assessed as most of them were dealt with on the spot.

Data correction was made as follows:

• on-the-spot, if errors were included in the logical checks;
• if not, they have been detected through the control and extreme value tables. In this case, the co-ordinator was contacted and the questionnaire was corrected.

After entering the FSS 2013 data and after applying all checks and solving the questionnaire errors, they were analysed at local level by statisticians based on tables specially designed for every indicator both at national and county level to detect eventual inconsistencies.   

According to the error type detected, the solving was made at local level through individual corrections and also at central level automatically.

After the errors were analysed by NIS methodological team, the IT firm who provided the data input and processing application was requested to make automatic corrections.

There were detected cases of holdings where the number of working days (in an 8 hour/per day equivalent) exceeded the threshold of 245 days/year, i.e. the maximum allowed in Romania. In such cases automatic corrections were applied by changing the number of days to maximum 245.

The data correction check was resumed every time a correction was needed in the database until all errors were solved.

The results of FSS 2013 were published in accordance with the General Programme of FSS 2013 organisation and conduct and the Annual National Statistical programme approved by Government Decision mentioned in detail in section 2.1 Data description - item 2.

The final results of FSS 2013 were sent to Eurostat according to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1166/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council accompanied by the National Methodological Report to the deadlines set in the grant agreement and the Annual National Statistical Programme 2014.

There occurred no differences between the national definitions and the EU ones as regards the characteristics or their classification.

The number of hours used for a full time-employee to calculate the annual work unit was of 1 960 hours.

The range of days in the validation rules, using in order to establish the percentage bands was:

0 < X < 61 → „24”
61 ≤ X < 122 → „49”
122 ≤ X < 183 → „74”
183 ≤ X < 245 → „99”
X = 245 → „100”.

In Romania, the common land represents only the area covered with pastures and meadows under the administration of commune halls, being used in various forms: tenant farming, concession or against payment of a tax.

In the FSS 2013 case, the common land was registered as area utilised and administered by the commune halls, despite the land being used by other holdings to avoid double-counting.

Taking into account this aspect, a special code for the legal status, “Town halls”, was created into the FSS 2013 questionnaire, under Chapter I, Section 2.2., code “8”, in order that the common land units to be easier to be identified.

There were not created any other specific questions in the questionnaire, or other questionnaire specifically designed for common land units. The coordinators of FSS 2013 were trained in order that the respondents of the involved units to complete properly that information. For avoiding double-counting, all the holdings, other than those with legal status “8”, that utilised common land did not record that area into their questionnaire.

The common land units may also have however other additional land, recorded under arable land crops, permanent crops, unutilised agricultural land, wooded land, but this area was not considered as common land.

In conclusion, all the units with code “8” – “Town halls”, having pastures and meadows area were considered in “Eurofarm” file as “common land units”, and the common land area was represented by their total area with pastures and meadows.

In most of cases, the common land was recorded as "UAA for farming by owner". There were also 8 units for which the common land was recorded as "UAA for farming by tenant" and 79 units for which the common land was "UAA for shared farming or other modes".

The table hereunder presents the common land statistics by land type:

The table hereunder presents the situation containing the number of the common land units, split by each category of the common land. It is necessary to mention that are agricultural holdings having more than one category of pastures and meadows.

When collecting the data about the common land, there occurred no changes in the data collection methodology versus the previous survey, this registration being made according to the „Handbook on implementing the FSS and SAPM definitions – REV 10”. 

Thus, special holdings were set up for the commune halls having registered the whole area of pastures and meadows within a locality jointly used by various agricultural holdings either without or with legal personality.

 There are no significant differences concerning the area and the number of holdings with common land (thsd. ha)

3 859 043

13 306 128

8 306 416

311 433

5 445 521

7 051 296

Comparisons were made at micro level against the data obtained from the surveys on main crops, livestock and animal production for certain holdings scoring extreme values for some characteristics (durum wheat, rice, poultry, horses, ostriches etc.).

In case of large differences between data sources, the units with very high values of indicators have been re-contacted, through the coordinators from Statistical County Offices and, if necessary, corrections were made, or on the contrary the initial values were reconfirmed.

The results were assessed by comparing the main data obtained at the national level from FSS 2013 against the data obtained from the other agricultural surveys, as follows:

a) Comparing the final results of FSS 2013 with the data obtained from the Agricultural Crop Survey (ACS) 2013, as follows:

When analysing the FSS 2013 and ACS 2013 data, one can notice very close results, the differences between the two statistical surveys being fairly small within the permissible 10 % limit for all UAA categories.

b) After comparing the results of FSS 2013 and those of the livestock and animal production survey 2013 (LAPS 2013), the following findings were made:

The data related to the main animal species resulted from FSS 2013, compared to those obtained from the livestock and animal production survey-LAPS 2013 show insignificant differences for bovines, sheep, goats, poultry and bigger ones for pigs.

Mention must be made that the livestock numbers for FSS 2013 are registered on 31 December and for LAPS 2013 on 1 December. The 22.3 % differential for pigs is explainable by the fact that some of the pigs were slaughtered during Christmas time when, traditionally, every family slaughters a pig. The relatively small difference, of less than 10 %, between the FSS 2013 data and those obtained from the other annual agricultural surveys both in the crop and animal sector is another factor certifying the quality of the concerned results.

FSS statistics are not reconcilable with those obtained through other data sources or statistical domains, from some reasons, such as: precision requirements, different target populations or reference periods.

The final results of FSS 2013 will be available at the end of 2014. These will be disseminated as follows:

► At national level through:

• Press release on 15 December 2014;
• Publication in 2 volumes (book + CD) on 30 December 2014:

• Volume 1: "Farm Structure Survey 2013 – General data at national level“;      
• Volume 2: "Farm Structure Survey 2013 – Data by macro-region, development region and county“.

The publications are bilingual (Romanian/English) and contain tables with results at national level and by macro-region/development region/county accompanied by methodological specifications and metadata.

► At Eurostat level, the following will be transmitted on 15 December 2014: Eurofarm file with FSS 2013 microdata accompanied by the National Methodological Report

Version in Romanian: http://www.insse.ro/cms/ro/content/ancheta-structural%C4%83-%C3%AEn-agricultur%C4%83-2013

Version in English: http://www.insse.ro/cms/en/content/ancheta-structural%C4%83-%C3%AEn-agricultur%C4%83-2013

The statistical tools available on NIS website consists of:

- Data collection questionnaire,

- Interviewer’s handbook,

According to Law No. 226/ 2009 on the organisation and functioning of the Romanian official statistics with its subsequent amendments and add-ons, the individual data put in the FSS 2013 questionnaires are confidential and to be used only for statistical purposes.

Keeping the data confidentiality by NIS permanent staff is mandatory according to Law No. 226/ 2009.

The obligation to preserve the confidentiality by the temporarily-hired staff was written down in the personal work contract.