Agri-environmentalindicator - intensification -

extensification Statistics Explained

Source Statistics Explained (httpeceuropaeueurostatstatisticsexplained) - 27032018 1

Data from 2017 Most recent data Further Eurostat information Main tables and Database Planned articleupdate December 2020

This article provides a fact sheet of the European Union (EU) agri-environmental indicator intensifica-tionextensification It consists of an overview of recent data complemented by all information on defini-tions measurement methods and context needed to interpret them correctly The intensificationextensificationarticle is part of a set of similar fact sheets providing a complete picture of the state of the agri-environmentalindicators in the EU

The input intensity of a farm can be defined as the level of inputs used by the farm per unit of factor ofproduction (in general land) Intensification is defined as the increase in farm intensity while the extensifica-tion describes the opposite trend Farm input intensity is used as a proxy of agricultural intensification

This article presents data from 2004 to 2013 In 2004 ten new Member States joined the EU and fromthen benefited from the CAP and was covered by the Farm Accountancy Data Network FADN Two countriesjoined in 2007 (Bulgaria and Romania) and one in 2013 (Croatia) and therefore data are available for thesecountries from the year they joined the EU This is the reason why data in this article are presented by EUMember States joining after 2004 and by EU Member States before 2004 (EU-15)

Figure 1a Share of agricultural area managed with different farm input intensity 2004-2013EU-15 ()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

In this fact sheet the degree of intensification and extensification is analysed with a main indicator and asupporting indicator

Main indicator

bull Trend in the shares of UAA managed by low medium and high intensity farm

Supporting indicator

bull Average input expenditure per hectare in constant input prices

Indicators are broken down by EU group Member State and type of farming

Main statistical findingsKey messages

bull In the EU-15 there was a slight but clear trend towards extensification from 2004 to 2008 whereas therewas no clear trend afterwards In the countries that joined the EU from 2004 onwards (Poland HungaryLatvia Lithuania Estonia Czech Republic Slovakia Slovenia Romania Bulgaria Malta Cyprus andCroatia) there was an intensification process from 2004 to 2006 From 2007 to 2009 there was a moreclear extensification trend followed by another period of intensification until 2013

bull The trend by Member State can be significantly different from the average of its EU-group (EU-15 orthe 13 countries that have joined as of 2004) In 14 Member States the trend was more or less towardsextensification over the period studied On the other hand intensification was identified in 10 MemberStates

bull The average input expenditure per hectare is strongly linked to the type of farming Specialist granivorefarms (ie farms with livestock which feeds mainly on grains eg pigs and poultry) have on average thehighest input levels Mixed cropping farms and specialist field crop farms have the lowest input levelsThe trend (intensification or extensification) is explained more by the EU-group or country than by thetype of farming

AssessmentThe indicator is assessed by

bull EU group (EU-15 or the 13 countries that have joined from 2004 onwards)

bull Member State

bull type of farming according to FADN TF8 Grouping

The detailed results are annexed in a separate excel file The fact sheet presents the main results and the seriesof tablesgraphs provide an overall view of the situation They show information on the main indicator over theperiod studied Yet to properly interpret and qualify the trends for the main indicator it is necessary to look atthe average level of intensity in the countryregion Therefore information on the sub-indicator average levelof intensity (average input expenditure per hectare in 2010 constant input prices in EURhectare) is presentedwhere relevant

It should be noted that given the availability of data at the time of preparing this fact sheet the periodstudied was 2004-2013 for all countries except

- for Bulgaria and Romania 2007-2013- for Croatia only 2013 therefore it was not possible to assess a trend at this stage

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 2

Analysis at EU group level Overall for the EU-15 the shares of UAA managed by low medium and highintensity farms did not change radically during the period studied (Figure 1a) From 2004 until 2008 theshare of UAA managed by high intensity farms decreased very slightly but steadily from 39 to 32 From2009 the share remained stable at 35 until 2011 and then started increasing to reach 38 in 2012 and2013 The share of UAA managed by low intensity farms follows the opposite dynamic It increased from 29 to 37 between 2004 and 2008 then stayed stable at approximately 35 till 2013 The share of UAAmanaged by medium intensity farms was initially more constant over time It then decreased from 38 to31 between 2004 and 2005 and has since kept deceasing down to 27 in 2013 Therefore in the EU-15the trend towards extensification is weak but clear from 2004 to 2008 whereas there is no clear trend afterwards

For the countries that joined the EU in 2004 and later the share of UAA managed by low intensity farmsis more significant compared to the other categories even if the trend is fluctuating (Figure 1b) The sharedecreased from 49 in 2004 to 43 in 2006 followed by growth up to 60 in 2009 Afterword it decreasedagain to 51 in 2013 The trends are similar for the other two levels of input intensity The share of UAAmanaged by high intensity farms increased from 14 in 2004 to 17 in 2006 It then decreased graduallyuntil 2009 and increased again to reach 15 in 2013 The share managed by medium intensity farms increasedfrom 37 in 2004 to 39 in 2006 This was followed by a reduction to 28 in 2010 and growth to 34 in 2013 Therefore three different trends can be identified for these countries from 2004 to 2006 there isan intensification process whereas from 2007 to 2009 a more clear extensification trend followed by anotherintensification period until 2013

Figure 1b Share of agricultural area managed with different farm input intensity in MS joiningEU in 2004 and after 2004-2013 ()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development EuropeanCommission

However the trend should be put in perspective by a measure of the absolute level of intensity as mentionedabove In this fact sheet the input expenditure per hectare in 2010 constant input prices (EURha) is used forthis purpose Table 1 summarizes the results for the EU groups It shows that in both in EU-15 and in thenewer Member States no clear trend was visible for the period 2007-2013 As has been described above therewere fluctuations and only shorter periods of clear trends towards intensification or extensification What itis more significantly different between the two EU groups is the level of the input expenditure For the newerMember States the average is between 155 and 350 EURha while for the EU-15 it is higher than 350 EURha

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 3

Table 1 Trend in area managed by different farm input intensity by average input expenditure2007-2013 by EU groupSource DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

Analysis at Member State level In 2013 (Figure 2) between 53 and 88 of the agricultural area ofthe Netherlands Belgium Germany Denmark Malta Luxembourg and France was managed by high intensityfarms The countries with the highest percentage (56 -82 ) of agricultural area managed by low intensityfarms were Estonia Bulgaria Spain Latvia Lithuania Romania and Portugal In the Czech Republic andSlovakia mainly medium intensity farms were found with a share of 49 and 47 of the agricultural arearespectively

Figure 2 Share of agricultural area managed with different farm input intensity 2013 by country()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission (see country codes)

The trend for individual Member States can be significantly different from their EU group average Extensifica-tion was observed in 14 Member States over the period studied ie 2004-2013 During this period this trend isparticularly clear in Greece but also in Finland Portugal and Italy (increases by around 10-20 percentage pointsin the UAA share managed by low intensity farms and decreases by between 15 and 5 percentage points pointsof the UAA share managed by high intensity farms) The trend had the same direction in Belgium DenmarkGermany Hungary Luxembourg Malta Portugal Finland Romania and United Kingdom For Austria theincreased area managed by low intensive farms came essentially from the reduction in area managed by mediumintensity farms

In Slovakia and the Czech Republic there were strong processes of intensification The UAA share managedby high intensity farms increased between 8 and 14 percentage points with a simultaneous decrease between 19and 27 percentage points in the UAA share managed by low intensity farms Latvia and Lithuania follow witha similar process The trend is less pronounced in Spain Ireland and Sweden

In Estonia the decrease in the UAA share managed by low intensity farms seemed to be compensated byan increase of the same magnitude in the UAA share managed by medium intensity farms For the Netherlandsand Poland areas seem to have moved from medium intensity to high input intensity farming In the remainingcountries it was not possible to identify a clear trend

However to properly interpret the trend in each country it is necessary also to have in mind the range ofthe intensity level (Table 2) When analysing the sub-indicator on average level of input expenditure at

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 4

Member State level it emerges that Portugal Greece and Malta are involved in a clear extensification processHowever for Portugal the average level of input expenditure is lower (between 155 and 350 EURha) than forthe other two countries where the average expenditure is above 350 EURha Intensification processes weregoing on in Estonia Bulgaria Ireland Belgium and Cyprus with different level of input intensity For the othercountries it was possible to identify the level of intensity in inpus use but not a clear trend over the time

Table 2 Trend in area managed by different farm input intensity by average input expendi-ture 2004-2013 by Member StateSource DG Agriculture and Rural Development EuropeanCommission (see country codes)

Obviously the average level may hide big differences between regions Map 1 shows the regional average level ofinput expenditure per hectare and the trend when available and clearly identifiable For the map the trend isassessed by comparing averages in given years (2007-2009 vs 2011-2013) and therefore the overall picture maylook a bit different

Map 1 Input expenditure per hectare (EURha)Source DG Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment European Commission

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 5

Analysis by type of farming In the EU-28 the share of agricultural area managed by high intensity farmsduring the period 2004-2013 showed a stable trend for most of the farming types with the exception of horti-cultural farms and mixed livestock farms (Figure 3a) In particular the first type of farms decreases its shareby 12 percentage points in the period whereas the second type increases its share by 8 percentage points Forthe other types of farms the changes over the period were around 2-3 percentage points a slight decrease ofthe main indicator from 2007 to 2008 followed by a slight increase in 2009

Figure 3a Share of agricultural area managed by high intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

The share of agricultural area managed by medium intensity farms decreased by between 3 and 6 percentagepoints for most of the farm types between 2004 and 2013 A particularly fluctuating trend over the period wasobserved for horticultural farms (Figure 3b) and at the end of the period the share had returned to the initiallevel

Figure 3b Share of agricultural area managed by medium intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

For low intensity farms (Figure 3c) there was an increasing trend in the area managed by several types of farmsespecially for horticultural farms (thereby confirming a clear extensification process indicated in Figure 3a) For

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 6

mixed crops-livestock farms the trend was strongly fluctuating over the period and for mixed livestock farmsthe share decreased by 4 percentage points demonstrating a general intensification process

Figure 3c Share of agricultural area managed by low intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

In terms of input expenditure by type of farms Figure 4 shows the relationship between the variation in inputexpenditure - averages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 - within the EU-15 group and the group of EU countries thathave joined in 2004 and after for the different farm types It provides at the same time information on the 2011-2013 average value of expenditure (expressed by the size of the spheres) On average the granivore farms andthe horticultural farms have the highest values of expenditure (respectively 2670 EURha and 1320 EURha)whereas mixed cropping farms and field crops farms have the lowest (around 230-240 EURha)

Figure 4 Input expenditure by type of farming and variation 2007-2009 vs 2011-2013 EU-15and countries having joined the EU in 2004 or later ()Source DG Agriculture and RuralDevelopment European Commission

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 7

The variation in the input expenditure between the two periods 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 is in general strongerfor the newer EU Member States than for the EU-15 For horticultural farms there is a decrease in input ex-penditure for both EU-groups although the magnitude is larger in the newer EU Member States -28 whilefor the EU-15 it was -4 Input expenditure decreased also on permanent crops farms and the mixed livestockfarms On the contrary field crop farms mixed crops-livestock and granivore farms register an increase in inputexpenditure in both EU groups Granivore farms increased by 26 in the newer EU Member States and 2 in the EU-15

Data sources and availabilityIndicator definitionIntensification is used to describe an increase in farm input intensity It is a complex concept involving moni-toring the trend over time of inputs for which consistent data are not systematically available Therefore theconcept had to be simplified for the purpose of this indicator

In this fact sheet intensity is estimated by dividing input expenditure per hectare by the input price in-dexes in the year and country in question Intensificationextensification is measured by the trend in the sharesof the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farms The inputs taken into account arefertilisers pesticides and purchased feed It allows covering both crop and livestock productions Water usecould not be included because there is no consistent information available Energy use is not included since itis addressed in another specific agri-environmental indicator ( Energy use ) and it would have been difficult tointerpret the results

MeasurementsMain indicator

bull Trend in the shares of the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farm

This indicator provides information on the trend in terms of utilised agricultural area UAA managed by farmswith different input use At aggregated level a decline in the share of area managed by high intensity farmstogether with an increase (or no change) in the share of area managed by low intensity farms is interpreted asextensification the contrary for intensification In a given region or Member State a rise in the share of UAAmanaged by low intensity farms may very well happen together with an increase in the UAA managed by highintensity farms This is interpreted as no clear trend This is also no clear trend when the shares of UAAin the three intensity classes remain fairly stable or vary too much during the period studied to identify a trend

Supporting indicator

bull Average input expenditure per hectare in constant input prices

This indicator provides information on the degree of intensity in farm inputs use To identify a process towardsintensification or extensification the trend was analysed by comparing the input expenditure for two 3-yearaverages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 If the result was a reduction above 15 it was interpreted as an extensi-fication process If the result was an increase over 15 it was interpreted as an intensification process In allthe other cases a clear trend was not recognizable

Indicators are broken down by EU group Member State and type of farming Please note that for the purposeof this indicator the type of farming refers to the FADN typology TF8 Grouping

Links with other indicatorsThe agri-environmental indicator Intensificationextensification is linked to the other indicators presented inEurostatrsquos dedicated section on agri-environmental indicators

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 8

Table 1 Trend in area managed by different farm input intensity by average input expenditure2007-2013 by EU groupSource DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

Analysis at Member State level In 2013 (Figure 2) between 53 and 88 of the agricultural area ofthe Netherlands Belgium Germany Denmark Malta Luxembourg and France was managed by high intensityfarms The countries with the highest percentage (56 -82 ) of agricultural area managed by low intensityfarms were Estonia Bulgaria Spain Latvia Lithuania Romania and Portugal In the Czech Republic andSlovakia mainly medium intensity farms were found with a share of 49 and 47 of the agricultural arearespectively

Figure 2 Share of agricultural area managed with different farm input intensity 2013 by country()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission (see country codes)

The trend for individual Member States can be significantly different from their EU group average Extensifica-tion was observed in 14 Member States over the period studied ie 2004-2013 During this period this trend isparticularly clear in Greece but also in Finland Portugal and Italy (increases by around 10-20 percentage pointsin the UAA share managed by low intensity farms and decreases by between 15 and 5 percentage points pointsof the UAA share managed by high intensity farms) The trend had the same direction in Belgium DenmarkGermany Hungary Luxembourg Malta Portugal Finland Romania and United Kingdom For Austria theincreased area managed by low intensive farms came essentially from the reduction in area managed by mediumintensity farms

In Slovakia and the Czech Republic there were strong processes of intensification The UAA share managedby high intensity farms increased between 8 and 14 percentage points with a simultaneous decrease between 19and 27 percentage points in the UAA share managed by low intensity farms Latvia and Lithuania follow witha similar process The trend is less pronounced in Spain Ireland and Sweden

In Estonia the decrease in the UAA share managed by low intensity farms seemed to be compensated byan increase of the same magnitude in the UAA share managed by medium intensity farms For the Netherlandsand Poland areas seem to have moved from medium intensity to high input intensity farming In the remainingcountries it was not possible to identify a clear trend

However to properly interpret the trend in each country it is necessary also to have in mind the range ofthe intensity level (Table 2) When analysing the sub-indicator on average level of input expenditure at

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 4

Member State level it emerges that Portugal Greece and Malta are involved in a clear extensification processHowever for Portugal the average level of input expenditure is lower (between 155 and 350 EURha) than forthe other two countries where the average expenditure is above 350 EURha Intensification processes weregoing on in Estonia Bulgaria Ireland Belgium and Cyprus with different level of input intensity For the othercountries it was possible to identify the level of intensity in inpus use but not a clear trend over the time

Table 2 Trend in area managed by different farm input intensity by average input expendi-ture 2004-2013 by Member StateSource DG Agriculture and Rural Development EuropeanCommission (see country codes)

Obviously the average level may hide big differences between regions Map 1 shows the regional average level ofinput expenditure per hectare and the trend when available and clearly identifiable For the map the trend isassessed by comparing averages in given years (2007-2009 vs 2011-2013) and therefore the overall picture maylook a bit different

Map 1 Input expenditure per hectare (EURha)Source DG Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment European Commission

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 5

Analysis by type of farming In the EU-28 the share of agricultural area managed by high intensity farmsduring the period 2004-2013 showed a stable trend for most of the farming types with the exception of horti-cultural farms and mixed livestock farms (Figure 3a) In particular the first type of farms decreases its shareby 12 percentage points in the period whereas the second type increases its share by 8 percentage points Forthe other types of farms the changes over the period were around 2-3 percentage points a slight decrease ofthe main indicator from 2007 to 2008 followed by a slight increase in 2009

Figure 3a Share of agricultural area managed by high intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

The share of agricultural area managed by medium intensity farms decreased by between 3 and 6 percentagepoints for most of the farm types between 2004 and 2013 A particularly fluctuating trend over the period wasobserved for horticultural farms (Figure 3b) and at the end of the period the share had returned to the initiallevel

Figure 3b Share of agricultural area managed by medium intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

For low intensity farms (Figure 3c) there was an increasing trend in the area managed by several types of farmsespecially for horticultural farms (thereby confirming a clear extensification process indicated in Figure 3a) For

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 6

mixed crops-livestock farms the trend was strongly fluctuating over the period and for mixed livestock farmsthe share decreased by 4 percentage points demonstrating a general intensification process

Figure 3c Share of agricultural area managed by low intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

In terms of input expenditure by type of farms Figure 4 shows the relationship between the variation in inputexpenditure - averages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 - within the EU-15 group and the group of EU countries thathave joined in 2004 and after for the different farm types It provides at the same time information on the 2011-2013 average value of expenditure (expressed by the size of the spheres) On average the granivore farms andthe horticultural farms have the highest values of expenditure (respectively 2670 EURha and 1320 EURha)whereas mixed cropping farms and field crops farms have the lowest (around 230-240 EURha)

Figure 4 Input expenditure by type of farming and variation 2007-2009 vs 2011-2013 EU-15and countries having joined the EU in 2004 or later ()Source DG Agriculture and RuralDevelopment European Commission

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 7

The variation in the input expenditure between the two periods 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 is in general strongerfor the newer EU Member States than for the EU-15 For horticultural farms there is a decrease in input ex-penditure for both EU-groups although the magnitude is larger in the newer EU Member States -28 whilefor the EU-15 it was -4 Input expenditure decreased also on permanent crops farms and the mixed livestockfarms On the contrary field crop farms mixed crops-livestock and granivore farms register an increase in inputexpenditure in both EU groups Granivore farms increased by 26 in the newer EU Member States and 2 in the EU-15

Data sources and availabilityIndicator definitionIntensification is used to describe an increase in farm input intensity It is a complex concept involving moni-toring the trend over time of inputs for which consistent data are not systematically available Therefore theconcept had to be simplified for the purpose of this indicator

In this fact sheet intensity is estimated by dividing input expenditure per hectare by the input price in-dexes in the year and country in question Intensificationextensification is measured by the trend in the sharesof the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farms The inputs taken into account arefertilisers pesticides and purchased feed It allows covering both crop and livestock productions Water usecould not be included because there is no consistent information available Energy use is not included since itis addressed in another specific agri-environmental indicator ( Energy use ) and it would have been difficult tointerpret the results

MeasurementsMain indicator

bull Trend in the shares of the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farm

This indicator provides information on the trend in terms of utilised agricultural area UAA managed by farmswith different input use At aggregated level a decline in the share of area managed by high intensity farmstogether with an increase (or no change) in the share of area managed by low intensity farms is interpreted asextensification the contrary for intensification In a given region or Member State a rise in the share of UAAmanaged by low intensity farms may very well happen together with an increase in the UAA managed by highintensity farms This is interpreted as no clear trend This is also no clear trend when the shares of UAAin the three intensity classes remain fairly stable or vary too much during the period studied to identify a trend

Supporting indicator

bull Average input expenditure per hectare in constant input prices

This indicator provides information on the degree of intensity in farm inputs use To identify a process towardsintensification or extensification the trend was analysed by comparing the input expenditure for two 3-yearaverages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 If the result was a reduction above 15 it was interpreted as an extensi-fication process If the result was an increase over 15 it was interpreted as an intensification process In allthe other cases a clear trend was not recognizable

Indicators are broken down by EU group Member State and type of farming Please note that for the purposeof this indicator the type of farming refers to the FADN typology TF8 Grouping

Links with other indicatorsThe agri-environmental indicator Intensificationextensification is linked to the other indicators presented inEurostatrsquos dedicated section on agri-environmental indicators

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 8

Member State level it emerges that Portugal Greece and Malta are involved in a clear extensification processHowever for Portugal the average level of input expenditure is lower (between 155 and 350 EURha) than forthe other two countries where the average expenditure is above 350 EURha Intensification processes weregoing on in Estonia Bulgaria Ireland Belgium and Cyprus with different level of input intensity For the othercountries it was possible to identify the level of intensity in inpus use but not a clear trend over the time

Table 2 Trend in area managed by different farm input intensity by average input expendi-ture 2004-2013 by Member StateSource DG Agriculture and Rural Development EuropeanCommission (see country codes)

Obviously the average level may hide big differences between regions Map 1 shows the regional average level ofinput expenditure per hectare and the trend when available and clearly identifiable For the map the trend isassessed by comparing averages in given years (2007-2009 vs 2011-2013) and therefore the overall picture maylook a bit different

Map 1 Input expenditure per hectare (EURha)Source DG Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment European Commission

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 5

Analysis by type of farming In the EU-28 the share of agricultural area managed by high intensity farmsduring the period 2004-2013 showed a stable trend for most of the farming types with the exception of horti-cultural farms and mixed livestock farms (Figure 3a) In particular the first type of farms decreases its shareby 12 percentage points in the period whereas the second type increases its share by 8 percentage points Forthe other types of farms the changes over the period were around 2-3 percentage points a slight decrease ofthe main indicator from 2007 to 2008 followed by a slight increase in 2009

Figure 3a Share of agricultural area managed by high intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

The share of agricultural area managed by medium intensity farms decreased by between 3 and 6 percentagepoints for most of the farm types between 2004 and 2013 A particularly fluctuating trend over the period wasobserved for horticultural farms (Figure 3b) and at the end of the period the share had returned to the initiallevel

Figure 3b Share of agricultural area managed by medium intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

For low intensity farms (Figure 3c) there was an increasing trend in the area managed by several types of farmsespecially for horticultural farms (thereby confirming a clear extensification process indicated in Figure 3a) For

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 6

mixed crops-livestock farms the trend was strongly fluctuating over the period and for mixed livestock farmsthe share decreased by 4 percentage points demonstrating a general intensification process

Figure 3c Share of agricultural area managed by low intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

In terms of input expenditure by type of farms Figure 4 shows the relationship between the variation in inputexpenditure - averages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 - within the EU-15 group and the group of EU countries thathave joined in 2004 and after for the different farm types It provides at the same time information on the 2011-2013 average value of expenditure (expressed by the size of the spheres) On average the granivore farms andthe horticultural farms have the highest values of expenditure (respectively 2670 EURha and 1320 EURha)whereas mixed cropping farms and field crops farms have the lowest (around 230-240 EURha)

Figure 4 Input expenditure by type of farming and variation 2007-2009 vs 2011-2013 EU-15and countries having joined the EU in 2004 or later ()Source DG Agriculture and RuralDevelopment European Commission

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 7

The variation in the input expenditure between the two periods 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 is in general strongerfor the newer EU Member States than for the EU-15 For horticultural farms there is a decrease in input ex-penditure for both EU-groups although the magnitude is larger in the newer EU Member States -28 whilefor the EU-15 it was -4 Input expenditure decreased also on permanent crops farms and the mixed livestockfarms On the contrary field crop farms mixed crops-livestock and granivore farms register an increase in inputexpenditure in both EU groups Granivore farms increased by 26 in the newer EU Member States and 2 in the EU-15

Data sources and availabilityIndicator definitionIntensification is used to describe an increase in farm input intensity It is a complex concept involving moni-toring the trend over time of inputs for which consistent data are not systematically available Therefore theconcept had to be simplified for the purpose of this indicator

In this fact sheet intensity is estimated by dividing input expenditure per hectare by the input price in-dexes in the year and country in question Intensificationextensification is measured by the trend in the sharesof the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farms The inputs taken into account arefertilisers pesticides and purchased feed It allows covering both crop and livestock productions Water usecould not be included because there is no consistent information available Energy use is not included since itis addressed in another specific agri-environmental indicator ( Energy use ) and it would have been difficult tointerpret the results

MeasurementsMain indicator

bull Trend in the shares of the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farm

This indicator provides information on the trend in terms of utilised agricultural area UAA managed by farmswith different input use At aggregated level a decline in the share of area managed by high intensity farmstogether with an increase (or no change) in the share of area managed by low intensity farms is interpreted asextensification the contrary for intensification In a given region or Member State a rise in the share of UAAmanaged by low intensity farms may very well happen together with an increase in the UAA managed by highintensity farms This is interpreted as no clear trend This is also no clear trend when the shares of UAAin the three intensity classes remain fairly stable or vary too much during the period studied to identify a trend

Supporting indicator

bull Average input expenditure per hectare in constant input prices

This indicator provides information on the degree of intensity in farm inputs use To identify a process towardsintensification or extensification the trend was analysed by comparing the input expenditure for two 3-yearaverages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 If the result was a reduction above 15 it was interpreted as an extensi-fication process If the result was an increase over 15 it was interpreted as an intensification process In allthe other cases a clear trend was not recognizable

Indicators are broken down by EU group Member State and type of farming Please note that for the purposeof this indicator the type of farming refers to the FADN typology TF8 Grouping

Links with other indicatorsThe agri-environmental indicator Intensificationextensification is linked to the other indicators presented inEurostatrsquos dedicated section on agri-environmental indicators

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 8

Analysis by type of farming In the EU-28 the share of agricultural area managed by high intensity farmsduring the period 2004-2013 showed a stable trend for most of the farming types with the exception of horti-cultural farms and mixed livestock farms (Figure 3a) In particular the first type of farms decreases its shareby 12 percentage points in the period whereas the second type increases its share by 8 percentage points Forthe other types of farms the changes over the period were around 2-3 percentage points a slight decrease ofthe main indicator from 2007 to 2008 followed by a slight increase in 2009

Figure 3a Share of agricultural area managed by high intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

The share of agricultural area managed by medium intensity farms decreased by between 3 and 6 percentagepoints for most of the farm types between 2004 and 2013 A particularly fluctuating trend over the period wasobserved for horticultural farms (Figure 3b) and at the end of the period the share had returned to the initiallevel

Figure 3b Share of agricultural area managed by medium intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

For low intensity farms (Figure 3c) there was an increasing trend in the area managed by several types of farmsespecially for horticultural farms (thereby confirming a clear extensification process indicated in Figure 3a) For

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 6

mixed crops-livestock farms the trend was strongly fluctuating over the period and for mixed livestock farmsthe share decreased by 4 percentage points demonstrating a general intensification process

Figure 3c Share of agricultural area managed by low intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

In terms of input expenditure by type of farms Figure 4 shows the relationship between the variation in inputexpenditure - averages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 - within the EU-15 group and the group of EU countries thathave joined in 2004 and after for the different farm types It provides at the same time information on the 2011-2013 average value of expenditure (expressed by the size of the spheres) On average the granivore farms andthe horticultural farms have the highest values of expenditure (respectively 2670 EURha and 1320 EURha)whereas mixed cropping farms and field crops farms have the lowest (around 230-240 EURha)

Figure 4 Input expenditure by type of farming and variation 2007-2009 vs 2011-2013 EU-15and countries having joined the EU in 2004 or later ()Source DG Agriculture and RuralDevelopment European Commission

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 7

The variation in the input expenditure between the two periods 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 is in general strongerfor the newer EU Member States than for the EU-15 For horticultural farms there is a decrease in input ex-penditure for both EU-groups although the magnitude is larger in the newer EU Member States -28 whilefor the EU-15 it was -4 Input expenditure decreased also on permanent crops farms and the mixed livestockfarms On the contrary field crop farms mixed crops-livestock and granivore farms register an increase in inputexpenditure in both EU groups Granivore farms increased by 26 in the newer EU Member States and 2 in the EU-15

Data sources and availabilityIndicator definitionIntensification is used to describe an increase in farm input intensity It is a complex concept involving moni-toring the trend over time of inputs for which consistent data are not systematically available Therefore theconcept had to be simplified for the purpose of this indicator

In this fact sheet intensity is estimated by dividing input expenditure per hectare by the input price in-dexes in the year and country in question Intensificationextensification is measured by the trend in the sharesof the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farms The inputs taken into account arefertilisers pesticides and purchased feed It allows covering both crop and livestock productions Water usecould not be included because there is no consistent information available Energy use is not included since itis addressed in another specific agri-environmental indicator ( Energy use ) and it would have been difficult tointerpret the results

MeasurementsMain indicator

bull Trend in the shares of the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farm

This indicator provides information on the trend in terms of utilised agricultural area UAA managed by farmswith different input use At aggregated level a decline in the share of area managed by high intensity farmstogether with an increase (or no change) in the share of area managed by low intensity farms is interpreted asextensification the contrary for intensification In a given region or Member State a rise in the share of UAAmanaged by low intensity farms may very well happen together with an increase in the UAA managed by highintensity farms This is interpreted as no clear trend This is also no clear trend when the shares of UAAin the three intensity classes remain fairly stable or vary too much during the period studied to identify a trend

Supporting indicator

bull Average input expenditure per hectare in constant input prices

This indicator provides information on the degree of intensity in farm inputs use To identify a process towardsintensification or extensification the trend was analysed by comparing the input expenditure for two 3-yearaverages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 If the result was a reduction above 15 it was interpreted as an extensi-fication process If the result was an increase over 15 it was interpreted as an intensification process In allthe other cases a clear trend was not recognizable

Indicators are broken down by EU group Member State and type of farming Please note that for the purposeof this indicator the type of farming refers to the FADN typology TF8 Grouping

Links with other indicatorsThe agri-environmental indicator Intensificationextensification is linked to the other indicators presented inEurostatrsquos dedicated section on agri-environmental indicators

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 8

mixed crops-livestock farms the trend was strongly fluctuating over the period and for mixed livestock farmsthe share decreased by 4 percentage points demonstrating a general intensification process

Figure 3c Share of agricultural area managed by low intensity farms 2004-2013 EU-28()Source DG Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission

In terms of input expenditure by type of farms Figure 4 shows the relationship between the variation in inputexpenditure - averages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 - within the EU-15 group and the group of EU countries thathave joined in 2004 and after for the different farm types It provides at the same time information on the 2011-2013 average value of expenditure (expressed by the size of the spheres) On average the granivore farms andthe horticultural farms have the highest values of expenditure (respectively 2670 EURha and 1320 EURha)whereas mixed cropping farms and field crops farms have the lowest (around 230-240 EURha)

Figure 4 Input expenditure by type of farming and variation 2007-2009 vs 2011-2013 EU-15and countries having joined the EU in 2004 or later ()Source DG Agriculture and RuralDevelopment European Commission

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 7

The variation in the input expenditure between the two periods 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 is in general strongerfor the newer EU Member States than for the EU-15 For horticultural farms there is a decrease in input ex-penditure for both EU-groups although the magnitude is larger in the newer EU Member States -28 whilefor the EU-15 it was -4 Input expenditure decreased also on permanent crops farms and the mixed livestockfarms On the contrary field crop farms mixed crops-livestock and granivore farms register an increase in inputexpenditure in both EU groups Granivore farms increased by 26 in the newer EU Member States and 2 in the EU-15

Data sources and availabilityIndicator definitionIntensification is used to describe an increase in farm input intensity It is a complex concept involving moni-toring the trend over time of inputs for which consistent data are not systematically available Therefore theconcept had to be simplified for the purpose of this indicator

In this fact sheet intensity is estimated by dividing input expenditure per hectare by the input price in-dexes in the year and country in question Intensificationextensification is measured by the trend in the sharesof the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farms The inputs taken into account arefertilisers pesticides and purchased feed It allows covering both crop and livestock productions Water usecould not be included because there is no consistent information available Energy use is not included since itis addressed in another specific agri-environmental indicator ( Energy use ) and it would have been difficult tointerpret the results

MeasurementsMain indicator

bull Trend in the shares of the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farm

This indicator provides information on the trend in terms of utilised agricultural area UAA managed by farmswith different input use At aggregated level a decline in the share of area managed by high intensity farmstogether with an increase (or no change) in the share of area managed by low intensity farms is interpreted asextensification the contrary for intensification In a given region or Member State a rise in the share of UAAmanaged by low intensity farms may very well happen together with an increase in the UAA managed by highintensity farms This is interpreted as no clear trend This is also no clear trend when the shares of UAAin the three intensity classes remain fairly stable or vary too much during the period studied to identify a trend

Supporting indicator

bull Average input expenditure per hectare in constant input prices

This indicator provides information on the degree of intensity in farm inputs use To identify a process towardsintensification or extensification the trend was analysed by comparing the input expenditure for two 3-yearaverages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 If the result was a reduction above 15 it was interpreted as an extensi-fication process If the result was an increase over 15 it was interpreted as an intensification process In allthe other cases a clear trend was not recognizable

Indicators are broken down by EU group Member State and type of farming Please note that for the purposeof this indicator the type of farming refers to the FADN typology TF8 Grouping

Links with other indicatorsThe agri-environmental indicator Intensificationextensification is linked to the other indicators presented inEurostatrsquos dedicated section on agri-environmental indicators

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 8

The variation in the input expenditure between the two periods 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 is in general strongerfor the newer EU Member States than for the EU-15 For horticultural farms there is a decrease in input ex-penditure for both EU-groups although the magnitude is larger in the newer EU Member States -28 whilefor the EU-15 it was -4 Input expenditure decreased also on permanent crops farms and the mixed livestockfarms On the contrary field crop farms mixed crops-livestock and granivore farms register an increase in inputexpenditure in both EU groups Granivore farms increased by 26 in the newer EU Member States and 2 in the EU-15

Data sources and availabilityIndicator definitionIntensification is used to describe an increase in farm input intensity It is a complex concept involving moni-toring the trend over time of inputs for which consistent data are not systematically available Therefore theconcept had to be simplified for the purpose of this indicator

In this fact sheet intensity is estimated by dividing input expenditure per hectare by the input price in-dexes in the year and country in question Intensificationextensification is measured by the trend in the sharesof the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farms The inputs taken into account arefertilisers pesticides and purchased feed It allows covering both crop and livestock productions Water usecould not be included because there is no consistent information available Energy use is not included since itis addressed in another specific agri-environmental indicator ( Energy use ) and it would have been difficult tointerpret the results

MeasurementsMain indicator

bull Trend in the shares of the agricultural area managed by low medium and high intensity farm

This indicator provides information on the trend in terms of utilised agricultural area UAA managed by farmswith different input use At aggregated level a decline in the share of area managed by high intensity farmstogether with an increase (or no change) in the share of area managed by low intensity farms is interpreted asextensification the contrary for intensification In a given region or Member State a rise in the share of UAAmanaged by low intensity farms may very well happen together with an increase in the UAA managed by highintensity farms This is interpreted as no clear trend This is also no clear trend when the shares of UAAin the three intensity classes remain fairly stable or vary too much during the period studied to identify a trend

Supporting indicator

bull Average input expenditure per hectare in constant input prices

This indicator provides information on the degree of intensity in farm inputs use To identify a process towardsintensification or extensification the trend was analysed by comparing the input expenditure for two 3-yearaverages 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 If the result was a reduction above 15 it was interpreted as an extensi-fication process If the result was an increase over 15 it was interpreted as an intensification process In allthe other cases a clear trend was not recognizable

Indicators are broken down by EU group Member State and type of farming Please note that for the purposeof this indicator the type of farming refers to the FADN typology TF8 Grouping

Links with other indicatorsThe agri-environmental indicator Intensificationextensification is linked to the other indicators presented inEurostatrsquos dedicated section on agri-environmental indicators

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 8

Data used and methodologyThe main data source for this indicator is the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) FADN is a Europeansystem of sample surveys conducted every year to collect structural and accountancy data on farms with theaim of evaluating the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy It covers only farms above a minimum sizeIn 2013 FADN farms represented 47 of the farm population in the Farm Structure Survey but 94 ofUAA The rules applied aim to provide representative data from three dimensions region economic size andtype of farming FADN is the only source of micro-economic data that is harmonised ie applies the samebook-keeping principles in all EU countries

The complementary source used for this indicator is the database on price indices of the means of agricul-tural production from Eurostat For further information on this database Agricultural prices and price indices( apripi10ina )

Methodology on input levels per hectare Farms are classified in intensity categories according to an es-timate of input volume per hectare of UAA The inputs considered are fertilisers pesticides and other cropprotections and purchased feed It allows covering both crop and livestock productions

Fertiliser expenditure (purchased fertilisers and soil improvers1) is divided by the fertiliser price index in thecountry of the same year in order to estimate the volume used Similarly crop protection expenditure (plantprotection products traps and baits bird scarers anti-hail shells frost protection2) is divided by the pesticideprice index in the country of the same year Purchased feed cost3is also divided by the feed price index inthe country of the same year The indices used are available from the Eurostat database4 The result is thusexpressed in constant 2010 input prices EUR per ha The method allows not only deducting inflation butalso the input prices fluctuation Thus it allows approaching the trend in volume of inputs used per hectareHowever it does not capture differences of input prices between countries and the differences of prices withineach category of input (for example between a pesticide A and a pesticide B) Therefore it does not give theexact volume of inputs used for a year in a country

But to properly interpret and qualify the trends for the main indicator it is necessary to look at the aver-age level of intensity in the countryregion Intensification in a country with very low intensity does not meanthe same for the environment as intensification in a country with high intensity That is the purpose of thesupporting indicator average input expenditure per hectare in constant input prices It is not the ideal mea-surement of intensity however it is the best estimate that we can obtain from the available data for now

It should be underlined that Member States do not all have euro and that changes in the exchange rate mayexplain some differences between Member States

For the denominator the total UAA as collected through FADN has been chosen which does not includecommon land The area of common land used by the farm is actually very difficult to estimate This can havean impact on the results for Spain Greece the United Kingdom and Bulgaria in particular The area usedby the farm may be underestimated It means that the ratio of inputs per hectare may be overestimated andtherefore the share of area managed by medium and high intensity farms in these countries At farm levelwhen the UAA is null which can happen in certain very intensive livestock farms with only buildings and noagricultural area inputs are divided by the other area of the holding5(ground occupied by buildings)

1Variable SE295 in FADN Variables are defined in the document RICC 882 Definitions of variables used in FADN standardresults available from the website httpscircabceuropaeuwbrowse880bbb5b-abc9-4c4c-9259-5c58867c27f5

2Variable SE300 in FADN

3Variables F64 to F67 in FADN Farm return variables are explained in the document RICC 1256 Farm Return Data Definitionsavailable from the website httpscircabceuropaeuwbrowse880bbb5b-abc9-4c4c-9259-5c58867c27f5

4Price indices of the means of agricultural production input base 2010=100 (annual) (apripi10ina)

5Variable K182AA in FADN

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 9

Finally it should be underlined that the potential environmental damage is not always proportionate to thevolume or expenditure of inputs for example one kg of a certain pesticide might be more damaging for theenvironment than 5 kg of another one Therefore the results should be interpreted with care

Classification of farms according to their intensity Each farm is classified according to the level of inputuse per hectare The thresholds have been set in such a way that the UAA of the EU Member States in the firstyear of the analysis 2004 (ie not including the countries that joined later Bulgaria Romania and Croatia)is equally divided into the three categories If it is higher than 350 constant EURha the farm is classified ashigh When it is below 155 constant EURha it is classified as low Otherwise it is medium Theselevels should not be interpreted to represent the boundaries of what is extensive and intensive farming Theyare only set in order to study the trends of shares in UAA managed by farms of different categories of intensityThe same thresholds are used for each EU group country and type of farming and it allows comparing thetrends between them

Typology of farms For this fact sheet we have used the typology of farms as in the FADN Types of Farming(General TF) under Regulation (EC) No 12422008 It is described below

General TF

1 Specialist field crops

2 Specialist horticulture

3 Specialist permanent crops

4 Specialist grazing livestock

5 Specialist granivore

6 Mixed cropping

7 Mixed livestock

8 Mixed crops-livestock

ContextIntensification is an important restructuring process that has characterised European agriculture for severaldecades (eg European Commission 19996) Intensification is in here understood as an increase in agriculturalinput use per hectare of land which usually leads to an increase in the level of production per unit of landlivestock unit and agricultural working unit Intensification often goes together with an increase in efficiency inthe use of inputs during the agricultural production process If the yield increase grows more than the use offertilisers pesticides and water for irrigation then improved crop varieties better management and technologicaldevelopment have made the utilisation of inputs more efficient However intensification may nevertheless resultin negative externalities to the environment

The proposed indicators are used as a ldquoproxyrdquo of agricultural intensification The total value of inputs (inthis analysis the costs of fertilisers pesticides and feedstuff) in constant national input prices purchased bythe holding as a whole is only a proxy indicator in absence of data on trends in the volumes of inputs used inspecific production activities undertaken by a holding Furthermore the overall ldquointensityrdquo of a farming systemis the result of very diverse parameters including a wide range of farm (and field) management practices Thusfor instance the ldquointensityrdquo of a livestock farm is the result of the input use (fertilisers concentrate feed etc)livestock patterns (the type of animal reared) cropping patterns (the composition of the forage system pasturesor maize) stocking density and management practices (waste use of manure ) Some of these processes arecovered by other indicators

6European Commission 1999 Agriculture Environment Rural Development Facts and Figures - A Challenge for Agriculture

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 10

The process of intensification has been driven by several factors In the period just after the Second WorldWar an important driver was the decline of the agricultural labour force which stimulated the introduction oflabour saving technologies and continuous technological development78910 In the following decades the maindriver for intensification was the need for economic efficiency gains in farming supported by price support andimport restrictions provided by the Common Agricultural Policy However the trade-offs between agricultureand environment emerged with increasing clarity and the policy was gradually targeted towards a more sustain-able management of land systems The recent CAP reforms especially the most recent one covering the period2014-2020 aim to improve the environmental performance of the agricultural sector

The main tools for this are cross-compliance the green direct payment and the agri-environmental measures The CAP intends to foster sustainable farming to protect the landscape and its features natural and geneticresources soil and biodiversity An intense debate has developed recently on sustainable intensification1112a term referring to the need to simultaneously increase agricultural productivity to face the greater demand forfood expected in the next 35 years while further reducing negative environmental aspects

Policy relevance and contextThe primary role of agriculture is to supply food Given that demand worldwide will continue rising in thefuture the EU should be able to contribute to world food demand Therefore it is essential that EU agricul-ture maintains and improves its production capacity while respecting EU commitments in international tradeand Policy Coherence for Development EU agriculture finds itself today in a considerably more competitiveenvironment as the world economy is increasingly integrated and the trading system more liberalized Thistrend is expected to continue in the coming years It represents a challenge for EU farmers but also offersan opportunity for EU food exporters Therefore it is important to continue to enhance the competitivenessand productivity of the EU agriculture sector Although favourable in the medium-term the perspectives foragricultural markets are nonetheless expected to be characterised by greater uncertainty and increased volatil-ity On the other hand agriculture and forestry play an important role in producing public goods notablyenvironmental public goods such as landscapes farmland biodiversity climate stability and greater resilienceto natural disasters (flooding drought and fire) At the same time some farming practices have the potentialto put pressure on the environment leading to soil depletion water shortages and pollution and loss of wildlifehabitats and biodiversity The challenge ahead is to continue to meet the demand for food while at the sametime reduce the pressures on the environment The CAP is currently addressing this challenge through thegreening and cross-compliance for direct payments as well as through instruments like the agri-environment-climate measures

7Clout H (1972) Rural geography An introductory survey Oxford Pergamon

8Hoekveld GA RB Jobse J van Weesep amp FM Dieleman (1973) Geografie van stad en platteland in de westerse landenRoermond Romen

9Yruela MP (1995) Spanish rural society in transition Sociologia Ruralis 35 p 276-296

10CEAS and EFNCP (2000) The environmental impact of dairy production in the EU practical options for the improvement ofthe environmental impact Final report for DGXI Centre for European Agricultural Studies and The European Forum on NatureConservation and Pastoralism

11Schiefer J Lair G J Blum WEH (2016) Potential limits of land and soil for sustainable intensification of Europeanagriculture Agriculture ecosystems and Environment 230 (2016) 283-293

12Mahon N Crute I Simmons E Islam Md M (2017) Sustainable intensification ndash oxymoron or third-wayA systematicreview Ecological indicators 74 (2017) 73-97

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 11

The process of intensification has been driven by several factors In the period just after the Second WorldWar an important driver was the decline of the agricultural labour force which stimulated the introduction oflabour saving technologies and continuous technological development78910 In the following decades the maindriver for intensification was the need for economic efficiency gains in farming supported by price support andimport restrictions provided by the Common Agricultural Policy However the trade-offs between agricultureand environment emerged with increasing clarity and the policy was gradually targeted towards a more sustain-able management of land systems The recent CAP reforms especially the most recent one covering the period2014-2020 aim to improve the environmental performance of the agricultural sector

The main tools for this are cross-compliance the green direct payment and the agri-environmental measures The CAP intends to foster sustainable farming to protect the landscape and its features natural and geneticresources soil and biodiversity An intense debate has developed recently on sustainable intensification1112a term referring to the need to simultaneously increase agricultural productivity to face the greater demand forfood expected in the next 35 years while further reducing negative environmental aspects

Policy relevance and contextThe primary role of agriculture is to supply food Given that demand worldwide will continue rising in thefuture the EU should be able to contribute to world food demand Therefore it is essential that EU agricul-ture maintains and improves its production capacity while respecting EU commitments in international tradeand Policy Coherence for Development EU agriculture finds itself today in a considerably more competitiveenvironment as the world economy is increasingly integrated and the trading system more liberalized Thistrend is expected to continue in the coming years It represents a challenge for EU farmers but also offersan opportunity for EU food exporters Therefore it is important to continue to enhance the competitivenessand productivity of the EU agriculture sector Although favourable in the medium-term the perspectives foragricultural markets are nonetheless expected to be characterised by greater uncertainty and increased volatil-ity On the other hand agriculture and forestry play an important role in producing public goods notablyenvironmental public goods such as landscapes farmland biodiversity climate stability and greater resilienceto natural disasters (flooding drought and fire) At the same time some farming practices have the potentialto put pressure on the environment leading to soil depletion water shortages and pollution and loss of wildlifehabitats and biodiversity The challenge ahead is to continue to meet the demand for food while at the sametime reduce the pressures on the environment The CAP is currently addressing this challenge through thegreening and cross-compliance for direct payments as well as through instruments like the agri-environment-climate measures

7Clout H (1972) Rural geography An introductory survey Oxford Pergamon

8Hoekveld GA RB Jobse J van Weesep amp FM Dieleman (1973) Geografie van stad en platteland in de westerse landenRoermond Romen

9Yruela MP (1995) Spanish rural society in transition Sociologia Ruralis 35 p 276-296

10CEAS and EFNCP (2000) The environmental impact of dairy production in the EU practical options for the improvement ofthe environmental impact Final report for DGXI Centre for European Agricultural Studies and The European Forum on NatureConservation and Pastoralism

11Schiefer J Lair G J Blum WEH (2016) Potential limits of land and soil for sustainable intensification of Europeanagriculture Agriculture ecosystems and Environment 230 (2016) 283-293

12Mahon N Crute I Simmons E Islam Md M (2017) Sustainable intensification ndash oxymoron or third-wayA systematicreview Ecological indicators 74 (2017) 73-97

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 11

Agri-environmental contextAs other commercial activities agriculture is aimed principally at production During the 20th century policysupport to agriculture was mainly targeted at ensuring food security by increasing production But agricultureis inherently reliant on a good state of the environment and the natural resources on which it depends Theseobjectives are nowadays targeted through both environmental and agricultural policies on EU level

Some of the characteristics of the intensification process are for example an increase in the use of chemicalinputs (fertilisers and crop protection) machinery water and energy In general these changes can lead to ahigher pressure on the environment for example through increased application of nitrogen and pesticides (seethe relevant indicators ) A higher use of fertilisers and pesticides for instance increases the risk of nutrientsand pesticides run-off into surface and ground waters However the actual effect of the use of inputs on theenvironment does not only depend on the amount of inputs used but also on how they are applied Thereforeintensification does not necessarily need to lead to environmental degradation Inputs like fertilisers are alsoneeded to sustain soil fertility when crops are harvested Too low use of fertilisers may therefore also lead toenvironmental degradation By managing a large part of the European Unionrsquos territory agriculture preservesfarm resources farmland biodiversity and a wide range of valuable habitats Many of these habitats and relatedspecies have a direct interdependence with agriculture

Extensification due to lack of resources may lead to low profitability for the farmer and ultimately farm landabandonment Farmland abandonment may imply loss of landscape and biodiversity and increased vulnerabil-ity to natural disasters Maintenance of a number of ecosystems that have emerged from agricultural cultivationdepends on the continuation of appropriate land management practices

See alsobull Agriculture forestry and fisheries statistics introduced - online publication

Further Eurostat informationPublications

bull Agriculture forestry and fishery statistics mdash 2016 edition

Databasebull Agriculture see

Price indices of agricultural products (apripi)

Price indices of agricultural products (2010=100) (apripi10)Price indices of the means of agricultural production input (2010 = 100) - annual data (

apripi10ina )

Agriculture and Environment (aei)

Utilised agricultural area (UAA) managed by low- medium- and high-input farms (source FADN)( aeipsinp )

Dedicated sectionbull Agri-Environmental Indicators

Source data for tables figures and maps (MS Excel)bull Download Excel file

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 12

Other informationbull Commission Communication COM(2006) 508 - Development of agri-environmental indicators for moni-

toring the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy

bull Commission Staff working document accompanying COM(2006)508 final

External linksbull Database

bull Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN)

bull Other external links

bull European Commission - DG Agriculture and Rural Development

bull OECD - Agri-Environmental Indicators and Policies

bull European Network for Rural Development (ENRD)

bull The agricultural European Innovation Partnership (EIP-AGRI)

Notes

Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification 13