EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, September...

1

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Directorate E. Economic analysis, perspectives and evaluation; communication E.3. Economic analysis of EU agriculture

Brussels, September 2014

EU FARM ECONOMICS OVERVIEW

FADN 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an overview of key economic developments in the European agricultural

sector based on 2011 data, the latest available in the Farm Accountancy Data Network

(FADN).

After the sharp decline in farm net value added (FNVA)1 in 2009, recovery started in 2010

and continued in 2011. Overall, FNVA slightly increased due to higher agricultural output

prices and an increase in agricultural production. However, significant income disparities

persisted across European regions as well as across different types of farming. Despite the

high cost of animal feed in 2011, farms specialised in granivores (pigs and poultry) and field

crop farms generated the highest FNVA per annual work unit (AWU). From 2010 to 2011

FNVA per AWU increased for farms specialised in field crops, wine, milk and grazing

livestock (mainly due to higher producer prices and volumes in crop and milk production in

2011), it decreased for farms specialised in horticulture, other permanent crop.

Following a slight increase in 2010, the income gap between the EU-N102 and EU-15

appeared to narrow again in 2011. However, remuneration of family labour per family work

unit3 (FWU) in the EU-15 was still three times higher than in the region that registered the

highest income per FWU in the EU-N10.

Finally, in comparison to the previous year, the proportion of direct payments in total

receipts in the EU-27 decreased from 12.7 % to 11.9 % in 2011. One of the reasons for this

was the increase in agricultural output.

1 Farm net value added (FNVA) is used to remunerate the fixed factors of production (labour, land and

capital) whether they are external or family factors. In order to obtain a better measurement of the

productivity of the agricultural workforce and to take into account the diversity of farms, FNVA is also

calculated per annual working unit (AWU). This is one of the FADN’s main income indicators.

2 EU-N10 refers to the ten Member States that joined the EU in 2004.

3 Remuneration of family labour is equal to: FNVA + balance of subsidies and taxes - wages paid - paid rent -

estimated costs of own land and own capital. The value is given per family work unit (FWU).

2

Income developments

The EU-27 average farm net value added (FNVA) increased by 4 % from 2010 to 2011,

mostly due to increases in agricultural output and prices. Compared to 2009, FNVA was

34 % higher in 2011. Average FNVA per annual work unit (FNVA/AWU) increased by

around 4 %, from EUR 17 400 in 2010 to EUR 18 100 in 2011.

This slight increase was driven by the increase in FNVA, with labour input remaining stable.

It was primarily influenced by an increase in agricultural output prices (in particular in the

crop, milk and meat sectors), reflecting the continued recovery of commodity markets in 2011

after the low point in 2009. Remuneration per family work unit (i.e. income available after

remuneration of all external production factors — labour, land and capital — and adjusted for

the opportunity cost of capital) stood at around EUR 12 600 in 2011, up from EUR 11 700 in

2010.

This income increase masked substantial differences across Member States, regions and

types of farming. Holdings in Denmark, northern France and the UK (England) generated the

highest FNVA/AWU in 2011. Denmark and the Champagne-Ardennes region had the highest

average FNVA/AWU in the EU. The regions with low FNVA/AWU (i.e. below EUR 10 000)

were mostly situated in the EU-N10. Only two regions in the EU-15, namely Norte e Centro

(Portugal) and Abruzzo (Italy), had an average FNVA/AWU below EUR 10 000.

On average, farms specialised in granivores, field crops, wine, milk and horticulture had the

highest FNVA/AWU, while the FNVA/AWU of farms specialised in other permanent crops,

grazing livestock (other than milk) and mixed activities remained below the EU-27 average.

In 2011, FNVA/AWU decreased for farms specialised in horticulture, other permanent crops,

granivores and mixed farms (crops and livestock), and increased for farms specialised in field

crops, wine, milk and other grazing livestock. This increase was due to higher producer prices

and greater volumes in crop and milk production in 2011. Looking at the distribution of

FNVA/AWU in the EU-N10 and EU-24, the average income per worker in these

countries remained significantly below the EU-15 level. In more than 96 % of farms in the

EU-2 and around 92 % of farms in the EU-N10, FNVA/AWU was below the EU-15 average.

In the EU-N10, average FNVA/AWU stood at around EUR 8 300, but was under EUR 4 400 in

more than 50 % of farms (median income). FNVA/AWU was less than EUR 2 600 in 50% of

farms in the EU-2.

Role of direct payments

Direct payments helped to even out the variability in EU farm income. The average amount of

direct payments received in 2011 was EUR 9 150 per farm. The proportion of direct payments

in total revenue (output value plus subsidies minus taxes) in the EU-27 decreased from 12.7 %

in 2010 to 11.9 % in 2011 as total farm receipts increased, while the level of public support

decreased by only 0.1 %. This proportion varies between Member States, with Irish, Greek

and Finnish farms’ total receipts being proportionately most dependent on subsidies (which

represent nearly 20 % of total revenue).

4 EU-2 refers to Bulgaria and Romania.

3

The proportion of direct payments in FNVA was highest in Finland. On the other hand, direct

payments represented only 4 % of FNVA in the Netherlands, showing that Dutch agriculture

is more focussed on the more profitable sectors that are less dependent on direct payments,

such as horticulture and pig and poultry production. The proportion of direct payments in

agricultural income also fluctuates markedly with the type of farming. In particular, direct

payments represent a substantial part of FNVA in grazing livestock, mixed and field crop

farms as a result of historical orientation of the CAP (53-40%). On the other hand, subsidies

account for only a very limited part of total revenue in wine and horticulture holdings (8-3 %).

Farm structure

The structure of European farms varies markedly in several ways:

Asset value. The average farm size in terms of asset value was highest in Denmark and in

the Netherlands (EUR 2 500 000 and EUR 2 200 000, respectively), reflecting very high

land prices and the importance of sectors which typically need considerable investment

(such as milk, granivores and horticulture). In contrast, farms in Romania had the lowest

total asset values (below EUR 40 000) due to low land prices, small farm sizes and less

capital-intensive types of farming. Bulgaria almost doubled the asset value of its farms in

the last two years. The land price level in the EU-2 remains well below the EU-27

average.

Labour input. According to the FADN survey, the average number of workers employed

per farm in the EU-27 stood at 1.6 AWU in 2011. However, it varied significantly across

Member States, ranging from 12.9 AWU in Slovakia to 1.1 AWU in Ireland. The average

number of workers per farm in horticulture (the sector with the highest labour input) was

approximately 2.4 times higher than in permanent crops other than wine holdings (the

sector with the lowest labour input). Family labour accounted for 78 % of the total labour

force in the EU-27 and represented the most prevalent form of labour in all Member

States except for Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Estonia. In these Member

States, the proportion of family labour in the total labour force was below 50 %. The

average hourly wage of farm workers stood at EUR 7 in the EU-27 during 2011, up 4.3 %

from the previous year. This nominal wage increase more than compensated for the

general increase in prices (EU-27 HICP5 inflation stood at 2.7 % in 2011).

Land use. According to the FADN survey, the average EU farm size was 32 ha in 2011,

only a slight change from 2010. However, it varied considerably across Member States,

ranging from 546 ha per farm in Slovakia to 3 ha per farm in Malta. Rented land

accounted for 54 % of total agricultural area in the EU-27 in 2011. The land rents in the

EU-27 have increased by 7 % since 2009, to EUR 155 per ha in 2011. Land rents were

particularly high (above EUR 700 per ha) in the Netherlands and the Canarias (Spain), but

remained under EUR 40 per ha in the Baltic countries. They also differed markedly across

types of farming: the level of rent per hectare in horticulture and the wine sector was 8 to

9 times higher than the rental price paid by grazing livestock farms.

5 The Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) is an economic indicator constructed to measure the

changes over time in the prices of consumer goods and services acquired by households. It provides the

official measure of consumer price inflation in the euro-zone for the purposes of monetary policy in the euro

area and assessing inflation convergence as required under the Maastricht criteria.

4

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) is a European system of sample surveys

that are run each year to collect structural and accountancy data of farms; its aim is to monitor

the income and business activities of agricultural holdings and to evaluate the impacts of the

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

The scope of the FADN survey covers only farms whose size exceeds a minimum threshold

so as to represent the largest possible proportion of agricultural output, agricultural area and

farm labour, of holdings run with a market orientation. For 2011, the sample consisted of

approximately 80 000 holdings in the EU-27, which represent nearly 5.0 million farms (40 %)

out of a total of 12.2 million farms included in the FSS6.

The rules applied seek to provide representative data for three criteria: region, economic size

and type of farming. The FADN is the only harmonised source of micro-economic data,

which means that the accounting principles are the same in all EU Member States.

The most recent FADN data available for this report are for the 2011 accounting year, due to

time lags stemming from data collection, control and processing.

For further information see: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/index.cfm

6 FSS is the abbreviation of the Farm structure survey. It is carried out every 3 or 4 years as a sample survey

and once in ten years as a census by all Member States. The purpose of the survey is to obtain reliable data

on the structure of agricultural holdings in the European Union, in particular on land use, livestock and

labour force.

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/index.cfm

5

CONTENTS

1. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF FARMS..................................................................... 6

1.1. Farm income ...................................................................................................... 6

1.2. Distribution of income .................................................................................... 14

1.3. Income components ......................................................................................... 21

1.4. Return on assets ............................................................................................... 23

2. IMPORTANCE OF DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR FARM INCOME ....................... 26

2.1. Proportion of direct payments in total revenue ............................................... 26

2.2. Proportion of direct payments in FNVA ......................................................... 27

3. FARM STRUCTURE ............................................................................................... 30

3.1. Financial structure ........................................................................................... 30

3.1.1. Total asset value ................................................................................ 30

3.1.2. Total liabilities ................................................................................... 32

3.1.3. Development of farm net worth ........................................................ 34

3.1.4. Solvency ............................................................................................ 35

3.1.5. Current and fixed assets .................................................................... 36

3.2. Labour ............................................................................................................. 39

3.2.1. Labour force ...................................................................................... 40

3.2.2. Remuneration of farm workers.......................................................... 42

3.3. Land ................................................................................................................. 44

3.3.1. Farm size ........................................................................................... 44

3.3.2. Importance of rented land.................................................................. 45

3.3.3. Level of land rents ............................................................................. 46

6

1. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF FARMS

This chapter reviews the economic situation of farms across EU Member States, focusing

predominantly on the level, development and distribution of farm income. It also discusses

the various farm income components and the return farmers receive on their investment.

1.1. Farm income

For the purpose of this report, the income of agricultural holdings is measured using farm net

value added and the remuneration of family labour.

Farm net value added (FNVA) is equal to gross farm income minus costs of depreciation. It

is used to remunerate the fixed factors of production (labour, land and capital), whether they

are external or family factors. As a result, agricultural holdings can be compared regardless

of the family/non-family nature of the factors of production used.

FNVA = output + Pillar I and Pillar II payments + VAT balance - intermediate consumption

- farm taxes (income taxes are not included) - depreciation.

The value is calculated per annual work unit (AWU) in order to take into account the

differences in the scale of farms and to obtain a better measure of the productivity of the

agricultural workforce.

Remuneration of family labour: In the agricultural sector, the bulk of the workforce consists

of family members who do not receive a salary but have to be remunerated from the farms’

income. As the FNVA is required to finance not only family labour but all fixed production

factors, another way of estimating income (the remuneration of family labour) is calculated

as follows:

Remuneration of family labour = FNVA + balance of subsidies and taxes - wages paid - rent

paid - interest paid - estimate of the costs of own land - estimate of the costs of own capital.

The value is calculated per family work unit (FWU). Only farms that use unpaid labour

(which in most cases means family members) are included in the calculation.

Results by Member State

FNVA varied significantly across EU Member States in 2011. Slovakia ranked highest, with

EUR 160 900. This is 23 times higher than in Romania, the country with the lowest value.

Denmark, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic also had high values. The EU-27 average

was at around EUR 28 000 (see Figure 1.1). FNVA’s main advantage as an indicator for

measuring income developments lies in its relative simplicity, but it fails to account for

differences in farm size, type of farming or structural decreases in the labour force employed

in agriculture. To do this, FNVA is usually expressed per annual work unit (AWU), which

can be seen as a measure of partial labour productivity. Viewed from this angle, the general

picture of sizeable income variability within the EU remains unaffected, though the ranking of

Member States changes somewhat (Figure 1.2): Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK

registered the highest FNVA per AWU, at EUR 85 600, EUR 45 900 and EUR 44 700

respectively. This is more than two or, in the case of Denmark, even four times the value of

the average FNVA per AWU for the EU-27 (EUR 18 100), showing the predominance of

granivore production, specialist horticulture and milk sectors in these three countries’

agricultural sectors. At the other end of the spectrum, Malta, Slovenia and Romania had the

lowest FNVA per AWU (EUR 6 000, 5 100 and 5 000 respectively), because their agriculture

has remained largely oriented towards less productive types of farming, namely mixed

farming and other permanent crops.

7

It is worth noting that, within the EU-15, only Greece and Portugal – Member States

characterised by a large number of small farms – had an FNVA per AWU below the EU-27

average.

Figure 1.1: Farm net value added by Member State in 2011

(average per farm in EUR)

Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.

An alternative measure of agricultural income is the remuneration of family labour, as a high

proportion of work in the agricultural sector is carried out by family members. This is

expressed per family work unit (FWU) and is calculated by deducting from FNVA the costs

of wages, rent and interest paid, and the opportunity costs of own land and capital. The

Member States with the highest remuneration of family labour per FWU were Denmark

(EUR 49 900), the UK (EUR 43 900) and Luxemburg (EUR 35 500). The remuneration of

family labour and the income per unit of paid labour was approximately the same in the Baltic

countries, Cyprus, Luxemburg and in the UK. At EU-27 level, the average remuneration of

family labour per FWU stood at EUR 12 600 in 2011.

Figure 1.2: FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family labour per FWU, by Member

State in 2011

(average in EUR)

Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN

8

Results by EU group

Agricultural income in the EU-15 continued to recover from the 2009 low point (EUR 21 000

FNVA per AWU). It increased to EUR 26 600 in 2010 and even reached EUR 27 200 in 2011.

This growth was the outcome of increases in both the volume of agricultural output (1.4 %)

and prices (5.7 %) in the agricultural sector,7 with labour input remaining relatively stable.

While total labour input increased in the EU-N10, farm income developments closely

mirrored the general pattern seen in the EU-15, albeit at a lower level: FNVA per AWU

increased from EUR 4 600 to EUR 9 300 and the remuneration of family labour per FWU

increased from EUR 2 800 to EUR 6 600.

In absolute terms, FNVA per AWU increased by EUR 5 600 or 26 % in the EU-15 in 2004-11,

and by EUR 4 700 or 103 % in the EU-N10 — a stronger increase in relative terms, but a

widening gap due to the fact that income in the EU-15 grew more in absolute terms. Looking

at the 2004-11 period, no tangible convergence in nominal farm income can be observed

between the two groups of EU Member States.

In line with the general increasing trend seen in the EU-25, FNVA per AWU in the EU-2 rose

by roughly 72 % between 2009 and 2011, to EUR 5 300. The remuneration of family labour

stood at EUR 3 400 in 2011, an increase of 97 % compared to 2009.

Figure 1.3: Long-term developments in FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family

labour per FWU (average per farm in EUR)


Regional differences

7 Source: Agriculture in the EU, Statistical and Economic Information Report 2011.

9

Map 1.1 shows the regional differences in FNVA per AWU in the EU-27 in 2011. Based on

this indicator, the agricultural holdings with the highest income per working unit were mainly

located in Denmark, northern France, the UK (England), north-western Germany, the

Netherlands, northern Italy and Belgium (Wallonie). On the other hand, regions with very low

farm income (below EUR 10 000 per year) were mostly, situated in the EU-N10. Only two

regions in the EU-15, Norte e Centro (Portugal) and Abruzzo (Italy), registered average farm

income below EUR 10 000.

Map 1.1: FNVA per AWU by FADN region in 2011


When measured by the remuneration of family labour per FWU, the differences in income

between the EU-15 and the EU-N10 appear to be less pronounced (see Map 1.2). However,

there are some regions in the EU-15 with extremely high income per unit of family labour,

such as the England-East region in the UK (EUR 86 211) and the Champagne-Ardennes (EUR

76 524) and Ile de France (EUR 62 411) regions in France. The highest income per FWU in

the EU-15 is three times higher than in the Közép-Magyarország region in Hungary, which

registered the highest income per FWU (EUR 27 821) in the EU-N10. The highest income per

unit of family labour at regional level in the EU-15 is more than eight times higher than the

lowest, while the highest value in the EU-N10 is fourteen times higher than the lowest income

level. Income levels are lowest in Bulgaria and Romania. The southern and western regions of

Bulgaria (with EUR 1927 and EUR 2605, respectively) and the southern region of Romania

(EUR 2930) have especially low levels of remuneration of family labour per FWU.

10

Map 1.2: Remuneration of family labour per FWU, by FADN region in 2011


Results by type of farming

Figure 1.4 shows significant discrepancies in average FNVA across different types of

farming. In particular, average farm income was approximately four times higher in the

horticulture sector than in the mixed crops and livestock sector. One possible explanation for

the relatively low income of mixed farms is that many of them are very small and mainly

located in the EU-N10, where income levels are generally lower. On the other hand,

horticulture holdings appear to be more frequent in the EU-15.

When measured by FNVA per AWU, the general picture of income distribution by type of

farming changes (see Figure 1.5). The granivore, field crop, wine, milk and horticulture

sectors have above-average income, while permanent crops other than wine, grazing livestock

and mixed farm income per worker remain below average. In 2011, FNVA per AWU

decreased for horticulture, permanent crops other than wine, granivores and mixed farms,

while income increased for field crops, wine, milk and other grazing livestock farms. The

increase is due to higher producer prices and volumes in crop and milk production in 2011.

The remuneration for family labour per FWU does not significantly alter the picture of

relative productivity differences across various types of farming. While holdings specialised

in granivores and field crops remain at the top of the spectrum and mixed farms at the bottom,

wine-producing farms do slightly better than milk farms in terms of remunerating family

labour.

11

Figure 1.4: Average FNVA in EU-27 by type of farming in 2011



Figure 1.5: FNVA per AWU by type of farming in 2011

(in EUR)


12

Results by organisational form and EU group

From an organisational point of view, holdings in the FADN are divided into three groups: (1)

family farms, where the profits cover unpaid labour and own capital of the holder and the

holder’s family; (2) partnerships, where the profits cover the production factors brought into

the holding by a number of partners (at least half of whom participate in the work of the farm

as unpaid labour); and (3) other holdings with no unpaid labour or which are not included in

the other two groups (e.g. legal persons).

The results show that, on average, non-family farms generated higher FNVA than family

farms, with income disparities particularly visible in the EU-N10 and, to a lesser degree, in

the EU-15 and EU-2. The observed disparities across and within the three groups of Member

States mainly reflect differences in farm size. In the EU-N10, holdings classified as ‘other’

had the highest levels of FNVA. Income in these large commercial farms in the EU-N10

significantly exceeded the FNVA created by the corresponding group of holdings in the

EU-15 and EU-2 (EUR 261 000 as compared to EUR 79 900 and EUR 47 400, respectively).

On the other hand, on average, partnership farms in the EU-2 had significantly higher income

(EUR 189 800) than their counterparts in the EU-15 and EU-N10. On average, family farms

had the lowest FNVA levels out of all the organisational forms in each EU group.

Figure 1.6: FNVA by EU group and organisational form in 2011



When FNVA is weighted by AWU, non-family farms still tend to have higher income than

family farms across different EU groups (see Figure 1.7). However, in this case partnership

farms show higher values than the ‘other’ types (i.e. legal entities). This is due to the fact that

‘other’ types of holdings employ mostly paid labour. In general, FNVA per worker is greater

in the EU-15 than in the EU-N10 or EU-2, irrespective of the organisational type of farm.

This can be partially explained by the larger labour force employed by holdings in the new

Member States.

13

Figure 1.7: FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family labour per FWU by EU group

and organisational form of the holding

(in EUR)


14

1.2. Distribution of income

As depicted by the ‘box-plots’8 in Figure 1.8, agricultural income varies considerably across

farms. The general pattern shows that a high proportion of farms have a relatively low income

level per worker, while a small proportion of holdings record a very high income level per

worker. For instance, the average FNVA per AWU in the EU-15 stood at around EUR 27 200

in 2011. However, 10 % of farms had an income per worker of more than EUR 56 000, and

50% recorded an FNVA per AWU below EUR 15 000.

Average income per worker in the EU-N10 and EU-2 remained significantly below the EU-15

level. It should be emphasised that the value of FNVA/AWU was extremely high in some

regions of the UK, Ireland. These outliers are due to the low value of AWU which pushed the

mean value of income per working unit upward. The mean of EU-N10 and EU-2 figures is in

the upper 25 % of data, which means that these box-plots are also skewed to the right. The

EU-N10 average income per worker stood at around EUR 8300, though 50 % of holdings had

an income per worker of less than EUR 4400 In the EU-2, half of the farms reported an FNVA

per AWU of less than EUR 2600.

Figure 1.8: Distribution of FNVA per AWU, by EU group in 2011

(in EUR/AWU)


Figure 1.9 shows developments in income distribution for the EU as a whole in 2004-11.

Until 2007, income discrepancies in the EU-27 were gradually increasing, along with average

farm income per AWU. From 2007 to 2009, the average level of income dropped and income

discrepancies narrowed noticeably, which can be traced back to the fall in agricultural output

prices combined with a slight decrease in the overall agricultural output volume and a

remarkable increase in input (mainly energy) prices, especially in 2008.

8 In the box plots, the inter-quartile range (between 25 % and 75 % of farms) is indicated by the yellow box;

the limits of 10 % of farms and 90 % of farms correspond to the end of lines (whiskers); the median (50 % of

farms) is the line crossing the yellow boxes, and the mean is shown by the ‘+’ sign.

15

The impact of the sizeable drop in agricultural output prices is visible in the 2009 data, and

explains the significant narrowing of the distribution of income per AWU. After 2009, an

upward tendency can be observed, leading once again to a wider distribution of average

income per worker in 2010 and in 2011.

Figure 1.9: Distribution of FNVA per AWU by year

(in EUR/AWU)


Figure 1.10: Distribution of FNVA per AWU by type of farming in the EU-27 in 2011

(average in EUR/AWU)


Figure1.10 shows the distribution of FNVA/AWU by type of farm in the EU-27 in 2011. In

general terms, income distribution remains asymmetrical within each of the eight sectors

distinguished in the FADN (i.e. a small proportion of farms with very high income and a large

proportion of farms with low income9).

9 Within a given sample, a single outlier will actually distort the average but will have no impact on the

median.

Legend:

1 = Field crops

2 = Horticulture

3 = Wine

4= Other permanent crops

5= Milk

6= Other grazing livestock

7= Granivores

8= Mixed

16

The degree of these discrepancies varies greatly across different types of farming. The most

pronounced differences between the mean and median values of FNVA/AWU are observed

for granivores. The distribution of FNVA/AWU is also highly uneven for field crop and dairy

farms (i.e. sectors with a larger inter-quartile range for FNVA/AWU). For wine holdings and

mixed farms, the best performing 25 % of farms have a larger impact on the average than the

remaining 75 % (their mean values are outside the boxes).

The trend in the distribution of FNVA/AWU over time varies from sector to sector. As shown

in Figure 1.11, the distribution of FNVA/AWU for specialised dairy farms became

increasingly asymmetric over the 2005-07 period. In 2007, income discrepancies were

particularly pronounced, and were accompanied by a significant increase in mean and median

levels. In 2008 and 2009, the degree of asymmetry decreased, as did mean and median

income. These developments were predominantly driven by increasing input prices in 2008

and the 2009 decrease in milk prices. From 2010 to 2011, FNVA/AWU increased, with the

mean income per worker approaching its 2007 level after a significant recovery in prices and

output during this period.

Figure 1.11: Distribution of FNVA/AWU of dairy farms in the EU-15 by year

(in EUR)


17

Figure 1.12: Distribution of FNVA/AWU of field crop farms in the EU-15 by year

(in EUR)


Figure 1.12 presents the average FNVA/AWU of specialised field crop farms. This ratio

fluctuated in 2004-11, with a high point in 2007. The income peak was due to the fact that the

2007 agricultural year was marked by a very sharp and remarkable increase in the prices of

many agricultural commodities, both in EU and world markets.

In the following two years (and especially in 2009), FNVA/AWU fell to the 2006 level, and

income distribution narrowed. In 2010-11, it returned to its 2007 level, and income

distribution became wider again. This recovery was the result of higher cereals prices and

volumes in 2010-11.

For farms specialised in granivore production (Figure1.13), average FNVA/AWU fell to a

low level in 2007 and 2008, as the dampening effect of extremely high feed prices more than

outweighed the favourable impact of higher output prices. After reaching their lowest points

in 2008, the median and mean values started to increase in 2009 and continued to do so in

2010-11. This increase can be explained by higher volume and higher producer prices

(particularly for pig meat).

18

Figure 1.13: Distribution of FNVA/AWU of granivore farms in the EU-15 by year

(in EUR)


Figure1.14 shows the distribution of income (FNVA) among the labour force (AWU) in the

EU-27 in 2011 using a Lorenz curve.10

As the 2011 income levels of a large part of the farm

labour force were negative, so too was the cumulated proportion of income, up to a certain

point.

The Lorenz curve shows that income is unevenly distributed among the labour force:11

80 %

of the labour force generated approximately 34 % of the whole agricultural sector’s income.

The remaining 20 % therefore generated 66 % of FNVA. Note that FNVA/AWU was negative

for around 47 % of total AWU employed in EU agriculture.

10 In order to draw the Lorenz curve, the income estimates are sorted in ascending order. Each observation is

weighted according to the weighting factor of the farm and the number of workers employed.

11 If income were equally distributed within the labour force, the Lorenz curve would become a straight line

linking the origin to the top right corner in the Figure.

19

Figure 1.14: Lorenz curve of the distribution of FNVA in the EU-27 in 2011


An alternative measure of the statistical distribution of income is the Gini index,12

which can

be between 0 and 1. The coefficient of 0 expresses perfect equality of income among the

labour force, while the coefficient of 1 reflects maximum concentration or inequality (with

one work unit capturing all the income in a sector).

Table 1.1 shows that income concentration in the EU-15 is typically lower than in the EU-

N10 or EU-2. The highest income concentration exists in the EU-2, which shows an unequal

distribution among farms. Although comparisons between groups should be made with

caution, the observed differences partly reflect disparities in the structure of the farm sector.

For instance, the sample includes very small farms in the EU-N10 and EU-2, and these are

mostly excluded in the EU-15.

Looking at the development of the coefficient over time within each EU group, income

concentration has increased in the EU-15 since 2004. In the EU-N10, there have been minor

fluctuations in income distribution, which fell slightly in 2010-11.

The economic crisis in 2009 seems to have increased income concentration in all EU groups,

but the EU-N10 was particularly affected by unequal income distribution. With the economic

recovery, income inequality narrowed in 2010, however there was still a slight concentration

in 2011. In the EU-2, farm income inequalities were most apparent in the accession year

(2007) and narrowed over time due to the increase of direct payments during the phasing-in

process

12 The Gini coefficient is usually based on the Lorenz curve. It can be thought of as the ratio of the area that

lies between the line of equality and the Lorenz curve over the total area below the line of equality.

20

Table 1.1: Development of the Gini coefficient of FNVA per AWU by EU group

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

EU15 0.604 0.603 0.589 0.614 0.667 0.677 0.646 0.677

EU-N10 0.899 0.872 0.927 0.911 0.821 0.970 0.711 0.720

EU2 0.796 0.734 0.782 0.761 0.730 Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN

21

1.3. Income components

Results by EU group

Figure 1.15 shows the composition of farm receipts and expenses by EU group in 2011. On

average, expenses (including the remuneration of own factors of production) were higher than

receipts for farms in the EU-15, while the average farm in the EU-N10 generated a small

profit.13

On the revenue side, average receipts per farm in the EU-27 stood at EUR 77 100, out of

which total output represented EUR 66 200 (86 %) and subsidies14

EUR 10 900 (14 %). These

aggregated figures hide large differences between the EU groups, both in absolute and relative

terms: the average farm revenue in the EU-2 was roughly 2.7 times lower than in the EU-N10

and 6.5 times lower than in the EU-15. In relative terms, subsidies accounted for more than

18 % of average farm revenue in the EU-N10, compared to roughly 14 % in the EU-15 and

11 % in the EU-2.

Figure 1.15: Income components per farm by EU group in 2011



On the cost side, average farm expenses totalled EUR 78 000 in the EU-27. While this

aggregated figure again reflects highly contrasting price levels in the EU groups, the cost

structure as such has been found to be broadly similar across all countries. Intermediate

consumption represented approximately 50 % of total expenses.

13 Farm profit corresponds to the amount remaining after remuneration of all production factors, including the

opportunity cost of family labour (estimated).

14 Subsidies include the sum of net current and investment subsidies. They include EU coupled and decoupled

payments, less favoured area (LFA) payments, rural development payments and national aid. Net means the

balance of current subsidies and taxes plus the balance of subsidies and taxes on investment.

22

Depreciation and expenses for external factors15

accounted for approximately 11 % each. The

remainder was accounted for by the (estimated) opportunity costs of own factors (family

labour, own land and own capital). While the EU-N10 and EU-15 show a similar distribution

of cost factors as the EU-27, for farms in the EU-2 intermediate consumption accounts for a

smaller part of total farm expenses (44 %) but opportunity costs account for a larger part of

total own factors (35 %).


In 2011, on average, farms specialised in field crops, milk, granivores and wine were

operating at a profit, as shown in Figure 1.16. Granivore farms had the highest output of all

farm types in the EU-27 (EUR 248 100). On the other end of the spectrum, farms specialised

in permanent crops other than wine generated the lowest output, namely EUR 28 700. Grazing

livestock farms recorded the highest average loss per farm (EUR -5 900).

As concerns average direct payments per holding, specialised dairy farms benefitted most

from subsidies (EUR 16 900 per farm), followed by field crops and livestock farms

(EUR 15 100 and EUR 14 400 per farm, respectively). On the other hand, the horticulture

sector received, on average, the lowest amount of subsidies (EUR 2 600 per farm). The most

subsidised dairy farm received five times more subsidies than the least subsidised

horticultural farm.16

These discrepancies in subsidies across sectors still reflect the past

features of the CAP, which provided support in particular for the production of cattle and field

crops. However, note that horticultural farms have significantly higher receipts than dairy or

field crops farms and might therefore be less reliant on public support.

Figure 1.16: Income components per farm, by type of farming in 2011


Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN. Note. Receipts (Rec), Expenses (Exp).

15 Expenses for external factors include wages, rent and interest paid.

16 This observation is based on the absolute value of subsidies for the average dairy and horticultural farm

disregarding the differences in the farm size of these two types of farming.

23

The cost structure varies markedly between sectors, reflecting differences in farm size,

technological processes and input prices. Granivore farms (typically large in economic size,

with technological processes involving a high turnover of animals) had the highest costs for

intermediate consumption due to feed costs (driven by higher prices for feeding stuffs), both

in absolute and in relative terms (EUR 185 000 or nearly 72 % of total expenses).

On the other hand, intermediate consumption on average totalled EUR 10 300 (or less than

30 % of total costs) for other permanent crop farms. Depreciation costs were, in relative terms,

broadly constant across sectors, amounting to around 11 % of total expenses. Granivore farms

spent least on depreciation (8 % of total expenses) while wine holdings spent most (13 %).

The proportion of external factors (wages, rent and interest paid) in total costs was

particularly high in the horticulture (21 %) and wine sectors (19 %), mainly due to the high

cost of external labour. On the other hand, other grazing livestock and granivore farms had

the lowest proportion of expenditure on external factors (around 8 %). In absolute terms,

horticulture holdings had the highest external factor costs (EUR 33 400), while farms

specialised in other grazing livestock, mixed and other permanent crops had the lowest (less

than EUR 6 000). Finally, the estimated costs of own production factors (family labour, own

land and own capital) as a proportion of total costs were highest for permanent crop farms

(44 %) and lowest for granivore farms (12 %).

1.4. Return on assets

Return on assets (ROA) measures the

effectiveness of a company’s assets in

generating revenue. It is defined as the ratio

of net income over total assets, with net

income being defined as the sum of FNVA

and net subsidies minus wage costs, rent

paid and the opportunity costs of own

labour.


The ROA of an average farm in the EU-27 reached 1.9 % in 2011, up from 1.8 % in 2010 (and

only 0.34 % in 2009). Holdings in Hungary, Lithuania and Estonia had the highest ROAs,

mainly due to relatively low levels of opportunity costs and fixed asset values (such as land

and quotas). In 2010, six Member States registered a negative ROA, with the lowest value

recorded in Slovakia. In 2011, Malta, Sweden, Finland and Slovenia had the lowest ROAs in

the EU (see Annex 8 for more details).

ROA=

FNVA

+ Balance of subsidies and taxes

- Wages paid

- Paid rent

- Opportunity costs of family labour

Total assets

24

Figure 1.17: Return on assets by Member State in 2010-11




Granivore, field crop and milk farms had ROAs above 2.5 %, but this figure dropped below

1 % for holdings specialised in other permanent crops, mixed crop-livestock and grazing

livestock (see Figure 1.18)

Figure 1.18: ROA in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011



Trends by EU group

As shown in Figure 1.19, the ROA fluctuated not only across EU groups but also over time

for each group. It decreased drastically for all countries in 2007-09 (except Bulgaria and

Romania) and then started to recover for all EU groups, albeit with varying intensity.

25

While in the EU-15 all growth took place between 2009 and 2010, the recovery process

continued in 2011 for the EU-N10, reaching its highest value in that year, including in

absolute terms (3 %). After an upward trend in 2010, the average ROA decreased in 2011 in

the EU-2, mainly due to investment in new plantations and equipment.

Figure 1.19: Changes in the ROA by EU group



26

2. IMPORTANCE OF DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR FARM INCOME

This chapter analyses the impact of direct payments on the income situation of European

farmers. Two economic indicators are used to express this: farm revenue and farm net value

added (FNVA). In our calculations, direct payments include total subsidies on operations

linked to production, with the exception of investment.

2.1. Proportion of direct payments in total revenue


The average amount of direct payments in 2011 was EUR 9 150 per holding. The proportion

of direct payments in total revenue (output plus net current and investment subsidies) in the

EU-27 stood at 11.9 % in 2011, down from 12.7 % in 2010, as total farm receipts increased

substantially while the level of public support decreased by only 0.1 %. This proportion varies

between Member States. Irish, Greek and Finnish farms’ total receipts are proportionately

most dependent on subsidies (which represent nearly 20 % of total revenue there). The

importance of crops such as grain maize, wheat, spelt and industrial crops, which used to be

strongly supported before decoupling, explains the high proportion of direct payments in

Greece’s total revenue. In Finland, the high proportion of public support in total receipts

mainly reflects substantial national payments, which are granted in addition to EU direct

payments (national aid for southern Finland, northern aid and national aid for crop

production17

). Finally, direct payments account for the lowest proportion of total revenue in

the Netherlands (close to 4 %), where sectors with a lower proportion of direct payments in

total revenue, such as horticulture, pig and poultry production, are a significant part of total

agricultural output.

Figure 2.1: Proportion of direct payments in total receipts, by Member State in 2011



17 Farming and Food in Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2011.

27


As already stated, the proportion of direct payments in revenue varies markedly across types

of farming, reflecting mainly differences in average farm size. In addition, in the EU-15 the

historical model of the CAP was characterised by asymmetrical direct support across sectors

— a feature which has gradually been reduced following the 2004 reform. Figure 2.2 shows

that direct payments account for the highest proportion of total revenue in grazing livestock

(19 %) and field crop farms (17 %). On the other hand, they represent only a very limited part

of total revenue in the wine and horticulture sectors (4 % and 2 %, respectively).

Figure 2.2: Proportion of direct payments in total receipts by type of farming in 2011



2.2. Proportion of direct payments in FNVA

The role direct payments play in sustaining farm income becomes even more apparent when

we look at their proportion in FNVA — a concept which measures net farm income, i.e.

income after costs are deducted (see Annex 2). Consequently, if all other factors remain equal,

changes in direct payments will have a much greater impact on FNVA than on total farm

revenue.


In 2011, on average, direct payments accounted for nearly 32 % of FNVA in the EU-27, down

from 34 % in 2010 (Figure 2.3). This slight decrease was caused by a slight increase in FNVA

and an insignificant decrease in direct payments in 2011. The proportion of direct payments in

FNVA was highest in Finland (76 %). In Slovakia, after being extremely high in

2009 (444 %), the proportion of direct payments in FNVA decreased, but was still the second-

highest in the EU-27 (70 %) in 2011, after Finland. On the other hand, direct payments

accounted for only 14 % of FNVA in the Netherlands, which showed that the country was

more focused on its highly profitable and less subsidised sectors, such as horticulture and pig

and poultry production.

28

Map 2.1 shows the regional differences in the proportion of direct payments in FNVA. The

lowest figure was seen in Hamburg (1 %), followed by Liguria and Trentino (3 % and 7 %,

respectively).

Figure 2.3: Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by Member State in 2011



Map 2.1: Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by FADN region in 2011


29


For total revenue, the proportion of direct payments in FNVA also fluctuates markedly with

the type of farming (Figure 2.4). In particular, direct payments represent a substantial part of

FNVA for grazing livestock, mixed and field crop farms, due to their average farm size and

historical orientations of the CAP. These types of farm recorded below-average FNVA, and

the highest average amounts of direct payments in 2011, which led to the highest proportion

of direct payments in FNVA. On the other hand, direct payments play only a limited role in

sustaining income within the wine and horticulture sectors, which had the highest FNVA in

2011.

Figure 2.4: Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by farm type in the EU-27 in 2011



30

3. FARM STRUCTURE

3.1. Financial structure

This chapter analyses the financial structure of agricultural holdings within the EU with

respect to two main dimensions (country and type of farming) and using a number of financial

indicators derived from farm balance sheets.

3.1.1. Total asset value

Total assets are the property of the agricultural holding and are calculated as the sum of

current and fixed assets. Current assets in the FADN include non-breeding livestock, stock of

agricultural products and other circulating capital, holdings of agricultural shares, and

amounts receivable in the short term or cash balances in hand or in the bank. Fixed assets are

agricultural land, permanent crops, farm and other buildings, forest capital, machinery and

equipment, and breeding livestock.

Long-term developments by EU group

Figure 3.1 shows that the value of total assets has been following an upward trend in both the

EU-15 and the EU-N10. In the EU-15, the average value of total assets rose by more than

40 % in 2004-11, while in the EU-N10 it doubled between 2004 and 2011.

Figure 3.1: Long-term developments in the value of total assets (TA) and total

liabilities18

(TL)



18 The concept of total liabilities will be discussed in section 3.1.2.

31


As shown in Figure 3.2, the value of total assets of an average farm in the EU-27 stood at

approximately EUR 311 700 in 2011. However, this average masks sizeable variations across

Member States, reflecting differences in the structure of national agricultural sectors.

On average, Danish and Dutch farms held the highest amount of assets (around

EUR 2 500 000 and EUR 2 200 000, respectively), reflecting very high land prices and the

importance of the types of farming that typically need considerable investment, such as milk,

granivores and horticulture production. In contrast, farms in Romania and Bulgaria had the

lowest value of total assets (under EUR 100 000) as they are characterised by less capital-

intensive types of farming. These low values of total assets were partly due to the lower land

price levels in the EU-2.

Figure 3.2: Average total asset value per farm by Member State in 2011




Dairy and granivore farms have typically held the highest amounts of total assets —

approximately three times the asset value of farms growing other permanent crops, which had

the lowest values. These disparities are partly due to differences in capital intensity across

sectors.

32

Figure 3.3: Average total asset value by type of farming in the EU-27 in 2011



3.1.2. Total liabilities

In the EU-27, total liabilities have on average accounted for a small proportion of farms’

funding sources. In this respect, it is worth pointing out that while the 2004 and 2007

enlargements have affected the average level of total liabilities per farm, the impact has been

substantially smaller than on total assets per farm.


In line with the general trend for total asset values (see Figure 3.1), total liabilities have also

increased. In the EU-15, the average value of total liabilities increased by 49 % in 2004-11,

while in the EU-N10 it rose by 63 % during this period.

In the EU-27, average liabilities per agricultural holding rose to EUR 46 816 in 2011, up from

EUR 44 994 in the previous year. As illustrated in Figure 3.4, both the total amount and

composition of liabilities show wide variations across Member States. In absolute terms, the

Danish and Dutch farms had, on average, the highest total liabilities within the EU. In

contrast, total liabilities per farm remained very low in many Mediterranean Member States,

which may reflect difficulties farmers have in accessing credit markets in these countries.

However, these very low observed levels could also have resulted from different accounting

practices, where liabilities are typically included in farmers’ private rather than farm accounts.

In relative terms, agricultural holdings relied mostly on medium- and long-term loans, which

represented more than 90 % of total liabilities in Cyprus, Belgium, Slovenia, Italy, Denmark,

and Finland. Short-term loans to finance agricultural activities were prominent in Hungary,

Romania, Slovakia, Portugal and Lithuania (with short-term loans on average accounting for

around half of total liabilities).

33

Figure 3.4: Composition of liabilities per farm by Member State in 2011




As shown in Figure 3.5, farms specialised in granivores, specialised dairy and horticulture

had, on average, the highest total liabilities (EUR 209 500, EUR 100 400 and EUR 95 800,

respectively), which in fact mirrored the high total asset values observed in these farm types.

Permanent crop holdings recorded the lowest liabilities in 2011 (EUR 6 800).

Medium- and long-term loans were the dominant kind of liability for all farm types. Short-

term loans only played a significant role in wine holdings, where they accounted for around

46 % of total liabilities.

Figure 3.5: Composition of liabilities per farm in the EU-27, by type of farming in 2011



34

3.1.3. Development of farm net worth


Farm net worth is defined as the difference between total assets and total liabilities at the end

of the accounting year. In 2011, the average farm net worth stood at approximately

EUR 265 000 in the EU-27 (+4 % compared to 2010). The average net worth per agricultural

holding was highest in the Netherlands, the UK and Denmark (Figure 3.6), reflecting the

importance of the granivore and milk sectors, which are characterised by above-average net

worth values per farm (Figure 3.7). Romanian and Bulgarian farms had the lowest values.

Figure 3.6: Farm net worth by EU group and Member State in 2010 and 2011



Figure 3.7: Farm net worth in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011



35

Farm net worth for mixed farms (crops and livestock) was lowest, and remained significantly

below the EU-27 average, reflecting these farms’ lowest asset value in comparison with other

sectors.

3.1.4. Solvency

In this analysis, solvency is measured using the liabilities-to-assets ratio, which indicates the

percentage of an agricultural holding’s assets that is financed through debt. This gives an

indication of a farm’s ability to meet its obligations in the long term (or its capacity to repay

liabilities if all of the assets were sold). The results should be interpreted with caution as a

high liabilities-to-assets ratio is not necessarily a sign of a financially vulnerable position. In

fact, a high ratio could also be an indication of a farm’s economic viability (i.e. its ability to

access outside financing), though there is certainly a threshold beyond which indebtedness

will compromise a farm’s financial health.

A high liabilities-to-assets ratio typically reflects heavy recourse to outside financing (i.e.

taking out loans). While the higher leverage (the amount of debt used to finance assets) helps

a farm to invest and typically increase its profitability, it comes at a greater risk as leveraging

magnifies both gains (when investment generates the expected return) and losses (when

investment moves against the investor19

).

As is the case for other financial indicators used, the liabilities-to-assets ratio varies

significantly across Member States and in some cases even within Member States, as shown

on Map 3.1. Farms in Denmark, France and the Netherlands had the highest liabilities-to-

assets ratio (at 59 %, 39 % and 37 %, respectively). The lowest average solvency levels were

observed in many Mediterranean Member States, as well as in Ireland, Romania and Slovenia

(below 3 %).

As has already been stated, these very low levels of indebtedness, and by extension of

solvency, could stem from the fact that in these Member States liabilities are typically not

included in the farm accounts but in farmers’ private accounts. However, in the case of

Ireland, low solvency levels mainly reflect relatively high asset values. As shown in Figure

3.8, the level of solvency also varies markedly across farm types, with farms specialised in

granivores, horticulture, and dairy production having the highest liabilities-to-assets ratios.

19 For example, due to unfavourable weather conditions or outbreaks of animal diseases.

36

Map 3.1: Average liabilities-to-assets ratio per farm by FADN region in 2011


Figure 3.8: Farm solvency in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011



37

3.1.5. Current and fixed assets


Fixed assets20

account for the largest proportion of total assets in all Member States (see

Figure 3.9). In particular, total farm assets in Greece, Ireland, Malta and Slovenia consist

almost exclusively of fixed assets (more than 90 %). The proportion of fixed assets was lowest

in Slovakia (48 %).

Figure 3.9: Composition of assets by Member State in 2011



Figure 3.10: Composition of fixed assets by Member State in 2011



20 Fixed assets include agricultural land, farm and other buildings, forest capital, machinery and equipment and

breeding livestock.

38

The composition of fixed assets across Member States depends on the structure of the

agricultural sector. As shown in Figure 3.10, ‘land, permanent crops and quotas’ was the

largest component in most Member States in 2011. In particular, this category made up more

than 80 % of fixed assets in Ireland, Cyprus, the United Kingdom and Spain. On the other

hand, ‘buildings’ were of major importance in Austria, Romania, Slovakia, and the Czech

Republic (ranging from 45 % to 51 %). ‘Machinery’ accounted for the largest proportion of

fixed assets in Lithuania (more than 50 %). Finally, ‘breeding livestock’ was the smallest

component of fixed assets in all Member States (ranging from 15 % in France to 1.5 % in

Italy).

However, it should be stressed at this point that accounting practices vary markedly across

Member States. For instance, quotas are not marketable in some countries (e.g. France), so

they are not recorded as a farm’s separate asset, although their value is partly included in the

land value. Consequently, the value of the ‘land, permanent crops and quotas’ component is

underestimated compared to countries with marketable quotas (e.g. the Netherlands). There

are also differences in how land-related data is recorded. For example, in France, farmers in

some cases set up holdings that rent land to their members, and in this case the value of the

land is not included in these holdings’ total assets. This accounting practice thus increases the

relative proportion of other assets.


As shown in Figure 3.11, fixed assets accounted for 80 % of total assets in 2011. This

proportion varied slightly between types of farming, ranging from 83 % in specialised dairy

farms to 66 % in wine holdings.

Figure 3.11: Composition of assets by type of farming in 2011



39

For the composition of fixed assets, Figure 3.12 shows that ‘land, permanent crops and

quotas’ was the largest component in all farm types, though the proportion varied from more

than 81 % in farms growing other permanent crops to about 50 % in granivore farms. On the

other hand, granivore farms had the largest proportion of ‘buildings’ (33 %) and farms

growing other permanent crops had the lowest (10 %). Mixed holdings recorded the largest

proportion of ‘machinery’ in fixed assets (about 16 %), while the proportion of ‘machinery’ in

fixed assets for farms growing other permanent crops was around 9 %, at the other end of the

spectrum. Finally, ‘breeding livestock’ accounted for the highest proportion of total assets in

grazing livestock and dairy farms (broadly 9 %).

Figure 3.12: Composition of fixed assets by type of farming in 2011



3.2. Labour

This section analyses the structure of the labour force employed by EU farms, focusing on the

average size of the labour force employed per farm, its composition, and wages paid. The

results show that the proportion of non-family labour in the total workforce is gradually

increasing in the EU-15, reflecting structural changes and increasing farm sizes. A similar

development can be observed in the EU-N10. In addition, there is significantly higher

variability across EU-N10 Member States, due to the predominance of very large farms often

organised as legal entities in many eastern European countries. There are Member States

where the proportion of family labour is higher than the EU-27 average in both the EU-15 and

the EU-N10. In terms of the proportion of unpaid working hours, Ireland and Austria take the

lead (94 %), while in Denmark and in the Netherlands this proportion is around 50 %, showing

balanced labour distribution between family and non-family labour hours. The highest

proportion of unpaid working hours (89 %) can be observed in Romania. Slovakia (6 %) and

the Czech Republic (22 %) are at the other end of the scale, due to the predominance of very

large farms, which are often organised as legal entities.

40

3.2.1. Labour force


The labour input of holdings stood at 1.6 AWU in 2011, virtually unchanged from the

previous year. As shown in Figure 3.13, it varied considerably across countries, ranging from

14.3 AWU in Slovakia to 1.1 AWU in Ireland. Czech farms had significantly higher labour

input compared to the remaining Member States (6.5 AWU), reflecting the predominance of

very large non-family agricultural holdings.

Figure 3.13: Labour input per farm (in AWU) by Member State in 2011



Figure 3.14 shows that labour input by type of farming was fairly close to the average

1.6 AWU per farm in all sectors apart from horticulture (with nearly twice as much labour

input) and for granivore farms, where the AWU per farm was 25 % higher than the average.

Figure 3.14: Labour input per farm (in AWU) by type of farming in the EU-27 in 2011


41


Traditionally, a significant part of the labour force employed in agriculture is family labour.

Family labour as a proportion of total labour represents the prevalent form of labour in most

Member States with the exception of Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia and

Bulgaria. As Figure 3.15 shows, the proportion of paid labour in the total labour force in these

five countries was higher than 50 % — sometimes significantly so.

Figure 3.15: Proportion of working hours of paid and unpaid labour by Member State

in 2011



As shown by Figure 3.16, the proportion of paid labour is highest in horticulture holdings,

reflecting the typical recourse to seasonal workers. The proportion of paid labour is typically

lowest in grazing livestock, mixed (crops and livestock) and dairy farms.

Figure 3.16: Proportion of working hours of paid and unpaid labour in the EU-27 by

type of farming in 2011


42

3.2.2. Remuneration of farm workers

Results by EU group

As shown in Figure 3.17, the nominal hourly wage followed an upward trend in the EU-15

and in the EU-N10. In the EU-15, the average nominal hourly wage rose by 19 % between

2004 and 2011, from EUR 8.26 to EUR 9.85. In the EU-N10, it stood at EUR 3.91 in 2011,

up from EUR 2.09 in 2004 (an increase of some 87 %). The average EU-2 nominal hourly

wage came to around EUR 1.82 over the 2007-11 period. Finally, the average EU-27 nominal

hourly wage stood at EUR 6.99 in 2011, compared to EUR 6.70 in 2010 and EUR 6.26 in

2009; this was an increase of about 11.7 % over this period. The average nominal hourly wage

in the EU-15 was approximately 2.5 times higher than in the EU-N10 and five times higher

than in the EU-2. Note that changes in the nominal wage more than compensated for price

increases over this period, so that the real hourly wage rose by around 7.3 % between 2009

and 2011 (EU-27 HICP21

inflation stood at around 4.3.% during this time).

Figure 3.17: Long-term developments in average nominal wages




As Figure 3.18 shows, the average hourly nominal wage differs widely within the EU-27. In

2011, it was highest in Denmark (EUR 23.42) and lowest in Romania (EUR 1.89). Note that

wages in the EU-N10 and the EU-2, as well as in Greece and Portugal, were below the EU-27

average (EUR 6.99). Map 3.2 shows that the level of wages was highest in the north-west of

Europe: Denmark (EUR 23.42), Sweden (EUR 18-19.76), the French Champagne-Ardenne

region (EUR 16.60) and the Netherlands (EUR 15.45). At the other end of the scale were

Romania (EUR 1.89), Bulgaria (EUR 1.71), and the eastern regions of Poland (EUR 2.2).

21 The Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) is an economic indicator constructed to measure the

changes over time in the prices of consumer goods and services acquired by households. It provides the

official measure of consumer price inflation in the euro-zone for the purposes of monetary policy in the euro

area and assessing inflation convergence as required under the Maastricht criteria.

43

Figure 3.18: Average nominal wages of paid labour in 2011

(EUR/hour)


Map 3.2: Average nominal wage by FADN region in 2011


44

3.3. Land

For most farm types, access to agricultural land is a precondition for economic activity. This

subsection analyses the amount of agricultural land available per farm, trends in the

ownership of land, and the cost of renting land.

3.3.1. Farm size

While it has already become clear throughout this report that the structure of farms varies

significantly across Member States, one of the most telling indicators of these differences is

the physical size of farms, measured by the amount of agricultural land per farm. Based on

2011 data, an average farm in Slovakia was more than 180 times larger than its counterpart in

Malta (546 ha vs 3 ha — see Figure 3.19). The average EU farm size was 32 ha in 2011, little

changed from the previous year. The average farm size was mostly below the EU-27 average

in the Mediterranean countries, and in some of the Eastern European countries such as

Poland, Romania and Slovenia.

Figure 3.19: Total farm UAA22

by Member State in 2011

(average per farm in ha)

Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN

The average utilised agricultural land area was largest in field-crop farms, followed by

grazing livestock farms. At the other end of the spectrum, horticultural farms were the

smallest. The average field crop farm (52 ha) was nearly nine times as large as the average

horticultural farm (6 ha) in 2011. However, it is important to stress that horticultural farms

generate a higher level of revenue per unit of land.

22 UAA is the abbreviation of utilised agricultural area, which describes the area used for farming.

45

Figure 3.20: Total UAA of farms by type of farming in 2011

(average per farm in ha)

Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN.

3.3.2. Importance of rented land

Structural change is ongoing in the agricultural sector, as reflected by the steadily decreasing

number of farms. Consequently, the remaining active farms tend to get larger as they buy or

rent the land previously used by farms which have ceased farming.

Figure 3.21: Long-term developments in the proportion of rented land in 2011

(average per farm in %)


As shown in Figure 3.21, the proportion of rented land in the EU-15 showed an upward trend,

rising from about 51.4 % in 2004 to 54 % in 2011. This indicates that more than half of the

land available on the EU-15 market is rented rather than sold. The proportion of rented land in

the EU-N10 remained broadly stable over 2004-11, at slightly below 50 %.

46

Note that these averages for different EU groups mask considerable national and regional

disparities, as shown on Map 3.3. Rented land as a proportion of total UAA is very high in

Slovakia (95 %23

), the Czech Republic, France, Bulgaria, Cantabria, and in the eastern and

central regions of Germany. Conversely, it is below 30 % in many southern European regions

as well as in Ireland, Wales, Denmark, north-eastern Poland and Austria.

Map 3.3: Proportion of rented land in total UAA, by FADN region in 2011


3.3.3. Level of land rents

As land prices are often influenced by factors originating outside the agricultural sector, the

annual rent farmers have to pay for one hectare of land is typically considered as the best

proxy for the cost of land. Map 3.4 shows that the level of land rents differs markedly across

EU regions. In 2011, the highest average land rent per ha was observed in the Canarias and

the Netherlands (approximately EUR 1 246 and EUR 707, respectively). Land rents were also

very high in the Hamburg region (Germany) and in Denmark, where they were well above

EUR 500 per ha. On the other hand, rents were particularly low in Latvia and Estonia (below

EUR 30 per ha) and in many regions with unfavourable conditions for intensive agricultural

production, such as dry and mountainous areas.

23 This very high proportion of rented land in total UAA reflects the business structure of Slovak agricultural

holdings (i.e. cooperatives renting land from their members).

47

In so far as the rental value of land reflects land scarcity, its level can be used as an indicator

of the risk of land abandonment. For instance, if land rents are high, it can be assumed that

farming is profitable and that there are enough farmers willing to use the land. On the other

hand, if rents are low, this indicates that there is little potential for making economically

profitable use of the land. Hence, adverse changes in the economic environment are highly

likely to result in land abandonment.

Map 3.4: Average land rent levels in the FADN regions in 2011


Results by farm type

The level of land rent depends on several factors, such as the scarcity of land, the degree of

competition between farmers in the local land market and the strength of demand for land in

different sectors. In areas where horticulture or wine production is of importance, suitable

land is scarce and land rents are much higher than, for example, in areas with extensive

grassland. Similarly, in areas with intensive livestock production, land prices tend to be higher

because additional land is often a precondition for expanding this production. This is mirrored

in the average level of land rents per farm type shown in Figure 3.22.

48

Figure 3.22: Average land rent by farm type in 2011

(in EUR per ha)

Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN

Developments in land rent levels by EU group

As shown in Figure 3.23, the level of land rents in the EU-15 increased very gradually over

2004-11, from around EUR 174 per ha to EUR 185 per ha. However, this trend was more

pronounced in the EU-N10, despite a small decrease in 2009: average land rent per hectare

increased by more than 90 % during this period, from around EUR 32 to EUR 61. In the EU-2,

land rents fell to nearly EUR 62 in 2009 before increasing to EUR104 in 2011 (+ 67 %). It is

interesting to observe that the level of land rents has been, on average, higher in the EU-2

than in the EU-N10 (over the period for which data are available). All in all, average land

rents have gradually increased in the EU since 2007 and stood at around EUR 155 per hectare

in 2011 (+7.5 %). Finally, note that the land rent figures discussed in this subsection are

averages and do not therefore necessarily reflect prices in new rental contracts (which may be

well above the average level observed in the FADN).

Figure 3.23: Long-term developments in land rent levels

(in EUR per ha)


49

FIGURE INDEX

Figure1.1: Farm net value added by Member State in 2011 ................................................ 7

Figure 1.2: FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family labour per FWU by Member

State in 2011 ....................................................................................................... 7

Figure 1.3: Long-term developments in FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family

labour per FWU .................................................................................................. 8

Figure 1.4: FNVA per farm in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011 ............................... 11

Figure 1.5: FNVA per AWU by type of farming in 2011 ................................................... 11

Figure 1.6: FNVA by EU group and organisational form in 2011 ..................................... 12

Figure 1.7: FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family labour per FWU by EU group

and organisational form .................................................................................... 13

Figure 1.8: Distribution of FNVA per AWU by EU group in 2011 ................................... 14

Figure 1.9: Distribution of FNVA per AWU by year ......................................................... 15

Figure 1.10: Distribution of FNVA per AWU by type of farming in the EU-15 in 2011 .... 16

Figure 1.11: Distribution of FNVA per AWU of dairy farms in the EU-15 by year ............ 17

Figure 1.12: Distribution of FNVA per AWU of field crop farms in the EU-15 by year .... 17

Figure 1.13: Distribution of FNVA per AWU of granivore farms in the EU-15 by year ..... 18

Figure 1.14: Lorenz curve of the distribution of FNVA in the EU-27 in 2011 .................... 19

Figure 1.15: Income components per farm by EU group in 2011 ........................................ 21

Figure 1.16: Income components per farm by type of farming in 2011 ............................... 22

Figure 1.17: Rate of return on assets by Member State in 2010 and 2011 ........................... 23

Figure 1.18: ROA in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011 ............................................... 24

Figure 1.19: Development of the ROA by EU group ........................................................... 25

Figure 2.1: Proportion of direct payments in total receipts by Member State in 2011 ....... 26

Figure 2.2: Proportion of direct payments in total receipts by type of farming in 2011 ..... 27

Figure 2.3: Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by Member State in 2011 ................. 28

Figure 2.4: Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by farm type in the EU-27, 2011 ..... 29

Figure 3.1: Long-term developments in the value of total assets (TA) and total liabilities

(TL) 30

50

Figure 3.2: Average total asset value per farm by Member State in 2011 .......................... 31

Figure 3.3: Average total asset value by type of farming in the EU-27 in 2011................. 32

Figure 3.4: Composition of liabilities per farm by Member State in 2011 ......................... 33

Figure 3.5: Composition of liabilities per farm in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011 . 33

Figure 3.6: Farm net worth per farm by EU group and Member State in 2010 and 2011 .. 34

Figure 3.7: Farm net worth per farm in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011 ................. 34

Figure 3.8: Farm solvency in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011 ................................. 36

Figure 3.9: Composition of assets by Member State in 2011 ............................................. 37

Figure 3.10: Composition of fixed assets by Member State in 2011 .................................... 37

Figure 3.11: Composition of assets by type of farming in 2011 ........................................... 38

Figure 3.12: Composition of fixed assets by type of farming in 2011 .................................. 39

Figure 3.13: Labour input per farm (in AWU) by Member State in 2011 ............................ 40

Figure 3.14: Labour input per farm (in AWU) by type of farming in the EU-27 in 2011 .... 40

Figure 3.15: Proportion of working hours of paid and unpaid labour by Member State in

2011 .................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 3.16: Proportion of working hours of paid and unpaid labour in the EU-27 by type of

farming in 2011 ................................................................................................ 41

Figure 3.17: Long-term developments in average nominal wages ....................................... 42

Figure 3.18: Average nominal wages of paid labour in 2011 ............................................... 43

Figure 3.19: Total farm UAA by Member State in 2011 ...................................................... 44

Figure 3.20: Total UAA of farms by TF in 2011 .................................................................. 45

Figure 3.21: Long-term developments in the proportion of rented land in 2011 .................. 45

Figure 3.22: Average land rent by farm type in 2011 ........................................................... 48

Figure 3.23: Long-term developments in land rent levels ............................................ 48

TABLE INDEX

Table 1.1: Development of the Gini coefficient of FNVA per AWU by EU group ............ 20

51

MAP INDEX

Map 1.1: FNVA per AWU by FADN region in 2011 ............................................................ 9

Map 1.2: Remuneration of family labour per FWU by FADN region in 2011 .................... 10

Map 2.1: Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by FADN region in 2011 ...................... 28

Map 3.1: Average liabilities-to-assets ratio per farm by FADN region in 2011 .................. 35

Map 3.2: Average nominal wage by FADN region in 2011 ................................................. 42

Map 3.3: Proportion of rented land in the total UAA by FADN region in 2011 .................. 45

Map 3.4: Average land rent in the FADN regions in 2011 ................................................... 46

ANNEX INDEX

Annex 1: Methodology ......................................................................................................... 51

Annex 2: Income calculation ................................................................................................ 54

Annex 3: Threshold by Member State in 2011 (SO: Standard Output) ................................ 55

Annex 4: FNVA and remuneration of family labour per AWU by Member State and

organisational form in 2011 .................................................................................. 56

Annex 5: Number of holdings by type of farming in 2011 ................................................... 57

Annex 6: Breakdown of revenue and costs of EU farms in 2011 ......................................... 58

Annex 7: Balance sheet components in FADN ..................................................................... 59

Annex 8: Indicators by Member State in 2011 ..................................................................... 60

52

Annex 1: Methodology

Revenue items recorded in the FADN accounts

Output: includes crops and livestock production as well as other output if it is directly linked

to the farm’s activity, e.g. farm tourism, forestry, renewable energy, etc. It does not include

the household’s non-farm income.

Pillar I and Pillar II-type payments: in the context of this analysis, Pillar I and Pillar II-type

payments refer not only to the part financed by the EU but also to subsidies financed by

Member States, including national aid. The FADN does not allow for a clear distinction

between EU and national payments over such a long time period.

Investment subsidies: investment subsidies could be regarded as part of the Pillar II

payments. However, they are shown separately because they are treated differently in the

calculation of the income estimates. As in the case of the Pillar I and Pillar II-type payments,

they include national payments.

Costs items recorded in the FADN accounts

Intermediate consumption: total specific costs and overheads arising from production in the

accounting year. Intermediate consumption for example includes the costs of feed, fertilisers,

crop protection and energy.

Depreciation: depreciation of capital assets estimated at replacement value.

(Net) Farm taxes: farm taxes, except VAT, and other taxes on land and buildings. Subsidies

on taxes are deducted. Personal income taxes are not taken into account.

(Net) Taxes on investment: taxes not arising from current productive activity in the

accounting year, net of subsidies.

Wages: wages and social security charges. Amounts received by workers considered as

unpaid workers (wages lower than a normal wage) are excluded.

Rents: rent paid for farm land and buildings and rental charges.

Estimation of the imputed unpaid family factors costs

Family labour cost: this cost is estimated on the basis of wages which the owner of the farm

would have to pay if s/he were to hire employees to do the work carried out by family

members.

It is estimated as the average regional wage per hour based on the FADN data24

multiplied by

the number of hours worked by family workers on the farm.

24 If there are not enough farms (fewer than 20) with paid labour at regional level, the national average is used.

53

It is commonly acknowledged that the number of hours worked by family workers is typically

overestimated. Thus, a ceiling of 3 000 hours per Annual Work Unit is applied (this is the

equivalent of 8.2 hours a day, 365 days a year, and corresponds more or less to the time that

can be spent on a farm by farmers milking cows).25

The use of hours makes it possible to give a manager more remuneration than an employee if

s/he works more hours.

Reliable family labour cost estimates are difficult to obtain as records of hours worked on the

farm might be overestimated and it is not easy to determine what an appropriate remuneration

for family labour is. Farmers may agree to be remunerated at a below-average wage if they

consider farming as a way of life or have other sources of income for their household (e.g.

other gainful activities directly related to the holding, spouse working outside the farm, etc.).

Own capital cost

– Own land cost: this cost is estimated on the basis of the rent that the owner of the farm

would have to pay if he were to rent the land he is using. It is estimated as the owned area

multiplied by the rent paid per hectare on the same farm or, if there is no rented land on the

farm, by the average rent paid per hectare in the same region and for the same type of

farming.26

– Cost of own capital (except land): the cost of own capital (permanent crops, buildings,

machinery and equipment, forest land, livestock and crop stocks) is estimated at its

opportunity cost. That is how much money the farmer could earn if he were to invest the

equivalent of its capital value in ‘safe’ financial assets.

The interest paid on the capital is not known, as this information is optional in the FADN

farm return. Nevertheless, in order to take into account the actual interest rate paid on the

farm, a ‘weighted’ interest rate is calculated as the weighted average of this interest rate for

liabilities and the long-term interest rate obtained from Eurostat. It should be noted that if the

‘weighted’ interest rate is lower than the long-term interest rate (which means that the

calculated rate of interest paid is lower than the long-term interest rate), the long-term interest

rate is used instead of the ‘weighted’ interest rate.

25 A constraint of this estimation method is that if a farmer were to receive a salary he would probably work

less.

26 If there are not enough farms (fewer than 20) in a given region for a given type of farming, the national rent

per hectare for this type of farming is used (based on the TF8 classification).

54

Own capital value (excluding land and land improvement) is estimated as the average value of

the assets (closing plus opening valuation divided by two) multiplied by the real interest

rate.27

The correction is made by subtracting the inflation rate28

from the nominal interest rate.

The value of total circulating capital is not taken into account in the estimation process as data

are not sufficiently reliable in some Member States. The crop stocks value is included,

however.

To calculate unpaid capital costs, the interest paid is deducted from the sum of the own land

cost and the cost of own capital except land to avoid double counting. The total capital cost

has to be at least equal to the interest paid:

Imputed unpaid capital costs = Max (interest paid; own land cost + estimated cost for own

capital except land - interest paid)

27 Any increase in the value of assets is excluded from income calculations. For example, land appreciates in

value over time, which is one of the reasons why investors invest in land. This gain is not included in the

income; therefore it would not be consistent to include it in the cost of capital. In addition, in the FADN

assets are valued at replacement value. Depreciation is based on this replacement value and therefore

already takes the increase in prices (inflation) into account. Consequently, it would be double counting to

include the inflation part of interest in the cost of capital.

28 The inflation rate is based on the Eurostat annual average rate of change in the Harmonised Indices of

Consumer Prices (HICPs), available from 1997. Inflation rates based on a GDP deflator and on a deflator of

gross fixed capital consumption have been tested, but were found to lead to very high negative costs for

capital, mainly in the EU-N10. An inflation rate calculated on the basis of price indices for gross fixed

capital consumption has been tested, as it seemed to be more closely related to assets. However, this rate has

been fluctuating widely over the years for certain Member States. In addition, land is one of the most

important assets which does not depreciate. It follows that the inflation rate of gross fixed capital

consumption may not have a closer relationship with the change in the price of agricultural assets than with

the consumer price indices.

55

Annex 2: Income calculation


56

Annex 3: Threshold by Member State in 2011 (SO29

: Standard output)

Member State Threshold (in 1000 EUR)

Belgium 25

Bulgaria 2

Cyprus 4

Czech Republic 8

Denmark 15

Germany 25

Greece 4

Spain 4

Estonia 4

France 25

Hungary 4

Ireland 8

Italy 4

Lithuania 4

Luxembourg 25

Latvia 4

Malta 4

Netherlands 25

Austria 8

Poland 4

Portugal 4

Finland 8

Sweden 15

Slovakia 15

Slovenia 4

Romania 2

United Kingdom 15


29 The Standard Output (SO) is the average monetary value of the agricultural output at farm-gate price of each

agricultural product (crop or livestock) in a given region. The SO is calculated by Member State per hectare

or per head of livestock, by using basic data for a reference period of five successive years. The SO of the

holding is calculated as the sum of the SO of each agricultural product present in the holding multiplied by

the relevant number of hectares or heads of livestock of the holding. The SO coefficients are expressed in

euros and the economic size of the holding is measured as the total standard output of the holding expressed

in euros.

57

Annex 4: FNVA and remuneration of family labour per AWU by Member State and organisational form in 2011


Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN Note. Where no information is displayed in a column, this is for confidentiality reasons (i.e. there were fewer than 15 holdings in the given category of the 2011 sample).

58

Annex 5: Number of holdings by type of farming in 2011

Farms represented Sample farms

Type of farming Sum Sum

Field crops 1 123 014 23 315

Horticulture 178 536 5 144

Wine 265 484 4 485

Other permanent crops 665 884 6 329

Milk 558 987 13 716

Grazing livestock 822 580 11 140

Granivores 160 960 5 631

Mixed (crops and livestock) 1 076 857 11 991

Total groups 4 852 303 81 751


59

Annex 6: Breakdown of revenue and costs of EU farms in 2011


Source: DG AGRvI EU-FADN.

Note: Receipts (Rec), Expenses (Exp).

60

Annex 7: Balance sheet components in the FADN


61

Annex 8: Indicators by Member State in 2011

Member

State

FNVA FNVA per

AWU

Income

remaining

per FWU

(*)

Return

on

assets

Proportion

DIRECT

PAYMENTS

in revenue

Proportion

DIRECT

PAYMENTS

in FNVA

Average

asset

value

Average

liabilities Net worth

Paid

labour

input

Unpaid

labour

input

Wages /

hour

Average

UAA

Proportion

of rented

land

Level of

rents

EUR EUR/AWU EUR/FWU % % % EUR EUR EUR % % EUR/hour ha % EUR/ha

BE 80 304 37 957 25 714 3.6 % 8.3 % 27.0 % 612 637 185 156 427 481 17.9 % 82.2 % 10.2 48.0 73.8 % 268.8

BG 16 197 6 812 3 132 5.4 % 12.4 % 29.4 % 94 571 18 365 76 206 49.5 % 50.5 % 1.7 33.6 89.5 % 133.3

CY 15 460 10 335 9 538 1.8 % 8.3 % 21.6 % 225 280 6 517 218 763 28.5 % 71.5 % 3.6 8.4 62.8 % 170.0

CZ 125 249 19 354 17 011 4.4 % 14.8 % 47.8 % 885 277 206 012 679 265 78.4 % 21.6 % 6.3 228.5 83.6 % 63.8

DK 143 519 85 571 49 887 2.0 % 7.5 % 24.4 % 2 536 817 1 489 097 1 047 719 49.4 % 50.6 % 23.4 96.3 29.2 % 595.6

DE 73 900 35 353 22 523 2.2 % 11.5 % 39.3 % 777 292 148 914 628 378 37.8 % 62.2 % 10.1 80.4 68.3 % 227.8

EL 14 722 12 466 4 365 3.9 % 19.8 % 40.0 % 114 307 588 113 720 16.0 % 84.0 % 3.3 9.1 50.3 % 216.8

ES 28 646 20 499 16 124 2.1 % 15.5 % 32.0 % 310 426 7 639 302 787 25.2 % 74.8 % 7.3 37.1 35.9 % 112.3

EE 33 577 16 691 15 355 6.7 % 13.6 % 45.7 % 210 879 61 344 149 535 51.0 % 49.0 % 5.0 119.6 61.7 % 18.1

FR 75 602 37 603 32 225 5.4 % 12.7 % 36.8 % 424 390 165 579 258 811 29.0 % 71.0 % 13.0 87.6 87.4 % 162.2

HU 29 978 19 411 17 552 10.8 % 15.7 % 40.6 % 153 760 28 783 124 978 53.7 % 46.3 % 3.6 47.0 58.3 % 101.5

IE 28 849 25 668 4 790 0.3 % 19.0 % 46.7 % 778 494 18 347 760 147 6.1 % 93.9 % 10.2 43.3 18.2 % 255.8

IT 28 503 22 150 18 743 0.4 % 9.5 % 19.1 % 381 821 2 824 378 997 20.3 % 79.7 % 8.8 15.8 41.4 % 176.3

LT 15 203 8 697 9 736 7.7 % 14.4 % 41.5 % 109 276 14 455 94 821 18.3 % 81.7 % 2.6 46.6 55.3 % 36.5

LU 70 400 39 930 35 533 2.0 % 13.7 % 47.4 % 1 107 222 218 688 888 534 16.1 % 83.9 % 10.9 82.4 53.3 % 209.6

LV 14 841 7 451 7 781 4.9 % 15.4 % 60.2 % 118 014 36 680 81 334 33.3 % 66.7 % 3.1 71.4 50.0 % 18.3

MT 8 345 6 009 5 072 -3.6 % 5.7 % 23.6 % 175 568 7 472 168 096 9.5 % 90.6 % 5.1 2.6 82.5 % 67.5

NL 128 959 45 961 29 677 1.0 % 3.8 % 13.8 % 2 195 514 804 927 1 390 586 44.9 % 55.1 % 15.5 35.2 41.0 % 707.1

AT 33 488 23 263 20 598 2.5 % 10.2 % 27.3 % 414 905 46 450 368 455 6.3 % 93.7 % 7.1 30.7 29.1 % 223.1

PL 12 716 7 414 5 597 1.8 % 13.7 % 37.5 % 149 375 8 949 140 427 12.3 % 87.7 % 2.7 18.5 27.4 % 61.9

PT 14 625 9 170 5 640 1.7 % 13.7 % 32.2 % 121 871 3 890 117 981 18.4 % 81.6 % 4.3 25.0 30.1 % 89.6

RO 6 745 4 980 3 464 0.0 % 10.3 % 22.1 % 37 045 778 36 267 11.0 % 89.0 % 1.9 9.8 54.1 % 84.8

FI 33 755 26 199 16 365 -1.1 % 18.9 % 76.2 % 408 244 111 877 296 367 17.5 % 82.5 % 13.8 54.3 35.0 % 203.2

SE 48 757 34 785 12 079 -2.1 % 12.6 % 54.3 % 833 581 253 089 580 493 20.2 % 79.8 % 18.5 98.5 53.6 % 190.9

SK 160 900 11 257 18 833 1.4 % 15.5 % 70.0 % 1 034 518 162 771 871 747 94.1 % 5.9 % 5.4 545.9 95.3 % 41.1

SI 7 491 5 056 2 059 -0.7 % 12.5 % 56.1 % 187 517 3 320 184 198 4.6 % 95.4 % 3.3 11.1 33.4 % 91.0

UK 92 829 44 681 43 896 2.3 % 11.8 % 35.7 % 1 495 190 155 687 1 339 503 37.0 % 63.0 % 10.8 155.3 41.4 % 128.6

EU27 28 347 18 131 12 570 1.9 % 11.9 % 32.3 % 311 742 46 816 264 926 22.0 % 78.0 % 7.0 32.2 53.9 % 155.0

EU15 41 293 27 207 19 443 1.8 % 11.6 % 31.6 % 479 790 76 986 402 804 24.7 % 75.3 % 9.8 41.6 54.0 % 184.6

EU-N10 16 929 9 321 6 639 3.0 % 14.3 % 41.3 % 164 430 15 654 148 777 22.5 % 77.5 % 3.9 29.8 48.7 % 61.1

EU2 7 687 5 278 3 431 1.2 % 10.8 % 23.7 % 42 776 2 530 40 246 15.9 % 84.1 % 1.8 12.2 63.8 % 103.5

Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN. (*) After deducting all economic costs except the opportunity costs for family labour.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, September...

Documents

Transcript of EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, September...