Outline of presentation Background and purpose of the Swedish CFS.

1. Swedish Commodity Flow Surveys Evaluated– Statistics Sweden’s Experiences and Survey Adjustments Since 2001Session 10 ICES III Montreal 2007 Lars WerkeAssistant head at the unit for transport statistics Statistics Sweden

2. Outline of presentation • Background and purpose of the Swedish CFS. • The Swedish CFS in perspective. • Comparing CFS 2001 and CFS 04/05 • A pragmatic data collection approach • Challenges ahead and conclusions

3. Background and purpose • Background and our comissioners • Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications Analysis • Infrastructure agencies (SNRA, SCAA, SMA, NRA, Vinnova) • Responsible for infrastructure planning in Sweden • Long term Goods Model (SAMGODS) • 6 Different Economic models for prognosis and scenario analysis • 2 Supply models , 2 Demand models 2 Effect models • Both demand models models goods flows in all 289 municipalities • Before CFS 2001 synthetic O-D matrix (not observed O-D flows)

4. Background and purpose • The purpose of the survey • To give a statistical description of the annual commodity flow within Sweden and between Sweden and foreign countries (with respect to weight/value, means of transportation, cargo type ,cargo size and industry) • Provide the SAMGODS models with the necessary data

5. The Swedish CFS in perspective • Statistics Sweden and transport • No experience with multimodal statistics • Unimodal: sea goods and road goods • Regional CFS on county level (ERG project 1988, Bjurklo) • Contacted US Census Bureau (CFS 1993) • EU Mystic-project 1998 ”carrier based”- approach • Decided on adopting Census Bureau approach • Test survey in 1996 and 1998 and first full-scale in 2001

6. The Swedish CFS in perspective • Swedish first CFS approach • Stratified three-stage probability sample. • Aimed at Mining, Manufacturing and Wholesale sectors • Stratification: Geography, Local unit size and Commodity group • Three stage sampling –>Local unit->Time period->Shipments • Questionnaire different from US, divided in to three parts • Part 1: Outgoing shipment to own county • Part 2: Outgoing shipment to other county and abroad • Part 3: Incoming shipments from abroad • Parts as a register based survey (Forestry, Agriculture)

7. Comparing CFS 2001 and CFS 04/05 • The CFS 2001 results • Pro • Response rate 78,4 % • Outgoing shipments 246 million tonnes. SEK 1 905 billion • Electronic reporting at 10,9% • Commissioners content with quality and delivery • Con • Lack of Control in the final stage of sampling (shipments) • Instructions (3pl), (Incoterms), (Wholesale agents) • Cut off limits (gas and oil) • Undercoverage (sand and gravel) • Report burden • We had to revise the statistical report.

8. Comparing CFS 2001 and CFS 04/05 • Preparing for CFS 04/05 • Should cover more sectors of the economy. • Logistics model developed for SAMGODS. • Additional variables in the questionnaire (P-C) (PWC). • Increase electronic reporting. • Decrease report burden. • Improve overall design.

9. A pragmatic data collection approach • Going for the low hanging fruit • Tried to look at the structure in different sectors • Transport cost in relation to commodity value/weight ratio. • Company level: Did all the units belong to a few companies. • We thought of using different questionnaires. • Administrative registers ”tracking” some goods were monitored. • Large shipments by sea ”flagged” (paper mills etc.) • Training of staff, sector specific, (distribution etc.) • Developed of new simple control tools.

10. A pragmatic data collection approach • Altered design • Added admin. registers to avoid undercoverage (sand) • A revision of cut off limits with a focus on the wholesale sector. • Increased the registry based part of the survey. • Agricultural • Energy sector • We suggested specific industry surveys • Petroleum (Oil & Gas) • Cars and Trucks (Wholesale) • Corn & Grain

11. A pragmatic data collection approach • Altered questionnaire • Dropped ”ownership of goods” decided on ”handling of goods” • Redesigned the questionnaire and instructions in to one form • Added new variables after a test (type of receiving industry) • We dropped ”hazmat” and advised against inclusion of PWC • Added control questions, focus on large shipments • Redesigned commodity code list. • Encouraged electronic reporting and complete data sets.

12. A pragmatic data collection approach • Pro • Response down from rate 78,4% in 2001 to 73,6 % in 04/05 • Outgoing shipments +15 % to 282 Million tonnes • Outgoing shipments +10 % to SEK 2 093 billion • Electronic reporting from 10,9% to 18 % • Comparison to trade stat. export within 2 % • Covered most of agricultural sector with admin. data • Commissioners content with quality and delivery • Con • Lack of Control in the final stage of sampling (shipments) • Instructions (3pl), (Incoterms), (wholesale agents) • Cut off limits (gas and oil) • Undercoverage (sand and gravel) • Report burden

13. Challenges ahead and conclusions • Challenges in 2009? • CFS 04/05 is being evaluated by the commissioners. • Report burden must decrease to improve response rate. • Evaluate only one part for outgoing shipments. • Combine collected admin. data with specific surveys. • Improve measurement on imports. • More industry specific surveys. • Improve overall design.

14. Challenges ahead and conclusions • Conclusions or why does this work in Sweden • Sweden is a small open economy. • Government admin. data is easily accessible to Statistics Sweden. • The three stage sample design is a good approach. • The increased response burden of the Swedish CFS called for a new data collection approach that also improved coverage of the survey. • Norway is preparing for a CFS with similar approach • EU commission working on ”Intermodal indicators”

15. Thank you for your attention