• Summary
• Downloads
• Explanatory Notes
• Related Information
• Past Releases

APPENDIX 4 - ANALYSIS OF DUPLICATION

This appendix contains analyses undertaken by the review team to support key findings in the body of this report relating to potential duplication in survey activity. The analyses were developed using information provided by stakeholders during consultations, including public submissions received by the NASR, which detailed the agricultural statistical assets that are currently used in work programs, and was supported by a desktop review.

POTENTIAL DUPLICATION IN SURVEY ACTIVITY

The review team considered the question of whether there was significant duplication in collection of agricultural statistics. Potential duplication in survey activity referred to by stakeholders included instances where there were similarities in survey topics, respondent groups, sectors and/or geographic regions.

Stakeholders from across government and industry provided detailed information about the statistical assets that their organisations relied on for their work programs. Information about these assets included:

• type of organisation collecting the data (e.g. government, industry or other private organisation)
• population the data was collected from (e.g. agricultural businesses, brokers, bulk handlers)
• agricultural industry the data was collected from (e.g. horticulture, grains, livestock, dairy)
• geographic output level (e.g. natural resource management region, SA1, SA2 etc)
• frequency of collection (e.g. yearly, biennial or monthly).

Figure 3 summarises these agricultural censuses and surveys for the 2011 and 2012 calendar years and shows the frequency with which agricultural businesses had the potential of being surveyed during that time period (based on a number of assumptions – see table notes).

Figure 3 - Agricultural censuses and surveys involving businesses during 2011 and 2012

Notes: The list of census and surveys undertaken in 2011 and 2012 only included large scale regular primary data collections (i.e. information collected directly from agriculture, fisheries and forestry businesses), which were identified by stakeholders of the NASR and desktop sources. Surveys included in this analysis were: 5 yearly surveys—Agricultural Census (ABS); Biennial surveys—Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ABS), Land Management Practices Survey (Department of Agriculture, ABS), Animal Husbandry Survey (Dairy Australia), Grower Survey (Grains Research and Development Corporation), Vineyards (ABS); Yearly surveys—ADIS (ABARES), National Dairy Farmers Survey (Dairy Australia), Dairy Farm Monitor (Dairy Australia), AAGIS (ABS), Murray Darling Basin Irrigators (ABARES), Vegetables (ABARES), Mushrooms (AMGA); Irregular surveys—Drivers of Practice Change–Horticulture (ABARES). There are a number of sample surveys in the list, meaning that not all businesses participate in all sample surveys. In addition, the sample surveys may have specifically focussed on data collection for a particular jurisdiction or commodity. ABARES supplementary surveys are included in the main survey collections of AAGIS and ADIS and not as separate surveys, except for a component of Drivers of Practice Change, which was conducted separately for the horticulture industry in 2011.

The geographic scale of the dairy surveys was also investigated, with the NASR finding that while there may be duplication at the national level in topics, there is minimal duplication in sub-state geographic regions at which the data are produced.

Dairy Australia, in its submission to the NASR, highlighted that survey duplication is a risk in the dairy industry for collections relating to dairy farm performance. However, Dairy Australia does not highlight duplication as a major issue. This may be because of the value that dairy levy payers place on the data collected, analysed and disseminated by Dairy Australia, which provides a comprehensive suite of data to the industry relating to dairy farm performance, operational activities, production, sales, attitudes and confidence levels, and at national, state and regional scales.

Table 8 - Dairy industry surveys and topics 2011-12

Collection	Occurrence	Funding	Commodity production area and volume	Farm business performance	Farmer confidence, sentiment and expectations	Natural resource management practices	Farm business characteristics	Water use	Livestock management practices and animal welfare	Disease risk management and staff training
Agricultural Census	1	Australian Bureau of Statistics	ü				ü	ü
Agricultural Resource Management Survey101 (ARMS)	1	Australian Bureau of Statistics				ü	ü	ü
Land Management Practices Survey (LAMPS)	1	Department of Agriculture				ü	ü
Australian Dairy Industry Survey (ADIS)	2	Department of Agriculture, Dairy Australia		ü			ü
National Dairy Farmer Surveys	2	Dairy Australia			ü
Dairy Farm Monitor	2	Dairy Australia, Vic DEPI and NSW DPI	ü	ü	ü
Animal Husbandry Surveys	1	Dairy Australia							ü	ü

Dairy Australia is taking an active role in managing potential duplication for its levy payers, through liaising with the ABS and ABARES, However there is no single body or organisation that monitors all agricultural data collection activity undertaken in Australia. There are different mechanisms or protocols in place in individual organisations and in official organisations that attempt to coordinate the management of respondent burden beyond individual surveys and promote best practice in survey implementation, such as the Statistical Clearing House (refer to Box 1 Chapter 3).

This dairy sector example indicates that understanding survey burden and quantifying it in the current agricultural statistical system is difficult, particularly when working with a limited amount of information about surveys undertaken in the Australian agricultural sector.

STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVES IN PRODUCING AND USING STATISTICAL ASSETS

The NASR undertook an assessment of the number of organisations currently involved in producing and using agricultural statistics and whether these were government, industry or private sector organisations, based on stakeholder feedback.

A guide to the number of organisations producing statistical assets that are relied upon by the agriculture sector is shown in Table 9. This not only demonstrates the reliance on ABS and ABARES for agricultural statistics, but also provides an indication of the large number of organisations (including state/territory governments, RDCs and industry bodies) that collect agriculture, fisheries and forestry data. It also gives an indication of the number of users who rely heavily on the statistical assets they produce.

Future coordination activities need to include representation from these statistics producers. A number of submissions suggested possible efficiencies if coordination between industry, research and development corporations (RDCs), and government was improved to establish high-priority statistical assets.

Table 9 - Number of government and industry produced statistical assets that are being used by stakeholders

Notes: Frequency of use of agricultural statistical assets is based on a list developed by the NASR of the agricultural statistical assets stakeholders reported they were currently using in work programs and as such, is not exhaustive. Industry—includes Research and Development Corporations and industry associations. Other (private)—includes private consultants. Other (public)—includes international governments, commissions, academic institutions and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

¹⁰⁰ The list developed by the NASR was based on the agricultural statistical assets reported by stakeholders as being currently used in work programs and as such, is not exhaustive. In addition, the list does not describe the detail of individual questions on census or survey forms.

¹⁰¹ Conducted in inter-censal years only; ARMS replaced by REACS from 2013.