Income from agricultural activity in 2001 : European Union and candidate countries.
Date: 2002-06-04
Institutions: Eurostat
Subjects: EU statistics, agricultural statistics, enlargement of the Union, farm income, statistical method

N
O

I
T
I

D
E

2
0
0
2

Income from 
agricultural activity 
in 2001 —
European Union and 
Candidate Countries

5

THEME 5
Agriculture  
and  
fisheries

E U R O P E A N
C O M M I S S I O N

 
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002

ISBN 92-894-3381-7

© European Communities, 2002

Table of contents

Table of contents ......................................................................

List of tables ............................................................................

List of graphs ...........................................................................

Signs and abbreviations employed ...............................................

eurostat

3

5

6

7

9

Introduction.............................................................................

1. Changes in income from agricultural activity in the 

European Union as a whole in 2001 compared to 2000.................... 13

1.1
1.2
1.3

1.4
1.5

An overview of the main results............................................................ 13
The results from a medium-term perspective........................................... 17
Output of the agricultural industry ........................................................ 18
1.3.1 Crop output.............................................................................. 20
1.3.2 Animal output .......................................................................... 26
Intermediate consumption and gross value added at basic prices ............... 30
Distributive transactions...................................................................... 33

2. Changes in income from agricultural activity in 

the Member States in 2001 compared to 2000 ............................... 37

Belgium ............................................................................................ 37
2.1
Denmark ........................................................................................... 39
2.2
Germany ........................................................................................... 42
2.3
Greece .............................................................................................. 44
2.4
Spain ............................................................................................... 47
2.5
France .............................................................................................. 50
2.6
Ireland ............................................................................................. 53
2.7
Italy................................................................................................. 55
2.8
Luxembourg....................................................................................... 58
2.9
2.10
The Netherlands ................................................................................. 60
2.11 Austria ............................................................................................. 63
Portugal............................................................................................ 66
2.12
Finland ............................................................................................. 70
2.13
2.14
Sweden............................................................................................. 72
2.15 United Kingdom ................................................................................. 74

the Candidate Countries in 2001 compared to 2000 ........................ 79

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8

Czech Republic................................................................................... 79
Estonia ............................................................................................. 81
Hungary............................................................................................ 84
Lithuania .......................................................................................... 87
Malta................................................................................................ 90
Poland .............................................................................................. 92
Slovak Republic.................................................................................. 93
Slovenia............................................................................................ 95

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

3. Changes in income from agricultural activity in 

eurostat

4. Agricultural Productivity in the EU ............................................... 97

4.1

4.2

Introduction ...................................................................................... 97
4.1.1 Interest in productivity............................................................... 97
4.1.2 Key productivity principles........................................................... 98
4.1.3 Background to Eurostat’s agricultural productivity indicators.............. 98
4.1.4 Eurostat’s agricultural productivity indicators.................................. 98
Agricultural productivity growth within the EU Member States................... 99
4.2.1 General overview ....................................................................... 100
4.2.2 Analysis by Member States .......................................................... 101

ANNEXES

I.
II.
III.

Notes on methodology ........................................................................ 121
Detailed tables on the income from agricultural activity in the EU ............. 125
Detailed tables on the agricultural productivity in the EU ......................... 191

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS

eurostat

List of tables

% changes in the three indicators of income from agricultural activity 
in the European Union as a whole and in the Member States in 1999, 
2000 and 2001 (compared to the previous year) ............................................... 14

Overall output of the agricultural industry in the European Union and 
in the Member States, 2001 compared to 2000: volume, price and 
value % changes .......................................................................................... 19

% changes in volumes, prices and values of crop output in the European 
Union as a whole and in the Member States, 2001 compared to 2000................... 20

% changes in the volumes, prices and values of the main crop products 
in the European Union as a whole, 2001 compared to 2000 ................................ 24

% changes in the volumes, prices and values of animal output in the 
European Union as a whole and in the Member States, 2001 compared to 2000 ..... 26

% changes in the volumes, prices and values of the most important animal 
products in the European Union as a whole, 2001 compared to 2000.................... 27

% changes in the volumes, prices and values of intermediate consumption 
in the European Union and the Member States, 2001 compared to 2000 ............... 31

% changes in the volumes, prices and values of major headings of intermediate 
consumption in the European Union in 2001 compared to 2000 .......................... 32

% changes in gross value added at basic prices (GVAbp) and in GVA volume 
and price indices in the European Union and the Member States, 
2001 compared to 2000 ................................................................................ 32

Real-terms % changes in the consumption of fixed capital, other taxes 
on production and other subsidies in the European Union and the 
Member States, 2001 compared to 2000 .......................................................... 34

Real-terms % changes in the compensation of employees, rents and interest 
(interest paid minus interest received) in the European Union and 
the Member States, 2001 compared to 2000..................................................... 35

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Belgium, 2001 compared to 2000 ............................................................... 39

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Denmark, 2001 compared to 2000............................................................... 41

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Germany, 2001 compared to 2000 ............................................................... 43

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Greece, 2001 compared to 2000.................................................................. 46

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Spain, 2001 compared to 2000 ................................................................... 48

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in France, 2001 compared to 2000.................................................................. 52

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Ireland, 2001 compared to 2000................................................................. 54

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Italy, 2001 compared to 2000 .................................................................... 57

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Luxembourg, 2001 compared to 2000 .......................................................... 59

Table 1.1

Table 1.2

Table 1.3

Table 1.4

Table 1.5

Table 1.6

Table 1.7

Table 1.8

Table 1.9

Table 1.10

Table 1.11

Table 2.1

Table 2.2

Table 2.3

Table 2.4

Table 2.5

Table 2.6

Table 2.7

Table 2.8

Table 2.9

Table 2.10

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in the Netherlands, 2001 compared to 2000 ..................................................... 62

LIST OF TABLES 5

eurostat

Table 2.11

Table 2.12

Table 2.13

Table 2.14

Table 2.15

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Table 3.4

Table 3.5

Table 3.6

Table 3.7

Table 3.8

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Austria, 2001 compared to 2000 ................................................................. 65

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Portugal, 2001 compared to 2000 ............................................................... 68

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Finland, 2001 compared to 2000................................................................. 70

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Sweden, 2001 compared to 2000 ................................................................ 73

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in the United Kingdom, 2001 compared to 2000 ............................................... 76

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in the Czech Republic, 2001 compared to 2000................................................. 81

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Estonia, 2001 compared to 2000 ................................................................ 83

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Hungary, 2001 compared to 2000 ............................................................... 85

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Lithuania, 2001 compared to 2000.............................................................. 89

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Malta, 2001 compared to 2000 ................................................................... 91

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Poland, 2001 compared to 2000 ................................................................. 93

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in the Slovak Republic, 2001 compared to 2000................................................ 94

% changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture 
in Slovenia, 2001 compared to 2000 ............................................................... 96

Table 4.1

Trends in output, factor inputs and productivity in Member States....................... 101

List of graphs

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

% changes in agricultural income measured by Indicator A for the Member 
States and the European Union, 2001 compared to 2000.................................... 13

Indicator A in the Member States, indices from 2000 (“1995” = 100) and 
changes in 2001 .......................................................................................... 17

6 LIST OF TABLES

Signs and abbreviations employed

CC-8
EU
EU-15
EUR-12
Eurostat

Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia
European Union
The fifteen Member States of the European Union
The twelve Members of the euro zone (B, D, EL, E, F, IRL, I, L, NL, A, P and FIN)
Statistical Office of the European Communities

eurostat

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

CZ
EE
HU
LT
MT
PL
SK
SI

AWU
BSE
CAP
EAA
ESA
EURO
FMD
GDPmp
GVAbp
mio
PPS

-
:
...

Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom

Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia

Annual Work Unit
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Common Agricultural Policy
Economic Accounts for Agriculture
European System of integrated economic Accounts
European Currency
Foot and Mouth Disease
Gross Domestic Product at market prices
Gross Value Added at basic prices
million
Purchasing Power Standard

not applicable
not available
part of series not shown

SIGNS AND ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED 7

eurostat

Introduction

As in previous years, Eurostat has undertaken to publish the results of estimates of recent changes

in the income from agricultural activity in the Member States and in the European Union as a whole
(EU-15). Additionally, this report for the first time includes a chapter dedicated to the Candidate
Countries. Eight of these countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak
Republic and Slovenia) have been able to participate in the present agricultural income index exercise.

The  figures  in  this  report  are  based  on  the  latest  available  estimates  (late  January  to  end  of
February  2002 (1))  from  the  competent  national  authorities  regarding  the  probable  changes  in  values,
prices and volumes for the variables that determine income from agricultural activity. During the course
of the year these estimates are revised, as more complete basic data become available. The data required
to  calculate  income  from  agricultural  activity  are  based  on  the  same  methodology  (i.e.  definitions,
principles  and  rules)  as  the  EAA  and  can,  therefore,  be  combined  with  EAA  data  for  the  purpose  of
obtaining longer historical series. However, their level of detail is more limited than the EAA and, unlike
the EAA, they do not provide information on the capital account.

The present report is the second report which is based on the new methodologies for the Economic
Accounts for Agriculture and Forestry (EAA/EAF 97, rev. 1.1) and Agricultural Labour Input statistics (2).
Readers interested in the main methodological principles, and in particular their changes vis-à-vis the old
methodology, will find a brief summary in the Annex to this publication.

The development of the income from agricultural activity in 2001 for the European Union as a whole
is  presented  and  analysed  in  Chapter 1  of  this  report.  It  is  then  examined  for  each  Member  State  in
Chapter 2 and for the Candidate Countries in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 of this publication looks into agricultural
productivity and its measurement, reflecting on the development work that is in progress.

Three  indicators  are  derived  from  the  EAA  to  show  unit  income  trends  in  agriculture.  These

Agricultural Income Indicators can be described as follows (3):

(1) Data as of 28h February 2002.

(2) See Eurostat (2000): Manual on Economic Accounts for Agriculture and Forestry EAA/EAF 97 (rev. 1.1), Theme 5, Methods and
nomenclatures,  Luxembourg;  Eurostat  (2000):  Target  methodology  on  agricultural  labour  input  statistics  (Rev. 1),  Theme 5,
Methods and nomenclatures, Luxembourg.

(3) For more detailed information, refer to the comments on methodology in the Annex to this publication.

INTRODUCTION 9

eurostat

Indicator A: Index of the real income of factors in agriculture, per annual work unit

This indicator corresponds to the real (i.e. deflated) net value added at factor cost of agriculture
per total annual work unit (4). Net value added at factor cost is calculated by subtracting inter-
mediate consumption, depreciation and other (i.e. non-product-specific) production taxes from
the value of agricultural output at basic prices (i.e. including subsidies on products and exclud-
ing taxes on products), and adding the value of other (i.e. non-product-specific) production sub-
sidies. Indicator A is obtained by deflating this net value with the implicit price index of gross
domestic product at market prices and dividing by the volume of total labour in agriculture.

Indicator B: Index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per unpaid annual work
unit

This indicator presents the changes in net entrepreneurial income over time, per unpaid / non-
salaried annual work unit. Net entrepreneurial income is obtained by subtracting the compensa-
tion of employees and interest and rent paid from the net value added at factor cost and adding
the interest received. This figure, when deflated with the same price index referred to above and
divided by the volume of non-salaried labour in agriculture, gives Indicator B.

Indicator C: Real net entrepreneurial income from agriculture

This indicator defines the change in the real (i.e. deflated) net entrepreneurial income as a sep-
arate value (5). For the purposes of this report, this indicator is also given in the form of an in-
dex (and not in absolute values).

To calculate indicators B and C, more information is therefore needed than for calculating Indicator
A: data on the compensation of employees, rents and interest paid and received, and on the breakdown of
labour input into its salaried and non-salaried components. Full harmonisation of these variables has yet
to be achieved in the Member States. For this reason, analyses centre on Indicator A. It should also be
mentioned that Indicator B is most useful in countries in which the agricultural units are organised into
holdings of sole proprietorship or unincorporated enterprises. Where there are “conventional” companies
earning a corporate profit and employing only paid / salaried workers, Indicator B is overestimated in
relation to a real individual income. This disadvantage can prevent comparisons of income levels between
Member States where the weightings of “conventional” companies are very different.

The analyses and comments on the development of agricultural income presented in this report are
mainly related to changes in real terms (deflated). In effect, while nominal changes can be of some
interest in a national context, they are much less relevant when calculating European Union aggregates or
when establishing comparisons between countries with very different inflation rates.

It should be noted that the agricultural income referred to above is based on macroeconomic and
national data. The figures therefore reflect the average development of agricultural incomes, without any
possibility of differentiation according to regions or types of holdings.

The income analyses presented in this report relate only to the agricultural industry. Figures on the
disposable income of agricultural households and that of other socio-professional groups are no longer
presented  in  this  report  (as  they  used  to  be  under  the  title  “Total  Income  of  Agricultural  Households

(4) For  more  detailed  information,  refer  on  the  definition  and  measurement  of  agricultural  labour  input  refer  to  Methodological

Note A.3.

(5) This is in contrast to Indicator B, which compares this change with the development in unpaid / non-salaried labour input.

Indicator C could be said to be the basis for Indicator B.

10 INTRODUCTION

■
■
■
(TIAH)”), in order to make a clearer distinction between the two data sets. Separate reports on what is
now called Income of the Agricultural Households Sector (IAHS) (a change that more clearly defines the
scope  and  origin  of  these  statistics  in  National  Accounts)  are  available (6),  where  income  from  non-
agricultural sources (other activities, salaries, welfare benefits and property income), and deductions such
as current taxes and social payments are taken into account.

eurostat

(6) For an introduction to the concepts of statistics on Income of the Agricultural Households Sector (IAHS, formerly Total Income
of Agricultural Households, or TIAH), see Eurostat: Manual of Total Income of Agricultural Households (rev. 1), 1995, Theme 5,
Series E, Luxembourg. For the most recent IAHS statistics, see Eurostat (2000): Income of the Agricultural Households Sector 1999,
Theme 5, Detailed tables, Luxembourg.

INTRODUCTION 11

eurostat

1. Changes in income from agricultural

activity in the European Union as a
whole in 2001 compared to 2000

1.1. An overview of the main results

According to the provisional results of the EAA for 2001, compiled and submitted to EUROSTAT by
the  Member  States  in  January  / February  2002,  income  from  agricultural  activity  per  full-time  worker
equivalent is estimated to have increased, in 2001, by 3.3% when measured by Indicator A (7), for the
European Union as a whole (EU-15) (see Figure and Table 1.1). With this increase, the index of average

Figure 1.1.

Changes in agricultural income measured by Indicator A for the
Member States and the European Union, 2001 compared to 2000

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

+12.3

+11.8

+10.9

+9.9

+7.8

+5.3

+5.0

+4.7

+3.5

+2.6 +2.4

+3.3

+3.0

+1.5

+0.7

+0.2

-0.6

DK

P

A

D

IRL

B

S

FIN UK

E

NL

EL

F

I

L EUR-12 EU-15

(7) Indicator A measures the change of real (i.e. deflated) agricultural factor income (corresponding to the net value added at factor
cost)  related  to  the  change  in  total  agricultural  labour  input  (in  annual  work  units).  See  also  Introduction and  Notes  on
methodology, in this publication.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 13

eurostat

income from agricultural activity reaches a level of 107.6 in comparison with “1995” (8). For the members
of the Euro zone (EUR-12), the index of Indicator A is estimated to have risen by 3.0% in 2001 thus
reaching a level of 112.1 (“1995” = 100).

Changes in income from agricultural activity usually vary widely across Member States, partly because
the various countries started out in different situations, as a result of the developments in previous years,
and  partly  because  of  the  wide  variety  of  structural  and  economic  factors  affecting  agriculture  in  the
individual Member States of the European Union. This finding is confirmed by the results for 2001. It is
however remarkable that all countries, with the exception of Luxembourg, actually recorded increases in
the agricultural income Indicator A (see Figure 1.1 and also Table 1.1). The fastest rates of change were
measured in Denmark (+12.3%), Portugal (+11.8%), Austria (+10.9%), and in Germany (+9.9%). But also
Ireland (+7.8%) recorded a notable income increase. The lowest growth rates were observed in France
(+0.7%)  and  Italy  (+0.2%).  In  Luxembourg,  Indicator A  fell  0.6%  below  the  level  reached  in  2000.
Chapter 2 of this publication analyses these developments in agricultural income for each of the Member
States. Chapter 1.2 places these estimates for 2001 in a medium-term perspective.

For the EU-15 in 2001, real (i.e. deflated) agricultural factor income, the basis of Indicator A, was
slightly higher than in 2000 (+1.2%). There were increases in eleven Member States with the highest rates
measured in Portugal (+9.5%), Austria and Denmark (both +9.0%). Real agricultural factor income fell

Table 1.1 % changes in the three indicators of income from agricultural activity in the European
Union as a whole and in the Member States in 1999, 2000 and 2001 (compared to the
previous year)

Indicator A

Indicator B

Indicator C

1999

2000

2001

1999

2000

2001

1999

2000

2001

-14.2
-3.2
-8.9
1.7
-2.9
-2.2
-7.8
8.9
-9.5
-11.8
-3.9
14.3
9.9
-9.2
-1.9

-0.7
-1.0

11.6
20.8
19.0
-1.5
11.4
0.2
5.3
-3.9
1.8
-3.3
2.6
-9.4
27.6
9.8
-9.4

3.2
2.7

5.3
12.3
9.9
1.5
2.6
0.7
7.8
0.2
-0.6
2.4
10.9
11.8
4.7
5.0
3.5

3.0
3.3

-21.8
-27.1
:
2.3
-2.3
-3.9
-10.7
13.8
-15.2
-20.8
-5.1
21.0
13.9
-19.4
-3.4

:
:

19.3
95.5
:
-1.0
10.8
-0.4
4.5
-5.3
-2.3
-6.9
1.4
-12.4
35.1
20.3
-23.8

:
:

7.8
31.2
:
2.9
5.4
0.8
9.0
1.6
1.7
4.6
13.2
18.0
7.5
7.7
10.9

:
:

-23.7
-31.4
-17.2
1.6
-10.4
-6.5
-18.5
5.9
-17.4
-22.4
-5.9
12.9
5.1
-23.9
-6.5

-6.4
-5.9

16.8
89.6
30.4
-4.4
-0.8
-3.0
1.6
-9.7
-6.5
-8.1
-1.5
-12.4
21.9
15.9
-26.3

-2.5
-2.0

4.6
27.3
14.1
-0.7
-0.2
-2.0
1.8
1.5
-1.8
-1.2
11.1
15.5
2.3
3.8
8.9

1.5
2.2

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

EUR-12
EU-15

(8) In the framework of this report, years in inverted commas usually refer to three-year averages, e.g. “1995” means the average of

the years 1994, 1995 and 1996.

14 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

below  2000  levels  in  four  Member  States,  namely  the  Netherlands,  France,  Greece  and  Luxembourg.
However, the ratio of real factor income per annual work unit nevertheless increased in three of these
countries (the Netherlands, France and Greece) as the number of annual work units declined at a faster
rate than factor income (9). Indeed, the volume of agricultural labour continued to decline in 2001 in all
the Member States, with the exception of Italy (+0.5%, see Chapter 2.8). For the EU-15 as a whole, there
was a reduction of 2.0% in the volume of agricultural labour input, the slowest rate over the last ten years.

Like Indicator A, real-terms net entrepreneurial income per non-salaried agricultural annual work unit
(Indicator B)  in  agriculture  in  the  European  Union  is  expected  to  have  increased  in  2001  (see
Table 1.1 (10)). This indicator is not calculated for Germany on methodological grounds (11) and, therefore,
not for the EU-15, but figures from the other Member States suggest that there was an average increase
of 4.4% for EU-15 less Germany (“EU-14”). This increase is the result of a rise, by 1.4%, in the real-terms
net entrepreneurial income for “EU-14” in 2001 compared to 2000, on the one hand, and of the continued
decline  in  the  volume  of  non-salaried  labour  input  (-2.9%),  on  the  other.  Indicator C measuring  the
development in real net entrepreneurial income was 2.2% higher than in 2000 for the EU-15 as a whole.

Excursus I: Recording of subsidies (and taxes) for the calculation of income from agricultural

activity

The  importance  of  subsidies  as  a  component  of  agricultural  income (12)  means  that  a  more
general explanation of how they are recorded for the income calculations is required. The same rules,
and thus the same terminology, that apply to subsidies also apply to taxes (taxes on products, other
taxes on production). Given, though, that taxes are much less important in this context, they are not
discussed in detail below.

According to the new EAA Methodology (EAA 97), there is a distinction between subsidies on
products (which in this report are also commonly referred to as “product-specific” subsidies), other
subsidies and capital transfers. In this context, the reference to subsidies on products is actually to
subsidies paid per unit of a good or service produced.

(9) For the Netherlands, a decline of 1.1% in real agricultural factor income, and of 3.4% in the volume of agricultural labour input
resulted in an increase of 2.4 % in Indicator A (Greece: real factor income -1.4%, agricultural labour input -2.9%, Indicator A
+1.5%; France: real factor income -1.1%, agricultural labour input -1.8%, Indicator A +0.7%).

(10) It is worth noting that changes in Indicator C, and consequently also in Indicator B, are normally more pronounced (in both
directions) than changes in Indicator A. This is because the net entrepreneurial income, the basis for both Indicators B and C,
is considerably smaller in absolute terms than factor income. The share, in 2000, of factor income in gross value added at basic
prices was 79.4% compared to only 49.6% for net entrepreneurial income. A given change in any item entering the calculation
of factor income, therefore yields a larger change in entrepreneurial income than in factor income.

(11) For holdings in the new German Länder, which are organised as legal persons, wages and salaries are paid to all employees,
including owners and their family members. Labour input by owners or family members is therefore not recorded as unpaid labour.
As a consequence, these holdings’ entrepreneurial profits (or losses) are not in any way based on unpaid labour. See also Chapter
2.3 and the Annex “Notes on methodology”.

(12) The importance of subsidies can be seen most clearly if the total amount of subsidies (subsidies on products plus other subsidies)
is  compared  with  gross  value  added  at  market  prices  (GVAmp  being  calculated  by  deducting  the  value  of  intermediate
consumption from the value of agricultural industry output at producer prices). Calculations for the EU-15 show that in 2000
and 2001 the share of subsidies in GVAmp was 31.3% and 31.9% respectively. The share of net subsidies (i.e. total subsidies less
total taxes) in GVAmp was 27.9% in 2000 and 28.5% in 2001.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 15

eurostat

Subsidies on products are included in the basic price, taxes on products excluded, when output
is valued in the framework of the production account. Neither the subsidies on products nor the taxes
on products appear therefore as subsidies or taxes in the generation of income account. According to
the  new  EAA  methodology,  only  the  other  subsidies as  well  as  the  other  taxes  on  production are
recorded in the generation of income account. The other subsidies concern primarily the reduction of
production  costs  or  support  for  changes  in  the  method  of  production.  The  fact  that  subsidies  on
products  and  other  subsidies  are  recorded  differently  means  that  the  amount  recorded  in  the
generation of income account (other subsidies) is in no way comparable to the entry which used to
be booked under “subsidies” according to the old EAA methodology (the same goes for taxes).

Capital transfers are divided into investment grants and other capital transfers. These payments
are recorded in the capital account and thus have no effect whatsoever on the calculation of the
income indicators shown in this report.

A  further  change  connected  with  the  recording  of  subsidies  and  taxes  under  the  new  EAA
methodology should also be mentioned at this point, namely that all distributive transactions (and
thus also subsidies and taxes) are recorded on an accrual basis, i.e. at the time when the transaction
or the event (production, sale, import etc.) which gives rise to the subsidy (or the tax) takes place.
Under the old methodology, the criterion for recording was the date of payment. For the estimate of
agricultural income, aid was included in the calendar year in which it was actually paid, which was
not necessarily the same as the year when entitlement arose.

Which were the key factors at the EU-15 level driving the development of real-terms agricultural
factor income in 2001? On the whole, the principal aggregates behind factor income changed little, in
2001. On the level of the individual products, however, there was a number of significant changes which
are briefly enumerated in the following (see Chapters 1.3 and 1.4 for more details).

The value at basic prices of the agricultural industry’s output was slightly higher in 2001
(+0.3% in real terms). Increases in the output values of animals and animal products (+2.1%
and +3.7% respectively, in real terms) thus outweighed the decline in the value of crop output 
(-1.5% in real terms). The latter decline was mainly the result of lower volumes (-7.5%) in cereal
production  and  lower  volumes  (-5.7%)  and  producer  prices  (-3.7%)  in  wine production.  The
increase in the average output value of animals (at basic prices), despite the considerable fall in
the output values of cattle (producer prices down by -13.3% in real terms), was mainly the result
of a further remarkable increase in the producer prices for pigs (+16.0% in real terms). Higher
producer prices for milk (+3.8% in real terms) were the main factor behind the rise in the output
value  of  animal  products.  The  overall  value  of  product-specific  subsidies  (net  of  taxes) was
slightly smaller in 2001 than in 2000 (-0.4% in real terms).

The cost of intermediate consumption goods and services was slightly higher than in 2000
(+0.2% in real terms). Average real-terms prices for intermediate inputs were 0.8% higher than
in 2000, mainly as a result of higher prices for animal feedingstuffs and fertilisers (+1.6% and
+9.7% respectively, in real terms). The average volume of the input use was reduced by 0.6%
which reflects mostly reductions in the use of fertilisers and of pesticides (down by 6.5% and
6.3% respectively).

16 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

■
■
eurostat

Depreciation was slightly higher (+0.2% in real terms) while the other taxes on production
fell below 2000 levels (-0.4%). The other subsidies on production increased considerably
(+9.7% in real terms)(13).

1.2. The results from a medium-term perspective

Figure 1.2  puts  the  changes  in  agricultural  income  in  2001  for  the  various  Member  States  in  a
medium-term perspective. The index of real agricultural factor income per annual work unit (Indicator A)
is calculated using a base equal to 100 for the average of the three years from 1994 to 1996 (“1995”). The
graph takes the value of the index in 2000 as the starting point, and shows the change in 2001 as well as
the new level of the index for 2001 in each of the Member States.

Figure 1.2.

Indicator A in the Member States, indices from 2000
(”1995” = 100) and changes in 2001

2000
2001

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

EUR-12EU-15

When interpreting the values of the index shown in Figure 1.2, it should be borne in mind that they
do not allow a comparison of the income levels between the Member States, but only a comparison of their
trends since the mid-nineties.

The Member States can be divided roughly into two main groups. The first covers those countries for
whom  real-terms  average  income  from  agricultural  activity  in  2001  was  above  the  level  recorded  for
“1995”. This group comprises in particular Germany, Sweden, Finland, Portugal and Spain, where the
income levels attained in 2001 were around 20% higher than in “1995”, and in addition Italy, France,
Denmark, Ireland and Belgium. In the case of Denmark, Ireland and Belgium, the income levels in 2000
were still below “1995” levels, and it was therefore the increases recorded in 2001 that brought incomes
in these countries above “1995” levels.

(13) When the totals of subsidies and taxes (subsidies on products plus other subsidies on production, taxes likewise) are looked at,
the level of subsidies increased by 2.3% in real terms, in 2001 compared to 2000, and the level of taxes declined by 2.1%. The
resulting increase in net subsidies (subsidies total net of taxes total) was 2.9% in real terms.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 17

■
eurostat

The  second  group  covers  those  countries  for  whom  real-terms  average  income  from  agricultural
activity  in  2001  was  below  the  level  recorded  for  “1995”:  Greece,  Luxembourg,  Austria,  the
Netherlands and particularly the United Kingdom. In Greece, Luxembourg and Austria, Indicator A in 2001
came (or remained, in the case of Luxembourg) close to “1995” levels. In the Netherlands, Indicator A had
reached in 2000 its lowest level (81.9 compared to “1995” = 100) since records are available (1987), and
the latest modest increase in 2001 did not alter this position by much.

The  development  in  agricultural  income  in  the  United  Kingdom  since  the  mid-nineties  is  quite
different to that of any other Member State of the European Union. In 1995, Indicator A had reached the
highest level over the whole of the period 1973 to 2001. However, sharp declines in the second half of the
nineties and in 2000 (major reasons being the BSE crisis but also the relative strengthening of the value
of the pound against the EURO) pushed Indicator A to its lowest level since the accession of the United
Kingdom  to  the  European  Union  in  1973.  Indicator A  remained,  in  2001,  still  about  40%  below  the
corresponding “1995” level, despite the most recent increase.

According to the calculations for the EU-15 as a whole, the index of Indicator A in 2001 is expected

to reach 107.6 (“1995” = 100), after the increases of 2.7% in 2000 and of 3.3% in 2001.

1.3. Output of the agricultural industry

Output value only slightly higher in real terms

The real-terms value of the agricultural industry’s output slightly increased in 2001 (+0.3%). This

is the result of contrasting value developments in animal and crop production.

Excursus II: Valuation of output and breakdown of changes in output values

Under  the  EAA 97  methodology,  output  is  valued  at  basic  prices.  The  basic  price  can  be
calculated from the producer price by adding subsidies on products (less taxes on products) to the
price obtained by the producer (“producer price”).

In the context of the present report, the changes in the real-terms (i.e. deflated) output values
at basic prices are usually broken down into three components: (i) the changes in the volumes of
output at producer prices, (ii) the changes in the real producer prices, and (iii) the changes in the
real-terms value of subsidies on products net of taxes on products. The structure of the tables in the
chapters on the European Union, the EU-15 Member States and on the Candidate Countries is adapted
to this approach.

For the interested reader, exhaustive information on the development of volumes, prices and
values of output at producer prices, subsidies on products, taxes on products, and of output at basic
prices is available in the Tables A.3 to A.8 in the statistical annex to this report.

In  animal  production,  both  the  real  output  values  (at  basic  prices)  of  animals  and  of  animal
products are expected to increase (+2.1% and +3.7% respectively) so that the overall output value of
animal  production  rises,  in  2001,  by  2.7%  in  real  terms.  This  increase  is  mainly  the  result  of  higher
producer prices (+2.7% in real terms), but volumes of output at producer prices were also slightly higher
than in the previous year. The product-related subsidies (net of taxes) show an increase of 0.3% (in real

18 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

terms). It has to be noted, though, that despite the positive overall results, the developments are quite
different when looked at on a product-by-product basis.

In crop production, volumes of output at producer prices were on average 3.0% lower than in 2000.
This was only partly outweighed by higher real-terms producer prices (+1.4%). The real value of product-
related subsidies (net of taxes) fell slightly below 2000 levels (-0.6% in real terms). As a result of these
developments, the crop output value (at basic prices) for EU-15 declined by 1.5% in 2001.

Agricultural output consists not only of agricultural goods, i.e. crop and animal products, but also
both  the  output  of  agricultural  services (for  example,  harvesting  work  done  by  contractors)  and  the
output of “inseparable, non-agricultural secondary activities” (such as agricultural tourism and farm
holidays).  However,  the  share  of  both  these  services  and  secondary  activities  in  overall  agricultural
industry output is low (3.2% and 1.9% respectively for the EU-15 in 2000) and their impact on the rates
of change of overall output (volumes, prices and values) is usually very limited. In 2001, the output value
of agricultural services (valued at basic prices) declined by 2.7% while the output value of the secondary
activities increased by 1.8%.

Table 1.2 Overall output of the agricultural industry in the European Union and in the Member

States, 2001 compared to 2000: volume, price and value % changes

Volume

Real price

(output at 

(output at

Real value

(output at

Real value

(output at

% share

of EU-15

producer prices) producer prices)

producer prices)

basic prices)

output in 2000

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

EUR-12
EU-15

-4.1
0.7
0.6
-3.9
-1.1
-2.6
1.5
-0.7
-2.8
-2.5
0.5
-0.8
-1.1
0.3
-4.4

-1.4
-1.5

5.3
2.7
1.5
1.4
2.0
2.0
-2.2
1.3
-1.6
0.5
1.4
3.6
-1.4
-0.8
5.0

1.6
1.9

1.0
3.4
2.1
-2.6
0.9
-0.6
-0.7
0.6
-4.3
-2.1
1.9
2.7
-2.4
-0.5
0.4

0.2
0.3

1.8
3.9
1.8
-1.8
0.6
-0.1
-3.8
0.6
-1.0
-1.7
2.3
2.9
-1.9
1.3
-1.6

0.3
0.3

2.5
3.0
15.4
4.0
12.2
22.9
2.1
15.0
0.1
6.9
2.0
2.0
1.4
1.8
8.8

86.4
100.0

Table 1.2 shows that the changes in the output at basic prices and in its various components were
generally more pronounced on the level of the individual Member States than on the aggregate levels of
EU-15 or EUR-12. Eight Member States recorded increases in their overall output value at basic prices, at
rates up to 3.9% (Denmark). The fastest rate of decline (-3.8%) was measured in Ireland.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 19

eurostat

Volume declines were observed in ten Member States, inter alia in four of the five main producer
countries: Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. Of the main producer countries, only Germany
recorded  slightly  higher  volumes.  Higher  average  real-terms  producer  prices  were  recorded  in  eleven
Member States, inter alia in all the five main producer countries.

In 2001, the level of product-specific subsidies (net of taxes) was lower in Germany, Spain, Ireland,
and in the United Kingdom. This led to an average decline of 0.4% (in real-terms) for EU-15 as a whole,
despite increases in the other eleven Member States. However, as has been said above (Excursus I), public
transfers to agriculture do not only comprise product-specific subsidies. Also taking into acount the other
subsidies on production (net of the other taxes on production), in which there was a real-terms increase
of 14.3% (EU-15), there was an overall increase in the level of subsidies (net of taxes) of 2.9% (in real
terms).

1.3.1. Crop output

Average volume decline only partly offset by higher real-terms producer prices

The value of crop output at basic prices is expected to have fallen by an average 1.5% in real terms
for the EU-15 in 2001 (see Table 1.3). The main reason was a decline in the volume of output (-3.0%).
But  also  the  product-specific  subsidies  (net  of  taxes)  were  slightly  lower  than  in  2000  (-0.6%  in  real
terms). In contrast, the average level of real-terms producer prices for crop products was a little higher
than in the year before.

Table 1.3 % changes in volumes, prices and values of crop output in the European Union as a

whole and in the Member States, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume

Real price

(output at 

(output at

Real value

(output at

Real value

(output at

% share

of EU-15

producer prices) producer prices)

producer prices)

basic prices)

output in 2000

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

EUR-12
EU-15

-6.2
-1.7
1.4
-5.8
-4.5
-4.9
3.6
-2.0
-11.7
-1.5
2.2
0.0
-6.0
-0.4
-7.9

-2.8
-3.0

11.8
-1.1
-1.8
0.1
-1.0
3.4
-3.2
1.0
0.7
1.7
-2.3
4.1
-1.9
-3.4
9.4

1.1
1.4

4.9
-2.7
-0.5
-5.6
-5.5
-1.7
0.3
-1.1
-11.1
0.2
-0.1
4.1
-7.9
-3.8
0.7

-1.8
-1.7

4.8
-1.7
-0.9
-3.3
-4.5
-1.5
0.9
-1.2
-9.8
0.3
-0.2
4.0
-6.2
-1.0
-1.8

-1.5
-1.5

1.1
1.2
7.7
2.9
7.4
12.9
0.4
9.5
0.0
3.5
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.9
3.3

48.0
53.3

20 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

The changes at EU level were largely determined by France, Italy, Germany and Spain, since the value
of crop output in these Member States alone accounted for about three quarters of the EU-15 total in 2000.
In all four countries, the real-terms value of crop output was lower than in the previous year, with rates
of decline ranging between 0.9% (Germany) and 4.5% (Spain). But output values in 2001 were also lower
in seven other Member States, and particularly so in Luxembourg and in Finland. Indeed, real-terms values
of crop output in 2001 were higher than the previous year for only four Member States (Belgium, Ireland,
the Netherlands and Portugal).

The majority of Member States, including three of the main producer countries (Spain, France and
Italy),  recorded  falls  in  the  volume  of  crop  output  compared  with  2000,  by  as  much  as  -11.7%  in
Luxembourg. Only four Member States, Germany amongst these, recorded higher output volumes. Average
real-terms  prices  for  crop  output  were  higher  in  eight  Member  States,  the  strongest  increases  being
recorded for Belgium (+11.8%) and the United Kingdom (+9.4%).

Changes in volumes, prices and thus values varied from one product to another and from one Member
State  to  another,  largely  because  of  varied  climatic  conditions  between  Member  States,  the  differing
sensitivity of crops to climatic conditions but also because market conditions varied. Volume and price
changes for 2001 are also measured against the levels achieved in 2000 and, therefore, have to be judged
against the previous year’s results. Against this background, the most important changes in certain crop
products in 2001 are explained in greater detail below (see also Table 1.4). Of particular interest, in this
context,  are  certainly  cereals,  but  also  wine,  potatoes and  fruit because  it  was  mainly  these  crop
products that influenced the overall crop output results in 2001. At the first stage, the following analysis
focusses  on  EU-15  as  a  whole,  at  the  second  stage  on  the  main  producer  countries  of  the  respective
products or product groups.

The reader interested in more country-specific information might refer to Chapter 2. Detailed data

on the development of volumes, prices and values can be found in the Annex Tables A.4 to A.8.

AGENDA 2000

In the framework of its decisions on Agenda 2000, the European Council adopted in March 1999
in Berlin a new reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).  The reform measures, which go back
to the Communication of the European Commission on Agenda 2000 presented in July 1997, concern,
in particular, the arable crops (cereals, oilseeds and protein crops), beef, milk and wine sectors, the
new rural development framework, the horizontal rules for direct support schemes and the financing
of the CAP.  Implementation of the measures began in 2000/2001.

The main thrust of the reform is aimed at moving further away from a policy of price support towards
a policy of direct income support for producers, and thus represents a deepening and an extension of the
last comprehensive reform of the CAP, which was carried out in the first half of the ‘90s.

The measures of interest in the framework of the present report are primarily in the areas of arable
crops (cereals, oilseeds and protein crops) and beef (14). Most of the reform measures in the milk sector
will not take effect until 2005/2006, but are also listed here for the sake of completeness:

(14) Only  the  most  important  individual  measures  will  be  described.    Further  information  can  be  found  at  the  website  of  the

Directorate-General for Agriculture: http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/index_en.htm.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 21

eurostat

• arable  crops:  reduction  of  the  intervention  price  for  cereals in  two  stages  (2000/2001  and
2001/2002) by 15% in total. Simultaneous (also two-stage) increase in direct payments for cereals
in order to offset approximately 50% of the reduction in the intervention price.  Product-specific
subsidies for durum wheat kept at the same level.  Reduction in the direct payments for oilseeds
in three stages (from 2000/2001 to 2002/2003) to the level of the direct payments for cereals.
One-off reduction (2000/2001) in the direct payments for protein crops and continuation at this
reduced level.  The base rate for compulsory set-aside is set at 10% for the period 2000-2006
(further  adjustments  are  possible  depending  on  market  conditions).  Voluntary  set-aside  is
maintained.

• beef: cut in the level of market support by 20% in three equal stages (between 2000 and 2002).
In mitigation, increases in the special premium for male cattle and the suckler cow premium and
introduction of a new slaughter premium.

• milk: increase in milk quotas by 1.5% in three equal steps starting in 2005/06 in ten Member
States (the five other Member States receiving additional milk quotas in 2000 and 2001). Overall
the EU milk quotas would increase by approximately 2.4% by 2007/08. The intervention prices for
butter  and  skimmed  milk  powder  will  be  reduced  by  15%  in  three  equal  stages  starting  from
2005/2006  onwards.  In  order  to  mitigate  the  effects  of  this  reduction,  the  Community  will
introduce a new dairy premium (together with a system of national envelopes as a top-up aid) for
producers from 2005/2006 onwards.

Cereals: volumes down in 2001 after record harvest in the year before

According to their share in year 2000 output, cereals are the most important crop product group of
EU-15 agriculture. The EU-15 cereal harvest in 2001 fell back against the 2000 harvest where a record level
had been reached. Unfavourable weather conditions, in particular wet weather in Autumn 2000 hampering
the sowing of winter cereals in a number of major producer countries, led to a reduction in the area grown
under cereals. But also average yields were lower than in 2000. The output volume of cereals as a whole
declined by 7.5%, with marked declines notably for wheat (-13.0%), barley (-12.4%) and oats (-10.6%).
In contrast, output volumes were higher for grain maize (+6.8%), rye (+14.9%) and the other cereals
(mainly triticale, +7.6%). In line with Agenda 2000 (see box “Agenda 2000” above), there was a further
cut  in  the  intervention  prices  (though  the  real-terms  producer  prices  actually  rose  by  +0.5%)  partly
compensated for by a simultaneous increase in the direct payments for cereals (+1.9% increase in product-
related subsidies net of taxes). The value of cereals output at basic prices declined by 4.2%.

Declines in the overall cereal output volume combined with higher real-terms producer prices, in four
of the five main cereal-producing countries set the tone for the development at EU-15 level. The volume
declines  were  particularly  strong  in  Spain  (-30.2%,  after  a  record  harvest  in  2000)  and  in  the  United
Kingdom (-20.6%); in France the cereal output volume was 8.6% lower than in 2000, in Italy 3.7%. In all
these countries there were rises in the average level of the real-terms producer prices at rates ranging
between +0.7% (in Italy) and +5.9% (in the United Kingdom) but these rises only partly compensated for
the decline in volumes. Germany was the only one of the five main producers of cereals where output
volumes in 2001 were considerably higher (+9.3%) than those recorded in 2000. However, this volume
increase was coupled with a decline in the level of real-terms producer prices of 6.0%.

22 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

Wine: further fall in volumes and real-terms producer prices

In wine production, important declines in both output volumes and real-terms producer prices (-5.7%

and -3.7% respectively) resulted in a decline in the value of wine output of 9.2% in real terms (15).

France and Italy are the major wine-producing countries with a combined share in overall EU-15 wine
output, in 2000, of almost 80% (France: 53.6%, Italy: 26.2%). It is estimated that volumes produced were
smaller in both countries, by -6.6% in France, and by -3.2% in Italy. But there was also a very important
decline in Spain, the third most important wine producer (with a share of 7.9%) where volumes were down
by as much as 23.2% compared to the previous year. Of the other wine-producing Member States, Germany,
Austria and Portugal recorded volume increases, Greece and Luxembourg decreases.

Real-terms producer prices for wine were down in most of the wine-producing countries, including
France (-3.4%), with the rates of decline ranging between -2.2% in Austria and -29.8% in Spain. Of the
major wine producers, only Italy recorded a modest increase (+2.8%). There were also increases in Greece
and in Luxembourg.

Potatoes: producer prices rising by more than one quarter

In  2000  and  1999,  the  EU-15  potato  market  was  saturated  and  producer  prices  were  rather  low.
Against this background the area under potatoes was reduced in 2001. Yields were also below 2000 levels,
with dry spells and hot temperatures having affected the non-irrigated varieties in southern regions, and
excessive rain having hindered north European production. The overall EU-15 output volume of potatoes
therefore was 3.2% lower in 2001. This decline allowed producer prices to recover. In the average of EU-
15 they were up by 26.6% (in real terms).

Of the five main producer countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Spain),
only the United Kingdom recorded a volume increase of 2.8% compared to 2000 (the 2000 harvest in the
UK was severely reduced because around 20 000 hectares had to be overwintered and only a small tonnage
could be salvaged from this area). In Germany and France, the volume declines were rather small (-0.5%
and -1.0% respectively); in Spain and in the Netherlands they were more pronounced (-5.2% and -4.0%).
Volume declines were also recorded in most of the other Member States; only Ireland and Austria recorded
higher volumes.

With the exception of Luxembourg, Austria and Finland, the real-terms producer prices for potatoes were
up  everywhere,  the  highest  rate  of  increase  being  observed  in  Belgium  (+80.8%).  In  the  main  producer
countries, the real-terms producer prices rose between 16.6% (Spain) and 52.4% (the Netherlands).

Fruit: volumes lower but rise in producer prices

In the average of EU-15, the output volume of the product group fruit was 2.9% lower than in 2000
while real-terms producer prices were considerably higher (+8.3%). The output value at producer prices
therefore  increased  by  5.1%  (in  real  terms).  When  measured  at  basic  prices,  taking  into  account  the
changes in the product-specific (net) subsidies on fruit (of little importance in value terms), the output
value was 4.8% higher than in 2000.

Fruit is a very varied product group, the most important sub-aggregates being fresh fruit and citrus
fruits accounting for 55.9% and 18.7% respectively of the overall fruit output value in 2000. The remaining
quarter are primarily grapes and olives, with a smaller percentage for tropical fruit. In 2001, there were

(15) In the case of wine, the value of product specific taxes and subsidies is practically negligible. At least at the level of EU-15, a

distinction between output at producer and at basic prices is therefore irrelevant.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 23

eurostat

volume declines in the production of fresh fruit (-2.8%), citrus fruit (-7.5%) and grapes (-6.9%), and
increases in the case of tropical fruit (+5.9%) and olives (+10.5). At the same time, the level of the real-
terms producer prices were above 2000 levels for each of these items, with particularly marked increases
for fresh fruit (+8.2%) and citrus fruit (+16.6%).

Spain, Italy, France and Greece are the main producer countries of fruit, with shares of 30%, 28%,
15% and 9% respectively, in EU-15 fruit output. There was a slight increase in the output volume of Spain
(+1.1%), a slight reduction in Italy (-0.9%) and notable declines in France (-5.0%) and Greece (-8.4%).
Real-terms producer prices, in contrast, were higher in all four countries with rates of increase ranging
between 3.8% (Italy) and 10.9% (Spain).

Table 1.4 % changes in the volumes, prices and values of the main crop products in the European

Union as a whole, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume

Real price

(output at 

(output at

Real value

(output at

Real value

(output at

% share

of EU-15

producer prices) producer prices)

producer prices)

basic prices)

output in 2000

Cereals
Oilseeds
Sugarbeet
Forage plants

Fresh 
vegetables

Plants and 
flowers

Potatoes
Fruit (*)
Wine
Olive oil

Crop output

-7.5
-3.2
-11.1
0.5

-0.8

0.3

-3.2
-2.9
-5.7
8.6

-3.0

0.5
18.4
2.2
-2.9

-0.8

-1.2

26.6
8.3
-3.7
-6.4

1.4

-7.1
14.6
-9.2
-2.5

-1.6

-0.9

22.5
5.1
-9.2
1.6

-1.7

(*) Including citrus fruits, tropical fruits, table grapes and olives.

-4.2
-2.7
-9.1
-1.6

-1.3

-0.9

22.2
4.8
-9.2
2.4

-1.5

13.0
1.8
1.7
6.1

7.3

5.8

2.0
5.7
5.4
1.8

53.3

Oilseeds: lower volumes but considerably higher prices

The  EU-15  oilseed  harvest  in  2001  was  lower  than  in  2000  (output  volume  -3.2%),  and  remains
significantly below the record harvest of 1999. Of the five main oilseed-producing countries, France and
Italy  (combined  share  in  EU-15  oilseed  output:  49%)  recorded  volume  declines  of  13.0%  and  5.8%
respectively; Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom (accounting for a share of 44%) increases of 10.3%
(Germany)  and  2.7%  (Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom)  respectively.  The  real-terms  producer  prices  for
oilseeds were higher in all five countries with rates ranging between +4.8% (Italy) and 22.5% (France).
In the average of EU-15, the level of real-terms producer prices was 18.4% higher than in 2000.

The application of Agenda 2000 has reduced the direct payments for oilseeds. In the average of EU-
15, the value of the product specific subsidies (net of taxes) on oilseeds declined by 20.5% (in real terms).
This  reduction  is  the  reason  for  the  difference  in  the  development  of  the  output  value  of  oilseeds  at
producer prices (+14.6%) and at basic prices (-2.7%). The share of product-specific subsidies (net of taxes)
was nevertheless still 40% (it had been 49% in 2000) of the output value at basic prices, in 2001.

24 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

Sugarbeet: strong decline in volumes, producer prices only a little higher

The Member States’ estimates indicate that there was an average fall in EU-15 sugar beet output
volume of 11.1%. While the overall area under beet declined only slightly (but following on from last year’s
steep decline), yields fell heavily due to the poor climatic conditions. EU-15 real-terms producer prices
were only a little higher than in 2000 (+2.2%).

The main producer countries of sugar beet are France and Germany (with shares in EU-15 output of
24%  and  23%  respectively,  in  2000),  followed  by  Italy,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Spain  (accounting
together for a further 28%). Output volumes were down in all these countries with rates of decline ranging
between -9.9% (United Kingdom) and -15.1% (Spain). Germany was the only country out of this group
where real-terms producer prices for sugar beet fell below previous year’s levels (-2.3%). In the other main
producer countries prices were up with rates ranging between 3.9% (Italy) and 9.7% (United Kingdom).

Forage plants: volume stable but real-terms producer prices down

For EU-15 as a whole, the volume of forage crop output (16) remained close to the previous year’s
level  (+0.5%).  Real-terms  producer  prices  fell  by  -2.9%.  As  the  value  of  product-specific  subsidies
increased (+13.6% in real terms), the output value at basic prices in 2001 was only a little below the
previous year’s level (-1.6%).

Fresh vegetables: volumes and prices slightly below the previous year’s levels

For EU-15 as a whole, both output volumes and real-terms producer prices for fresh vegetables fell
slightly (by 0.8%) below the previous year’s levels. Seven Member States (17) account for about 90% of the
EU-15 output of fresh vegetables. While output volumes, in 2001, were stable in France and a little higher
in  Spain,  there  were  declines  in  the  other  five  countries  with  rates  ranging  between  -1.0%,  in  the
Netherlands, and -3.7%, in the United Kingdom.

Real-terms  producer  prices  were  down  in  four  of  the  main  producer  countries  with  rates  ranging
between -2.3%, in Greece, and -8.4%, in Spain. In contrast, there were strong rises in real-terms prices in
Germany  and  the  United  Kingdom  (+12.5%  and  +12.2%  respectively),  and  a  very  small  rise  in  France
(+0.4%).

Olive oil: marked increase in volumes, prices lower

The main olive oil-producing countries are Italy, Spain and Greece with shares in the EU-15 overall
output,  in  2000,  of  40%,  32%  and  27% ;  olive  oil  production  in  Portugal,  as  recorded  in  the  EAA,
accounted for only 1% of the EU-15 output value (18). The volume development was very different from
country  to  country.  After  strong  declines  in  2000,  the  output  volumes  in  2001  remained  more  or  less
unchanged in Italy (-0.2%) and increased very strongly in Spain (+48.1%). In Greece there was a further
decline (-8.9%), and in Portugal a strong decline (-39.8%) after an increase in the year before. The real-
terms producer prices were down in Italy (-3.6%), Spain (-14.5%) and in Portugal (-13.4%). In Greece
they were only slightly higher than in 2000 (+1.0%).

(16) These are fodder maize, forage roots and tubers (including fodder beet) and other fodder crops, primarily products of meadows
and grassland (fresh grass, grass silage and hay). However, these are only some of the agricultural products fed to livestock:
depending on Member State, some of the output of cereals, oilseeds, protein crops and potatoes produced by the agricultural
sector is also used as feed.

(17) These countries are Italy (with a share of 24% in EU-15 output of fresh vegetables in 2000), Spain (21%), France (15%), the

Netherlands (10%), the United Kingdom and Greece (7% each), Germany (6%).

(18) In France, all the olive oil produced comes under NACE Division 15, the manufacture of food products and beverages, and is

accordingly not recorded in the EAA.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 25

eurostat

1.3.2. Animal output

Average output volume stable, increase in real-terms producer prices

Despite the sanitary crises observed in the animal sector, linked to BSE and Foot and Mouth disease
(FMD), favourable price developments in 2001, notably for pigs, sheep and goats, poultry and milk, led to
an increase in the value of overall animal output (at basic prices), for the EU-15, of 2.7% in real terms
(see Table 1.5). The EU-15 output volume of animal output remained close to the previous year’s level
(+0.2%). The product-specific subsidies (net of taxes) were higher for cattle (+10.0% in real terms), in
line with the provisions of the Agenda 2000. But with a strong decline in net subsidies on sheep and goats
(-35.5% in real terms), the level of product-specific net subsidies on animals and animal products as a
whole was only slightly higher than in 2000 (+0.3% in real terms).

Table 1.5 % changes in the volumes, prices and values of animal output in the European Union

as a whole and in the Member States, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume

Real price

(output at 

(output at

Real value

(output at

Real value

(output at

% share

of EU-15

producer prices) producer prices)

producer prices)

basic prices)

output in 2000

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

EUR-12
EU-15

-2.5
2.2
0.5
-0.2
4.6
0.0
1.2
1.1
1.5
-3.9
-0.6
-1.8
2.5
1.1
-2.6

0.4
0.2

0.6
4.9
4.7
4.4
6.7
0.7
-2.3
2.0
-2.7
-0.6
5.1
2.7
-0.7
1.0
3.4

2.5
2.7

-1.9
7.2
5.3
4.2
11.6
0.7
-1.2
3.1
-1.3
-4.5
4.5
0.9
1.8
2.0
0.6

2.9
2.8

-0.5
8.1
5.3
2.3
9.8
1.8
-5.4
3.4
3.6
-3.9
5.5
1.5
1.9
3.3
-1.3

3.0
2.7

1.4
1.7
7.1
1.0
4.4
8.5
1.6
4.8
0.1
2.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.9
4.8

34.2
41.6

France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain and the Netherlands are the six main producer
countries in the sector of animal production. Their combined share of the overall animal output of EU-15,
in 2000, was almost 80% (19). In France, the volume of animal output remained unchanged compared to
2000. There were volume increases in Germany (+0.5%), Italy (+1.1%) and in Spain (+4.6%), and declines
in the Netherlands (-3.9%) and in the United Kingdom (-2.6%). Of the other Member States, five recorded
increases, four declines, all in the range of ±2.5%.

(19) France (21%), Germany (17%), Italy and the United Kingdom (12% each), Spain (11%) and the Netherlands (7%).

26 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

Higher real-terms producer prices were attained in all but four Member States. The Netherlands was
the only one of the main producer countries where prices were lower than in 2000 (-0.6% in real terms).

The changes in the most important items of animal output in 2001 are explained in greater detail
below (see also Table 1.6). As in the previous sub-chapter on EU-15 crop output, the analysis focuses, at
the first stage, on the EU-15 as a whole, and then, at the second stage, on the main producer countries
of the respective products or product groups. The reader interested in more country-specific information
is referred to Chapter 2. Detailed data on the development of volumes, prices and values can be found in
the Annex Tables A.4 to A.8.

Cattle production once again strongly affected by animal diseases

In 2001, cattle production was once again strongly affected by the sanitary crises linked to BSE and
FMD. Towards the end of 2000, there had been further outbreaks of BSE, in Germany and also in other
Member States. In the course of 2001, Greece, Austria and Finland recorded their first BSE cases. By the
end of 2001, Sweden was the only EU-15 Member State where so far no BSE case had been recorded. In
late February 2001, there was the outbreak of FMD, mainly in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands.

Various measures were taken in order to support the markets for beef and veal, including the Purchase
for Destruction scheme and the Special Purchase Scheme. It is estimated that over 800 000 tonnes of meat
were  taken  off  the  market.  Together  with  a  recovery  in  beef  consumption,  this  allowed  for  a  gradual
recovery of the EU market. Average prices nevertheless remained considerably lower than in 2000, although
it should be borne in mind that 2000 was generally considered as an exceptionally good year in terms of
market price levels. Over 2001, the decline in the level of real-terms producer prices for cattle, in EU-15,
was 13.3% compared to 2000. The EU-15 cattle output volume was 1.9% lower compared to 2000.

The  price  reductions  should  also  be  seen  in  light  of  the  13.4%  reduction  (over  two  years)  of
intervention  prices  decided  under  Agenda  2000.  Farmers  were  compensated  for  this  reduction  through
increased direct payments, offsetting a part of the losses incurred (see box “Agenda 2000” above). For EU-
15 as a whole, there was an increase in the product-specific subsidies (net of taxes) on cattle of 10.0%
(in real-terms).

Table 1.6 % changes in the volumes, prices and values of the most important animal products in

the European Union as a whole, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume

Real price

(output at 

(output at

Real value

(output at

Real value

(output at

% share

of EU-15

producer prices) producer prices)

producer prices)

basic prices)

output in 2000

Cattle 
(including 
calves)

Pigs

Sheep 
and goats

Poultry
Milk
Eggs

Animal 
output

-1.9

0.2

-4.3

3.5
0.3
3.3

0.2

-13.3

16.0

8.1

2.7
3.8
-4.1

2.7

-15.0

16.3

3.5

6.3
4.2
-1.0

2.8

-10.5

16.2

-7.1

6.3
4.5
-1.0

2.7

9.9

8.5

2.1

4.1
13.6
1.8

41.6

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 27

eurostat

Taking all these factors into account, the EU-15 cattle output value measured at basic prices was

10.5% lower than in 2000.

The six most important cattle-producing countries are France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy,
Spain  and  Ireland,  their  combined  share  accounting  for  more  than  80%  of  the  overall  EU-15  cattle
output (20). With the exception of Spain (volume +2.5%), there were volume declines in all these countries
with rates of decline ranging between 0.5%, in Germany, and 7.1%, in the United Kingdom (21). There were
also  lower  volumes  in  five  of  the  other  Member  States,  the  sharpest  decline  being  observed  in  the
Netherlands (-11.0%).

Real-terms producer prices for cattle were down in all the Member States with the exception of the
United Kingdom where the average price level increased by 7.3% compared to 2000. In the other main
producer countries, the rates of decline varied between 8.1% (Italy) and 24.6% (Germany).

In all the Member States, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Ireland, the level of product-
specific subsidies (net of taxes) on cattle was higher than in 2000, in line with the changes programmed
in Agenda 2000. The declines in the United Kingdom and in Ireland (of 7.5% and 22.7% respectively) have
to be seen in the context of a reclassification of certain product-specific subsidies as other subsidies on
production. This explains also in part the strong rises in the other subsidies on production in these two
countries (see Chapter 1.5 below, Table 1.10).

As a result of the developments described, the cattle output value at basic prices was down in each
of the six main cattle-producer countries, the slowest rate of decline being recorded in the United Kingdom
(-3.3% in real terms), the fastest in Germany (-19.4% in real terms). There were also declines in six of the
other Member States; only Greece (+3.5%), Finland (+3.2%) and Sweden (+9.5%) recorded higher real-
terms output values.

Pigs: continued recovery of producer prices

As in the past, the recent BSE scares increased the demand for pigmeat and led to a sustained high
price level in 2001. However, the pig sector was also negatively affected by animal diseases, in particular
by the outbreak of FMD. Animals were destroyed for sanitary reasons, there were limitations on movement
of livestock and a large number of export bans were imposed by third countries. Nevertheless, compared
to 2000, the EU-15 output volume of pigs for the year 2001 was slightly higher (+0.2%), and the level of
the real-terms producer prices was 16.0% above the previous year’s level.

The six main producer countries for pigs are Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Denmark and
Italy, accounting for almost 80% of the EU-15 output of pigs (22). Besides the pronounced decline in the
pig output volume in the Netherlands (-8.0%), due mainly to the outbreak of FMD, there were increases
in the other five countries with rates ranging from +1.0% (France) to +5.0% (Denmark). Six of the other
Member  States  recorded  declines  which  were  particularly  sharp  in  the  United  Kingdom  (-8.2%)  and  in
Luxembourg (-8.6%).

(20) France (28%), Germany and the United Kingdom (13% each), Italy (12%), Spain (8%), Ireland (7%).

(21) In this context it is very important to note that the rate of decline of -7.1%, in the United Kingdom, does not reflect the losses
due to FMD, in 2001. These losses are considered as “exceptional losses”, and according to the rules of national (and EAA)
accounting such exceptional losses are to be recorded in a different way than “normal” losses. In contrast to the normal losses
(which are deducted from output), the value of the exceptional losses (up to the time of the loss) is not deducted in the
calculation of output (as if the loss had not occurred). At the same time, the compensation paid for these exceptional losses is
recorded  as  “other  capital  transfers”.  Neither  the  value  of  the  (exceptional)  losses  nor  the  compensation  for  these  losses,
therefore enter the calculation of agricultural income.

(22) Germany: 22%, Spain: 16%, France: 13%, the Netherlands: 10%, Denmark: 10%, Italy: 9%.

28 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

The real-terms producer prices for pigs were up in all Member States. In the main producer countries,
the rates of increase were between 9.5% (the Netherlands) and 22.1% (Spain and Italy). But also in the
other Member States (with the exception of the United Kingdom: +0.9%) they were at least ten percent
higher than in 2000. Mainly as a result of these price rises the real-terms output value of pig production
(at basic prices (23)) was considerably higher in most of the Member States with rates of increase ranging
between 5.2% (Luxembourg) and 27.1% (Spain). Only in the United Kingdom was there a decline (-7.4%),
and in the Netherlands the output value remained almost at the previous year’s level (+0.4%).

Sheep and goats markets disturbed by the consequences of FMD

In contrast to the more or less stable situation in 1999 and 2000, 2001 has been a difficult year for
sheep and goat meat markets. With a share of 28% of the EU-15 output of sheep and goats, in 2000, the
United Kingdom is the major producer country of sheep in EU-15, and the outbreak of FMD in this country
therefore  had  a  considerable  impact  on  the  overall  EU-15  developments  in  this  sector.  The  UK  output
volume of sheep and goats, without deduction of the exceptional losses (see Footnote 21), was 20.4%
lower than in 2000, and as a consequence sheep meat became scarce in continental EU countries that
traditionally rely on UK exports. This led to strong price rises in most of the Member States. In the UK, in
contrast, the average real-terms producer price, in 2001, fell by 6.0% compared to 2000. For EU-15 as a
whole, there was an average price increase of 8.1% (in real terms), whilst the output volume was 4.3%
lower than in 2000.

Besides the United Kingdom, the other main producer countries of sheep and goats are Spain, Greece
and France, accounting together for slightly more than half of the EU-15 output in this sector (24). In 2001,
output volumes were higher in Spain and France (+3.9% and +3.4% respectively) and a little lower in
Greece (-2.0%). At the same time, real-terms producer prices rose by 4.6% in Greece, 5.7% in Spain and
a considerable 23.7% in France.

The level of product-specific subsidies (net of taxes), in 2001, was reduced in all the Member States.
In the four main producer countries of sheep and goats the declines varied between 21.4% (France (25))
and 46.1% (United Kingdom (26)); for the EU-15 as a whole they were down by more than one third. This
explains the difference in the development of the EU-15 output when measured at producer prices (+3.5%
in real terms) and at basic prices (-7.1%).

Poultry: increases in volumes and prices

In  contrast  to  the  stagnation  in  production  levels  experienced  in  1999  and  2000,  poultrymeat
production in 2001 saw an increase of 3.5% compared to 2000. This is mainly due to the latest BSE scare,
which led to a switch in demand away from beef to other kinds of meat, and which mostly benefited the
poultry sector due to its ability to respond relatively quickly to the increased demand for alternatives to
beef. Averaged over 2001, real-terms producer prices for poultry were 2.7% higher than in 2000.

The most important producer countries (together accounting for over 80% of the EU-15 output value
of poultry) are France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Germany. Output volumes were higher in each
of these countries, with rates of increase ranging between 2.0% (France) and 7.9% (Germany). There were,
however, marked differences in the development of real-terms producer prices: while they were strongly up

(23) Product-specific subsidies and taxes in pig production are negligible.

(24) Spain: 26%, Greece: 13%, France: 13%.

(25) The level of the subsidies is linked to the level of the producer prices.

(26) As in the case of cattle, this strong decline has to be seen in the context of a reclassification of certain product-specific subsidies

as other subsidies on production.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 29

eurostat

in France (+6.3%), Germany (+7.6%) and Spain (+9.7%), they were considerably lower in Italy (-4.5%)
and in the United Kingdom (-5.1%).

Milk: increase in real-terms producer prices

With a small reduction in the dairy herd, and an increase in milk yields, the overall volume of EU-15
milk output is expected to be only slightly higher than in 2000 (+0.3%). The real-terms producer prices
rose in most of the Member States, by 3.8% in the average of EU-15. These changes appear relatively
moderate, particularly when compared to the developments in other sectors of crop and animal production.
Their influence on the overall income results is nevertheless far from negligible, with milk contributing
almost 14% to the overall output value of agriculture in the EU-15.

Accounting together for more than 70% of the EU-15 output of milk, Germany, France, Italy, the
United  Kingdom  and  the  Netherlands  are  the  most  important  producer  countries  of  milk (27).  Output
volumes  were  a  little  higher  in  Germany  (+0.2%),  the  Netherlands  (+1.0%)  and  the  United  Kingdom
(+1.5%) while they were slightly lower than in 2000 in France and Italy (both -0.5%). The real-terms
producer prices were considerably higher in Germany (+7.6%) and in the United Kingdom (+10.5%), and
there were also rises in France (+2.3%) and in Italy (+0.3%). In the Netherlands, the real-terms producer
prices for milk fell slightly below the level of 2000 (-0.5%).

1.4. Intermediate consumption and gross value added at basic prices

Real-terms value of intermediate consumption only slightly higher than in 2001

A small rise in the average real-terms price level of agricultural intermediate consumption in the EU-
15 (+0.8%), largely as a result of higher prices for animal feedingstuffs and fertilisers, with volumes being
lower (-0.6%), is expected to have led to a slight increase in the real value of intermediate consumption
in 2001 (+0.2%, see Table 1.7).

The combined input use of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands
accounts  for  roughly  80%  of  the  overall  EU-15  intermediate  consumption (28).  The  pattern  of  a  lower
average  volume  of  input  use,  combined  with  higher  real-terms  prices,  can  be  found  in  four  of  these
countries, namely in France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In Germany, volume, real-
terms prices and consequently also real-terms values remained almost unchanged in comparison to their
respective levels in 2000. In Spain, higher input volumes were accompanied by lower real-terms prices.
The  resulting  value  changes  (in  real  terms)  were  moderate  in  all  these  countries,  the  rates  of  change
varying between -1.2% in the Netherlands and +1.1% in Italy. Besides this, there were value increases in
four of the other Member States, and declines in the remaining five.

Intermediate consumption is the total of various headings. On the level of the EU-15 as a whole, it
was mainly the changes in volumes and prices of four of them that determined the development of the
total, in 2001. These items are energy (and lubricants), fertilisers (and soil improvers), plant protection
products and animal feedingstuffs. The changes in their volumes, prices and values, as well as their relative
weight is depicted in Table 1.8.

Animal feedingstuffs: rises in volumes and real-terms prices

There were relatively modest increases in both input use and real-terms prices of animal feedingstuffs
(+0.7% and +1.6% respectively, for the EU-15 as a whole), in 2001, and the resulting increase in real-

(27) Germany: 22%, France: 20%, Italy: 11%, the United Kingdom: 10%, the Netherlands: 8%.

(28) France: 24%, Germany: 19%, the United Kingdom: 10%, Italy: 10%, Spain: 9%, the Netherlands: 8%.

30 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

Table 1.7 % changes in the volumes, prices and values of intermediate consumption in the

European Union and the Member States, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume

Real price

Real value

% share of EU-15

intermediate

consumption in 2000

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

EUR-12
EU-15

0.8
-0.5
0.1
-1.9
1.8
-1.5
2.0
-0.7
-0.1
-2.2
0.0
-1.3
-3.8
0.0
-0.4

-0.6
-0.6

0.8
2.5
-0.2
-0.3
-1.4
2.1
-2.6
1.8
0.0
1.1
-0.3
1.4
-1.1
2.9
0.6

0.7
0.8

1.7
2.0
-0.1
-2.3
0.4
0.6
-0.7
1.1
-0.1
-1.2
-0.4
0.1
-4.8
2.9
0.3

0.1
0.2

3.2
3.6
18.9
2.2
8.6
23.9
2.3
10.0
0.1
7.9
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.6
10.4

83.4
100.0

terms  expenditure  on  this  item  was  2.3%.  Nevertheless,  as  animal  feedingstuffs  are  by  far  the  most
important heading of intermediate consumption (accounting for 40% of the overall value), this change
had  a  stronger  impact  on  agricultural  incomes  than  the  changes  in  any  other  item  of  intermediate
consumption.

Energy and lubricants: prices still high but lower than in 2000

After the strong rise in oil prices in 2000, energy prices remained generally high at the start of 2001
and dropped sharply in mid-September 2001. Over the year 2001, the real-terms price level of the heading
energy and lubricants, for the EU-15 as a whole, was 3.0% lower than in 2000. With the exception of
Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, real-terms prices were down in all the Member States with the
sharpest falls observed in Belgium (-9.9%) and in France (-8.5%). The volume of energy input was only a
little lower than in 2000: -0.4% for the EU-15 as a whole.

Fertilisers and soil improvers: real-terms prices considerably higher but input use reduced

The rise in energy prices, in 2000, and their continued high level during a considerable part of 2001,
naturally  had  an  impact  on  fertiliser  prices  since  the  production  of  fertilisers  is  an  energy-intensive
process. The real-terms prices of fertilisers and soil improvers increased, in 2001, in all the Member States,
with rates ranging between 2.2% (Italy) and 22.7% (Austria). For the EU-15 as a whole, the average real-
terms price for fertilisers and soil improvers was almost 10% higher than in 2000. However, at the same
time there was a considerable reduction in the input use of fertilisers (-6.5% for EU-15) reflecting mainly
the reduced area under cereals so that the increase in the expenditure on fertilisers and soil improvers was
limited to 2.6% (in the average of EU-15).

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 31

eurostat

Table 1.8 % changes in the volumes, prices and values of major headings of intermediate

consumption in the European Union in 2001 compared to 2000

Volume

Real price

Real value

intermediate

% share of EU-15

consumption in 2000

Energy and lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Plant protection products
Feedingstuffs

Intermediate consumption

-0.4
-6.5
-6.3
0.7

-0.6

-3.0
9.7
-1.8
1.6

0.8

-3.4
2.6
-8.0
2.3

0.2

10.0
7.2
5.6
39.8

100.0

Plant protection products: reduction in input use, real-terms prices lower

As  for  fertilisers,  there  was  also  a  considerable  reduction  in  the  input  use  of  plant  protection
products,  in  2001  (-6.3%  for  EU-15).  In  contrast  to  fertiliser  prices,  however,  the  prices  for  plant
protection products were lower compared to the previous year (-1.8% in real terms). For the EU-15 as a
whole, there was therefore a marked reduction in expenditure for this heading (-8.0% in real terms).

Gross value added at basic prices slightly higher than in 2000

Table 1.9 % changes in gross value added at basic prices (GVAbp) and in GVA volume and price

indices in the European Union and the Member States, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume

Real price

Real GVAbp

EU-15 GVAbp

consumption as a

% share of

Intermediate

in 2000

% of output in 2000

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

EUR-12
EU-15

-11.8
2.4
3.4
-5.0
-2.4
-4.6
-6.5
-0.7
-5.3
-2.9
2.7
-1.2
2.7
-0.3
-13.5

-2.1
-2.8

15.6
4.1
1.1
3.5
3.3
3.9
-1.0
1.1
3.6
0.5
2.8
7.2
1.5
-1.7
10.9

2.6
3.2

1.9
6.6
4.5
-1.7
0.8
-0.9
-7.4
0.3
-2.0
-2.4
5.5
5.9
4.3
-2.0
-4.0

0.5
0.3

1.9
2.4
12.1
5.7
15.6
21.9
1.9
19.6
0.1
6.0
1.7
1.9
0.9
1.2
7.3

89.1
100.0

61.6
57.5
59.0
26.1
33.6
50.2
53.5
32.1
49.7
54.6
55.3
51.2
67.3
67.3
57.0

46.4
48.0

32 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

With overall EU-15 output slightly above 2000 levels (+0.3%), and a similar increase in the value of
intermediate consumption (+0.2%), gross value added at basic prices in real terms, for EU-15, was 0.3%
higher than in 2000 (see Table 1.9).

In  the  Member  States,  the  changes  in  gross  value  added  were,  however,  more  pronounced:  eight
Member  States  (Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  Spain,  Italy,  Austria,  Portugal  and  Finland)  recorded
increases (in real terms) between 0.3% (Italy) and 6.6% (Denmark). In the other Member States, the gross
value added declined (in real terms), with the sharpest decline in Ireland (-7.4%).

Whilst changes in gross value added at basic prices depend to a large extent on changes in output
and intermediate consumption, they are also influenced by the relative size of these two headings (see
Table 1.9). In fact, the share of intermediate consumption varies a great deal from one country to another
depending on the main type and degree of intensity of production.

1.5 Distributive transactions

Consumption of fixed capital: slight increase in real terms

For EU-15 as a whole, fixed capital consumption (i.e. depreciation), in 2001, was only slightly higher
than  in  2000  (+0.2%  in  real  terms).  There  were  increases  in  five  Member  States,  particularly  in  Spain
(+5.8%) and in France (+2.2%), but declines in the other ten countries (see Table 1.10). The change in
EU-15 net value added at basic prices, in 2001, was similar to that of gross value added (+0.3%).

Other taxes on production: very little change

The other taxes on production are of only minor importance in EU-15. In 2000, they were equivalent
to around 2% of EU-15 gross value added at basic prices, and the reduction in the real-terms value of these
taxes (by 0.4%, in 2001) had therefore only very little impact on the development of agricultural incomes.

Other subsidies on production considerably higher in real terms

The other subsidies on production (see Excursus I at the beginning of this chapter) are more than
three times as important in value than the other taxes: they were equivalent to around 7% of EU-15 gross
value added, in 2000. In 2001, the other subsidies on production increased by 9.7% (in real terms) for the
EU-15 as a whole. This increase was mainly due to rises in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Spain,
Italy and the Netherlands (29). There were also increases in six other Member States (see Table 1.10) but
in absolute terms these changes had less impact on the EU-15 aggregate figures.

Taking into account the development of both other taxes and other subsidies, there was an increase
in the level of the other subsidies on production net of taxes of 14.3% (in real terms). When the subsidies
on products (net of taxes on products) are also looked at (-0.4% in real terms for the EU-15 in 2001), the
level of overall subsidies net of taxes, for the EU-15 in 2001, was 2.9% higher (in real terms) than in 2000.

Agricultural factor income: little increase in real terms

Agricultural factor income (i.e. net value added at factor cost), the basis of Indicator A, is obtained
by adding the other subsidies on production (less other taxes on production), to net value added at basic
prices. For EU-15 as a whole, real (i.e. deflated) agricultural factor income increased by 1.2%, in 2001.
When expressed in nominal terms, factor income was 3.9% above 2000 levels. As already mentioned at the

(29) The most important increase, not only in percentage but also in absolute terms, in 2001, was recorded for the United Kingdom.
This increase was due to a change in the support schemes according to which certain subsidies previously classified as subsidies
on products (related to cattle and sheep) were reclassified as subsidies on production. The level of overall subsidies (subsidies
on products plus other subsidies on production) net of taxes, in the United Kingdom in 2001, was 0.4% below previous year’s
levels.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 33

eurostat

start of this Chapter (see Section 1.1), eleven Member States recorded increases, the strongest increases
being observed in Portugal (+9.5%), Austria and Denmark (both +9.0%). The fastest rate of decline was
measured in Luxembourg (-2.4%).

Table 1.10 Real-terms % changes in the consumption of fixed capital, other taxes on production and

other subsidies in the European Union and the Member States, 2001 compared to 2000

Consumption of fixed

Other taxes

capital (depreciation)

on production

Other subsidies

on production

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

EUR-12

EU-15

-1.1 

-2.9 

-1.2 

-1.6 

5.8 

2.2 

-2.6 

0.7 

0.0 

-1.4 

-0.4 

0.5 

-2.1 

-2.6 

-2.8 

0.7 

0.2 

-2.1 

21.4 

-0.1 

-2.8 

-0.2 

-0.1 

58.4 

-1.9 

-2.9 

-1.4 

-2.0 

3.1 

:

:

-12.5 

-0.6 

-0.4 

-2.1

1.0

-14.3

3.9

13.7

12.2

47.5

6.5

0.3

79.0

4.0

22.0

-2.7

6.5

80.1

6.1

9.7

Compensation of employees little higher than in 2000

For EU-15 as a whole, expenditure (in real-terms) on the compensation of employees, in 2001, was
a little higher than in the previous year (+0.7%). There were increases in six Member States (Belgium,
Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands), the sharpest one in Spain (+5.6%). The EU-15
net operating surplus, i.e. factor income minus the compensation of employees, increased by 1.3% (in real
terms), in 2001.

Land rents slightly lower

In 2001, rental payments for land diminished in ten Member States; for EU-15 as a whole, there was

a reduction of 0.9% (in real terms).

Lower interest payments

The rates of change shown in Table 1.11 actually refer to interest paid less interest received, although
this concerns only Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden, which are the only Member States where
interest received is recorded. With the exception of three Member States (Spain, Austria and Finland), (net)
interest  payments  were  lower  in  all  Member  States,  with  particularly  strong  declines  in  the  United
Kingdom, Luxembourg and Greece. For EU-15 as a whole, the real-terms interest payments net of interest
received declined by 3.0%.

34 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

Net entrepreneurial income is the residual income measure after expenditure on land rents and
interest payments has been deducted from net operating surplus (and interest received is added). The real-
terms rates of change in net entrepreneurial income denote the developments in Indicator C. As already
mentioned at the start of this Chapter (see Section 1.1), average net entrepreneurial income across the
EU-15 for 2001 was 2.2% higher than in 2000. Ten Member States recorded increases, with rates ranging
from +1.5% in Italy to +27.3% in Denmark. The other Member States recorded declines ranging from -0.2%
in Spain to -2.0% in France.

Table 1.11 Real-terms % changes in the compensation of employees, rents and interest (interest

paid minus interest received) in the European Union and the Member States, 2001
compared to 2000

Compensation

of employees

1.8 
-2.9 
0.3 
-1.3 
5.6 
1.8 
-4.1 
-0.1 
3.8 
1.0 
-0.7 
-0.7 
-0.8 
-3.2 
-1.4 

1.2 
˙0.7 

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

EUR-12
EU-15

(*) Interest paid less interest received.

Rents

Interest

-1.1 
0.1 
-0.4 
-0.5 
1.2 
-2.0 
-1.7 
1.9 
-2.5 
-2.5 
0.7 
-7.4 
2.8 
-0.9 
-2.8 

-0.8 
-0.9 

(*)

-1.1
-2.9
-1.0
-17.0
2.3
-1.6
-2.2
-4.9
-11.8
-4.8
9.6
-4.0
2.4
-1.6
-10.6

-2.1
-3.0

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A WHOLE IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 35

eurostat

2. Changes in income from agricultural

activity in the Member States in
2001 compared to 2000

2.1. Belgium

Latest estimates (30) provided to Eurostat suggest that there has been a further rise in the level of
agricultural industry income per full-time labour equivalent for 2001; the headline measure of Indicator A
is estimated to have risen by +5.3%, after a considerable rise in 2000 away from the low of 1999 (revised
figure: +11.6%).

Within  this  general  rise  in  agricultural  industry  income  were  important  differences  in  the
developments at farm type level, particularly among livestock farmers. There was considerable disruption
caused  by  BSE  and  foot-and-mouth  (FMD).  Although  the  Belgian  cattle  herd  was  estimated  to  have
remained relatively stable in 2001 according to Eurostat’s summer cattle population census (-0.7% as a
whole on the equivalent 2000 census figure), cattle slaughter was down substantially. Despite the steep
reduction in output volume, producer prices for cattle also declined substantially, particularly as a result
of lower demand within the EU and overseas and the programmed cut in intervention prices (for which
compensatory payments were increased incrementally). 

These developments for cattle contrasted sharply with the overall developments for pigs and poultry.
Higher consumer demand for pigmeats and poultry meats, during a year when output volumes were more
restricted (particularly in the second half of the year as regards pigs (31)), pushed producer prices in 2001
significantly higher than the previous year’s levels. There was also a moderate increase in the price of milk
in 2001 reflecting a general increase in demand for high-value dairy products and positive developments
on world markets.

There were also significant contrasts within the crop sector. It is thought that the persistent wet
weather will have greatly reduced both the yield of potatoes from the high levels in 2000 and (with areas
only being slightly down on 2000) the volume of potato output. Nevertheless, this sharp decline in volume

(30) It should be recognised that these estimates are based on incomplete data. Revisions will be made during the course of 2002.

(31) EU pig production projections for 2002 suggest that the cutback noted for 2001 will continue into 2002 and therefore underlines

the downward movement of the pig production cycle after previous years of structural imbalances.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 37

eurostat

was accompanied by a much steeper rate of price increase. In general, potato prices across the EU had
been depressed during the previous two years (even though there was a notable increase in Belgium for
2000) but the upturn estimated during 2001 will have returned average potato prices to highs similar to
those in 1994. The wet weather and resulting low sugar content together with reduced quotas help explain
the considerable decline in the volume of sugarbeet output in 2001. In contrast to potatoes, however, the
average producer price for sugarbeet remained almost unchanged compared to the average level in 2001.

The  horticultural  sector  continued  to  expand  in  Belgium  during  2001,  with  the  latest  estimated
volume of plants and flowers output suggesting an aggregated 25% rise since 1995 (pushed by the growth
in nursery plants production in particular). Nevertheless, general demand continues to increase, with real-
terms producer prices remaining very similar to the previous year’s average (being some 7% lower than in
1995).  The  persistent  wet  weather  reduced  considerably  the  volumes  of  fresh  fruit  output  (-30.3%),
particularly for the principal items of dessert apples (down about 30%), dessert pears (down about 55%)
and strawberries (down about 20%). Lower supplies were reflected in significant prices rises from what
were generally lows in 2000; the average real-terms price for fresh fruit as a whole was a little over 40%
higher than in 2000. The output volume of fresh vegetables as a whole (of which tomatoes, chicory, leeks
and beans are the principal items) continued to remain relatively stable as a whole in 2001, although the
wet weather reduced supplies of field vegetables. Producer price changes for individual vegetables varied
considerably with particularly strong gains for chicory and leeks (for which output volumes were down)
but steep declines for tomatoes and cucumbers (where there was stiff competition on markets). As a whole
for the sector, however, the average price of fresh vegetables rose strongly.

For the agricultural industry as a whole, the net effect of these various developments was that the
level of the real-terms value of output for 2001 was a little higher than for 2000, both in producer price
and basic price terms. The cost of intermediate consumption goods and services, however, was also higher
in 2001. The main forces driving such industry costs higher were the costs of feedingstuffs purchased from
outside the industry (+5.0% in real terms, as a result of both volume and price) and fertiliser costs (+6.2%,
entirely due to price increases). Indeed, had it not been for a significant decline in energy / lubricant costs
(-10.8%),  overall  goods  and  services  costs  would  have  been  yet  higher.  Although  intermediate
consumption costs were higher, there was a rise in the value added for 2001, which underpinned the rise
in factor income.

The  moderately  higher  factor  income  for  2001  was  in  part  generated  and  notionally  shared  by  a
reduced  volume  of  total  labour  input,  which  resulted  in  the  relatively  strong  increase  in  agricultural
industry income as measured by Indicator A.

In contrast to the volume of non-salaried labour (essentially family labour), the volume of salaried
labour is estimated to have risen a little. However, it is worth noting that salaried labour only represents
about 15% of the total labour input in the industry and, as such, that initial estimates are provisional in
nature. The cost of this salaried labour is also estimated to have increased in real-terms, suggesting a
slight increase in real-terms wages too. The impact of these slightly higher wage-based costs was largely
balanced by the slight real-terms declines in interest and rental payments. Against the background of these
additional cost developments, entrepreneurial income increased relatively strongly. This income measure
was in part generated and notionally shared amongst a non-salaried labour input that continues to decline,
resulting in a firmer rise in agricultural industry income when measured by Indicator B (+7.8%).

38 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

Table 2.1 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Belgium, 2001 compared to 2000

eurostat

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

-6.2 
-15.0 
0.9 
5.0 
-24.3 

-3.6 
-6.0 
-2.2 
-3.4 

0.6 
0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-4.1 

0.8 

-1.0 
-1.0 
1.9 

-11.8 
-1.6 

-14.7 

11.8 
2.5 
2.4 
0.4 
80.8 

0.4 
-19.4 
11.7 
8.5 

1.0 
3.4 

-2.1 

-2.1 

5.3 

0.8 

-9.9 
7.3 
1.9 

15.6 
0.5 

20.5 

4.9 
-12.9 
3.3 
5.4 
36.9 

-3.3 
-24.2 
9.3 
4.8 

1.7 
3.4 

-2.1 

-2.1 

1.0 

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Sugarbeet
Fresh vegetables
Plants and flowers
Potatoes

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-2.4
-3.0
1.0

4.8 
-14.7 
3.3 
5.4 
36.9 

-1.2 
-16.6 
9.0 
4.8 

1.2 
2.9 

-2.1 

-2.1 

1.8 

1.7 

-10.8 
6.2 
3.8 

1.9 
-1.1 

2.8 

-2.1
-2.1

2.7
1.8

2.9
-1.1
-1.

4.6

43.3
2.9
11.2
6.6
4.6

40.6
15.3
20.5
4.2

15.0
12.8

0.5

0.6

100.0

61.6 

100.0

9.3
5.3
54.9

100.0
22.4

77.6

0.6
2.1

79.2
10.0

69.2
6.0
14.8

48.3

38.4 
8.6 

29.9 

100.0
85.4
14.6

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+2.1 %

2.2. Denmark

The level of agricultural income per unit of agricultural labour input is, for the second year running,
estimated to be substantially higher than the corresponding level in the previous year. Indicator A has
risen by 12.3% from 2000 (+20.8% in 2000), giving Denmark one of the biggest rises in this Indicator

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 39

eurostat

across the EU-15. This rise brings the level of Indicator A back up to the 1995 = 100 level, after the fall
of nearly a quarter in 1998/1999 (32).

The main reason behind the income increase was the continuing rise in pig producer prices (+12.6%
in real terms), as well as an increase of 5.0% in the output volume produced. The value of pig output
accounts for over a quarter of all the output value of Denmark’s agricultural industry. Developments in the
value of pig output have a considerable influence, therefore, on the income of the agricultural industry as
a whole. In both 1998 and 1999 pig prices had fallen sharply (by a total of about 37% in real terms) due
to overproduction, but prices recovered in 2000, and rose again strongly in 2001. The strong resurgence
in price levels can be seen across the EU-15, as consumers seek alternatives to beef.

Elsewhere in the livestock sector, fall in consumer demand following reported BSE cases exerted a
downward pressure on the price of cattle, which fell by 14.4%, while volumes were slightly below the
previous year’s levels. However, the fall in the value of cattle output was only moderate because of a
substantial increase in the level of product-specific subsidies on cattle (about 80% in real terms). This rise
is due partly to the new slaughter premium, and partly to higher pre-payment rates in 2001.

In a reversal of the 2000 movements, the volume of milk produced has gone down (by 3.6%) while
the price has shown a slight rise of just under 1%. The size of the milk sector as a proportion of the total
agricultural industry is so significant, however, that these small changes have had a large negative impact
on Indicator A.

There was a small fall in the real-terms value of crop output as a whole in Denmark for 2001 compared
to 2000, with volumes and real producer prices falling a little below the previous year’s averages. The
volume of cereal production showed a minor (0.5%) increase, while the price dipped by 1.2%. In contrast,
the value of oilseeds output continued its sharp decline, with a fall in volume produced of 29.1%. The
continued cutback in direct aid payments for these products, in line with the Agenda 2000 CAP reform,
coupled with lower intervention prices, encouraged many farmers to switch away from oilseeds and protein
crop  production  towards  more  cereal.  Real  producer  prices  for  oilseeds  rose  strongly  in  2001,  but  the
output  value  at  basic  prices  nevertheless  dropped  by  more  than  a  quarter.  In  potato  production,
unfavourable weather conditions pushed down the areas planted as well as the yields (volume decrease of
5.0%). At the same time, the rise in prices of potatoes was much lower than in the average of EU-15
(+6.9% compared to +26.9% for EU-15) so that the output value was only a little higher than in 2000.
The bad weather has also impacted on fruit production, as has higher energy prices at the start of the year,
with the result that volumes are down by 10.0%.

The overall cost of goods and services (in real value terms) used by the agricultural industry in 2001
was, due to an increase in the average real-terms price, a little higher than in 2000. The importance of
livestock and dairy production in Denmark is reflected in the proportion of feeding stuffs compared to
overall intermediate consumption, where they make up over half of the value. There were increases in both
the real-terms price of feed and in input volumes, due to an increase in the amount of feeding stuffs
purchased from sources outside agriculture. The declines in real energy prices and volumes have been more
pronounced than the EU-15 average. A significant proportion of Denmark’s energy usage is natural gas from
the North Sea. Changes in the pricing structure have made the fall in price of natural gas more marked
than for other sources of energy, hence the strong (6.7%) decrease in energy prices. The cost of fertiliser
has gone up for all EU-15 countries, and in Denmark the price rise has been 16.6%.

(32) The upswing in agricultural industry income was also pronounced for Indicators B and C. The more volatile nature of these Indicators
is explained by the considerable importance of interest payments in Danish agriculture and the small residual income component
that results. Interest payments are considerably higher than other Member States because of the special hereditary arrangements
of farms that often sees younger generations buying the farm (and therefore incurring high loans) from their elders.

40 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

Table 2.2 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Denmark, 2001 compared to 2000

eurostat

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

-1.7 
0.5 
-29.1 
-5.0 
-10.0 

5.0 
-1.0 
5.0 

-3.3 
-3.6 

-2.9 

0.0 

0.7 

-0.5 

-5.0 
-5.0 
1.3 

2.4 
-3.0 

4.4 

-1.1 
-1.2 
11.7 
6.9 
-2.9 

6.7 
-14.4 
12.6 

1.1 
0.9 

0.1 

-2.9 

2.7 

2.5 

-6.7 
16.6 
3.4 

4.1 
0.1 

5.5 

-2.7 
-0.7 
-20.8 
1.5 
-12.6 

11.9 
-15.3 
18.2 

-2.2 
-2.7 

-2.9 

-2.9 

3.4 

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Cereals
Oilseeds
Potatoes
Fruit

Animals
Cattle
Pigs

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-3.0 
-3.0 
-3.0 

-1.7 
2.0 
-25.7 
1.5 
-12.6 

13.1 
-2.1 
18.2 

-1.9 
-2.5 

-2.9 

-2.9 

3.9 

2.0 

-11.4 
10.7 
4.7 

6.6 
-2.9 

10.1 

21.4 
1.0 

9.0 
-2.9 

12.1 
0.1 
-2.9 
-2.9 

27.3 

38.6
18.6
1.4
1.4
0.4

38.6
4.7
28.0

19.0
18.1

3.7

0.1

100.0

57.5 

100.0

6.5
4.5
52.5

100.0
26.7

73.3

3.2
5.1

75.2
15.6

59.6
5.2
28.1
2.6

29.0

42.5 
11.3 

31.2 

100.0
68.3
31.7

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+2.9 %

Other taxes on production have risen by 21.4%, largely due to an increase in real estate taxes on
land (33). This is the result of higher taxable values of land following the removal of thresholds applied
previously. The agricultural factor income was generated, at least in part, by a smaller number of full-time
equivalent agricultural workers (an estimated -3.0% in the volume of labour input).

(33) At the same time, the other subsidies on production were a little higher than in 2000. However, when taking into account the

strong increase in the other taxes on production, the level of the other subsidies net of taxes was down by one third.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 41

eurostat

2.3. Germany

Based on provisional data from the Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture,
average agricultural income per annual work unit as measured by indicator A is estimated to have risen
substantially  in  Germany  in  2001  (+9.9%).  This  follows  a  sharp  rise  in  2000  (+19.0%,  revised  data),
therefore  in  2001  the  indicator  recorded  its  highest  level  since  the  beginning  of  the  1990s  (126.1  in
1995 = 100).

As in 2000, the rise for 2001 was driven principally by agricultural producer prices for livestock. As
in the majority of other Member States, prices for pigs, milk and poultry climbed sharply. Lower nominal
prices than in 2000 were recorded only for cattle. Overall animal output recorded average real-terms price
increases for 2001 of 4.7%, while output volume rose 0.5% compared to the previous year. Real-terms
producer prices for crop output fell slightly (-1.8% average), but this was offset in part by a higher output
volume (+1.4% average) (34).

In the early months of 2001 real-terms producer prices for pigs in Germany were affected by the BSE-
triggered shift in demand towards pigmeat, and also by the suspension in supplies, particularly from the
Netherlands, following the FMD outbreak. Towards the end of the year prices fell slightly, but in the yearly
average real-terms prices were 17.5% higher than in 2000. Since this trend was accompanied by a slight
rise in output volume, the real-terms output value of pig output grew by just under one-fifth. A sharp rise
was also recorded in poultry production (output value +16.1%) with an increase in output volume of 7.9%.
The continued strong BSE-induced demand meant that, despite the increased supply, real-terms producer
prices of poultry rose by 7.6%.

Cattle prices throughout Europe suffered under the impact of the BSE crisis. The collapse in producer
prices  (real-terms  annual  average  -24.6%)  was  particularly  marked  in  Germany  (EU-15:  -13.3%).  After
deducting the cattle taken off the market, cattle output volume was only slightly down on 2000. Under
Agenda 2000 cattle premiums were raised in 2001: overall the real-terms value of product-specific cattle
subsidies rose by 14.3%. However, even when these subsidies are included, the real-terms output value at
basic prices fell by almost one-fifth compared to 2000.

In terms of output value, milk is by far the most important product for German agriculture. For this
reason the clear surge in real-terms producer prices for milk had a significant impact on overall trends -
these rose +7.6% in 2001, the peak since reunification. The incidence of BSE undoubtedly contributed to
a marked rise in demand for milk products, while the skimmed milk powder market was additionally buoyed
by world market trends. Milk output volume in 2001 was slightly up on the previous year.

In contrast to most other Member States, in 2001 Germany recorded a sharp rise in the output volume
(+9.3%; EU-15: -7.5%) of cereals, the most grown crop product in that country. Part of this rise can be
attributed to an extension in the area under cereals, in particular barley and triticale, but the main factor
was optimum sowing conditions for winter wheat and generally favourable harvesting weather leading to the
highest ever hectare yield recorded in Germany and consequently to a record harvest. This led to substantially
lower prices for bread rye in particular - and to a lesser extent for fodder barley and triticale - than in 2000.
At season onset, only the prices for brewing barley and oats exceeded those of the previous year. The yearly
average real-terms producer prices for cereals overall are estimated to have fallen by 6.0%. The second phase
of  price  reductions  under  Agenda  2000  was  accompanied  by  an  increase  in  direct  payments  to  cereal
producers: in real terms the value of product-specific subsidies to cereal production rose by 6.1%.

(34) The Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture submits a detailed Agricultural Report to Parliament each year in
mid-February  (Agrarbericht:  Ernährungs-  und  agrarpolitischer  Bericht  der  Bundesregierung  2002,  Deutscher  Bundestag,
14. Wahlperiode, Drucksache 14/8202, 6.2.2002, see also www.verbraucherministerium.de).  Eurostat’s current analysis took account
of the Agricultural Report for 2001 and any readers interested in more detailed information are advised to consult that report.

42 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

Table 2.3 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Germany, 2001 compared to 2000

eurostat

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Oilseeds
Sugarbeet
Fresh vegetables
Potatoes
Fruit
Wine

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)

of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

1.4 
9.3 
10.3 
-12.3 
-2.6 
-0.5 
-18.7 
0.9 

0.9 
-0.5 
1.3 
7.9 

0.1 
0.2 

-8.0 

10.0 

0.6 

0.1 

2.0 
-1.0 
0.1 

3.4 
-1.2 

6.6 

-4.0 

-4.2 
-3.7 

-1.8 
-6.0 
18.3 
-2.3 
12.5 
25.9 
10.6 
-4.2 

2.4 
-24.6 
17.5 
7.6 

7.1 
7.6 

0.2 

0.3 

1.5 

-0.2 

0.2 
11.4 
-2.6 

1.1 
0.0 

1.7 

-0.5 
2.7 
30.4 
-14.2 
9.5 
25.2 
-10.1 
-3.3 

3.3 
-25.0 
19.0 
16.1 

7.2 
7.8 

-7.8 

10.4 

2.1 

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

-0.9 
3.9 
-7.0 
-14.5 
9.5 
25.2 
-10.1 
-3.3 

3.7 
-19.4 
19.0 
16.1 

6.9 
7.5 

-7.8 

10.4 

1.8 

-0.1 

2.2 
10.3 
-2.5 

4.5 
-1.2 

8.4 

-0.1 
-14.3 

5.5 
0.3 

7.9 
-0.4 
-1.0 

14.1 

50.1
17.9
3.1
2.6
3.0
2.2
1.6
2.2

24.2
8.7
11.9
2.1

22.2
19.9

3.2

0.3

100.0

59.0 

100.0

10.1
6.9
42.6

100.0
40.6

59.4 

2.4
9.6

66.5
21.1

45.4
6.9
12.1

26.4

41.0 
16.7 

24.3 

100.0

67.1
32.9

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+1.3 %

The output volume of oilseed production - in Germany almost exclusively rape and turnip seed -
recorded a marked increase in 2001. Against the background of the previous year’s relatively low output,
a larger area under cultivation and higher yields led to an increase in volume of over 10%. High demand
led to a sharp rise in producer prices - on average the real-terms increase is estimated at about 18.3%.
The strong decline in product-specific subsidies for oilseeds (in real terms -44%) can be explained mainly,
apart from the reduction in the premium, by the reformed payment system introduced in 2000. As a result
the output value of oilseeds at basic prices declined by about 7% over the previous year.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 43

eurostat

A reduction in the area under cultivation and significantly lower sugar beet yields - partly as a result
of the poor sowing conditions in spring - meant that the output volume of sugar beet production fell by
12.3% compared with 2000. Sugar yields were below average; however, owing to lower C-beet volume, the
average producer prices fell very little compared with the previous year.

With little change in the output volume of potato production, the real-terms producer prices in mid-
2001 were well above the prices attained in the previous year (+25.9%). The German fruit harvest of 2001
was substantially lower than in 2000 (volume -18.7%), principally due to the decline in the apple harvest.
This was accompanied by higher real-terms producer prices for fruit (+10.6% averaged over the year). In
vegetable production the output volume fell 2.6% in 2001. The real-terms producer prices for vegetables
had already risen sharply in 2000, and rose even further in the first half of 2001 following unfavourable
spring weather conditions (+12.5% averaged over the year). The 2001 wine must harvest was of good
quality,  but  of  below  average  volume  (the  slight  increase  in  output  volume  is  to  be  seen  against  the
background of a low harvest in 2000); average real-terms producer prices were 4.2% down on 2000.

For intermediate consumption items the average increase in input volume (0.1%) almost cancelled
out  the  decline  in  prices  in  2001  (-0.2%  in  real  terms);  the  real-terms  value  of  agricultural  industry
intermediate consumption thus remained more or less unchanged compared to the previous year. Reduced
expenditure for feed and higher expenditure for fertilizers (a clear increase in prices with slightly lower
input volume) are the two most important developments.

The development in both agricultural industry output and intermediate consumption resulted in a
rise in real-terms gross value added at basic prices (+4.5%) and - owing to lower real-terms depreciation
- in real net value-added at basic prices (by as much as +8.4%) compared with 2000. The reduction in
other subsidies (-14.3% in real terms) reflects a decline in low-priced fuel oil following the amendment of
the reduced fuel oil prices Act in 2000 and 2001. Against this background real agricultural factor income,
the basis for calculating income indicator A, increased by 5.5%. It is estimated that total agricultural
labour input declined by 4.0%.

If this analysis is applied to real operating surplus and also to real net entrepreneurial income, the
rates of increase are as high as +7.9% and even +14.1%. Further costs for the compensation of employees,
rental payments and interest payments all increased in nominal terms compared with the previous year,
although after deflation only the costs for the compensation of employees rose slightly (+0.3%).

It should be noted that the calculation of indicator B has been dispensed with for Germany. The
explanation for this is that in the new länder of the former East Germany there are a substantial number
of holdings which have the form of a legal person. Unlike sole proprietorships and partnerships, these
enterprises pay out wages and salaries to all employees, including the owners or partners of the business.
Holdings which are legal persons thus produce entrepreneurial income (or losses) which are not recorded
against unpaid labour. This results in a situation in which indicator B, whose denominator is determined
by the change in unpaid labour input, is overestimated in relation to actual individual income.

2.4. Greece

The headline measure of agricultural industry income per full-time labour equivalent (Indicator A)
for 2001 is estimated to have been slightly higher (+1.5%) than the level recorded for 2000. This latest
estimate confirms the recent stability in such industry income; Indicator A has remained within 5% of its
(real-terms) 1995 level in each year since then. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that this relative
stability reflects a declining factor income shared amongst a reduced workforce (labour input having fallen
about 13% since 1995).

44 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

Despite the significant decline in the volume of total crop output (crop farming activities accounting
for upwards of two-thirds of the value of agricultural output), a slight increase in Indicator A was achieved
through a combination of the following main factors:

• a general rise in real-terms prices for most animals and animal products

• an overall decline in intermediate consumption goods and services costs (volumes rather more

than real-terms prices)

• a small fall in real-terms depreciation costs, and

• a continued reduction in the volume of agricultural labour

High spring temperatures and a subsequent drought were recurring factors in the decline in many
crop output volumes. The volume of fresh fruit output (-12.3%), particularly that of apples, apricots, pears
and cherries, was down sharply as a result of the prevailing weather conditions. Citrus fruit output volume
is also estimated to be sharply lower (-10.0%) as a result of the recent severe frost. These low volumes
coupled with strong export demand from the EU and Central and Eastern Europe led to sharp real-terms
price  rises  for  citrus  fruit  (+16.7%),  tropical  fruit  (+11.8%),  fresh  fruit  (+9.8%)  and  dessert  grapes
(+18.1%)  over  the  year  as  a  whole.  This  full  range  of  adverse  weather  conditions  (high  spring
temperatures, then drought and severe frost at the very end of the year) were also reflected in sharply
lower output volumes for olives and olive oil. With strong growth in pan-EU olive oil output volumes,
however, there was little rise in real-terms olive oil prices (although that for olives rose somewhat faster). 

The drought conditions also hit cereal yields, although the principal reason for the strong decline in
cereal output volume was the reduction in area cultivated; output volumes of soft wheat (-8.5%), barley
(-23.5%)  and  rice  (-12.6%)  were  notably  lower.  The  relatively  poor  harvest  for  wheat  coupled  with
relatively low stocks led to a sharp price rise (averaging +7.8% in real terms). Although average real-terms
prices for barley and rice also rose, these are estimated to have been far more limited. 

The volume of fresh vegetable output in 2001 was also lower than the previous year. In large part,
this reflected the considerable decline in tomato production; it is thought that the change in subsidy
system  (from  a  minimum  price  aid  to  a  weight  premium  paid  directly  to  farmers)  led  to  significant
reduction in cultivated area and output volume.

Output volumes of key industrial crops in 2001 were down sharply on 2000; there were steep falls in
the output volumes of sugarbeet (-10.2%) and cotton (-7.1%), although the volume of tobacco output
stabilised.  The  higher  volume  of  sugarbeet  output  in  2000  coupled  with  falling  demand  led  to  an
accumulation in stocks. Although farmers cut back their cultivated areas of sugarbeet in 2001 and output
volumes declined, the weak demand and low sugar content were reflected in sharply lower prices (-9.6%
in real terms). The decline in the volume of cotton output reflected efforts to reduce cultivated areas and
avoid the burden of co-responsibility levies. However, the world-wide rise in supplies and stocks combined
with low demand for fibre yarns and the imposition of the co-responsibility levy led to a steep fall in
producer prices (-9.3% in real terms). Among the main industrial crops, it was only for tobacco that real-
terms  prices  averaged  an  increase  over  the  year  (+2.7%);  a  general  improvement  in  demand,  both  for
stocks and the improved quality of tobacco in 2001, strengthened prices. Subsidies for the production of
raw tobacco continue to be essential for the sector (35) and increased moderately in 2001 (+3.1% in real
terms).

(35) Support continues for the sector because of “the large number of jobs involved, its social and economic significance, and its
impact  in  terms  of  spatial  development”,  Fact  Sheet:  Reform  of  the  Tobacco  Sector,  European  Commission,
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/fact/tobacco/index_en.htm . 

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 45

eurostat

Table 2.4 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in Greece,

2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Fresh vegetables
Fruit
Olive oil

Animals
Pigs
Sheep and goats

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-5.8
-8.4
-1.5
-8.4
-8.9

-1.2
-1.1
-2.0

0.8
0.3

//

0.0

-3.9

-1.9

0.1
-10.8
-1.9

-5.0
//

//

-2.9
-3.5
1.0

0.1
4.1
-2.3
8.4
1.0

8.6
25.1
4.6

0.1
0.6

//

0.4

1.4

-0.3

-2.1
8.1
-1.0

3.5
//

//

-5.6
-4.6
-3.8
-0.6
-7.9

7.3
23.8
2.4

0.9
0.8

//

0.4

-2.6

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

-3.3
-1.3
-1.2
0.3
-5.2

2.8
23.8
-5.6

1.6
1.6

//

0.4

-1.8

-2.3

-2.0
-3.5
-2.9

-1.7
-1.6

-1.7

-2.8
3.9

-1.4
-1.3

-1.4
-0.5
-17.0

-0.7

71.6
10.0
12.4
13.4
12.2

13.6
2.5
7.2

10.7
8.6

//

4.0

100.0

26.1

73.9
5.5

68.4

100.0
86.5
13.5

100.0

24.8
8.2
38.1

100.0
7.4

92.6

2.1
3.6

94.0
5.9

88.1
3.4
4.0

80.6

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+3.3 %

Within the animal and animal products sector, there were some strong producer price increases. The
renewed BSE scare that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2000 in other Member States had seen consumers
switch their demand for meat away from bovine meat towards other meat (Greece is a net importer of
bovine meat from European countries). This pattern continued over the majority of 2001, with producer
prices  (also  set  against  the  backdrop  of  small  declines  in  output  volumes)  for  sheep,  poultry  but
particularly pigs all rising strongly as a result. The output volume of cattle itself increased a little with
producer prices remaining relatively stable. 

Subsidies on animal production decreased significantly, restraining the increase in the real-terms
value of animals when expressed in basic prices. Despite a significant rise in subsidies on cattle (+21.2%

46 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

in real-terms as part of the programmed reforms announced under Agenda 2000), overall subsidies to the
sector declined because of the further cutback in ewe and she-goat premiums (-28.8% in real-terms).

With both the volume of milk output and average real-terms price for milk in 2001 estimated to have
remained very similar to levels in 2000, the small rise in real-terms value of animal output as a whole in
basic prices reflected the net change for animals. The aforementioned changes to the crop sector, however,
resulted in a small decline in the real-terms value of agricultural industry output in basic prices.

There was a moderate decline in the real-terms costs of intermediate consumption goods and services in
2001 compared to 2000, with lower volumes of fertilisers (-10.8%), agricultural services (-8.9%) and animal
feedingstuffs (-1.9%) being particularly significant. The significant decline in the use of fertilisers reflected
restricted demand from the dual impacts of rainfall, which often rendered its application futile, and a steep
rise in prices (+8.1% in real-terms, due to the hike in nitrogen prices). Together with a moderate rise in other
subsidies on production (+3.9% in real-terms) and a slight decline in capital consumption costs (-1.6% in real-
terms), these lower intermediate consumption costs helped to restrict the decline in factor income for 2001.
The small rise in Indicator A reflects the fact that this slight decline in factor income was notionally shared
among a workforce whose labour input had shrunk at a faster rate (-2.9%).

It  is  estimated  that  the  interest  rate  declines  in  2001  will  have  resulted  in  a  sharp  fall  in
corresponding  interest  payments.  Rental  payments  are  estimated  to  have  risen  by  a  similar  rate  to
inflation.  Although  the  volume  of  salaried  labour  input  is  estimated  to  have  increased  (despite  the
difficulties the weather caused for fresh fruit and vegetable production), average real-terms wages are
estimated to have fallen, bringing down the real-terms cost of compensation of employees. These further
real-terms  cost  reductions  help  explain  why  the  decline  in  entrepreneurial  income  was  marginal.  The
corresponding increase in Indicator B also reflects the sharper rate of decline in the volume of non-salaried
labour input.

2.5. Spain

According to provisional figures from the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, 2001 again saw an increase
in  income  from  agricultural  activity  in  Spain.  Agricultural  income  per  annual  work  unit,  measured  by
indicator A, rose by an estimated 2.6%. With an increase of 11.4%, the previous record for this indicator
during the period under observation had been set in 2000, at 120.0 index points (1995 = 100) (36).

The latest rise in income indicator A is due to a combination of factors:

• a rise - albeit very small - in output value at producer prices (+0.9% in real terms). For animal
production, Spain had the largest increase in value - an average of 11.6% - in EU-15, but crop
production was 5.5% below the previous year’s level in real terms, owing principally to the drop
in volume (sharp falls in cereals, wine and sugar beet owing to unfavourable weather conditions);

• a rise in net subsidies of 2.6% in real terms (37);
• a  slight  increase  in  the  value  of  intermediate  consumption  (+0.4%  in  real  terms).  For
feedingstuffs, in particular, expenditure was higher than in 2000, but for seeds, energy, fertilisers
and pesticides it was lower;

(36) EAA data based on the new methodology are available for years since 1990.

(37) However, there was a real-term increase of 13.7% over the previous year in other (i.e. non-product-specific) subsidies in 2001;
the main reason was an increase in compensatory payments for less-favoured areas.  The other subsidies accounted for little
more than one-quarter of the total amount of subsidies.  On the other hand, product-specific subsidies, which in value terms
were much more important, and which are included in the calculation of output value at basic prices, declined by 1.3% in real
terms.  In Spain as elsewhere in EU-15 (other) taxes on production are of secondary importance.  In 2001, the value was more
or less the same as in the previous year.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 47

eurostat

• a marked increase (+5.8% in real terms) in capital consumption, and
• a 1.8% decrease in agricultural labour input.

Table 2.5 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in Spain,

2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real price
Real value
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Fresh vegetables
Potatoes
Fruit
Wine
Olive oil

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk
Eggs

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Seeds and planting stock
Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Plant protection, pesticides
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-4.5
-30.2
1.6
-5.2
1.1
-23.2
48.1

3.6
2.5
4.1
4.0

6.2
5.8
8.1

-4.6

-0.3

-1.1

1.8

-4.6
-4.6
-7.0
0.5
8.2

-2.4
1.9

-3.0

-1.8
-5.3
5.4

-1.0
2.1
-8.4
16.6
10.9
-29.8
-14.5

8.1
-18.9
22.1
9.7

2.3
4.8
-5.0

-3.1

0.4

2.0

-1.4

-4.7
-1.8
3.7
-3.2
-1.3

3.3
3.9

3.2

-5.5
-28.7
-6.9
10.5
12.1
-46.0
26.6

12.0
-16.8
27.1
14.0

8.7
10.9
2.7

-7.5

0.1

0.9

//

//
//
//
//
//

//
//

//

-4.5
-19.9
-6.9
10.5
12.0
-46.0
16.8

10.2
-13.2
27.1
14.0

8.6
10.9
2.7

-7.5

0.1

0.6

0.4

-9.1
-6.3
-3.6
-2.7
6.8

0.8
5.8

0.1

-0.2
13.7

0.8
5.6

0.0
1.2
2.3

-0.2

60.7
12.4
12.7
1.6
14.1
3.5
4.6

27.3
6.6
10.9
3.8

8.4
6.2
1.9

1.2

2.5

100.0

33.6

66.4
8.1

58.3

100.0
66.9
33.1

100.0

6.6
10.0
9.7
7.1
39.1

100.0
12.2

87.8

0.6
5.1

92.4
12.8

79.6
3.3
5.1

71.1

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+3.8 %

Overall, cereals production in Spain was marked by drastic falls of one- to two-thirds - or even more - in
the volume of wheat, barley, oats and rye produced in 2001. Except in a few regions, there had been problems
with the sowing of these winter cereals owing to the amount of rain, and the area under cereals was therefore

48 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

smaller than before. Then in June, just at the time of graining, there was a heat wave which had a negative
effect on yields. The situation was different, however, with spring cereals: there was a noticeable increase in
areas under maize (in Andalusia, it even doubled) which, coupled with the higher yield per hectare, resulted
in a volume increase of over 50%. The rice crop benefited from the greater accumulation of groundwater during
the winter; the volume of rice produced was over 10% higher than in the previous year. Real producer prices
for cereals as a whole were around 1% lower on average. Wheat and barley were the only cereals for which
prices  in  real  terms  were  higher  than  in  the  previous  year  (+11.7%  and  +5.6%  respectively).  Losses  to
producers were to some extent offset by a rise in product-specific subsidies for cereals (+2.7% in real terms),
but output values at basic prices were around 20% lower than in 2000.

In  terms  of  its  share  of  output  value,  fruit  is  the  most  important  product  group  for  Spanish
agriculture. It is, however, a very varied crop - the most important aggregates being fresh fruit and citrus
fruits (38) - and changes in the volumes and prices of the individual components were accordingly far from
uniform. For apples, apricots, bananas and dried fruit, there were rises in output volumes - of over 20%
in  some  cases  -  whilst  for  cherries,  peaches  and  plums,  volumes  declined.  In  mid-April,  frost  caused
damage which reduced the grape harvest (output volumes - 22.4%), and consequently, of course, less wine
was produced as well (see below). A poorer mandarin harvest led to a decline in the overall volume of
citrus fruits (-4.1%). For olives, there was a sharp rise in volume (+14.2%), but the quantity harvested
was below the record level of 1997. Overall, the volume of fruit produced was only slightly above the
previous year’s level. However, real-term producer prices rose substantially: by 10% for fruit as a whole.
There were particularly noticeable price rises for citrus fruits and fresh fruit (real increases of 19.2% and
10.6% respectively). It was only for tropical fruit that prices fell (-9.7% in real terms).

Moving on to vegetables, there were increases in the production of tomatoes, peppers and onions;
the volume of vegetables as a whole grew by 1.6% in 2001. At the same time, however, real producer prices
were 8.4% down, resulting in much lower output values than in 2000.

2001 was a very poor year for wine-growing. Owing to the frost in April, in particular, yields fell
sharply, with almost one-quarter less produced in volume terms. Real producer prices plummeted at the
same time (-29.8%), with the result that the output value for wine was only about half of the previous
year’s level. The volume of sugar beet is estimated to have fallen by 15.1%, and higher real producer prices
only partly cancelled out these losses. For potatoes, a smaller area under cultivation and lower yields led
to a decline in the volume produced. However, real producer prices were a good deal higher than in the
previous year, so that output value in real terms was 10.5% up on 2000.

As mentioned in the introduction, Spain saw the highest rate of increase in output value for animal
production as a whole in 2001, whether valued at producer or basic prices. This was the result of both
higher  real-term  producer  prices  and  larger  volumes:  with  rates  of  increase  of  +6.7%  and  +4.6%
respectively, Spain headed the list of EU-15 Member States. For all the major individual headings, volumes
increased in 2001, with the highest rates of change for eggs and milk. But the 2.5% increase in cattle
production is also noteworthy in view of the general decline in EU-15 (-1.9%); in fact, since April 2001
there has been something of a revival in Spanish beef production. But real producer prices fell sharply -
at -18.9%, much more steeply than the EU-15 average. Despite a rise in product-specific subsidies (+8.7%
in real terms), there was therefore a noticeable drop in the output value of cattle at basic prices.

As in most Member States, it was therefore the value increases in the output of pigs, poultry and
milk (at +27.1%, +14.0 and +10.9% respectively in real terms, some of these increases were substantial)

(38) Fresh fruit and citrus fruits account for around one-third of the output value of fruit as a whole.  The remaining third is primarily

olives and grapes, with a smaller percentage for tropical fruit.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 49

eurostat

which largely determined the overall result and thus changes in agricultural income. For pigs and poultry,
the value increases were driven primarily by sharp rises in real producer prices (with consumer demand for
pork and poultry meat shooting up as a result of BSE); for milk, the increase in the volume produced was
somewhat higher than the rise in real producer prices. In addition, there was a marked expansion in egg
production (+8.1% in volume), but lower producer prices meant a smaller value increase in real terms than
might otherwise have been expected.

Changes in intermediate consumption closely mirrored changes in output. In line with the expansion
in animal production, the volume of feedingstuffs input rose substantially - by 8.2% in 2001 (with feed
prices only slightly lower in real terms than in 2000). The considerably higher expenditure on feedingstuffs
was,  however,  offset  by  the  lower  expenditure  on  seeds,  energy  and  fertilisers  resulting  from  the
contraction  in  areas  under  cereals,  and  hence  a  lower  volume  of  inputs  under  these  three  headings,
alongside lower real prices for seeds and energy. As a result of this slight rise in intermediate consumption,
real gross value added at basic prices grew by 0.8% in 2001.

Real factor incomes in agriculture, the basis for the calculation of income indicator A, changed at
the same rate. The value of capital consumption rose substantially in 2001; in contrast, the other subsidies
(less  other  taxes)  increased  by  as  much  as  15.5%  in  real  terms  over  the  previous  year’s  figure  (see
Footnote 37).

Paid labour input, measured in annual work units, was 5.4% higher in 2001 than in the previous year.
This is reflected in the (real) 5.6% increase in the compensation of employees, an increase which is, in
fact, the main reason for the slight drop in net entrepreneurial income (-0.2% in real terms). In addition,
rental and interest payments were higher in 2001. If the change in real net entrepreneurial income is seen
in relation to unpaid labour input (-5.3%), the result is income indicator B. As a result of the changes
described above, 2001 saw a 5.4% rise in that indicator.

2.6. France

Latest  estimates  for  2001  suggest  that  average  agricultural  industry  income  per  full-time  labour
equivalent (measured in terms of Annual Work Units) increased marginally on the levels in 2000 in real
(i.e. deflated) terms; Indicators A and B are estimated to have risen +0.7% and +0.8% respectively. 

In broad terms, this marginal increase in average income reflected the following developments:

• A slight decline in the real-terms value of agricultural “industry” output in producer price terms
(-0.6%), resulting from contrasting general developments in producer prices (+2.0%) and volumes
(-2.6%).

• A marked increase in net subsidies (+7.3% in real-terms), in particular reflecting increases in both

subsidies on products (+4.3% in real terms) and other subsidies on production (+12.2%).

• A small rise in the cost of intermediate consumption goods and services as a whole (+0.6% in
real-terms), pushed higher by the sharp rise in the price of animal feedingstuffs in particular
(+4.9% in real-terms).

• A continued decline in the volume of total agricultural labour (estimated at -1.8% as for the

previous two years, whilst waiting for more definitive data).

The output volumes of many of the key crop products were markedly lower for 2001 than for the
previous year. Persistent rain disrupted sowing of soft wheat in particular, leading to significantly lower
areas sown and a further fall in average yields. Yields of maize and barley were also lower in 2001 but
increases in areas sown to these two crops stabilised output volume. There was also a considerable decline
in oilseeds output volume (-13.0%), reflecting the difficult weather conditions as well as lower areas sown
(this  being  set  against  the  background  of  a  foreseen  reduction  in  subsidy  payments  as  part  of  the

50 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

reorientation of the CAP). The volume of sugarbeet output also declined significantly (-14.0%), despite
an increase in production area; the frequent summer rainfall and insufficient sunlight reduced the richness
of the sugar and led to a sharp decline in yields. The unfavourable spring weather conditions and selected
downward trends in areas (strawberries) also led to a decline in fruit output volumes (-5.0%), those for
apricots and cherries being particularly strong (-20% and -17% respectively). The volume of wine output
for 2001 was also much lower than that for 2000, most particularly with sharp rates of decline in output
volumes of tables wines (-27%) and champagne (-8%). In the case of champagne this decline in large part
reflected the lowering of the regulatory ceiling, whereas the decline in table wine in part reflected the
continued fall in demand. 

For many of these crop products, lower output volumes were a significant factor in pushing producer
prices higher (particularly for wheat, oilseeds, sugarbeet and fruit). The strong price rise for wheat (soft
and particularly hard wheat) was further underlined by an improvement in quality after average levels in
2000.  In  the  case  of  wine,  however,  lower  overall  output  volumes  were  accompanied  by  further  price
declines (champagne being the exception, for which prices were rather more stable); already high stock
levels and weakening demand for table wine, resulting in a partial reorientation of wine for distillation,
were important factors driving prices lower. Within the fresh vegetable sector, there were contrasting price
developments for key vegetables; the price of carrots increased substantially (reflecting the difficulties in
lifting because of the weather and active export demand), as did those for cauliflower, lettuce, artichokes
and courgettes, but the prices for tomatoes and cucumbers declined (strong competition on international
markets and dampened demand). There was a considerable increase in the average price of potatoes from
the low levels of the previous two years, with the European output volumes as a whole declining strongly
(although relatively little in France). 

Net subsidies on crop products as a whole for 2001 were relatively unchanged from the level in 2000.
Compensatory  aid  on  cereals  increased  (+3.0%  in  real  terms)  in  line  with  the  second  year  of
implementation of the Agenda 2000 reforms, whilst that for oilseeds decreased sharply (-15.4% in real
terms) towards the level for cereals and set-aside. The real-terms value of crop output at both producer
prices and basic prices declined moderately.

There was a more significant rise in the level of net subsidies on animal products (at an estimated
+18.2% in real terms, a similar rate of increase to that recorded for 2000). Special premiums for male
bovine, suckler cow premiums and slaughter premiums rose strongly under the programmed increases of
the Agenda 2000 and in the case of the suckler premium by the additional rise in national premium to the
authorised ceiling (brought forward to 2001 rather than staggered over the period to 2003 because of the
market slump). These higher subsidies on animal products as a whole (39) help explain the stronger rate of
increase recorded for the real-terms value of animal output when recorded in basic rather than producer
prices.

Latest  cattle  market  estimates  suggest  that  towards  the  end  of  2001  sales  in  France  began
tentatively to pick up after the collapse at the end of 2000 and then the foot and mouth crisis at the start
of 2001, aided by the special measures to either destroy (untested) or buy up (tested) cattle over thirty
months old. The size of the cattle herd increased once more, but at a slower rate than the year before.
Nevertheless,  this  continued  rise  in  herd  numbers  on  holdings  since  the  autumn  of  2000  has  further
weighed down prices. Cattle prices have failed to rise since the collapse in October 2000 and were markedly
lower in 2001 than a year earlier (a year-on-year average decline estimated at -13.4%).

(39) It should be noted that compensatory payments for sheep declined strongly as producer prices for sheep rose steeply.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 51

eurostat

Table 2.6 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in France,

2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Forage plants
Potatoes
Wine

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Sheep and goats
Poultry

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Plant protection, pesticides
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)

of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-4.9
-8.6
1.3
-1.0
-6.6

0.3
-1.0
1.0
3.4
2.0

-0.5
-0.5

0.0

1.5

-2.6

-1.5

0.0
-12.0
-12.5
1.3

-4.6
1.2

-6.5

-1.8

-2.7
0.7

3.4
3.8
5.0
20.1
-3.4

0.0
-13.4
16.1
23.7
6.3

1.8
2.3

0.4

-1.2

2.0

2.1

-8.5
12.7
-1.1
4.9

3.9
1.0

5.0

-1.7
-5.1
6.3
18.9
-9.8

0.3
-14.3
17.3
27.9
8.4

1.3
1.8

0.4

0.2

-0.6

//

//
//
//
//

//
//

//

-1.5
-2.5
7.1
17.9
-9.8

2.0
-8.0
17.3
18.3
8.4

1.4
1.8

0.4

0.2

-0.1

0.6

-8.5
-0.8
-13.5
6.2

-0.9
2.2

-1.9

-0.1
12.2

-1.1
1.8

-1.9
-2.0
-1.6

-2.0

56.3
15.6
7.5
1.8
12.6

23.8
12.3
4.7
1.2
4.8

13.5
12.0

4.0

2.3

100.0

50.2

49.8
12.3

37.5

100.0

73.7
26.3

100.0

7.8
8.5
8.0
36.5

100.0
24.7

75.3

4.0
4.6

75.9
16.6

59.4
6.6
5.6

47.2

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+1.6 %

The volume of pig output is estimated to have risen a little for 2001 as a whole (after a decline in
2000). The crisis on beef markets strengthened demand for pigmeat through until the summer, after which
it stabilised; this was reflected in rising prices through the first three-quarters of the year. However, prices
have tumbled since October. There was also strong demand for sheep meat, which stimulated an upturn in
output volumes after four years of cutbacks. Nevertheless, there were supply imbalances as imports of
sheep from England, the principal exporter to France, were broken off as a result of the foot-and-mouth
outbreak  there.  The  strength  of  demand  and  relative  weakness  in  supply  led  to  sharp  price  rises  to
historically  high  levels  in  the  spring.  Although  these  high  prices  slightly  dampened  demand,  prices

52 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

remained at high levels over the year. There was also strong domestic demand for poultry that took up the
slack of falling exports (a trend concerning exports to Middle East but also explained by the fallback from
the exceptional levels to Italy in 2000 where there had been pathogenic avian influenza). Prices rose to
historically high levels in the first five months of the year, the increases for chickens in particular but also
guinea fowl and turkey being particularly sharp. 

The volume of milk output in 2001 is estimated to be marginally less than that of 2000. Milk prices
are  estimated  to  have  risen  further  in  2001;  the  interprofessional  agreement  of  November  1997  that
indexes producer prices of milk to those of certain dairy-based processed products enabled milk prices to
benefit  from  the  lifting  of  important  tariffs  on  milk  products  which  saw  prices  pick  up  in  the  second
quarter.

The  heavy  winter  and  spring  rainfall  that  affected  many  crop  products  meant  that  there  were
difficulties in applying fertilisers and plant protection products (volumes being down about -12% in both
cases). Despite the rise in the volume of feedingstuffs consumed (linked to the rise in cattle numbers),
the volume of intermediate consumption goods and services as a whole over the year declined for the first
time since 1993. Nevertheless, total intermediate consumption costs for the industry rose, as a result of
some  significant  price  increases;  the  price  of  fertilisers  (particularly  nitrate  fertilisers)  rose  strongly
(+12.7%  in  real  terms)  reflecting  the  price  hikes  in  gas  during  2000  and  the  price  of  feedingstuffs
(particularly  for  cattle)  also  increased  significantly  (+4.9%  in  real  terms)  reflecting  the  price  rises  in
compounds (cereals, oilseeds and soya among others). 

The small rise in real-terms intermediate costs set alongside the almost unchanged real-terms value
of agricultural industry output in basic prices resulted in a small fall in real-terms gross value added at
basic prices in 2001. The continued pick-up in investment in agricultural buildings increased overall fixed
capital consumption costs. This weighed down net value added at basic prices further. The rate of decline
in  factor  income  was  somewhat  lessened  by  the  significant  rise  in  other  subsidises  on  production
(particularly  subsidy  increases  concerning  exceptional  aid  to  cattle  producers  for  the  market  slump
experienced, set-aside and agri-environmental packages). 

The volume of salaried labour input is estimated to have risen a little in 2001, continuing an upward
trend going back to 1993. Together with an increase in hourly wage rates, this contributed to the rise in
real-terms  compensation of employees. So although real-terms rental and  interest payment costs were
reduced in 2001, real-terms net entrepreneurial income (Indicator C) declined at a somewhat faster rate
than factor income. 

Although both factor income and entrepreneurial income declined a little in real terms, the fact that
these incomes were notionally shared amongst a volume of full-time labour equivalents shrinking at a
faster  rate  (-2.7%  for  the  volume  of  non-salaried  labour  and  -1.8%  for  total  labour)  explains  why
Indicators A and B increased marginally.

2.7. Ireland

It is estimated that agricultural industry income per full-time labour equivalent as shown by the
headline measure of Indicator A for Ireland increased in 2001 (+7.8% in deflated terms) compared to the
level of 2000. On top of last year’s rise, this continuing upturn in industry income follows two years in
which there were relatively strong declines away from the peak levels achieved in 1995 to 1996.

The agricultural industry in Ireland as a whole is dominated by cattle and milk production. The annual
developments for these two products have a significant bearing, therefore, on the change in the headline
Income Indicator. 

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 53

eurostat

Real-terms prices for cattle fell by 11.8% over the year as a whole. The state of the market was
nervous over both Foot and Mouth Disease and BSE. There was only one confirmed case of Foot and Mouth
Disease in Ireland, so the impact was not as serious as it was in the UK, and the small resultant losses
have not been treated as exceptional. However, uncertainty in the beef market as a whole reduced demand,
with consequent lower volumes produced and prices attained, as well as a knock-on positive effect in
alternative markets such as poultry and pigs.

The value of cattle output in 2001 fell strongly (-15.9%) when measured in basic prices, with cattle
subsidies  much  reduced  from  last  year.  This  is  because  of  a  reclassification  of  subsidy  from  “product
specific” to subsidies on production. The United Kingdom and Ireland were the only Member States where
subsidies on cattle decreased.

Table 2.7 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Ireland, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Forage plants
Potatoes

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Sheep and goats

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Seeds and planting stock
Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Plant protection, pesticides
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

3.6
-0.2
9.0
1.4

-0.2
-1.2
3.1
-4.3

3.2
3.4

-1.7

1.5

2.0

31.6
6.4
-10.6
-9.8
4.1

-6.5
//

//

-6.7
-6.7
-7.1

-3.2
-0.2
-10.4
32.0

-3.7
-11.8
10.6
37.9

-0.5
-0.3

2.8

-2.2

-2.6

-22.8
-6.4
11.1
-4.4
-4.2

-1.0
//

//

0.3
-0.4
-2.4
33.9

-3.8
-12.8
14.0
31.9

2.7
3.0

1.1

-0.7

//

//
//
//
//
//

//
//

//

0.9
1.3
-2.4
33.9

-9.6
-15.9
14.1
3.1

3.0
3.3

1.1

-3.8

-0.7

1.7
-0.4
-0.7
-13.8
-0.3

-7.4
-2.6

-8.7

58.4
47.5

0.5
-4.1

1.0
-1.7
-2.2

1.8

20.0
5.1
7.8
1.2

50.0
34.3
4.7
5.8

25.2
24.6

4.7

100.0

53.5

46.5
9.6

36.9

100.0
91.0
9.0

100.0

3.1
14.5
10.8
1.9
41.4

100.0
20.6

79.4

0.5
16.2

95.1
9.4

85.7
6.8
10.1

68.8

(*)The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+4.8 %

54 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

The volume of milk produced was up by 3.4%, while the price dropped slightly (-0.3%). Milk makes
up nearly a quarter of Ireland’s agricultural output, so the resultant rise in real value at basic prices of
3.3% was an important component of the Indicator A change.

Elsewhere in the animal sector there were significant developments for pig and sheep production.

The pig sector benefited from the swing in consumer demand away from beef, and also from the
lessened supply following over production in this sector across the EU-15 in previous years. The price rose
by 10.6% in real terms (16.0% for EU-15) 

The  real-terms  price  for  sheep  averaged  over  the  year  was  markedly  higher  than  a  year  before,

following disruption in the supply from the UK due to FMD.

In the crop sector, the real value overall was largely unchanged from 2000. Cereals had a small price
and  volume  fall,  the  volumes  of  forage  plants  rose  but  the  price  fell,  and  the  price  of  potatoes  –
unconstrained by quotas etc – rose by nearly a third. The price of potatoes is typically volatile, and can
rise and fall quite markedly throughout the year.

Energy prices fell by 6.4% in real-terms, and were similarly cheaper in most other member states.
Although the price of oil was high for most of 2001, it dropped for the last quarter of the year, and was
markedly lower than the previous year.

The value of intermediate consumption goods and services purchased by the agricultural industry
declined  only  a  little  in  real-terms.  This  overall  stability  masks  large  changes  in  seeds  and  in  plant
protection. The volume of seeds used was up by nearly a third, but with a lower price (-22.8% in real
terms). The usage of plant protection and pesticides was down by 9.8% and the prices fell by 4.4%.

The amount of fertiliser used was down by 10.6%, and it was more expensive by 11.1%, as a result

of high energy prices early in the year.

The introduction of an area-based compensatory allowance scheme (mainly for cattle and sheep)
resulted  in  payments  previously  classified  as  “subsidies  on  product”  now  being  designated  as  “other
subsidies on production”, which consequently show a rise of 47.5%.

The compensation of employees declined notably (-4.1%), in line with the rate of decline in the

volume of hired labour. 

Indicator C, real net entrepreneurial income for agriculture, rose by 1.8%, while Indicator B, the
index of income per unpaid work unit rose by 9%. Factor income was generated by a smaller full-time
equivalent workforce; there was a continued decline in the volume of agricultural labour (a provisional -
6.7% for total labour), for both the non-salaried (self-employed) workers and hired labour.

2.8. Italy

Latest estimates of income from agricultural activity per full-time labour equivalent for Italy suggest
that there is almost no change for 2001 from the level achieved in 2000 (the headline measure of Indicator
A being a provisional +0.2%). In perspective, this stability comes after a decade of strong income growth;
the level of Indicator A in 2001 being some 40% higher than the start of the 1990s.

One of the most interesting findings of these latest estimates is that the total volume of agricultural
labour is actually thought to have increased slightly (+0.5%). Whilst a certain amount of caution should
be  attached  to  this  estimate  it  suggests  a  break  (likely  to  be  brief)  from  what  has  been  a  persistent
downward trend in annual labour volumes not only in Italy but also in the other Member States. The other
significance of this development is that agricultural labour input in Italy corresponds to nearly a fifth of

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 55

eurostat

all such labour in the European Union as a whole. The impact of this rise in labour input on the Income
Indicators for both Italy and the European Union therefore needs to be underlined, just as any revision of
this estimate needs to be. Driving total labour input higher is thought to have been a more noticeable
increase in salaried labour input, which in Italy represents nearly 40% of total agricultural labour (a much
higher proportion than the majority of Member States : EU-15 28%).

The relative stability of the income indicators is also explained by the relative stability of factor

income. This resulted from the combined developments of the following key factors:

• A marginal increase in the real-terms value of agricultural industry output, both in producer price
and  basic  price  terms.  This  comprised  a  small  decline  in  the  real-terms  value  of  crop  output
(volume led) but a moderate rise in the real-terms value of animal output (both volume and price
led)

but

• A small rise in the real-terms costs of intermediate consumption goods and services (particularly

feedingstuffs)

• A small rise in the cost of fixed capital consumption

Italian agriculture has a much broader agricultural product base than most other Member States but
with  crop  products  predominating.  The  volume  of  fresh  vegetables  output  in  2001  is  thought  to  have
decreased a little for 2001 compared to 2000, principally due to a similar rate of decline in the volume of
tomato  output  (the  production  area  being  down).  The  average  annual  real-terms  price  for  the  product
group a whole is also estimated to have been moderately lower for 2001, with the competitive market for
tomatoes being a principal reason. The development for the fruit sector as a whole comprised significant
differences between fresh fruit, citrus fruit and the less valuable tropical fruit sub-sectors. In contrast to
the other two sub-sectors, the volume of citrus fruit as a whole is estimated to have declined sharply (-
10.8%), with the reduced volume of lemons being particularly significant (this was largely due to a lower
production  area).  To  a  large  degree,  the  strong  rise  in  real-terms  prices  for  citrus  fruit  (+9.0%)
compensated for his lower output volume. The volume of fresh fruit is estimated to have risen moderately
(+2.6%), based on similar rates of increase for dessert apples and pears. The average real-terms price also
rose moderately (+2.1%) from a growth in demand. Growing demand for tropical fruit led to a significant
increase in both the volume of output (+14.6%) and real-terms prices (+7.4%).

At some 52.3 million hectolitres, according to ISTAT, the volume of wine output for 2001 was even
lower than the previous year and was close to the record low (in 1997) of the past forty years. This further
decline is in large part explained by the difficult weather conditions; there was a late frost in the spring,
a subsequent drought and then high temperatures during the summer months. Earlier in the year, it had
been thought that there would be a rebound in production levels and although this proved not to be the
case, there was little rise in real-terms prices. These weather conditions also appear to have disrupted the
cyclical production pattern of olives, with volumes remaining at the low volumes of the previous year. Real-
terms  prices  for  olive  oil  continued  to  decline  with  the  greater  competition  on  international  markets,
particularly due to the marked rise in production in Spain. 

The volume of cereal output in 2001 is also estimated to have been lower than in 2000. In large part,
this reflects the markedly lower output volume of wheat (-13.1%); yields of soft wheat but particularly
durum wheat are estimated to have fallen in 2001 (about 5% and 20% respectively) whilst the production
area of soft wheat also declined strongly (about 7%), that of durum having increased moderately (about
3%). Although the average yield of maize declined (about 3%), the volume of grain maize output rose
moderately (+2.7%) as a result of a higher production area. Under Agenda 2000, there was a programmed
rise in compensatory payments for the reduction in the intervention price of cereals. In the case of soft

56 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

wheat, the marked decline in output volume resulted in a rise in producer prices (+5.9% in real terms).
Together with the increase in Agenda 2000 subsidies, the real-terms value of wheat when expressed in
basic  price  terms  actually  increased  moderately  (+3.3%).  Leading  the  overall  value  of  cereals  lower,
however, was the decline in the real-terms value of grain maize when expressed in basic prices (-10.2%);
this is almost entirely explained by the sharp cutback in subsidies (-31.7% in real-terms).

eurostat

Table 2.8 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in Italy,

2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Fresh vegetables
Fruit
Wine
Olive oil

Animals
Cattle
Pigs

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-2.0
-3.7
-2.3
-0.9
-3.2
-0.2

1.7
-1.4
1.9

0.1
-0.5

1.4

4.9

-0.7

-0.7

-4.0
-1.7

-0.7
1.5

-1.6

0.5
-0.1
1.4

1.0
0.7
-4.4
3.8
2.8
-3.6

4.0
-8.1
22.1

-1.5
0.3

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.8

-6.5
5.3

1.1
-0.8

1.8

-1.1
-3.1
-6.6
2.8
-0.5
-3.8

5.9
-9.4
24.5

-1.4
-0.2

3.0

6.3

0.6

//

//
//

//
//

//

-1.2
-2.6
-6.6
2.8
-0.5
-2.0

6.3
-6.8
24.5

-1.4
-0.2

3.0

6.3

0.6

1.1

-10.2
3.5

0.3
0.7

0.2

-1.9
6.5

0.7
-0.1

1.0
1.9
-4.9

1.5

63.7
10.8
11.8
10.7
9.5
4.8

20.3
8.2
5.2

12.1
9.9

2.3

1.7

100.0

32.1

67.9
18.3

49.5

100.0
60.6
39.4

100.0

12.2
51.1

100.0
27.0

73.0

2.0
5.7

76.7
22.3

54.4
1.1
3.7

49.6

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+2.6 %

Developments in the Italian animal sector were similar to those experienced elsewhere in Europe.
The sanitary crisis of BSE and foot-and-mouth (FMD) in other Member States disrupted livestock markets.
The volume of cattle slaughtered in 2001 was lower than the previous year (more so over the opening half

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 57

eurostat

of the year) and with a marginally lower cattle population, the volume of cattle output is estimated to
have fallen a little. The continued weakness in demand coupled with the planned reduction in intervention
prices put strong downward pressure on prices. Despite a sharp increase in programmed subsidies (special
beef, suckler cow and slaughter premiums), the real-terms value of cattle output in basic price terms for
2001 was notably lower than the level for 2000.

The volume of pig output in Italy is estimated to have risen in 2001, with year-on-year production
in the first quarter of the year being particularly notable. Despite the rise in output volume in Italy, strong
demand  and  a  continued  weakening  of  supplies  since  the  highs  of  1999  at  the  EU-level  supported  a
substantial  rise  in  producer  prices.  Elsewhere  in  the  intensive  livestock  sector,  the  volume  of  poultry
output continued to recover strongly from the outbreak of avian influenza at the start of 2000. Prices fell
back from their highs of the previous year (-4.5% in real terms).

There was a slight decline in the volume of milk output estimated for 2001, although the summer
Census  of  cattle  suggests  that  the  Italian  dairy  herd  grew  in  numbers  (+4.3%  according  to  Eurostat
figures). With a relatively stable real-terms annual average price for milk, the real-terms value remained
almost unchanged in 2001 from the level in 2000.

At an aggregate agricultural industry level, these various product-specific developments resulted in
a marginal rise in real-terms value when expressed in both producer price and basic price terms. However,
a slight increase in real-terms costs for the intermediate consumption goods and services used to generate
this agricultural industry output led to an almost unchanged level of gross value added (at basic prices).
In large part, higher costs can be attributed to the higher price of feedingstuffs (+5.3% in real terms).
Although there was a slight rise in real-terms fixed capital consumption costs, a strong increase in net
“other subsidies on production” (+11.1%), maintained a slight upward development in factor income. With
the latest estimates available suggesting that this higher income was in part generated and notionally
shared among a slightly increased volume of labour, the level of Indicator A for 2001 is thought to be
almost exactly the same as that recorded for 2000.

The slight rise in income when based on the measure of entrepreneurial income (for both Indicator
B and C) is explained by the strong decline in the level of real-terms net interest payments, which mainly
reflected the cuts in interest rates on loans.

2.9. Luxembourg

As measured by Indicator A, average agricultural income per annual work unit is estimated to have
declined  by  0.6%  in  Luxembourg  in  2001.  This  was  the  only  decline  in  EU-15:  compared  with  2000,
increases for this income indicator were recorded in all the other Member States.

The main reason for the decline in 2001 was the slump in crop production. Owing to poor weather
conditions in particular, output volume fell by an average of 11.7% compared with the previous year; a
primary reason for this was the marked decline in output volumes of wine and cereals (-14.3% and -11.7%
respectively),  which  are  the  two  most  important  crop  products  in  Luxembourg’s  agricultural  sector  (in
terms of output value). The average producer price in real terms for crop production rose only slightly
compared with the previous year (+0.7%).

Although 2001 saw no new case of BSE in Luxembourg, the crisis, together with consumer concerns
surrounding BSE, clearly made itself felt on the cattle market. The volume of cattle production did indeed
rise by 2.9% (the EU-15 average saw a decline of 1.9%), but in the middle of the year, producer prices fell
by more than 20% in real terms, one of the sharpest declines in EU-15. However, a marked increase in
product-specific direct payments (+75.8% in real terms) for cattle production limited the decline in output
value at basic prices (-2.3%).

58 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

The increase in producer prices in real terms for pig production was of the same order of magnitude
(+15.1%) as the average of the other Member States. However, there was a relatively sharp decline in
output volume (-8.6%), as a result of which the increase in output value (at basic prices) was limited to
a modest 5.2%, which compares with an increase of 16.2% for EU-15 as a whole.

Milk  is  by  far  the  most  important  product  of  Luxembourg’s  agricultural  sector  and  accounted  for
nearly one third of output value in the base year 2000. It was therefore no surprise that the increase of
6.2% in real terms in the value of milk production in 2001 (as a result of higher producer prices in real

Table 2.9 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Luxembourg, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real price
Real value
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Wine

Animals
Cattle
Pigs

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-11.7
-10.5
-14.3

-0.1
2.9
-8.6

2.6
1.6

-1.6

1.7

-2.8

-0.1

0.0
0.0
0.0

-5.3
0.0

-9.2

-1.7
-3.4
6.9

0.7
-3.5
0.3

-10.9
-20.6
15.1

3.2
3.5

0.0

0.0

-1.6

0.0

-5.5
10.1
-0.3

3.6
0.0

6.4

-11.1
-13.6
-14.0

-11.0
-18.3
5.2

5.8
5.2

-1.6

1.7

-4.3

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

-9.8
-10.3
-14.0

-0.2
-2.3
5.2

6.8
6.2

-1.6

1.7

-1.0

-0.1

-5.5
10.1
-0.3

-2.0
0.0

-3.4

-2.9
0.3

-2.4
3.8

-3.1
-2.5
-11.8

-1.8

33.1
9.0
11.1

28.4
20.9
6.7

33.2
31.7

2.9

2.4

100.0

49.7

50.3
21.1

29.2

100.0
83.7
16.3

100.0

7.3
7.7
39.3

100.0
41.9

58.1

0.5
22.4

79.9
8.4

71.5
8.6
8.7

54.2

(*)The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+3.0 %

terms and a slight increase in output volume) played an extremely important role in the overall income
trend.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 59

eurostat

According  to  preliminary  results,  intermediate  consumption  in  Luxembourg’s  agricultural  sector
remained essentially unchanged compared with 2000; this applies to the changes in average input volume,
prices in real terms and intermediate consumption costs in value terms. For individual headings, the most
pronounced changes in 2001 were for energy (prices in real terms: -5.5%) and fertilizers (prices in real
terms: +10.1%), both in line with the overall trend at European level.

Gross value added at basic prices declined by 2.0% in real terms in 2001 compared with 2000. Net
value added (for fixed capital consumption unchanged in real terms) saw a decline of 3.4%. The changes
in other subsidies on production and other taxes on production were of only slight importance in 2001.
Real factor income in agriculture, the basis for calculating income Indicator A, fell by 2.4%. The fact that
Indicator A declined by only 0.6% compared with the previous year, was - at this level of investigation -
due to a further decline in labour input (-1.7%).

Real  net  entrepreneurial  income  (as  measured  by  Indicator C)  saw  a  decline  of  1.8%  in  2001
compared  with  the  previous  year.  Although  significantly  lower  interest  rates  than  in  2000  led  to  a
considerable decline in interest payments (-11.8% in real terms) and rental payments were 2.5% lower in
real terms than in the previous year, there was, however, a sharp increase in compensation of employees
for salaried labour (+3.8% in real terms). Non-salaried labour is estimated to have declined by 3.4% in
2001,  thus  producing  an  increase  of  1.7%  for  Indicator  B,  which  measures  the  trend  in  real  net
entrepreneurial income in relation to the trend in non-salaried labour input.

2.10. The Netherlands

Latest estimates (40) suggest that average income for the agricultural industry per full-time labour
equivalent in 2001 was a little higher than that recorded for 2000 in real (i.e. deflated) terms, although
remaining near historically low levels; Indicators A and B were estimated to have risen by +2.4% and
+4.6% respectively. 

In general terms, the key aggregate developments for the sector as a whole can be summarised as

follows:

• A  small  decline  in  the  value  of  agricultural  “industry”  output  in  real-terms  producer  prices  (-
2.1%), resulting from contrasting general developments between and within average producer
prices (+0.5%) and total output volumes (-2.5%)

• A steep rise in the value of net subsidies on products (+21.2% in real terms), with those subsidies

on animal products more than doubling

• A small decline in the real-terms cost of intermediate consumption goods and services
• A marked reduction in the volume of total labour, notable in that the estimated rate of shrinkage
is faster than for any other year during the previous decade, underlined by the sharp loss in the
volume of non-salaried labour (-5.6%) 

The agricultural industry in the Netherlands had to deal with uncertainties regarding outbreaks of
foot and mouth disease in the spring (including the necessary restrictions on mobility), the continuing
effects of the BSE crises and torrential rain at harvest time.

The foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks in the Netherlands meant that for a number of months
there were bans of one sort or another on the slaughter and export of animals. With cattle being held back
on farms, there was further downward pressure on prices during the second half of the year (adding to the

(40) As provided by the LEI together with their report Actuele ontwikkeling van bedrijfsresultaten en inkomens in 2001.

60 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

downward influences of weak demand since the BSE crisis and a second staged cut in the intervention price
of beef (again -6.7%) that had been programmed in Agenda 2000. As part of the Agenda 2000 reforms,
there were further staged increases in the compensatory special beef, suckler cow and slaughter premia,
but the value of cattle output even in basic prices declined substantially in 2001. 

In part contrast to cattle farmers, the intensive livestock farming sector was characterised by strong
price gains accompanying restrictions in output volumes. The sales ban on pigs in the spring of 2001 due
to FMD also had a considerable impact; pig production (in terms of head) during the first half of 2001 was
down about a fifth on the level for the first half of 2000 and supply shortages whilst consumer demand
was high led to a sharp rise in the prices. Although prices began to ease with the subsequent relaxation
of controls, the average price gain over the year as a whole more or less offset the decline in output
volume, to leave the real-terms value of pig output at producer prices very similar in 2001 to the level in
2000. The switch in consumer demand towards poultry products was particularly strong and real-terms
prices increased considerably. 

Eurostat’s collated May-June cattle Census suggested that the dairy herd population in 2001 was
higher than in the corresponding census in 2000. Estimates for the volume of milk output in 2001 point
to a slight rise over the level in 2000 (with fat content also being higher), although deliveries appeared
to have started to fall back in the second half of the year. In nominal terms, the average price of milk in
the Netherlands increased notably over the year as a whole, although prices came under pressure towards
the end of the year (weaker demand for skimmed-milk powder in calf feed and for whole-milk powder
exports  diverted  excess  milk  into  butter  production).  With  a  relatively  high  level  of  inflation  in  the
Netherlands for 2001, average milk prices actually declined marginally when expressed in real terms. The
output volume of eggs, having fallen steeply in both 1999 and 2000 (revised development), is estimated
to have risen moderately in 2001 (+4.0%). Against this background, the average real-terms price for eggs
is estimated to have fallen back sharply again (-7.9% in real terms), after the strong upsurge in egg prices
during 2000 from a historical low in 1999. 

It was feared that the persistent wet weather of 2001 would severely reduce the volume of potato output
in the Netherlands (particularly significant given that the country is the second biggest producer Member State
after  Germany).  Latest  estimates,  however,  suggest  that  the  shortfalls  are  much  less  than  first  thought,
reflecting the decline in area sown rather than average yield. Lower output volumes at an EU level (particularly
Germany) pushed prices considerably higher from the very low levels of the previous couple of years.

The output volumes of fresh vegetables and plants and flowers in 2001 were relatively similar to
those in 2000, but in both cases real-terms prices declined moderately. Within the fresh vegetables sector,
however, there were particularly sharp price falls for some products like tomatoes, cucumbers, red and
yellow pepper and (in the second-half of the year) mushrooms. In the cases of tomatoes and cucumbers,
these  price  falls  reflected  strong  competition  on  international  markets,  particularly  from  Southern
European countries like Spain, Italy and the Canary Islands, and an increasing overlap in growing seasons.
Of the other vegetables, the decline in the area of sprouts was particularly noteworthy (down an estimated
-9%) given recent years of low profitability. The main developments in the cut flower market were the
continued decline in the area of carnations (which has halved since 1997), a sharp decline in prices for
chrysanthemums but a general increase in total exports (with strong growth to Ireland and the United
Kingdom). The tulip and hyacinth bulb market was characterised by relatively stable volumes and prices.
For potted plants, general price levels rose a little in nominal terms and the gradual upward development
in production areas continued.

There  is  estimated  to  have  been  an  overall  reduction  in  the  real-terms  cost  of  intermediate
consumption  goods  and  services,  although  the  development  in  costs  of  individual  goods  and  services
varied significantly. The developments in these costs per farm type were, therefore, divergent. Gas prices

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 61

eurostat

Table 2.10 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in the

Netherlands, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

-1.5
-1.0
0.5
-4.0

-8.0
-11.0
-8.0
-4.0

1.2
1.0

-2.0

3.6

-2.5

-2.2

-1.0
-15.0
-2.0
-1.0
-2.0

-2.9
0.0

-4.0

1.7
-3.8
-2.9
52.4

0.3
-26.7
9.5
14.3

-1.6
-0.5

-1.4

-1.8

0.5

1.1

8.1
-3.3
0.3
-1.4
-1.4

0.5
-1.4

1.2

0.2
-4.8
-2.4
46.3

-7.8
-34.7
0.8
9.7

-0.4
0.5

-3.4

1.8

-2.1

//

//
//
//
//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Fresh vegetables
Plants and flowers
Potatoes

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Plant protection, pesticides
Feedingstuffs
Agricultural services
Other goods and services

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-3.4
-5.6
1.0

0.3
-4.8
-2.4
45.5

-7.1
-31.1
0.4
9.7

0.2
1.2

-3.4

1.8

-1.7

-1.2

7.0
-17.8
-1.7
-2.4
-3.4

-2.4
-1.4

-2.8

-1.4
79.0

-1.1
1.0

-2.1
-2.5
-4.8
-4.8

-1.2

49.9
10.1
25.1
3.2

23.4
6.6
12.6
3.5

18.6
16.5

7.5

0.4

100.0

54.6

45.4
12.5

32.9

100.0
66.8
33.2

100.0

12.4
2.9
32.4
12.8
18.6

100.0
27.5

72.5

4.8
1.5

69.3
22.1

47.2
0.8
14.2
2.3

34.4

(*)The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+5.0 %

rose considerably, leading to higher prices for energy (gas being a significant cost item in floriculture and
horticulture under galss) and fertilisers (+8.1% and +14.3% respectively) (41). In the case of fertilisers, the
further rise in price together with the generally wetter weather and further environmental pressures led to
a steep fall in fertiliser use (-10%). The growing environmental pressure being discussed in parliament also
triggered a steep decline in the volume of plant protection products used (-15.0%). With demand falling

(41) The relative strengthening of the dollar against the euro should not be forgotten in this respect.

62 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

back,  real-terms  prices  for  plant  protection  products  also  declined  moderately.  The  requirements  for
veterinary services during FMD increased considerably (volumes rising +10.0%) with prices rising more or
less in line with inflation. The volume of feedingstuffs is estimated to have decreased a little (-2.0%)
although prices, particularly for feed purchased of the farm are estimated to have risen at a slightly steeper
rate than inflation.

Although the real-terms cost for intermediate consumption goods and services was estimated to have
declined in 2001, the faster rate of decline in the real-terms value of agricultural industry output squeezed
down gross value-added at basic prices. A real-terms decline in the value of fixed capital consumption
coupled  with  an  appreciable  increase  in  net  subsidies  on  products  (in  large  related  to  FMD  subsidies)
helped limit the subsequent fall in factor income. The rise in Indicator A reflected the fact that this slightly
lower  factor  income  was  notionally  shared  among  a  moderately  reduced  volume  of  full-time  labour
equivalents.

With the volume of salaried labour, particularly in the horticultural sector, continuing to increase (a
quite separate trend to that of non-salaried labour input) and estimated wages rising in line with inflation,
wage costs (compensation of employees) also rose. Although there were successive interest rate cutbacks
in the third and fourth quarters of the year this does not yet appear to be reflected in contracts and
interest payments in 2001 (which are six times greater than interest receipts in the Dutch agricultural
industry) were at a similar level to those in 2000 in nominal terms (although being lower in real-terms).
These main changes in the further costs to the industry resulted in real-terms net entrepreneurial income
(Indicator C) for 2001 declining at a similar rate to factor income. The steep rate of decline in non-salaried
labour, amongst which this slightly smaller net entrepreneurial income was shared, helps explain the faster
rate of increase in Indicator B.

2.11. Austria

Following the declines recorded between 1996 and 1999, and the modest recovery seen in 2000,
income  from  agricultural  activities  in  Austria  rose  significantly  in  2001.  According  to  provisional
calculations by Statistics Austria (based on what are still incomplete data), average agricultural income
per annual work unit as measured by Indicator A increased by 10.9% (2000: +2.6%) (42).

Agricultural  factor  income,  which  forms  the  basis  for  income  indicator A,  is  estimated  to  have

increased by 9.0% in real terms compared with the previous year, as a result of the following factors:

• an increase in real output value at producer prices (caused mainly by higher prices). There were

particularly big increases in the producer prices of pigs and milk;

• an increase in the real value of other (i.e. non-product-specific) production subsidies, due mainly

to an increase in funds available under the ÖPUL programme(43), and

• slightly lower real expenditure on intermediate consumption and depreciation.

(42) A comparison of the index following this latest, significant increase, with a reference year is not a straightforward matter in the
case of Austria. In 1995, following Austria’s accession to the European Union, there was a major break in the time series. The
Indicator rose by 12.3% between 1994 and 1995, before falling back 10.3% between 1995 and 1996, which nearly brought it
back down to the level of 1994. Using only 1995 as the reference year therefore gives a distorted picture (on the basis of
1995 =100, Indicator A would stand at 90.2 points as of 2001). This is why Eurostat generally calculates the Index on the basis
of the average for the years from 1994 to 1996 (“1995” = 100) (see Chapter 1.2). According to this calculation, Indicator A for
Austria was just 2.9 points below the reference value once the latest increase in 2001 is taken into account. It should, however,
be pointed out that revisions may be made to the data for 1994.

(43) Austrian Programme for the Promotion of an environmentally sound, extensive agriculture protecting the natural habitat.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 63

eurostat

In Austria, as elsewhere, one of the factors determining income in 2001 was the continued recovery
in producer prices for pigs, which rose by 17.7% in real terms. Volume fell slightly (-1.9%), mainly as a
result of a decline in slaughterings.

The BSE crisis left its mark in Austria in 2001. Although the first confirmed case of BSE in Austria
was not reported until December 2001, the first suspected case was discovered at the beginning of the
year. The behaviour of Austrian consumers was also affected by the first cases of BSE to be reported in
neighbouring Germany towards the end of 2000. As a result, producer prices for cattle collapsed (by 16.5%
in real terms). However, a significant increase in slaughterings (+10%), albeit accompanied by a decline
in the total herd, led to a 3.0% increase in volume in 2001. This increase, plus a big rise in direct payments
for cattle as part of Agenda 2000 (product-specific subsidies on cattle rose by +22.0%), limited the fall in
output value as measured by producer prices to -7.6% in real terms.

Milk is the biggest single component of Austrian agricultural output, accounting for nearly 15% of
its  total  value.  Developments  in  the  milk  sector,  where  real  producer  prices  rose  strongly  (+12.3%),
therefore had a major impact on the overall result for the sector. In recent years, producer prices for milk
in Austria have remained at fairly low levels, which prompted some producers, particularly in 2000, to
begin to supply dairies in Bavaria, where higher producer prices were obtainable. The increases in producer
prices seen in 2001 are therefore an attempt by Austrian dairies to protect their supply of raw milk from
further defections, but also reflect the general upward pressure on milk prices throughout Europe, which
allowed the dairies to pass on higher retail prices to the producers. The volume of milk production in 2001
was only slightly down on the previous year, with the result that another additional levy is anticipated for
the 2001/2002 milk production year.

Mainly as a result of the individual changes described above, a real average increase in value (at
producer prices) of 4.5% in the animal production sector was achieved. By contrast, the real value of crop
production fell slightly from the previous year’s levels. For crop production as a whole, this is the net result
of contrasting trends in average producer prices and subsidies on products on the one hand (both of which
went down in real terms) and in volume on the other (which went up). In terms of individual crop products
(or product groups), there were some widely divergent trends, which are discussed in detail below; The
value of fruit, potatoes, sugar beet and fodder crops fell, while that of cereals, oilseeds, fresh vegetables
and wine rose.

The area under cereals was down slightly (-1%), compared with the previous year, although the area
under feed grains increased somewhat (thanks to increased plantings of grain maize and triticale), while
the  area  under  cereals  for  bread  declined.  The  cereals  crop  in  2001  was  a  good  average;  against  the
backdrop of the previous year’s lower yields caused by drought, however, this represents high (and, in some
cases, double-digit) rates of growth in volumes for most cereals (including wheat, barley and rye). The
same cannot be said of grain maize, for which the 2001 harvest was well below the record levels of the
previous year. For cereals as a whole, there was an average increase of 7.8% in production volume. This
increase was largely wiped out by falls in average real producer prices of 6.3%. As there were only minor
real increases in subsidies on cereals, this meant that output value at producer prices was only slightly
changed (+1.0%) compared with 2000.

There were considerable increases in the value of oilseed production in 2001. The largest item in the
harvest was winter rape (61% of the oilseed total). Both the area under this crop and its yield rose (+9%
and +8% respectively). There were also increased plantings of oil squash and soya beans, whereas as the
area under sunflowers declined by about 9%. The average yield of sunflowers and oil squash was slightly
up on the previous year, while that of soya beans was down slightly. In combination with significantly
higher producer prices (up by an average of +22.7% in real terms for all oilseeds) there is likely to have

64 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

been a fairly big increase in real output value at producer prices (+33.2%). In terms of producer prices,
which take account of subsidies on products, there was still an increase of 18.2%.

Real increases in value were also recorded for the producers of fresh vegetables (+14.9% at basic
prices), thanks to higher volume and, more importantly, to a big increase in producer prices. The volume
of wine was bigger than the year before, with the result that the real value of output is estimated to have
increased, despite lower producer prices (falling prices for white wine in barrels).

eurostat

Table 2.11 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Austria, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Oilseeds
Sugarbeet
Forage plants
Fresh vegetables
Potatoes
Fruit
Wine

Animals
Cattle
Pigs

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

2.2
7.8
8.5
5.3
-1.0
3.4
2.2
-9.0
6.0

0.5
3.0
-1.9

-2.1
-1.1

-1.9

-1.3

0.5

0.0

-4.2
-0.2

2.7
-0.6

7.2

-1.7
-1.8
-0.4

-2.3
-6.3
22.7
-8.2
-4.1
11.0
-10.5
1.4
-2.2

1.6
-16.5
17.7

9.9
12.3

-0.1

-0.1

1.4

-0.3

22.7
-2.3

2.8
0.3

6.0

-0.1
1.0
33.2
-3.3
-5.1
14.8
-8.6
-7.7
3.7

2.1
-13.9
15.5

7.6
11.1

-2.0

-1.4

1.9

//

//
//

//
//

//

-0.2
1.0
18.2
-3.3
-5.0
14.9
-8.9
-7.7
3.7

3.7
-7.6
15.5

8.2
12.0

-2.0

-1.4

2.3

-0.4

17.6
-2.5

5.5
-0.4

13.7

-2.0
4.0

9.0
-0.7

10.3
0.7
3.9
-4.8

11.1

44.8
12.9
1.6
2.4
8.9
2.4
1.0
4.7
7.1

27.0
12.5
11.9

18.2
14.9

3.0

7.1

100.0

55.3

44.7
25.8

18.9

100.0
89.3
10.7

100.0

3.9
38.6

100.0
57.7

42.3

3.3
46.2

85.1
10.1

75.0
5.0
6.1
2.4

66.3

(*)The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+2.1 %

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 65

eurostat

The  volume  of  fruit  fell  in  2001  by  9.0%  compared  with  the  year  before.  The  main  reason  was
significantly lower yields of pomaceous fruit, especially summer apples and summer pears, harvests of
which were seriously reduced by late frost. Higher yields were recorded only for cherries, sour cherries and
damsons.  Declines  in  the  volumes  of  pomaceous  fruit  were  compensated  for  to  some  extent,  but  not
entirely, by price increases. The average real producer price for the product group fruit was just 1.4% higher
than in the previous year.

Significantly lower real producer prices (especially for semi-early food potatoes, but also for starch
and food industry potatoes) and a decline in product-specific subsidies were the main causes of a big drop
in the real output value (at producer prices) of potatoes. This decline was limited to some extent by a
slight increase in volume, which in turn was due to higher yields of early and semi-early varieties (the total
area under potatoes declined by about 3% in 2001).

Increases  in  the  area  under  sugar  beet,  combined  with  higher  yields  per  hectare  (despite  the
extended droughts in 2001, and thanks to a wet September), led to an increase in volume of more than
5% compared with the year before. The average beet yield per tonne for all categories declined, however,
because of a lower sugar content. This caused a decline in the real value of output.

Following the previous year’s good harvest, 2001 saw declines of about 14% in the harvest volumes
of silage maize and green maize, whereas the volumes of clover (+3%) and pasture (+4%) were up on the
poor levels recorded the previous year. The overall volume of fodder crops was therefore slightly below the
level seen in 2000. Because of an estimated 4% decline in producer prices, however, there is estimated to
have been a significant overall fall in real value.

According to provisional calculations, the value of intermediate consumption goods declined slightly
in real terms in 2001. The average input volume of all items was unchanged on the previous year: prices
rose by 1.7% in nominal terms, but fell by 0.3% in real terms. Provisional data point to a decline in real
terms in expenditure on feedingstuffs. The input volume of feedingstuffs as a whole was slightly below
the level of the previous year. Within this group, there was a shift towards bought-in feedingstuffs, which
offset  a  decline  in  own-produced  feedingstuffs.  There  was  a  remarkably  steep  rise  in  expenditure  on
fertilisers (+17.6% in real terms, the biggest increase in EU-15). Real fertiliser prices rose by more than
twice  the  average  for  EU-15  (+22.7%,  compared  with  +9.7%).  If  trends  in  output  and  the  use  of
intermediate consumption goods are taken together, gross value added at producer prices grew by 5.5%
in real terms compared with 2000.

As a result of slightly lower expenditure on compensation of employees and what is likely to have
been higher expenditure on rents and interest payments (less interest received), real net entrepreneurial
income (Indicator C) rose by 11.1% in 2001. Indicator B, which tracks trends in real net entrepreneurial
income  in  relation  to  trends  in  non-salaried  labour  input,  rose  by  13.2%.  According  to  provisional
estimates, non-salaried agricultural labour input declined by 1.8% compared with 2000, i.e. at a similar
rate to agricultural labour input as a whole (-1.7%).

2.12. Portugal

Portugal’s agricultural income per annual work unit, as measured by Indicator A, is estimated to have
risen by 11.8% in 2001, one of the fastest rates of increase amongst the Member States. Indicator A thus
recovers from a significant drop in the previous year (-9.4%), and reaches, in 2001, its highest level since
first records are available (119.4 compared to 1995 = 100). This latest increase in average agricultural
income is the result of a higher agricultural factor income (+9.5% in real terms) and of a continued decline
in the volume of labour input (-2.0%). The rise in factor income was brought about mainly by increases

66 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

in the real value of overall output (+2.9%), on the one hand, and in the level of the other (i.e. non-
product-specific) subsidies on production (+22.0% in real terms), on the other.

On the whole, the output volume of crop production remained unchanged when compared with the
previous year though there were substantial differences across the individual crop products. However, the
combined output of animal production (livestock plus animal products) fell by 1.8% in volume terms; there
were lower volumes in the production of cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, and milk. The increase in the overall
output value was therefore mainly the result of a rise in real terms producer prices (averaging +3.6%,
+7.6%  in  nominal  terms).  The  strong  rises  in  the  producer  prices  of  vegetables,  fruit  and  pigs  are
particularly noteworthy in this context. The level of product-specific subsidies was 6.5% higher than in
2000. Primarily, this increase is a consequence of higher direct payments related to cattle and cereals.

Vegetables  are,  besides  fruit,  wine  and  milk,  one  of  the  major  product  groups  of  Portuguese
agriculture. The strong rise in the real-terms producer prices of vegetables had the most significant impact
on the development of overall output and consequently of agricultural factor income. Primarily, this rise
in the producer prices for vegetables can be linked to a drop in output volumes, at the start of 2001,
caused by heavy rainfall. Later in the year output volumes recovered (averaging +0.2% over 2001) but real
producer  prices  nevertheless  remained  high  (averaging  +22.8%  over  the  year  as  a  whole  compared  to
2000).

Vegetables  were,  however,  not  the  only  product  group  affected  by  the  unfavourable  weather
conditions of winter 2000/2001 and early spring 2001. The rainfall also caused important delays in the
sowing of the Autumn/Winter cereals (particularly of soft wheat) leading to subsequent reductions in the
areas  sown;  other  products  affected  were  sugarbeet,  peaches  and  citrus  fruit,  their  output  volumes
declining an estimated 52%, 60% and 20% respectively. For cereals as a whole, there was a marked decline
in output volumes (-12.8%). At the same time the average producer price for cereals, though stable in
nominal terms, was down by -3.6% in real terms. However, an important increase in the level of product-
specific subsidies related to cereals (+16.7% in real terms) limited the fall in the output value measured
at basic prices considerably. This rise in subsidies is explained by higher direct payments related to cereals,
as foreseen by the Agenda 2000, and also by the late payment in 2001 of certain grants still relating to
the 1999/2000 campaign. The transition from the second to the third Community Support Framework (CSF,
Quadro Comunitário de Apoio) in Portugal in 2000 caused delays in the payment of various grants (that
were then recorded when paid, i.e. in 2001). This explains, inter alia, the increase in the value of product-
specific subsidies on cereals and on cattle in 2001, and also the rise in the other subsidies on production
(see below).

The  product  group  “fruit”  comprises  fresh  fruit  (accounting  for  more  than  half  of  the  aggregate
output  value),  citrus  and  tropical  fruit,  grapes  and  olives.  Although  there  were  unfavourable  weather
conditions early in 2001, the output volume of fruit as a whole is estimated to have been moderately
(+3.0%) above 2000 levels. At the same time, average real-terms producer prices for fruit as a whole were
6.5% higher so that the output value at producer prices was almost 10% higher than in 2000. However,
there was a marked reduction of more than two-thirds in the product-specific subsidies for olives destined
for the production of olive oil in 2001, due to the fact that the payment of the advances relating to the
next  campaign,  usually  paid  out  in  November/December,  were  transferred  to  2002.  This  reduction
considerably lessened the rate of growth of the overall output value of fruit when measured in basic prices.

In the case of wine, the third most important crop product in Portugal, an increase in output volume
by one tenth was more than offset by declines in real producer prices. A slight increase in the product-
specific taxes (net of subsidies) weighed further on the development of the wine output value at basic
prices (-1.2% in real terms). In terms of its contribution to the overall output value, olive oil is certainly
one of the less important products of Portuguese agriculture. However, volume and price developments in

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 67

eurostat

2001 were such that the impact on the development of overall output (and hence agricultural income) was
quite significant. After a bad olive harvest in 2000, the output volume of olive oil fell steeply in 2001 (by
almost 40%), to the lowest level since records began in 1986. Real-terms producer prices, nevertheless,
continued  to  decline  strongly  so  that  the  real-terms  value  of  olive  oil  output  shrank  almost  by  half
compared  to  the  previous  year.  Declines  in  both  output  volumes  and  real  producer  prices  were  also
estimated for forage plants leading to a fall of 13.6% in the real output value.

Table 2.12 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Portugal, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

0.0 
-12.8 
-11.2 
0.2 
7.6 
3.0 
10.0 
-39.8 

-0.9 
-6.4 
-4.3 
6.6 

-3.5 
-4.6 
4.7 

-0.8 

-1.3 

-9.8 
1.6 
-2.0 
-9.2 
-2.4 

-1.2 
1.0 

-1.9 

4.1 
-3.6 
-2.7 
22.8 
-0.2 
6.5 
-9.9 
-13.4 

3.1 
-9.8 
18.9 
-7.8 

1.9 
3.8 
-9.2 

3.6 

1.4 

9.7 
-2.5 
13.5 
-2.2 
0.9 

7.2 
-0.6 

9.8 

4.1 
-16.0 
-13.6 
23.1 
7.5 
9.8 
-0.9 
-47.8 

2.2 
-15.6 
13.8 
-1.7 

-1.6 
-1.1 
-5.0 

2.7 

//

//
//
//
//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Cereals
Forage plants
Fresh vegetables
Plants and flowers
Fruit
Wine
Olive oil

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk
Eggs

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Seeds and planting stock
Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Plant protection, pesticides
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-2.0 
-2.1 
-1.8 

4.0 
-2.9 
-13.6 
27.2 
7.5 
3.5 
-1.2 
-47.8 

3.2 
-3.2 
13.8 
-1.7 

-1.6 
-1.1 
-5.0 

2.9 

0.1 

-1.1 
-1.0 
11.2 
-11.2 
-1.5 

5.9 
0.5 

7.7 

3.1 
22.0 

9.5 
-0.7 

12.7 
-7.4 
-4.0 

15.5 

56.2
6.8
5.0
11.1
6.5
12.7
8.3
1.3

29.1
6.1
8.7
8.4

14.5
12.5
1.5

100.0

51.2 

100.0

3.0
7.9
6.5
4.7
56.4

100.0
25.2

74.8

0.3
10.5

85.1
20.0

65.1
1.9
7.1

56.1

48.8 
12.3 

36.5 

100.0
80.9
19.1

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+3.9 %

68 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

As  in  most  of  the  other  Member  States,  the  demand  for  pigmeat  continued  to  grow,  against  the
background of the ongoing worries about BSE. Real-terms producer prices for pigs, therefore, continued to
rise strongly in Portugal in 2001, at average annualised rate of +18.9% (EU-15: +15.9%). Output volumes
were smaller than in 2000, but the increase in the real output value of pigs was still sufficiently high to
make it one of the main contributors to the growth of agricultural factor income. In contrast, both volumes
and real producer prices in cattle production showed clearly the impact of the continuing BSE crisis. When
measured at producer prices, the real value of cattle output declined considerably (-15.6%). However, with
the level of the direct payments for cattle being much higher than in 2000 (+42.2%, see explanations
above), the fall in the real value of cattle output when measured at basic prices was limited to a moderate
-3.2%.

Production  in  the  poultry  sector  continued  to  expand  with  considerable  increases  in  the  output
volumes of poultry and eggs. However, the competition from other producer countries weighed heavily on
the development of real producer prices so that the output values of both commodities, particularly that
of eggs, fell below previous year’s levels. In the case of milk, there were contrasting developments in
volumes and prices (though here it was volumes down and real producer prices up), that resulted in a slight
drop in the real output value. The relatively important decline in the output volume of milk is linked to
the reduction of the number of milk cows resulting from the programme for the slaughtering of cattle older
than 30 months.

Intermediate  consumption  costs  remained  almost  unchanged,  in  2001.  The  volume  of  total
intermediate consumption was reduced by 1.3% compared to the previous year. In Portugal there were
strong declines in the use of seeds and pesticides, as well as some reduction in the use of fertilisers, most
probably linked to the reduction in the area under cereals. There was also a decline in the input volumes
of animal feedingstuffs, which is explained by a considerable reduction in the production and consumption
of forage crops within the agricultural industry (the level of animal feedingstuffs purchased from outside
agriculture was slightly above previous year’s levels). With regard to prices, there was an average increase
of 1.4% for the total of intermediate consumption, with fertiliser prices in particular being considerably
higher than in 2000 (as in most other Member States of EU-15).

The combined developments of output and of intermediate consumption led to an increase of 5.9%
in agricultural gross value added. Fixed capital consumption was only a little higher than in 2000, and this
meant that the growth rate of net value added at basic prices was still faster than that of gross value
added.

There was a significant increase in the level of the other (i.e. non-product-specific) subsidies of 22%
in real terms. This rise has to be seen, however, against the background of a similar drop (-19.1% in real
terms) in this item in 2000. Both the fall in 2000 and the increase in 2001 are explained by the fact that
the payment of certain grants (particularly of compensatory payments) that normally would have been
made in 2000, had to be postponed to 2001 as a consequence of the slow transition from the CSF II to
the CSF III (as explained above).

Rental payments were markedly lower in 2001 (-7.4% in real terms) compared to 2000. This fall is
linked  to  the  reduction  in  the  areas  planted,  referred  to  above.  Interest  payments  remained  stable  in
nominal terms (lower interest rates while the volume of credits increased) but also showed a reduction of
4.0%  in  real  terms.  Wage  costs  were  only  slightly  below  previous  year’s  levels.  As  a  consequence,
agricultural  net  entrepreneurial  income  in  real  terms  (the  development  of  which  is  measured  as
Indicator C), rose by +15.5%. The volume of non-salaried labour input declined by a further 2.1%, and this
meant that Indicator B presented a growth of 18.0%.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 69

eurostat

2.13. Finland

In 2000, Finland displayed the highest rise in indicator A of the EU-15 compared with the previous
year (+27.6%). This year’s rise is a more modest 4.7%. The income level, in 2000, was the highest in the
observation period for which EAA data is available since 1979. The factor income itself shows a small rise
of 1.6%, while the full-time labour equivalents among whom this is shared is down by an estimated 3%.

The  main  influence  on  the  increase  in  factor  income  has  been  the  strong  decline  in  cost  items,
particularly in intermediate consumption (-4.8% in real terms), and to a lesser extent in fixed capital
consumption (-2.1% in real terms). Output prices have fallen slightly (-1.5% after deflation), although the

Table 2.13 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Finland, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Oilseeds
Forage plants
Fresh vegetables
Potatoes
Fruit

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-6.0
-11.0
34.0
-6.5
-2.9
-11.9
20.3

2.3
-1.9
2.1
17.5

2.5
0.0

0.0

5.2

-1.1

-3.8

0.3
-6.3
-7.0

2.7
-2.5

9.5

-3.0
-4.9
11.5

-1.9
-4.5
24.7
-2.3
11.2
-2.3
-19.3

5.9
-1.1
13.0
3.5

-3.7
-1.3

-1.3

-3.6

-1.4

-1.1

-5.8
4.6
-1.9

1.5
0.3

2.9

-7.9
-14.9
67.2
-8.7
8.0
-14.0
-2.9

8.3
-2.9
15.3
21.6

-1.3
-1.3

-1.3

1.4

-2.4

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

-6.2
-10.0
41.0
-7.4
8.0
-13.5
-2.9

9.9
3.2
15.3
21.6

-1.7
-1.8

-1.3

1.4

-1.9

-4.8

-5.5
-1.9
-8.9

4.3
-2.1

12.8

-2.7

1.6
-0.8

2.3
2.8
2.3

2.3

44.2
18.3
0.8
13.9
3.9
2.1
0.8

15.0
6.8
5.9
1.9

34.7
27.2

2.7

3.4

100.0

67.3

32.7
18.6

14.1

100.0
88.8
11.2

100.0

9.3
8.7
42.6

100.0
56.9

43.1

110.9

153.9
34.1

119.8
7.4
16.4

96.0

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+2.4 %

70 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

changes in nominal terms showed a small increase. Volumes as a whole were down, split between a fall in
crop volumes (down by 6.0%) and a rise in the volumes of animals and animal products (by 2.3% and 2.5%
respectively).

Overall crop output showed a reduction in both prices and volumes from the 2000 figures. A 6% fall
in volumes produced, coupled with a fall in prices of 1.9%, was only marginally ameliorated by subsidies,
and resulted in a decrease in output at basic prices of 6.2%.

Adverse weather conditions in the cereal harvest season of August to October, particularly in western
Finland, affected cereal production, with output volumes as a whole down by 11%. The current figures of
the year-on-year yields of individual cereals suggest the following downward movements: Oats - volumes
down 9.5%; Barley - volumes down 10.6%; Wheat - volumes down 9.3%; Rye - volumes down 41.1%. The
price of cereals when looked at in aggregate also fell (down 4.5%). It is note-worthy that the product-
specific subsidies on cereals were down in real terms.

In contrast to cereals, oilseed volumes were up by more than one third on average in 2001. The area
planted with oilseed has increased by over a third, as oilseed growers responded to the rise of 2/3 in the
level of direct national payments (+20.1% in real terms). In addition the price rose by almost one quarter.
The  weather  during  the  fruit  production  season  was  favourable,  particularly  for  strawberries,  the  most
important berry grown in Finland, and output volumes for fruit are up by 20.3%. However, a saturated
market depressed the prices, which show a fall of 19.3%.

According to the provisional estimates, the price of forage plants fell by 2.3%, and volumes were
down by 6.5%. The yield of many crops used as animal feedstuffs was at a record high in the previous year,
2000, which meant that there was plenty of hay and silage already available for consumption before the
2001 growing season. The weather conditions affected the production of fresh vegetables, which suffered
a drop in volumes produced of 2.9%, although with a significant price jump of 11.2 %, while the potato
market also felt the effects of the weather, recording a fall in volumes of 11.9% and a price decline of
2.3%.

The  value  of  animal  output  when  calculated  in  basic  prices  has  risen  by  9.9%  (in  real-terms),
comprised  of  a  small  increase  in  volumes  (+2.3%)  and  a  rise  in  prices  of  5.9%  (in  real-terms).  This
composite rise is due mainly to the pig market, where there was an increase in production, with output
volumes rising by 2.1%. As in other Member States there was a strong upswing in producer prices for pigs
from lows in previous recent years (+13.0% in deflated terms for Finland compared to 16.0% for the EU-
15).  Cattle  showed  a  drop  in  both  price  (-1.1%)  and  volume  (-1.9%)  –  fears  over  disease  in  cattle
continued to affect the beef market, and Finland identified its first case of BSE late in 2001. For poultry,
the  real-terms  values  of  output  in  producer  prices  for  2001  rose  significantly  from  a  year  earlier,  a
combination of slightly higher prices (+3.5%) and a jump in volume of almost one fifth. Consumer demand
for poultry has shown a steady and very marked rise over the past 20 years, with 2001 production figures
5 times what they were in 1980. Turkey production in particular rose by 60% in 2001.

Milk  is  the  principal  single  agricultural  product  in  Finland.  The  output  volume  of  milk  for  2001

remained unchanged from the previous year, and the price dropped by 1.3%. in real-terms.

Overall intermediate consumption costs to the agricultural industry were cheaper by almost 5% in

2001. The main reasons were lower expenditures mainly on animal feedingstuffs and on energy.

The volume of animal feedingstuffs was down by 7.0%, due partly to the large amounts available
from previous years. Energy prices were down by -5.8% in real terms, in line with the most of the Member
States. There was a decline in both price and usage of feedingstuffs. The price of these was marginally
cheaper (down 1.9%), but there was a significant 7.0% lower usage, because of the high inventory level

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 71

eurostat

of feeding stuffs resulting from the previous year’s production. The usage of fertilisers and soil improvers
was less (-6.3%), while the price of fertilisers increased by 4.6% (less than half of the EU-15 average
change of +10%).

Over the years, subsidies have had a major role in the development of Finnish agriculture figures,
and changes in “other subsidies on production” have a pronounced influence on the movement of Indicator
A. The subsidies paid in 2001 were down by 2.7% on those paid in 2000, with the main changes being a
lessening of National Support, and of Agri-environmental payments.

Indicator C is up by 2.3% and Indicator B by 7.5%. The total volume of the agricultural labour input
has fallen by 3%; non-salaried labour is down by 4.9% while salaried labour increased by 11.5%. Non-
salaried labour accounts for 85% of all agricultural labour input in Finland (2000 figures).

2.14. Sweden

Income from agricultural activity per unit of labour as measured by Indicator A for 2001 is estimated
to have increased by 5.0% from the 2000 position. There had already been an increase of 9.8% in this
indicator in 2000, which means that agricultural incomes have recovered to 1998 levels, from a drop in
1999. On top of this, the 2001 increase in income Indicator A has pushed it to its highest level (112.9
compared to 1995 = 100) since records began in 1973.

The increase in factor income is relatively small (+0.8% in real terms), and the main cause of the
increase in Indicator A has therefore been the continuing decline in labour input (-4.0%). This rate of
decline is only exceeded by that in Ireland, and is consistent with the Swedish long-term trend.

The increase in real factor income, in spite of an increase in the costs of intermediate consumption

(+2.9% in real terms), is the result of a number of elements:

• Firstly, the value of overall output at basic prices increased by 1.3% in real terms. This in turn is
mainly the result of higher product-specific subsidies because, when measured at producer prices,
the value of output fell slightly below even the previous year’s levels.

• Secondly, the level of other subsidies on production increased by 6.5% in real terms, due to an

increase in payments for set-aside, and for environmental support (44).
• Thirdly, the consumption of fixed capital was lower by 2.6% in real terms.

Output at producer prices fell, as a result of lower output values in crop production (both lower
volumes and real producer prices) and animal products (lower prices, but with volumes a little higher than
in 2000). In contrast, the output value of animals increased strongly, due to both higher real term producer
prices and higher volumes (+5.4% and +1.7% respectively).

In  the  crop  sector,  the  most  significant  movements  can  be  seen  in  cereals,  forage  plants  and
potatoes. Real producer prices for cereals increased by 8.2%, while volume produced fell by 6.5%. This was
due to a decline in the areas under cultivation, and somewhat lower yields per hectare, as a result of the
dry summer and rain during harvest time. Nevertheless, the cereals output value at basic prices rose by
6.1% because of considerably higher product-specific subsidies. As elsewhere, the level of direct subsidies
has increased, in line with the provisions of Agenda 2000, to compensate for the change in intervention
prices. However, a further factor contributing to the rise in subsidy payments (which are denominated in
Euro) was the devaluation of the Swedish crown against the Euro.

(44) The level of overall subsidies, both product specific and other subsidies on production, net of taxes, increased by 13.2%, thereby

increasing the ratio of overall net subsidies to gross value added market prices to more than 90%.

72 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

Table 2.14 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Sweden, 2001 compared to 2000

eurostat

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Forage plants
Potatoes

Animals
Cattle
Pigs

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-0.4
-6.5
4.4
-3.5

1.7
3.0
1.1

0.5
0.1

0.0

-0.6

0.3

0.0

-1.2
1.0

-0.3
-3.7

2.0

-4.0
-3.6
-5.5

-3.4
8.2
-16.6
17.0

5.4
-0.6
14.7

-2.6
-3.3

3.8

4.4

-0.8

2.9

16.1
3.5

-1.7
1.1

-3.5

-3.8
1.1
-12.9
12.9

7.2
2.4
16.0

-2.1
-3.2

3.8

3.8

-0.5

//

//
//

//
//

//

-1.0
6.1
-11.0
12.7

9.8
9.5
15.9

-2.1
-3.2

3.8

3.8

1.3

2.9

14.7
4.5

-2.0
-2.6

-1.6

//
6.5

0.8
-3.2

1.6
-0.9
-1.6
-1.9

3.8

47.4
16.5
17.5
2.7

21.5
9.3
7.7

25.8
23.0

2.1

3.2

100.0

67.3

32.7
13.5

19.2

100.0
76.0
24.0

100.0

6.0
39.1

100.0
41.2

58.8

//
24.2

83.0
14.4

68.6
8.9
21.4
1.1

39.4

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+1.9 %

Forage plants show a strong price fall, and even though the area under forage crops increased, the
overall effect was a fall in output value. Also worthy of note is the rise in the output value of potatoes,
in line with the strong price rises seen across the EU15.

Whilst crops, and animal products (as can be seen below), have exerted a downward pressure on the
overall  output  figures,  those  for  animals  themselves  have  shown  an  increase.  Sweden  is  the  only  EU
country to have escaped the ravages of BSE, and has still not had an incidence of FMD, both of which have
affected cattle production elsewhere in the EU. Cattle output volumes increased, and real producer prices
fell only little below 2000 levels. Sweden was thus in 2001, besides the United Kingdom, the only Member
State  where  cattle  output  (when  measured  at  producer  prices)  increased.  In  addition  there  was  a
substantial increase in the level of product-specific subsidies on cattle (+45.8% in real terms) so that the
output value at basic prices increased by 9.5%. A similar situation exists in the case of cereals, where the

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 73

eurostat

increase is in line with Agenda 2000, but there was also the amplifying effect of the devaluation of the
Swedish crown. The price of pigs has risen strongly, as it has across the EU-15, with the result that the
real value of output at basic prices is up by almost 16%.

Within animal products, milk is the single most valuable product in Swedish agriculture (its share of
the overall agricultural output in 2001 being almost one quarter) and its impact on overall incomes and
income developments is therefore significant. The real price of milk at producer prices shows a decrease of
3.3%,  and  the  real  output  value  declined  at  a  similar  rate,  as  output  volumes  remained  more  or  less
unchanged compared to the previous year.

Intermediate consumption costs, on the whole, were up by 2.9%, as a result of higher real input
prices, since the average input use, in volume terms, was unchanged. The main contributors to the overall
price rise were, as elsewhere in EU-15, higher price levels of feedingstuffs and fertiliser.

The net entrepreneurial income revealed by Indicator C shows an increase of 3.8%. This is a result of
the small increase in factor income, coupled with lower compensation paid to employees (down by 3.2%,
in line with the decline in salaried labour input), and lower interest payments and rents (down 1.6% and
0.9% respectively). Indicator B has risen by 7.7%, due to the decrease in non-salaried labour input of
3.6%

2.15. United Kingdom

The agricultural industry in the United Kingdom was blighted by a widespread outbreak of Foot and
Mouth (FMD) disease in 2001. In analysing the development in agricultural industry income in 2001, it is
important to stress that the losses and compensation payments resulting from FMD have been excluded
from the figures (45); they are regarded as exceptional items. It should be underlined, therefore, that the
fuller financial impact of FMD is not reflected in this report.

In presenting the latest estimate of the change in agricultural industry income, the steep declines
of previous recent years should also be borne in mind ; as reported last year, it was estimated that industry
income declined to its lowest level over the period for which data are available (since accession back in
1973).

Against this background, the latest estimate of income development for 2001 suggests a small rise
from this depressed level (+3.5% as measured by Indicator A). Nevertheless, the underlying depression in
the industry is perhaps better illustrated by a continued decline in real net value added (down -4.6% in
basic price terms).

The differences in the developments in net value added and factor income are largely explained by
the re-classification of subsidies under a number of support schemes related to cattle and sheep from
subsidies on products to those on production ; subsidies on production increased substantially (46) (+80.1%
in real terms) although total subsidies actually fell a little (down -1.4% in real terms).

The small rise in the level of factor income was also based on the following key factors :

(45) The losses due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in the UK during 2001 are considered as exceptional.  Thus
according to the rules of National and EAA accounting these losses are recorded in a different way from normal losses.  The latter
are deducted from output, but exceptional losses are not.  In addition, the compensation paid for exceptional losses is recorded
as “other capital transfers”.  This means that both the loss and the compensation are excluded from the calculation of agricultural
income. Compensation paid for livestock culled as part of the measures taken to eradicate FMD (totalling £1.3 billion) are not
included in income. The UK is the only Member State to have recorded exceptional losses in 2001.

(46) The Hill Farm Allowance (HFA) is an area based subsidy and, therefore, not treated as a subsidy on product.  It replaces the Hill
Livestock Compensatory Allowance (HLCA), which was based on the number of animals, and therefore was included in previous
calculations of subsidies on product.

74 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

• A slight rise in the value of output at producer prices (+0.4% in real terms).

• Only a marginal increase in intermediate consumption goods and services (+0.3% in real terms).

• Lower fixed capital consumption (-2.8% in real terms).

eurostat

The  vast  majority  (90%)  of  the  UK’s  trade  in  agricultural  products  is  within  the  EU,  making  the
sterling/Euro  exchange  rate  one  of  the  most  important  determinants  of  market  prices.  The  continuing
strength of sterling makes UK products dearer abroad, and imports cheaper. In addition, subsidies are
denominated in Euro ; as sterling strengthens, the value of the subsidies decreases.

On  average  the  prices  received  by  farmers  for  their  produce  were  5.0%  higher  in  2001  than  the
average in 2000, due mainly to price rises for cattle, milk and crops (in particular for cereals, oilseeds,
potatoes and vegetables). Averaged over all categories, real output prices for cattle rose by 7.3%. The main
reason for this was a rise in price at the start of the year: the previous year’s prices were low as farms were
reducing their herd sizes, partly due to the very low price for milk. The FMD culls from Spring onwards
reduced the supply and increased the demand for these animals, and that helped to keep the price high
throughout the year. The UK was the only country across the EU in which the change in cattle prices was
upwards. The strong upward swing in pig prices seen elsewhere across the EU-15 was not so obvious in the
UK, which only recorded a price rise of 0.9% for pigs. The markets of sows and boars fell by 43% as the
export ban put in place at the start of the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease removed the main market
for sow meat. Those that were sold on the UK market attracted a much lower price. The UK is the EU-15’s
main producer of sheep, (it produced 28%.of the whole EU-15 market for sheep and goats in 2000), but
the fall in volumes produced of 20.4% and in price of 6.0% are atypical of the EU-15 movements during
2001. A ban on exports imposed as a result of FMD was in force for most of the year, restricting access to
existing and potential markets. Although the export ban was lifted near the end of the year, it was too
late to have an effect on the 2001 figures. The price of oilseeds rose by nearly 1/5th, in line with the
average movement across the EU-15. The prices of all vegetables, particularly potatoes, is strongly linked
to shortages; and the excessive rainfall in all areas during the Autumn and Winter of 2000 continued into
2001, with resultant difficult harvesting conditions and shortages.

Despite  the  pronounced  average  increase  in  real  producer  prices  (particularly  the  +9.4%  for  crop
output as a whole), the value of agricultural industry output at producer prices was only a little above the
previous year’s levels. The reason for this was that output volumes for the agricultural industry as a whole
were 4.4% lower with reduced production of cereals and livestock due to wet weather and FMD respectively.

The volume of cereals output declined substantially due to adverse weather conditions. Although
there was a small increase in the area of spring sown barley, as some farmers switched from winter wheat
to spring barley, others put more land into set-aside under special arrangements following the wet winter.
The volume of sugarbeet produced was also affected by the bad weather, and is down by 9.9%.

Despite the wet weather, the volume of potato output rose a little, from a marginally smaller planted
area. In part, this is explained by the fact that 20000 hectares of potatoes sown in 2000 had to be over-
wintered because of the corresponding wet weather conditions that affected lifting at harvest in Autumn
2000 . These areas yielded a tonnage (albeit relatively small) that was included in the figures for 2001.
Potato prices are very volatile:- they rose by over 40% during the first 5 months of the year, remained high
during the Summer, before falling to finish the year at 3/4 of their opening price. The average price rise
over the whole year of +25.7% reflects the EU-wide shortfall in potato levels.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 75

eurostat

Table 2.15 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in the

United Kingdom, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Fresh vegetables
Potatoes

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Sheep and goats

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Seeds and planting stock
Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Plant protection, pesticides
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-7.9
-20.6
-3.7
2.8

-5.8
-7.1
-8.2
-20.4

2.2
1.5

-3.8

1.8

-4.4

-0.4

6.4
1.0
-5.7
-6.5
0.9

-13.5
-2.7

-18.2

-1.9
-1.8
-2.2

9.4
5.9
12.2
25.7

-0.2
7.3
0.9
-6.0

8.5
10.5

-3.8

1.3

5.0

0.6

-0.9
-4.9
7.9
-4.9
5.5

10.9
-0.1

16.7

0.7
-15.9
8.0
29.2

-6.0
-0.4
-7.4
-25.2

10.9
12.1

-7.5

3.1

0.4

//

//
//
//
//
//

//
//

//

-1.8
-15.6
8.0
29.2

-8.7
-3.3
-7.4
-32.0

13.4
15.1

-7.5

3.1

-1.6

0.3

5.4
-4.0
1.8
-11.1
6.5

-4.0
-2.8

-4.6

-12.5
80.1

1.5
-1.4

3.4
-2.8
-10.6

8.9

37.2
15.7
5.9
3.0

36.6
14.7
5.4
6.8

18.3
15.6

4.4

3.5

100.0

57.0

43.0
13.3

29.8

100.0
65.5
34.5

100.0

3.2
8.6
8.9
7.2
24.8

100.0
30.8

69.2

1.4
5.1

72.8
29.6

43.2
3.6
9.9

29.7

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+2.3 %

Milk is the second most important agricultural product in the UK, after cereals, and a price rise of
10.5% from the very low prices of 2000 was significant in contributing towards the increase in factor
income.

Intermediate consumption costs for the agricultural industry as a whole were almost the same in
2001 as in 2000. Less fertilisers (-5.7%) and pesticides (-6.5%) were used, but more seed (+6.4%) as poor
weather conditions led many farmers to resow in the Spring. Some prices rose sharply, particularly those
for fertilisers (+7.9%) and feedingstuffs (+5.5% with the increase in cereal prices). General costs also rose
with the restrictions imposed by FMD.

76 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

After the particularly sharp decline in the volume of agriculture labour in 2000 (-6.1%, with salaried
labour bearing the brunt with a decline of -11.3%), the continued reduction in labour input slowed (total
input down an estimated -1.8%, of which salaried labour input was down at a similar rate). The decline
in salaried labour input was reflected in the real-terms decline in the cost of compensation of employees.
With sharply reduced levels of interest payments, as interest rates on loans declined, and a moderate fall
in rental payments, the rise in income when measured by entrepreneurial income was more marked (albeit
having fallen about 70% over the previous five years).

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 77

eurostat

3. Changes in income from agricultural

activity in the Candidate Countries
in 2001 compared to 2000

Introductory remarks

For the first time, this report includes a chapter devoted to the Candidate Countries. Eight of
these countries have been able to participate in the present agricultural income index exercise, and
their estimates on the changes in the income from agricultural activity, in 2001, are presented and
analysed in Chapter 3. The countries covered by this report are the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic.

The analyses for these countries are presented in the same way as for the EU-15 Member States.
The changes in the main components of the income calculations are presented in country-specific
tables. Readers interested in more detailed information should refer to the tables in Part A of the
statistical annex to this publication.

It has to be underlined that the data for the year 2000, for the Candidate Countries as well as
for  the  EU-15  Member  States,  are  still  not  definitive,  and  data  for  the  year  2001  are  provisional
estimates.  Both  data  sets  will  therefore  most  probably  be  subject  to  subsequent  revisions.  In
addition,  in  many  of  the  Candidate  Countries,  the  compilation  of  the  Economic  Accounts  for
Agriculture (EAA) in the framework of which the agricultural income index data are calculated, is still
undergoing changes. New data sources such as farm accountancy data network (FADN) or agricultural
censuses are becoming available. Also certain methodological aspects may need further investigation.
The results presented, particularly in this first year, should therefore be interpreted with care.

3.1. Czech Republic

Income from agricultural activity per full-time labour equivalent (as measured by income Indicator A)

in the Czech Republic is estimated to have increased by 20.5% in 2001.

The main reasons for this rise were a strong increase in the average output volume of crop production

(+8.4%), on the one hand, and higher real-terms producer prices for animals (+7.8%), on the other.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 79

eurostat

Cereals are the most important product of Czech agriculture, and provisisional data for 2001 suggest
that  there  was  an  increase  in  the  output  value  at  basic  prices  of  this  crop  of  more  than  one  quarter
(+27.7%). After a relatively low harvest in 2000, due to dry weather conditions, the cereal output volume
increased, in 2001, by more than 20%. Additionally, real-terms producer prices for cereals rose by +5.5%.
There were also a higher output volume and real-terms producer prices for oilseeds (+14.9% and +7.5%
respectively). In contrast, for potatoes there were strong declines in both output volume and real-terms
producer  prices  (-24.0%  and  -20.9%  respectively).  For  crop  output  as  a  whole,  the  average  real-terms
producer price was 2.7% lower than in 2000 but this was more than offset by the increase in volumes.

In the Summer of 2001, the Czech Republic reported its first BSE case (later in the year a further
case  was  discovered).  As  in  most  countries  concerned  by  the  outbreak  of  this  disease,  consumers
drastically reduced their consumption of beef and veal, and switched to pigmeat and poultry. Averaged
over 2001, real-terms producer prices for cattle dropped by 20.2%, and the output volume was reduced by
5.1%. Pig prices were high, in 2001, averaged over the year 18.4% higher than in 2000. On the one hand,
this increase was driven by a higher consumer demand, but at the same time there was a low number of
fattening pigs, a shortage of piglets and higher exports. The output volume of pigs was 0.9% lower than
in 2000. Poultry production expanded strongly: the 2001 output volume was 13.3% higher than that in
2000. The increased demand for this type of meat contributed to the rise in prices (+12.2% in real terms).

Milk is the second most important product of Czech agriculture. Both output volume and real-terms

producer prices fell a little below the previous year’s level.

Due to a decline in the expenditure on animal feedingstuffs (-2.8% in real terms), the overall value
of intermediate consumption of goods and services in 2001 was slightly lower than in the previous year (-
0.4% real terms). On the back of the overall developments of output and input, agricultural gross value
added at basic prices in the Czech Republic, increased by 15.6%, in 2001.

Following provisional data, the value of fixed capital consumption was considerably lower than in
2000  (-8.8%).  Against  this  background,  net  value  added  grew  at  a  rate  of  30.8%.  However,  with  an
increase  in  the  other  taxes  on  production  (+6.6%  in  real  terms)  and  a  strong  reduction  in  the  other
subsidies  on  production  (-36.5%)(47),  the  growth  rate  of  real  agricultural  factor  income,  the  basis  of
income Indicator A, was limited to a (still considerable) 18.1%. The volume of agricultural labour input is
estimated to have been reduced in 2001 by 2.0%.

For the Czech Republic, expenditure on compensation for employees is a most important item. In
2000, the base year of the current exercise, compensation for employees accounted for more than 90% of
agricultural factor income (48). This means that both net operating surplus and net entrepreneurial income
are  relatively  small,  in  comparison  to  agricultural  factor  income,  and  even  little  changes  in  the
compensation of employees would be reflected in strong variations of these two income aggregates. In
2001, compensation of employees was 2.2% (in real terms) lower than in 2000, and net operating surplus
therefore showed an increase of 151.5%. In 2000, net entrepreneurial income had been negative (it was
positive in 2001), and for this reason it is not possible to calculate income Indicators B and C in the
framework of the present exercise.

(47) It is interesting to note, that following the changes in these two items in 2001, the other taxes on production were higher in
value than the other subsidies on production. Taking into account also the product-specific subsidies (in which there was an
increase in 2001), the overall value of subsidies net of taxes was reduced by 26.6% in real terms. This meant a reduction in the
ratio of subsidies net of taxes to gross value added at market prices from 7.6% in 2000 to 1.2% in 2001.

(48) At the same time, salaried labour input accounted for almost three quarters of the total of agricultural labour input (in terms of

annual work units).

80 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

Table 3.1 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in the

Czech Republic, 2001 compared to 2000

eurostat

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

8.4
20.3
14.9
-24.0

0.3
-5.1
-0.9
13.3

-1.0
-1.9

//

//

3.2

//

//
//
//
//

//
//

//

-2.7
5.5
7.5
-20.9

7.8
-20.2
18.4
12.2

-2.3
-1.3

//

//

1.1

//

//
//
//
//

//
//

//

5.4
26.9
23.6
-39.9

8.1
-24.3
17.3
27.1

-3.3
-3.1

1.6

//

4.3

//

//
//
//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Cereals
Oilseeds
Potatoes

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Plant protection, pesticides
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-2.0
-2.0
-2.0

5.7
27.7
23.8
-39.9

8.9
-20.4
17.3
27.1

-3.6
-3.5

1.6

//

4.5

-0.4

3.2
3.3
3.3
-2.8

15.6
-8.8

30.8

6.6
-36.5

8.1
-2.2

151.5
13.2
13.2
13.2

//

49.2
19.4
6.3
5.2

27.9
7.4
16.0
4.6

22.0
18.8

0.9

0.0

100.0

69.5

30.5
11.7

18.8

100.0
21.6
78.4

100.0

3.4
5.7
5.0
55.8

100.0
38.3

61.7

12.2
16.9

66.4
57.6

8.8
5.4
8.5
2.7

-2.5

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+5.1 %

3.2. Estonia

During the Soviet period, Estonian agriculture had focussed on animal production for export to the
other regions of the Soviet Union (49). Since the country’s independence was restored, there have been
substantial  decreases  in  animal  numbers  (Eurostat’s  livestock  surveys  and  FAO).  The  fading  Soviet

(49) For details on the recent development of agriculture in Estonia, a fact sheet (June 2000) was prepared by the Estonian Institute

and is available to view on www.einst.ee/economy/agricult.htm.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 81

eurostat

influence was put into sharp focus by the collapse of Soviet demand during the financial crisis of 1998,
which resulted in plummeting prices and herd sizes. 

The economic situation started improving in 2000 and has continued in 2001. The latest provisional
estimates regarding agricultural industry income for Estonia in 2001 suggest a substantial rise on the level
achieved in 2000; the headline measure of Indicator A is estimated to have risen +17.2% whilst the other
two measures (based on a smaller residual income) are estimated to have increased by more than half.

In large part, this significant rise in industry income levels was founded on a sharp re-expansion in

livestock output from the low levels of 2000, coupled with a surge in producer prices for livestock. 

Pig production is the most valuable livestock sector in Estonia (providing about two-thirds of the
value of animal output in 2000). It was, therefore, significant that pig output volumes in 2001 expanded
at double digit growth, with the pig population rebounding towards a third of a million head (50). In part,
the rebound in output volume was encouraged by the high prices on European markets. Pig prices in the
first half of the year rose still further as demand for meat products other than beef accelerated. Although
pig prices generally fell back towards the end of the year, over the year as a whole it is estimated that the
average producer price for pigs in Estonia was substantially higher than the average for 2001. Similar
developments were also noted for poultry, with output volumes expanding rapidly (by nearly a quarter)
and producer prices also sharply up on the average for 2000.

During  the  1990s,  the  size  of  the  cattle  herd  had  shrunk  in  successive  years  from  about  three-
quarters of a million head to a little over a quarter of a million head, of which about half were dairy cows.
The livestock surveys in 2001 pointed towards a small increase in both the numbers of dairy cows and
cattle  as  a  whole.  The  latest  Agricultural  Income  Index  estimates  suggest  a  moderate  increase  in  the
volume of milk output in 2001 and relatively strong growth in the volume of cattle output. The problems
of  BSE  and  FMD  in  the  EU,  and  in  some  other  Central  and  Eastern  European  Countries,  led  to  Estonia
banning some imports from a number of countries. This led to an increase in demand for domestic produce.
This is one of the factors behind the sharp increase in the price of cattle. There was also a sharp rise in
the price of milk, reflecting the improvements in quality and demand from a more competitive processing
industry.

In contrast to the broad and steep rise in values across the animal and animal product sector, the
value of key crop products declined sharply in 2001. The key crop products in Estonia are cereals, forage
plants and potatoes. The persistent wet weather that was a feature of many northern Member States was
also a key factor in the reduced volumes of crop output in Estonia.

Within the cereals sector, there has been a steady switch from barley production to wheat production
during the 1990s, although barley is still the principal cereal grown. Eurostat figures on production areas
for  2001  point  to  a  pause  in  this  development  with  areas  remaining  similar  to  2000  levels.  The  poor
weather, however, is thought to have completely revised earlier optimistic forecasts of production growth;
year-on-year output volumes are now thought to have declined substantially. The wet weather was also
responsible for reducing the quality of cereals. This was reflected in lower prices, which were also under
pressure from cheaper imports.

The production of potatoes has also been in decline during the 1990s and the production area is
thought to have declined once more in 2001. Potato yields that had been at a high level in 2000 were
considerably lower in 2001, principally due to the wet weather conditions. The reduced supply of potatoes,

(50) It should be noted though that this is still substantially down on the levels under the Soviet period; pig survey figures for 1990,

the last year before independence, record a pig population at nearer 1 million head in Estonia (Eurostat). 

82 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

Table 3.2 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Estonia, 2001 compared to 2000

eurostat

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

-12.1
-17.6
-1.4
-25.9

12.7
7.3
12.6
23.3

3.9
4.3

0.0

0.0

-0.9

-3.3

2.5
-9.8
-0.4

1.6
1.3

1.8

-0.1
-6.7
-0.2
10.2

20.5
21.0
22.3
12.8

10.0
12.0

-5.1

-5.1

7.3

2.6

3.3
0.5
14.3

12.3
6.7

14.6

-12.2
-23.1
-1.6
-18.3

35.8
29.9
37.7
39.0

14.3
16.8

-5.1

-5.1

6.3

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Cereals
Forage plants
Potatoes

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Feedingstuffs
Maintenance of materials

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

0.0
0.0
0.0

-12.4
-22.2
-1.6
-18.2

35.8
30.2
37.7
39.0

13.1
15.1

-5.1

-5.1

5.6

-0.8

5.9
-9.3
13.8

14.1
8.1

16.7

-5.1
26.3

17.2
4.1

45.7
-5.1
5.3
-5.1

55.6

38.3
14.9
8.0
6.7

18.6
4.2
12.0
2.2

32.5
26.8

5.5

5.0

100.0

56.7

43.3
13.0

30.3

100.0
58.2
41.8

100.0

27.4
38.7
6.7

100.0
30.1

69.9

1.2
1.2

69.9
47.9

22.0
1.2
4.4
1.3

17.7

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+5.4 %

coupled with the fact that prices on European markets picked up from the lows of the previous two years,
led to a strong increase in prices for potatoes in Estonia.

Despite the lower values for the key crop products in 2001, the significant increases in values for
animals and animal products raised the real-terms value of agricultural industry output notably. Gross value
added at basic prices rose much more considerably, thanks to the fact that the total cost of intermediate
consumption goods and services remained relatively stable in real-terms. Within these costs, however,
there were stark contrasts between feedingstuffs on the one hand and energy on the other. Estimates
supplied to Eurostat suggest that the real-terms value of feedingstuffs decreased significantly (-9.3%),
almost  exclusively  due  to  reduced  volumes  (-9.8%  and  despite  the  increase  in  livestock  numbers).  In

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 83

eurostat

contrast, the real-terms cost of energy rose strongly (+5.9%), with both volumes used and real-terms price
moderately higher.

Despite a sharp increase in the cost of fixed capital consumption, reflecting a rise in loans as the
country nears accession to the European Union, factor income rose at an even faster rate than gross value
added. Supporting this accelerated rate of increase was the jump in net other subsidies on production,
which reflected a change in the system of support for the liming of land (to farmers rather than to the
company rendering the service) and higher agri-environmental payments. 

Agricultural  employment  (incl.  forestry,  hunting  and  fishing)  represents  about  7.4%  of  total
employment in Estonia. This is far less than many other CEECs (an average share of 20.7% is estimated by
the European Commission for the CEEC-10 in 2000), but more than the average in the EU (4.3% in 2000).
The restoration of independence allowed the break-up of the collectivisation of farms that had featured
since 1949. This has meant the gradual restitution of land to legitimate owners and the privatisation of
state property. Calculating the volume of agricultural labour in Estonia is in its infancy. Estimates of year-
on-year changes are thought to be unstable in the absence of regular annual data sources, so a position
of no change has been adopted for 2001. Nevertheless, it should be noted that if there had been a decline
in volume, which seems likely, the Income Indicators would have risen even faster.

3.3. Hungary

The latest provisional estimates regarding agricultural industry income for Hungary in 2001 suggest
a substantial rise on the level achieved in 2000; the headline measure of Indicator A is estimated to have
risen +26.8% whilst the other two measures (based on a smaller residual income) are estimated to have
increased by more than half. In large part, this increase can be seen as a recovery from the lows of 1999
and 2000, when the impact of the Russian financial crisis was felt through the plummeting prices and
volumes that came with the loss of a main export market.

The  significant  upturn  in  industry  income  levels  in  2001  was  driven  by  the  following  key

developments:

• Strong growth in crop output volumes

• Higher prices for pigs and poultry

Favourable weather conditions that improved yields, coupled with an expansion in production areas,
drove the volume of crop output as a whole for 2001 considerably above the level for 2000. The production
areas  of  grain  maize  (about  +5%),  wheat  (about  +18%)  and  barley  (about  +13%)  in  2001  were  all
significantly up on the production areas in 2000 and generally confirmed the recovery from the relatively
low production areas of 1999. The fine weather experienced in 2001 was reflected in vastly improved cereal
yields; the average yield of grain maize (the principal cereal-type) is thought to have increased by about
half,  with  yields  of  wheat  and  barley  also  significantly  higher  (about  +19%  and  +27%  respectively).
Against this backdrop of higher supplies of cereals in 2001, prices did fall sharply. Nevertheless, there was
still a strong increase in the real-terms value of cereals.

As  with  cereals,  the  yields  of  sunflower  and  rape  seed  improved  greatly  in  2001.  In  the  case  of
sunflowers, the improvement in average yield was accompanied by a slight rebound in production area
(about +7%, although still about 40% down on the record level in 1999). The production area of rape seed,
by contrast, is estimated to have fallen back a little further from the record level in 1999 (down about -
7%  compared  to  2000).  Despite  the  higher  supplies,  the  average  price  of  oilseeds  as  a  whole  also
strengthened, supported by the shortfall in sunflower production within the EU.

84 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

Table 3.3 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Hungary, 2001 compared to 2000

eurostat

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

Crop output
Cereals
Oilseeds
Sugarbeet
Fresh vegetables
Fruit

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk
Eggs

Agricultural services output

27.3
47.0
24.4
46.8
22.3
6.4

-0.4
-15.0
-7.0
12.0

1.9
1.0
10.1

13.0

-12.5
-18.5
14.3
4.4
-11.7
-15.8

21.4
-6.5
35.6
10.0

1.5
1.4
2.0

0.6

11.4
19.7
42.2
53.3
8.0
-10.5

20.9
-20.6
26.1
23.2

3.5
2.4
12.3

13.6

11.0
19.7
42.2
53.3
8.0
-12.2

20.6
-20.7
25.7
22.9

3.5
2.4
12.3

13.6

Secondary activities (inseparable)

-100.0

-100.0

-100.0

-100.0

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs
Maintenance of materials

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

14.6

7.4

14.3
11.6
2.0
17.8

26.3
-1.0

36.6

-2.0
-0.5
-8.9

-1.4

1.8

-2.0
5.9
1.3
4.2

-6.1
-0.2

-7.7

13.0

//

//
//
//
//

//
//

//

12.8

9.4

12.0
18.2
3.3
22.8

18.6
-1.2

26.0

15.2
8.1

24.2
-2.5

37.4
0.3
-7.5
-2.7

52.0

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+8.6 %

50.9
21.9
2.9
1.1
7.3
8.6

29.7
2.2
15.4
10.6

15.9
10.8
4.0

3.5

0.0

100.0

63.5

36.5
9.9

26.6

100.0
81.8
18.2

100.0

11.8
6.5
42.0
12.2

100.0
27.2

72.8

0.8
8.7

80.6
26.7

53.9
8.6
6.7
1.1

39.7

The production of wine is currently recorded under the heading “other grapes”, which falls within the
fruit  heading (51).  The  volume  of  wine  is  estimated  to  have  increased  sharply  in  2001,  thanks  to  the
improved yield of grapes. The volume of fresh fruit as a whole is estimated to have remained at levels

(51) The Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH) plans to amend the recording of this item during the course of the year.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 85

eurostat

similar to 2000. The average price of both fresh fruit and wine for 2001, however, is estimated to have
declined at such a rate as to have brought the real-terms value of fruit down sharply on 2000 levels.

The volume of sugarbeet output in Hungary for 2001 increased substantially above the level of 2000,
in  sharp  contrast  to  the  steep  declines  in  the  EU.  In  large  part  this  reflected  the  favourable  weather
conditions that improved average yields considerably (an improvement of about 28%) but also a rebound
in  production  area  (about  16%)  from  the  low  level  of  2000 (52).  The  shortfalls  in  production  that
characterised the EU market, where wet weather reduced sugar content and caused problems of sowing and
lifting, meant that there was strong demand for Hungarian sugarbeet; this strengthened prices.

The  animal  sector  in  Hungary  is  dominated  by  pig  and  poultry  production.  These  key  intensive
livestock sectors benefited from high international prices, which reflected changes in consumer demand
as a result of the sanitary crises affecting cattle in parts of the EU. The price for slaughtered pigs began
to fall back in October and this development accelerated during the rest of the year. Averaged over the
year 2001 as a whole, however, the price of pigs was substantially above the average for 2000. The volume
of pig output was down on the level of 2001, confirming the continued downward trend in the pig cycle
that started in 1999 (the August 2001 pig population was estimated to be close to 400 000 less than a
year earlier and 900 000 head less than August 1999). The volume of poultry output, in contrast, expanded
rapidly in 2001, taking advantage of the higher prices.

The cattle sector is relatively small and getting still smaller in Hungary. It is in the cattle sector that
the struggles in transforming the agricultural sector from an industry under a command economy to one
under a market-orientated economy still persist. The cattle population has been in long-term decline and
this continued in 2001; the cattle population in December 2001 was about 3% lower than a year earlier
and almost exactly half of the 1.6 million head recorded in 1990 (53). Against this background, the volume
of cattle output declined steeply in 2001. Although the average price over the year as a whole rose slightly
in nominal terms, with GDP inflation running at 8.6%, there was a relatively strong decline in real-terms
prices.

As with cattle, there has been a considerable downsizing of the dairy sector over the 1990s. The
national cowherd declined from about 630 000 cows at the start of the 1990s to about 400 000 cows a
decade later. In this time, milk production also declined sharply from the levels of 2 800 million litres at
the start of the 1990s. Following a particularly sharp cutback in cow numbers and milk output in 2000,
there is estimated to have been slight volume growth in milk output in 2001 (despite a further decrease
of about 12 000 cows in the national herd to 368 000 by December 2001). The average nominal price of
milk increased by a rate just above that of underlying inflation, leaving real-terms producer prices also
slightly higher.

Although the value of agricultural industry output increased sharply in 2001, there was also a steep
rise in the value of intermediate consumption goods and services (54). The expansion of crop areas, the
prospect of high yields and the fine weather during application all encouraged a greater use of fertilisers
in 2001 (volumes being an estimated +11.6% higher than in 2000). With nitrate prices on international
markets also rising, the cost of some fertilisers also increased steeply (+5.9% in real-terms for fertilisers
as a whole). The use of energy also rose considerably (+14.3%) accompanied by nominal price rises just a
little less than the underlying rate of inflation. The cost of feedingstuffs rose slightly, both a result of

(52) The production area of sugarbeet, however, has been on a long-term downward decline. Despite the rebound in area to 1999

levels, the level in 2001 was still (less than) half of the area sown at the start of the 1990s. 

(53) Official figures show the number of cattle to have fallen from 805 000 head in December 2000 to 783 000 in December 2001.

(54) It should be pointed out that the estimates for intermediate consumption are particularly preliminary at the moment, as data

sources are deemed to be somewhat inconsistent.

86 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

volumes  (most  particularly  for  the  expanding  poultry  production)  and  prices  (with  the  higher  cost  of
oilseeds feeding through). The greatest increase in costs, however, came from the increased volume of
materials maintained and serviced (+17.8%), also perhaps reflecting the desire to have materials in good
working order for the bumper harvests. 

Despite the sharp rise in intermediate consumption goods and services, gross value added for the
agricultural industry in 2001 was considerably up on the 2000 level. The rise in factor income was further
strengthened by an increase in other subsidies on production and a slight fall in the real-terms costs of
the consumption of fixed capital. This higher factor income was notionally generated and shared between
a moderately reduced volume of labour.

It is worth noting that agricultural employment (including forestry, hunting and fishing) represented
6.2% of total employment in 2000 (latest Labour Force Survey results). This proportion is a little higher
than the average for the European Union as a whole (although much lower than for Portugal and Greece)
but does suggest that further reductions in the size of the labour force are likely to be at a much slower
rate  than  compared  to  other  Central  and  Eastern  European  countries  (the  CEEC-10  average  being  a
proportion of about 20%). Nevertheless, the estimated decline in the total volume of labour in 2001 was
almost exclusively the result of the fall in the volume of salaried labour. In large part, this reflects the
changes in land ownership; there has been a marked move towards private farms away from co-operatives
and enterprises where labour is salaried. Salaried labour now accounts for about 17% of the total volume
of labour. The decline in salaried labour is also reflected in lower real-terms compensation of employee
costs. With real-terms interest payments also declining (more or less in line with the underlying rate of
inflation), the smaller residual income figure of entrepreneurial income rose considerably.

3.4. Lithuania

In analysing the provisional agricultural income index figures for 2001, it is important to underline
the dramatic impact of the Russian financial crisis of 1998. At the time of the crisis, Russia accounted for
about a third of all agricultural and food exports from Lithuania (Lithuanian Development Agency), with
members  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States  (CIS)  accounting  for  at  least  another  22%.  The
disappearance of the Russian export market and its ripple effect through the CIS and other Baltic States
resulted in surplus production on domestic markets (for which adjustments had to be made subsequently)
and crashing prices. The income of the agricultural industry as a whole in Lithuania tumbled by about 80%
in the two years immediately after the crisis. 

The  fall-out  from  this  crisis  coupled  with  the  restructuring  of  the  industry  as  the  country  nears
accession to the European Union is also demonstrated by the number of farmers leaving the industry; the
volume of agricultural labour (measured in full-time labour equivalents) in 2001 is estimated to have been
about  10%  lower  than  in  2000  and  about  a  third  lower  than  the  level  in  1997.  With  agricultural
employment (incl. those in forestry, hunting and fishing) accounting for about a fifth of all employment
in 2000 (a much higher proportion than the EU average of 4.3%) such rates of downsizing of the workforce
are likely to continue in the years ahead.

The reduction in the volume of agriculture labour is particularly significant in 2001, in so much as
the rise in the headline measure of agricultural industry income in 2001 (Indicator A: +13.6%) is almost
entirely explained by the fact that the relatively flat level of factor income was generated and notionally
shared amongst this much reduced workforce.

The small rise in the level of factor income (+2.1 in real terms) was the net result of the following

main developments:

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 87

eurostat

• A steep fall in the output volumes of cereals, potatoes and fodder crops.

• Sharp price rises for pigs, milk and particularly cattle.

• A  slight  decline  in  the  real-terms  costs  of  the  intermediate  consumption  goods  and  services

purchased by the agricultural industry.

• A steep fall in the real-terms value of fixed capital consumption.

The Lithuanian agricultural industry had always been geared towards the dairy and livestock sectors.
This was the case in the first period of independence but intensified under the Soviets. Since regaining
independence,  these  sectors  have  been  characterised  by  sharply  declining  herd  sizes.  Pig  production
remains the most valuable animal sector in Lithuania but pig numbers have fallen dramatically since the
start of the 1990s; during the course of the decade the number of pigs fell from near 2.5 million head to
under 1 million. This trend has continued in the subsequent two years and the volume of pig output in
2001 was estimated to be about 8% lower than the level recorded in 2000. It is a similar story with the
cattle and cow herds; cattle numbers falling from 2.3 million head in 1990, of which 0.8 million were diary
cows, to 0.7 million and 0.4 million head respectively. The volume of cattle output in 2001 is estimated
to be about 8% lower than in 2000. The volume of milk from dairy cows, however, is estimated to have
risen moderately in 2001.

In assessing the price developments, it is interesting to note the low implicit GDP deflator (+0.6%
in 2001) in Lithuania. This means that the nominal and real (i.e. deflated) terms changes in prices and
values were quite similar. In broad terms, the animal sector enjoyed higher prices. The strong rise in the
average price of milk in part reflects the advances made in restructuring the milk processing industry (55)
(three big groups of enterprises currently process more than 65% of the total raw-milk quantity) and in
part the favourable international market prices that milk and dairy exports from Lithuania could command. 

Exports of animals from Lithuania are now much less significant than milk and dairy products. In this
respect, the changes in prices are more influenced by changes on domestic markets. Subsidies for animals
were not paid in 2000 and prices became very low, leading to large numbers of pigs and cattle being
slaughtered. Supply shortages at the start of 2001 led to higher prices, particularly for cattle that take
longer to finish than, for example, pigs. The price of cattle was also influenced by the introduction of
selected import bans on some EU and Central and Eastern European Countries as a result of the BSE and
FMD crises.

As in other northern European countries, wet weather affected sowing and harvests. The volume of
cereals declined sharply, both as a result of lower yields and a decline in production area (about -4.5%).
These developments held for both wheat (winter and spring) and barley (spring), the main types of cereal.
The problems with the weather were most acute for the potato industry. Problems with sowing and lifting
resulted in a volume of output down considerably. The unfavourable weather also hit the volume of fodder
output.

In the case of potatoes, the supply shortages were reflected in a surge in prices from their general
lows of previous recent years. In the case of cereals, however, the supply shortages were accompanied by
a moderate decline in prices. In part this reflected the reduced grain quality and the price that the grain
could therefore attract, but also the fact that lower intervention prices were set for the year.

The real-terms value of the output of the agricultural industry in 2001 was a little less than the level
in 2000. However, the provisional costs of intermediate consumption goods and services to the industry

(55) Read more on the restructuring process from the Lithuanian Ministry of Agriculture, www.zum.lt/europa/eng/home.htm

88 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

Table 3.4 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Lithuania, 2001 compared to 2000

eurostat

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

-12.0
-11.9
-6.7
-2.2
-41.1

-7.6
-7.8
-8.1

3.8
4.0

-35.4

0.0

-7.9

-0.8

-7.7
19.1
-1.5

-22.9
-7.7

-30.0

2.7
-5.8
0.2
-5.4
90.8

16.9
53.0
6.5

9.7
12.7

41.1

-0.6

7.5

-0.6

-0.6
-0.6
-0.6

28.0
-0.7

45.7

-9.7
-17.1
-6.5
-7.4
12.4

8.0
41.0
-2.1

13.8
17.2

-8.8

-0.6

-1.0

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Cereals
Forage plants
Fresh vegetables
Potatoes

Animals
Cattle
Pigs

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-10.1
-9.2
-14.1

-10.1
-17.1
-6.5
-7.4
12.4

7.9
40.3
-2.1

13.8
17.2

-8.8

-0.6

-1.3

-1.3

-8.2
18.4
-2.1

-1.3
-8.3

2.0

-0.6
-0.6

2.1
-1.3

3.7
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6

3.6

56.0
21.1
11.3
7.2
6.1

18.8
4.4
10.9

22.0
16.7

1.7

1.5

100.0

66.3

33.7
10.8

23.0

100.0
80.7
19.3

100.0

21.5
11.5
42.4

100.0
31.9

68.1

3.7
1.1

65.6
20.7

44.8
0.1
0.5
1.2

45.5

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+0.6 %

were also a little lower than in 2000 (56). Driving costs lower appear to be the lower demand for energy
(volumes down about 9%), seeds (down about -14%) and plant protection products (down about 8%), as
well as for feedingstuffs (down about -2%). Given the recent turmoil in the industry, it is perhaps no

(56) Estimates  of  intermediate  consumption  are  highly  provisional  at  the  moment.  There  is  difficulty  in  assessing  the  price
developments for most of the individual goods. A neutral position of no change in nominal prices has been adopted for many
items. Clearly subsequent changes in this position will alter the costs of intermediate consumption and gross value added. The
revisions  will  not  change  the  overall  impression  of  a  partial  recovery  in  income,  although  they  may  change  the  magnitude
somewhat.

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 89

eurostat

surprise that there was a sharp decline in fixed capital consumption costs. Indeed, maintenance rather
than  replacement  seems  to  have  been  a  feature,  with  the  amount  of  building  maintenance  rising
significantly (+15.7%).

Since 1991, the restitution of private land ownership has been a key goal within the agricultural
sector. The final phase of land management and titling started in 2001 (the aim being to finish by July
2002), with an estimated 78% of land having ownership rights restored by 1st June 2001. As far as labour
classifications are concerned, this restitution is reflected in the growing proportion of non-salaried labour
(i.e. labour that shares in the entrepreneurial income of the holding); non-salaried labour accounted for
68%  of  all  agricultural  labour  even  by  1997  but  has  risen  still  further  (up  to  82%)  by  2001 (57).  The
compensation of employees remains, however, a significant cost item when calculating entrepreneurial
income. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that the particularly sharp decline in the volume of salaried
labour  input  in  2001  (-14.1%)  was  barely  reflected  in  the  estimated  level  of  the  compensation  of
employees. This helps explain why the rise in entrepreneurial income was not much higher than the slight
rate for factor income.

3.5. Malta

Income from agricultural activity per full-time labour equivalent (as measured by income Indicator A)

in Malta is estimated to have declined by 1.6% in 2001.

The main reason for this decline is a considerable rise in the real-terms expenditure on intermediate
consumption goods and services (+7.3%) which, in its turn, is due mainly to an important increase in the
input usage of animal feedingstuffs (+12.2%, with prices being down by 2.3%).

The overall value of the agricultural industry’s output in Malta, in 2001, was only slightly higher than
in 2000 (+0.5% in real terms). This overall increase was the result of contrasting developments in crop and
animal production.

Crop output declined a little in real value terms (-1.9%), due to a reduction in the output volumes
of all the major crop products (which are fresh vegetables, potatoes and fruit), averaging -6.2% for crop
production as a whole. Real-terms producer prices were higher for each of these products, particularly for
potatoes and fruit. For crop output as a whole, the average real-terms producer prices increased by 4.6%.

The overall output value at basic prices of animal production increased in 2001 (+2.6% in real terms).
There were increases in the output volumes of all the major items, particularly for the item other animals
(which  are  essentially  rabbits)  and  for  cattle.  Real-terms  producer  prices  declined  by  3.5%  for  animal
production as a whole. The sharpest decline was observed for cattle (-13.7% in real terms).

On the back of the overall developments of output and input, agricultural gross value added at basic
prices, in Malta, declined by 4.4% in 2001. With an increase in the value of fixed capital consumption of
+4.7% (in real terms), net value added fell by 4.8% (in real terms) compared to 2000.

In 2001, there were neither product-specific subsidies and taxes in Malta, nor were there other taxes
on production. The level of the other subsidies on production was very low. They were equivalent to just
0.8% of gross value added, in 2000, and in 2001 they were reduced by 2.3% (in real terms). Real (i.e.
deflated)  agricultural  factor  income,  the  basis  for  income  Indicator A,  was  4.8%  lower  than  in  2000.
Following provisional data, the volume of agricultural labour input was reduced by 3.3%.

(57) Nevertheless, it should be remembered that overall numbers of farmers and hired workers has been declining sharply.

90 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

Table 3.5 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in Malta,

2001 compared to 2000

eurostat

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

-6.2
-2.7
-18.6
-20.2

8.0
12.9
4.3
4.8
17.8

3.5
2.9
4.5

//

-20.1

0.6

8.5

7.2
-30.5
12.2

-5.2
7.2

-5.8

4.6
1.9
17.5
10.9

-3.4
-13.7
-2.3
-2.3
-2.3

-3.6
-4.6
-2.3

//

6.5

-0.1

-1.1

-1.5
40.7
-2.3

0.8
-2.3

1.0

-1.9
-0.8
-4.3
-11.4

4.3
-2.6
1.9
2.3
15.1

-0.3
-1.8
2.1

//

-14.8

0.5

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Fresh vegetables
Potatoes
Fruit

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry
Other animals

Animal products
Milk
Eggs

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-3.3
-2.9
-6.9

-1.9
-0.8
-4.3
-11.4

4.3
-2.6
1.9
2.3
15.1

-0.3
-1.8
2.1

//

-14.8

0.5

7.3

5.5
-2.2
9.6

-4.4
4.7

-4.8

//
-2.3

-4.8
-7.3

-4.4
13.8
-17.8
//

-4.4

44.9
29.6
8.2
4.1

34.9
3.3
12.6
12.1
6.8

19.6
11.6
7.6

//

0.6

100.0

41.7

58.3
2.7

55.6

100.0
89.6
10.4

100.0

8.5
2.0
55.6

100.0
4.7

95.3

//
0.8

96.1
13.3

82.8
1.7
2.5
//

78.6

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+2.4 %

There was a strong reduction in the expenditure on compensation of employees (-7.3% in real terms)
which corresponded to a similar decline in the volume of salaried labour input (-6.9%). Furthermore, there
was an important fall in the value of interest paid (-17.8% in real terms). Rental payments, in contrast
were considerably higher in 2001 (+13.8% in real terms). As a result of all these developments, real net
entrepreneurial income, the changes in which are measured by Indicator C, was 4.4% lower than in 2000. 

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 91

eurostat

With a decline in the volume of non-salaried labour input of 2.9%, the level of income Indicator B
(which measures the change in the real-terms net entrepreneurial income against the change in the volume
of non-salaried labour input) was 1.6% lower than in 2000.

3.6. Poland

Estimates of agricultural income and expenditure for 2001 suggest that for Poland, Indicator A is

down by 10.3%, with similar falls in Indicators B and C (-12.4% and -11.1% respectively).

The overall output of the agricultural industry is barely changed (+0.2%), and the main factor behind
the change in Indicator A has been higher value of intermediate consumption, which is up by 4.2% in real
terms. In particular, increased values of feedingstuffs, energy, and fertilisers were consumed.

Crops make up nearly half of agricultural output, and the output of crops at basic prices was down
by 1.0% (in real terms) overall. Within that, the most significant movements were in cereals, whose value
in real terms increased by 16%. This was the result of an increase in volumes of 21.1% while prices were
down by 4.7% (in real terms). The acreage planted was largely unchanged from 2000, but the yields were
much increased. There was a drought in 2000, which caused the yields to be low.

Potatoes  are  the  2nd most  important  crop  grown  in  Poland,  and  in  2001  the  volumes  dropped  by

15.8%, as a result of late blight of potato. In addition, prices fell by 20% (in real terms).

Pigs are the most important animals in Polish agriculture. During 2001, the price of pigs at producer

prices increased by 12.7% (in real terms), and volumes fell by 3.7%.

In the cattle sector, volumes were down by 11.9% and producer prices fell by 4.8% (in real terms).
The market for meat in Poland is still recovering from the Russian financial crisis, and as elsewhere across
Europe, consumer demand fell in response to the various disease outbreaks.

Milk is the main animal product, and as a result of the volumes increasing by 1.0% while the prices

fell by 5.7% (in real terms), the value at basic prices dropped by 4.8% (in real terms).

Agriculture is a major source of employment in Poland, involving 25% of the labour force. In terms
of  annual  work  units,  Polish  agricultural  labour  input  accounts  for  almost  two  thirds  of  the  total
agricultural labour input of the CEECs covered in this report. Most of the other CEECs recorded a decrease
in their agricultural labour input. In this context, the rise of 1.2% in agricultural labour input in Poland
in 2001 is particularly noteworthy. This increase is a consequence of a rise in the number of non-salaried
labour equivalents. Salaried labour input, by contrast, was 3.7% lower than in 2000, and the expenditure
on compensation of employees was 8.1% lower (in real terms).

92 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

Table 3.6 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in Poland,

2001 compared to 2000

eurostat

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

7.1
21.1
-15.8

-2.1
-11.9
-3.7
10.0

2.0
1.0

1.7

1.0

3.3

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

-7.9
-4.7
-20.0

7.8
-4.8
12.7
-0.1

-6.0
-5.7

1.1

-5.7

-3.1

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

-1.4
15.4
-32.6

5.6
-16.1
8.6
9.9

-4.1
-4.8

2.8

-4.8

0.0

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Cereals
Potatoes

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

1.2
1.5
-3.7

-1.0
16.0
-32.6

5.6
-16.1
8.6
9.9

-4.1
-4.8

2.8

-4.8

0.2

4.2

3.7
8.7
5.9

-6.4
-5.4

-6.7

12.8
-24.8

-9.2
-8.1

-9.6
-6.8
12.9
50.1

-11.1

48.4
17.7
8.0

27.5
3.7
18.0
5.3

19.9
15.9

2.4

1.8

100.0

62.0

38.0
9.8

28.2

100.0
93.8
6.2

100.0

21.0
7.3
47.0

100.0
25.7

74.3

6.3
3.1

71.1
15.1

56.0
1.9
4.4
0.5

50.1

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+6.1 %

3.7. Slovak Republic

Income from agricultural activity per full-time labour equivalent, as measured by income Indicator A,

in the Slovak Republic is estimated to have increased by 14.1% in 2001.

The  main  reason  for  this  rise  is  a  strong  increase  in  the  output  volumes  of  many  crop  products,
averaging 35.2% for crop output as a whole. Particularly noteworthy was the recovery in the output volume
of cereals (+67.3%), the most important crop of Slovak agriculture, after a rather low harvest in 2000.
Additionally there were strong volume increases in the production of oilseeds and of fresh vegetables. Real
producer prices were lower for cereals and considerably so for oilseeds (-1.6% and -7.9% respectively).
Nevertheless, for crop output as a whole there was an average price increase of 3.3% (in real terms).

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 93

eurostat

The  markets  for  beef  and  veal  were  heavily  disturbed  by  the  impact  of  the  BSE  crisis  in  2001,
including the Slovak Republic. The discovery of BSE in the neighbouring Czech Republic in the Summer
2001 sent Slovakian beef consumption plunging by almost one half. A partial recovery followed, but this
was undone at the end of September by news of the first Slovakian BSE case. By the end of 2001, three
more cases had been reported. Averaged over 2001, real producer prices were 14.0% lower than in 2000,
and the cattle output volume was reduced by one half.

In  pig  production,  the  output  volume  dropped  by  12.0%,  with  producer  prices  going  down,

simultaneously, by 7.4% (in real terms).

Most of the headings of intermediate consumption showed marked declines in volumes. The overall
volume of input use therefore was 5.9% lower than in 2000. In contrast, real-terms prices rose, averaging

Table 3.7 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in the

Slovak Republic, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

35.2
67.3
54.9
19.8

-18.0
-49.9
-12.0

3.9
7.4
-6.1

-7.6

-9.4

5.0

-5.9

-14.2
-1.5

37.8
-0.4

81.1

3.3
-1.6
-7.9
0.6

-6.7
-14.0
-7.4

-8.6
-5.6
21.2

-1.6

0.0

-2.1

1.9

2.8
4.6

-10.3
0.0

-16.7

39.7
64.6
42.7
20.5

-23.5
-56.9
-18.4

-5.0
1.4
13.8

-9.2

-9.4

2.8

//

//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Cereals
Oilseeds
Fresh vegetables

Animals
Cattle
Pigs

Animal products
Milk
Eggs

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

-9.1
-10.7
-8.7

32.2
12.1
3.2
5.3

34.1
8.1
18.4

20.8
14.6
3.9

4.3

8.5

100.0

75.8

24.2
12.8

11.3

39.4
64.6
42.7
20.5

-23.2
-56.2
-18.3

-4.4
1.5
13.8

-9.2

-9.4

2.7

-4.0

-11.9
3.1

23.7
-0.3

50.9

//
-34.7

3.7
2.3

13.1
-7.1
-9.4
8.6

42.6

100.0
17.3
82.7

100.0

16.1
38.6

100.0
53.1

46.9

//
59.3

101.5
88.3

13.2
3.1
5.3
1.2

6.0

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+7.1 %

94 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

1.9% for intermediate consumption as a whole. On the back of the overall developments of output and input,
agricultural  gross  value  added  at  basic  in  the  Slovak  Republic,  increased  by  almost  one  quarter  in  2001
(+23.7%).

With depreciation slightly below the previous year’s level, net value added grew by more than 50%
compared to 2000. The other taxes on production were reduced by 11.1%, in 2001. However, at the same
time there also was a strong reduction in the value of the other subsidies on production, by roughly one
third, so that the change in the real agricultural factor income (the basis of the income Indicator A) was
limited to a moderate 3.7%. Nevertheless, the level of Indicator A was 14.1% higher than in 2000 because
of a very strong reduction in the volume of agricultural labour input. There was a decline of 9.1% in the
number of annual work units, which is the second sharpest decline amongst the CEECs covered by this
report, after that observed in Lithuania.

Real-terms net entrepreneurial income, the change in which is measured by the income Indicator C,
increased by 42.6% compared to the previous year. Expenditure on compensation of employees was a little
higher than in 2000. In contrast, the rental payments and net interest payments declined by 7.1% and
14.6% respectively. With a decline in the volume of non-salaried labour input of 10.7%, the level of income
Indicator B (which measures the change in the real-terms net entrepreneurial income against the change
in the volume of non-salaried labour input) was 59.7% higher than in 2000.

3.8. Slovenia

Initial  estimates  of  the  change  in  Indicator  A  for  Slovenia  are  that  it  is  14.4%  lower  than  the
previous year. Since the agricultural labour input is unchanged, this is solely as a result of changes in the
factor income. Indicators B and C both show a fall of 18.4%.

Slovenia is 54% forested, making it the third most forested European country (after Sweden and
Finland). This can cause problems with agricultural land being overgrown by forests. When this aspect is
combined  with  other  geographically  difficult  terrain,  the  result  is  that  most  of  Slovenia’s  agricultural
production comes from small parcels of land. The main crops are grown for fodder, mostly corn. The weather
conditions during 2001 were not favourable for agricultural production. Spring frost and Summer drought
had a particularly strong impact on the production of early fruit, and of fodder and late crops. During 2001
the volume of forage plants produced fell by 5.7% as a result of poor weather conditions.

The price of cereals fell markedly, by 20.1% in deflated terms, due to the drop in quality of the

cereals.

On industrial-scale agriculture, sugar-beet is the most heavily grown crop, but volumes were down

by over half in 2001 due to smaller areas being cultivated, and a lack of humidity during growth.

Potatoes make up less than 5% of all fields, but experienced fluctuations in supply and price. The
volume produced was down by 21.7% over the year as a whole, while the price change overall was up 20.2%
(in real terms) as a consequence of the short supply.

Fruit growing in Slovenia is significant, taking place on 4% of all agricultural land. The fruit types grown
are mostly apples, followed by pears, sour cherries and cherries. In 2001 the volumes produced were down by
a quarter with a small fall in prices. The effects of the weather are particularly relevant to fruit growing.

About a third of Slovenian farms deal in wine growing, usually as a supplementary activity. There was

no significant change in the wine market during 2001.

Animal rearing makes up nearly one third of Slovenian farming, with the largest share being cattle
farming, followed by pigs and poultry. Slovenia reported its first case of BSE in 2001. The price of cattle

CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000 95

eurostat

fell by 9.1% in real terms, although the volumes produced were almost unchanged. The volume of poultry
produced rose by 9.3%.

Milk volumes were up by 2.8%, and Slovenia has a thriving dairy industry, exporting almost a quarter

of the milk produced.

Under intermediate consumption, energy was slightly more expensive, and as a result fertiliser prices

were much higher. More feeding stuffs were consumed, in line with the higher volumes of animals.

Table 3.8 % changes in the main components of the income calculation for agriculture in

Slovenia, 2001 compared to 2000

Volume
(output at 
producer 
prices)

Real value
Real price
(output at
(output at
producer
producer
prices) (*) prices) (*) prices) (*)

Real value
(output at
basic

Share of
each item
in %
in 2000

-7.6
2.9
-54.5
-5.7
4.6
-21.7
-24.5
2.8

1.6
1.0
-4.5
9.3

3.4
2.8

0.0

0.0

-2.0

0.2

0.6
1.8
1.9

-4.1
0.0

-6.8

-4.7
-20.1
2.5
-0.3
7.9
20.2
-4.4
-6.6

-0.9
-9.1
3.4
3.8

-2.1
0.5

4.7

-7.8

-3.1

1.5

4.1
21.9
-0.1

-8.0
-0.6

-13.2

-11.9
-17.8
-53.4
-6.0
12.9
-5.9
-27.8
-3.9

0.7
-8.2
-1.3
13.4

1.3
3.4

4.7

-7.8

-5.0

//

//
//
//

//
//

//

Crop output
Cereals
Sugarbeet
Forage plants
Fresh vegetables
Potatoes
Fruit
Wine

Animals
Cattle
Pigs
Poultry

Animal products
Milk

Agricultural services output

Secondary activities (inseparable)

OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION

Energy; lubricants
Fertilisers and soil improvers
Feedingstuffs

GROSS VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES
Fixed capital consumption

NET VALUE ADDED AT BASIC PRICES

Other taxes on production
Other subsidies on production

FACTOR INCOME
Compensation of employees

NET OPERATING SURPLUS
Rents paid
Interest paid
Interest received

NET ENTREPRENEURIAL INCOME

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INPUT (total)
of which: non-salaried labour
of which: salaried labour

0.0
0.0
0.0

-11.6
-14.8
-52.3
-5.9
12.9
-5.9
-27.8
-3.9

2.3
-3.8
-1.3
13.4

1.3
3.4

4.7

-7.8

-4.5

1.7

4.7
24.1
1.8

-11.7
-0.6

-19.1

//
23.9

-14.4
-0.2

-17.8
-7.8
-7.8
-7.8

-18.4

43.1
7.7
1.2
12.0
2.3
2.1
7.0
7.0

30.3
12.3
9.6
6.6

18.9
15.5

1.2

6.5

100.0

53.8

46.2
18.4

27.7

100.0
93.6
6.4

100.0

12.8
5.8
54.3

100.0
40.0

60.0

//
7.5

67.5
13.2

54.3
1.4
3.6
2.0

51.3

(*) The deflator is the implicit price index of GDP at market prices:
Note: for more detailed information see statistical annex

+8.4 %

96 CHANGES IN INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES IN 2001 COMPARED TO 2000

eurostat

4. Agricultural Productivity in the EU

4.1. Introduction

4.1.1 Interest in productivity

The requirement that improvements in productivity be the driving force for ensuring a fair standard
of  living  for  the  agricultural  community  of  the  European  Union  has  been  a  founding  principle  of  the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) since its formation in the founding Treaty of Rome. Article 39 of the
Treaty regarding the CAP states as its first two objectives:

a) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational
development  of  agricultural  production  and  the  optimum  utilisation  of  factors  of  production,  in
particular labour;

b) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing

the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture.

Over time, the CAP has adapted to meet new challenges. Most recently, Agenda 2000 has widened
and deepened the reforms introduced in 1992. The internal and external challenges of enlargement, WTO
negotiations (affecting domestic support, market access and export subsidies) and EU budget costs among
others, mean that if the European Union is to thrive in more open world markets, then greater attention
will have to be made at ensuring the competitiveness of the agricultural industry. 

It  is  principally  against  this  background  policy  interest  of  improving  standards  of  living  for  the
agricultural  community  and  agricultural  trade  in  more  open  world  markets  that  the  major  uses  of  EU
agricultural productivity measures can be identified (58):

i) to monitor the health of the agricultural industry
ii) to make performance comparisons of the agricultural industries of the Member States
iii) to enable performance comparisons of the agricultural industry against other industries within the

same Member State

(58) The  OECD  “Manual  on  Productivity  measurement:  a  guide  to  the  measurement  of  industry-level  and  aggregate  productivity
growth”, published on the 3rd March 2001 summarises the “objectives of constructing productivity series” in the following way:
i)
ii) 
iii) 
iv) 
v) 

Technology - to trace technical change or shifts in the production frontier
Efficiency - to trace whether the maximum amount of output has been physically achieved with current technology
Real cost savings -  to trace real cost savings in production
Benchmarking production processes – to identify inefficiencies in the production processes
Living standards – to assess living standards,  per capita income being a simple example

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 97

eurostat

As the Statistical Office of the European Communities, Eurostat aims to provide policy makers and
analysts alike with information against which existing policies can be assessed and new policies enhanced. 

4.1.2 Key productivity principles

Output is viewed as a function of quantities of four types of input - capital, labour, land and raw

materials - given existing technical knowledge (59).

Productivity captures the relationship between outputs and inputs in production (60). Productivity
indicators are, therefore, ratios of measures of output to measures of input, that quantify the growth in
output not accounted for by the growth in inputs. Usually this ratio is measured using indices because the
heterogeneity of goods and services does not permit simply adding up units of different types of commodities
(OECD, 2001).

There is no single definition of productivity. Different measures are appropriate for different purposes

(such as those mentioned above). In general, productivity measures fall into three broad categories:

i) partial  productivity  measures  (sometimes  referred  to  as  single  productivity  measures):

these relate a measure of output to a single measure of input

ii) multi-factor productivity measures: these relate a measure of output to a bundle of two or three of

the factor inputs

iii) total-factor productivity measures: these relate a measure of output to a bundle of all the factor

inputs

These broad categories of productivity indicator have advantages and disadvantages. In short, the
advantages of the partial productivity approach are its ease of measurement and readability (once the
subject coverage, in this case the definition of the agricultural industry, are applied to both data sets).
Its disadvantage is that, in reality, output is a function of the developments in a number of factor inputs
that work together and inter-relate. Conversely, the multi- and total-factor approaches combine a number
of inputs and relate these to the development in output, but have the drawback that they place strong
demands on data availability.

4.1.3 Background to Eurostat’s agricultural productivity indicators

The sharpened policy context for agricultural productivity indicators and the move by Eurostat to
improve the relevancy of its statistics to policy (within a general move towards ensuring and enhancing
quality aspects of its data) have coincided with a growing body of international literature on productivity
to result in two measures of agricultural productivity that are now published by Eurostat.

In achieving publication of these series, Eurostat has consulted with international bodies (particularly
in its guidance by the OECD’s reference manual) and extensively with Member States. Nevertheless, it should
be understood that these productivity measures are still exploratory and that further refinements in the
methodology and scope for analyses are likely to take place over the coming years.

4.1.4 Eurostat’s agricultural productivity indicators 

On  the  basis  of  the  demands  placed  on  data  availability  and  the  policy  context  for  productivity
indicators, Eurostat has adopted two measures of agricultural productivity; one is a “partial” measure, the

(59) For further information about production functions see “Economics” by Begg, Fischer and Dornbusch published by McGraw-Hill.

(60) Ahearn et al (2001), ERS of the USDA in “Agricultural Productivity in the US”.

98 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

other a “multi-factor” measure. These measures are explained in detail within the “technical notes” section
at the end of this chapter but in basic form these measures correspond to:

eurostat

• partial productivity measure:

output : volume of Gross Value Added at basic prices 
input : volume of agricultural labour (measured in full-time labour equivalents)

• multi-factor productivity measures:

output : volume of agricultural industry output in basic prices
input : volume of a unit input bundle comprising capital, raw materials and labour

These productivity measures are among the most commonly used. Indeed the partial productivity
measure adopted is the single most frequently computed productivity statistic (OECD, 2001). This partial
labour productivity measure shows the time profile of how productively labour is used to generate value
added.  It  can  demonstrate  the  industry  contribution  to  economy  wide  labour  productivity  and  economy
growth (OECD, 2001) and, therefore, enables performance comparisons of the agricultural industry against
other industries within the same Member State.

However, this partial measure is not the primary productivity indicator because of the importance of
labour  input  in  the  agricultural  industry.  The  main  focus  of  analysis  is  the  multi-factor  productivity
indicator. The multi-factor agricultural productivity measure adopted by Eurostat shows the time profile of
how  productively  combined  inputs  are  used  to  generate  output.  It  is  used  to  analyse  industry-level  and
sectoral change. In making performance comparisons of the agricultural industries of the Member States it
is an important tool for reviewing past growth patterns and for assessing the potential for future economic
growth (OECD, 2001). 

The  reason  that  a  new  chapter  on  agricultural  productivity  makes  sense  in  this  Income  from
Agricultural  Activity  report  is  because  the  Income  Indicators  that  are  constructed  from  the  Economic
Accounts for Agriculture (EAA) and the Agricultural Labour Input (ALI) statistics, and analysed in this
report, are themselves a form of productivity indicator that measures the health of the agricultural industry
in the European Union (61).

Importantly, the productivity indicators that have been adopted have been done so on the basis that

they measure rates of productivity growth rather than measure and compare levels of productivity. 

4.2 Agricultural productivity growth within the EU Member States

For policy makers and analysts alike the need for coherent and harmonised long-term productivity
series  is  paramount.  Member  States  are  working  on  their  commitment  to  provide  Eurostat  with  the
background  long-term  series  for  the  revised  Economic  Accounts  for  Agriculture  (EAA)  and  Agricultural
Labour Input (ALI) statistics as well as improving methodological harmonisation. In the current period of
implementation of these revised manuals of methodology there are gaps in the data provided (particularly
constant price data) that mean that the productivity measures are incomplete in many cases, and there
are still some differences in harmonisation.

(61) Care must be taken not to equate this exactly with the standard of living of farmers. Indeed, Eurostat has also developed “Income
of the Agricultural Households Sector statistics” that present an aggregate picture of the overall income situation of agricultural
households,  covering  income  from  all  sources  not  just  from  farming  (diversification  into  non-farm  activities  having  been
promoted by successive CAP reforms) and deductions such as taxation and social contributions. The main income concept is net
disposable income. For further information see “Income of the Agricultural Households Sector -1999 report”, Theme 5, Eurostat,
ISBN: 92-828-8759-6.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 99

eurostat

Nevertheless, incomplete productivity indicators can be calculated for most of the Member States
(Luxembourg being the exception because revised accounts have not yet been verified). In a series of
graphics, the derived productivity time series are presented on a Member State by Member State basis. The
corresponding productivity data, together with the background volume indices for the outputs and inputs
covered as well as the weights derived are available in Annex III of this report.

The  aim  of  this  presentation  is  not  to  make  comparisons  of  growth  rates,  because  of  the
aforementioned differences in reference period and degree of harmonisation, but rather provide an
overview of developments on a Member State by Member State basis for as long a time period as national
data currently permit. As Member States meet their commitments to provide longer, more complete and
more harmonised time series data, such comparisons will be possible and have meaning. 

In extending the analyses to include the latest 2001 estimates, the provisional nature of these
2001 data should once again be underlined. As more primary data source information becomes available
on the Economic Accounts for Agriculture and Agricultural Labour Input statistics, so these data will be
revised. Nevertheless, it is interesting to put the latest provisional information contained in this report in
its longer-term context; it is the longer-term trends on which analyses are concentrated.

4.2.1 General overview

In  general  terms,  the  increases  in  productivity  can  be  explained  by  the  restructuring  of  the
agricultural industries within Member States (where they have comparative advantage), economies of scale
and  by  technological  progress  (such  as  in  plant  breeding,  application  methods,  mechanisation,  feed,
pharmaceuticals etc.) (62).

However, the determination of productivity changes has followed different paths in Member States

(as shown in Table 4.1), that are best illustrated between two extremes.

In the Netherlands, there has been fast growth in agricultural output volumes (an annual average of
+3% over their respective time periods as measured by the GVAbp). This growth helps explain why there
has been less of a reduction in agricultural labour compared to other Member States. There has also been
strong capital accumulation in the Netherlands. Growth has been the driving force behind the productivity
improvements in the Netherlands; such gains are often referred to as “progressive” (63).

In contrast to the Dutch model, agricultural output in Portugal has retracted (an average -2.5% per
year as measured by the GVAbp). This has been accompanied by disinvestment (about -1.1% per year) and
a steep reduction in agricultural labour (an average -5.3% per year). The cost savings have offset the
contraction of output, resulting in an improvement in multi-factor productivity. This type of productivity
growth is often called “recessive” (c.f. Footnote 63).

(62) Structural data from the Survey on the Structure of Agricultural Holdings (FSS) are used in the analyses for the period up until
1997. Although some 2000 FSS data have been supplied to Eurostat by Member States, these have not yet been verified and are
not yet available in the public domain. 

(63) See Eurostat (1991), Generation and distribution of productivity increases in European agriculture, 1967-87, (prepared by Butault

et al).

100 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table 4.1 Trends in output, factor inputs and productivity in Member States

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

90-01 90-01 91-01 95-01 90-01 74-01 90-01 90-01 87-01 90-01 87-01 79-01 74-01 73-01

Volume index

Output - GVA
Int.Consumption
Fixed capital
Labour

Input - total
Output - total

Productivity

Int.Consumption
Fixed Capital
Labour

Multi-factor

2.1
0.3

-0.4
-1.1

-5.1

-2.3

1.0

-0.6

1.8

7.5

0.7

2.0

1.4
0.8

-2.6

1.2

0.6

4.1

0.7
-0.1
-1.3
-3.1

-1.5
0.2

0.8
2.0
3.9

1.8

2.2
0.8
1.0
-2.5

0.0
1.8

1.4
1.3
4.8

1.9

1.8
0.9
0.8
-2.9

-0.9
1.4

0.8
1.0
4.9

2.3

-1.2
1.9
1.2
-4.7

-0.9
0.4

-3.1
-1.1
3.6

1.3

1.7
-1.2

-3.8

0.7

2.9

5.8

3.1
0.0
2.9
-0.7

0.4
1.5

3.1
0.1
3.8

1.1

0.2
0.4
0.3
-2.2

-0.8
0.2

-0.2
-0.1
2.4

1.0

-2.5
2.3
-1.1
-5.3

-1.9
-0.5

-4.7
-1.4
2.9

-0.5
0.1
0.3
-4.2

-2.4
-0.2

-0.6
-0.8
3.9

1.4

2.2

3.6
-0.3
-0.6
-3.4

-1.5
0.8

3.9
4.3
7.3

2.4

0.8
0.4
0.2
-2.0

-0.8
0.6

0.5
0.6
2.8

1.5

N.B. Fixed capital consumption and multi-factor productivity are currently limited to more restricted time periods in Spain (1990-
1998) and Ireland (1995-2000) than for the other items reviewed.

4.2.2 Analysis by Member States

Belgium:

Despite a continued reduction in the volume of agricultural labour (down a further 25% since 1990)
and  the  absence  of  upward  trends  in  the  volume  of  intermediate  consumption  goods  and  services
consumed by the industry or total agricultural area over much of the period, the volume of agricultural
output (as measured by Gross Value Added at basic prices) has risen. These developments provide the
background to the strong growth in agricultural productivity recorded in Belgium (the partial indicator
rising by more than 50% over the period for which data are currently available). 

The improvements in how productively labour has been used to generate value-added can be analysed

in terms of changing structures within the agricultural industry.

Over the period in question, the animal sector has been characterised by a rapid expansion of the
intensive livestock sectors (pigs and poultry) but a contraction of the cattle sector since the mid-1990s;
output volumes of pigs have risen by almost half since 1990, that of poultry has nearly doubled, but the
output  volume  of  cattle  has  fallen  by  nearly  a  third.  Structural  data  show  that  the  number  of  cattle
holdings declined by nearly a third between 1987 and 1997, pig holdings decreased by about 55% and
poultry holdings by about a third.

The average pig population per holding trebled in the decade between 1987 and 1997, with that of
poultry increasing at a not too dissimilar rate. On the specialist granivore holdings, this expansion has
required an increase in labour input, although this has been relatively moderate; the average volume of
labour on a specialist granivore holding increased from about 1 AWU per holding in 1987 to 1.3 AWUs per
holding in 1997.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 101

eurostat

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

150

125

100

75

Belgium

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

Within the crop sector, there has been continued growth in horticultural and vegetable production;
the  volumes  of  fresh  vegetables  and  plants  and  flowers  have  increased  by  about  a  third  since  1990
(although much of this was limited to the beginning of 1990s in the case of the former and end of the
1990s in the case of the latter). Although the number of such specialist holdings has declined (about 30%
in all), those remaining have grown in size (area and labour input). 

Denmark:

As in other Member States, there has been a continued and steady reduction in the volume of agricultural
labour  in  Denmark  since  1990  (down  30%).  The  volume  of  intermediate  consumption  goods  and  services
consumed  by  the  industry  over  this  same  period  has  remained  similar.  The  utilised  agricultural  area  has
declined very gradually but steadily. The volume of capital has also declined steadily and at a notable rate. 

Against the background of these lower inputs, however, the volume of agricultural output in Denmark

has increased a little (both in terms of Gross Value Added and total industry output). 

These  developments  are  reflected  in  the  steady  increases  in  agricultural  productivity  in  Denmark
since 1990 (an average +1.8% per year in multi-factor productivity and an average +3.9% in partial labour
productivity).

Agricultural production in Denmark is dominated by four main sectors; pigs, milk, cereals and cattle.
In contrast to the other sectors, the production of pigs intensified during the 1990s; output volumes have
increased by nearly half since 1990. This expansion in production came despite a reduction in the number
of holdings with pigs, reflected in the fact that the average number of pigs per holding doubled. The
expansion in poultry production has been at an even faster pace; output volumes rising by about three-
quarters, although the number of holdings almost halved. This expansion in intensive livestock production
has seen an increase in the volume of labour on specialist farms. 

Denmark

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

150

125

100

75

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

102 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

 
 
In contrast, the production of cattle has been in decline during the 1990s, with output volumes down
a quarter. There have been fewer cattle and falling numbers of holdings with cattle, although the average
number of cattle on those remaining holdings increased by about a quarter between 1987 and 1997 (the
rise in the average number of cows per holding being particularly strong). Within the specialist grazing
livestock farms, the volume of labour declined by about 40% during this same period. 

eurostat

Germany:

Since  the  reunification  of  Germany,  the  speed  of  reduction  in  the  agricultural  workforce  has
accelerated. This is largely explained by the impact of the restitution of land in the former Eastern Germany
back to private ownership. Despite less manpower, the volume of agricultural output (as measured by both
the GVAbp and total output measures) grew significantly (particularly in the period since 1995).

The increases in output volume of the agricultural industry as a whole were driven by the expansion
of  cereal  production  (output  volumes  being  an  average  +2.9%  per  year  higher  for  the  period  since
reunification). Within the cereals sector, expansion was centred on wheat and maize production (output
volumes rising by an annual average +3.3% and +5.4% respectively). The expansion in wheat and grain
maize production was based on higher areas sown to these two cereals. Output volumes also increased so
markedly because of the rise in average yields (averaged at +2.2% and +3.3% respectively). Associated
with this expansion in cereal production area, the volumes of fertilisers and plant protection products used
by the industry also rose strongly (an annual average +4.8% and +3.2% per year). Rises in the overall
volume of intermediate consumption goods and services used were kept in check by the fall in the volume
of feedingstuffs used (as a result of shrinking cattle numbers) and of the maintenance of machinery and
buildings.

Germany

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

175

150

125

100

75

50

Greece:

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

Productivity gains  in Greece since 1995 have been of  a “recessive” nature; output volumes have
declined but rates of decline in the volumes of intermediate consumption and labour have been steeper.

Output volumes in Greece were led lower by reductions in the volumes of cereals and fibre plants.
The reduction in the volume of cereal output was due to lower yields (particularly low in 2001 because of
the drought conditions) and reduced production areas (particularly for common wheat and barley). The
decline in fibre plants has been based on significant reductions in areas cultivated since 1999, although
this is exaggerated by the particularly high cultivated area recorded in 1995. Output volumes of the other
main  products  fluctuated  but  over  the  period  in  question  there  were  few  discernible  trends.  Total
agricultural area is estimated to have continued to decline.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 103

 
eurostat

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

150

125

100

75

Greece

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

The amount of intermediate consumption goods and services used by the agricultural industry have
been  in  steady  decline  since  1995  due  to  lower  volumes  of  fertilisers  (linked  to  the  decline  in  cereal
output) and the decline in feedingstuffs (both about 15% lower in 2001 than in 1995).

Although the overall number of holdings has been in decline over a longer period, structural data
suggests that this concerns the smallest holdings (those of less than 10ha). Indeed the number of holdings
of a size between 10ha and 50ha has even increased a little in the period since 1983.

An interesting feature of the agricultural workforce in Greece is that about 20% of the agricultural
workforce  are  over  the  age  of  65  years.  Despite  the  fact  that  the  number  of  workers  has  decreased
significantly, the numbers aged over 65 has increased. Furthermore, the majority of farmers in Greece (75%
in 1997) are part-time in so much as they provide less than half the labour input of an average full-time
worker, and this proportion has remained high since the early 1980s (70% in 1983, although within a
larger workforce). This is linked to the fact that on average, the agricultural holding in Greece continues
to be smaller than elsewhere in the EU (4.2 ha in 1997, a fraction higher than in 1987).

Spain:

Productivity gains since the beginning of the 1990s in Spain have been of a “progressive” nature,
with strong output growth (an annual average of +2.2% and +1.8% per year in terms of GVAbp and total
output  respectively),  coupled  with  some  capital  accumulation  and  a  greater  use  of  intermediate
consumption products.

Spain

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

200

175

150

125

100

75

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

104 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

 
 
eurostat

Output growth has been centred around growth in output volumes for animals (pigs and cattle),
cereals and fruit. Both pig and cattle populations have increased sharply, and with the number of livestock
holdings having decreased, numbers of livestock per holding have doubled (in the case of pigs to the EU
average in 1997 although in the case of cattle still considerably down on the EU average). The growth in
cereal output has been led by rises for grain maize (with a steady increase in yields, +33% since 1990)
but also wheat. In contrast, the production of barley (still the principal cereal) has declined with a steady
reduction in area (down a third since 1990).

Despite an average holding size above the EU average (21 ha in 1997), there is a disproportionately
high proportion of farmers that work less than half the average time of a full-time worker (some 70% in
1997, up from 64% in 1987). The proportion of older farmers has also risen (from 8% in 1987 to 15% in
1997).

France:

Strong productivity gains in agriculture have also been of a “progressive” nature in France during the
last thirty years. There has been relatively robust output growth (annual averages of +1.8% for GVAbp and
+1.4% for total output), against a background of capital accumulation (+0.8% per year on average since
1974) and some growth in the volume of intermediate consumption goods and services used (+0.9% per
year on average). In contrast, there has been a continued reduction in the volume of agricultural labour
(more than halving in the period under review).

Agriculture in France is diverse and there have been a number of factors behind the rise in output
volumes. As a whole, the total agricultural area has decreased by about one million hectares (between
1975 and 1997). However, within this lower overall production area, there has been an increase of one
and three-quarter million hectares in arable land. This increase, coupled with sharply higher yields of about
an average +1.8% per year for wheat (relatively steady throughout), +2.0% per year for barley (particularly
the jumps in the mid 1980s and late 1990s) and +2.4% per year for maize (steady throughout), provided
strong growth in cereals output volumes. Higher cereal yields have been achieved despite the fact that
the  volume  of  fertilisers  used  has  fallen  sharply  (about  -20%)  since  the  beginning  of  the  1990s.  In
contrast, the volume of plant protection products used has increased two and a half-fold.

France

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

150

125

100

75

50

25

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2001 (p)
2000

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

Granivorous livestock numbers (for pigs and poultry) have increased substantially over the reference
period. In the case of pigs, expansion has been fastest in the period since the late 1980s. The average
number of pigs per holding has increased substantially from a low level (a nine fold rise) to a figure well
above  the  EU  average  although  still  about  two-thirds  less  intensive  than  the  group  of  Member  States
comprising Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. These changes contrast

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 105

 
eurostat

with developments for cattle, for which output volumes have been relatively unchanged over the reference
period. The overall expansion in animal numbers has required a greater volume of feed (an average +1.3%
per year).

As with other Member States there has been a persistent decline in the volume of agricultural labour.
The structure of this labour, though, is a little different from many of the Member States. The numbers of
agricultural workers aged over 65 in France has held relatively steady at 8% of the total (in 1979 and
1997), with the other four age categories providing greater and similar proportions. This suggests that an
ageing farm workforce is not a characteristic in France. The number of full-time workers in agriculture in
France has increased a little from about 35% of the total in 1975 to 40% in 1997. The proportion of workers
contributing  less  than  half  the  average  contribution  of  a  full-time  worker  is  also  about  40%.  This
distribution reflects the diverse structure of agriculture in France. 

Most of the increase in the consumption of fixed capital can be traced to the period from the early
1970s through until the mid-1980s. In the period since then, although the volume has fluctuated and
finished with a rising tendency from the mid-1990s, it has only approached the levels achieved in the mid-
1980s.

Ireland:

In the short period between 1995 and 2000, there is thought to have been moderate productivity
growth of a “progressive” nature in Ireland; a small rise in the volume of output (an average +0.4% per
year) from a lower use of inputs (an average -0.9% per year). The lower volume of the bundle of multi-
factor inputs was exclusively due to the steep rate of decline in the volume of agricultural labour; both
volumes  of  intermediate  consumption  goods  and  services  and  the  consumption  of  fixed  capital  rose
moderately.  These  contrasts  explain  the  divergent  trends  in  the  partial  productivity  indicators  for  the
individual input items. 

Agriculture in Ireland is dominated by cattle and milk production. Any “progressive” productivity
gains, though, do not appear to come from these main sectors; the volumes of milk and cattle output since
1990 have not been on an upward trend during the extended review period (1990 to 2001). Indeed, there
has been relative stability in the supply of milk under the milk quota system and a strong downward move
in cattle output since the start of the downward cycle in the cattle population at the end of the 1990s
(coinciding with the all the problems of the BSE). The “progressive” nature of the productivity gains in
agriculture appear to have come from the output volumes of other livestock. Growth in output volumes
has been particularly strong in pig and poultry production. The average number of pigs per holding more
than  trebled  in  the  decade  between  1987  to  1997,  to  the  highest  average  concentration  level  in  the
European Union, with the average number of broilers per holding nearly doubling.

Ireland

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

150

125

100

75

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

106 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

 
eurostat

Expansion in intensive granivore livestock production has been behind the rise in the volumes of
feedingstuffs  and  particularly  the  sharp  rise  in  energy  consumption  since  1995  (these  two  inputs
developments explaining the overall increase in intermediate consumption volumes).

The decline in the volume of agricultural labour has been at a particularly fast rate in Ireland. This
is linked to the rapid reduction in small holdings; between 1975 and 1997, the number of holdings of less
than 5 ha declined by as much a 68%. The greatest loss of labour has been for part-time farmers, who have
typically farmed these smaller holdings. Full-time workers in Ireland now account for half of the workforce. 

Italy: 

The volume of agricultural output (both in terms of GVAbp and total output) has increased since
1990. This has been achieved in spite of reductions in the amount of intermediate consumption goods and
services used, sharp reductions in the amount of agricultural labour used and a marginal decline in the
total agricultural area. These developments suggest sharp gains in productivity.

Two  thirds  of  the  agricultural  industry  in  Italy  is  concerned  with  diverse  crop  production.  The
sensitivity  of  crops  to  the  weather  meant  that  output  volumes  of  crop  products  fluctuated  strongly
between years. Nevertheless, there were upward output volume trends for some of the main crop products.
In the case of fresh vegetables and fresh fruit, the reference period finished with significantly higher
output  levels  for  the  years  1999  to  2001.  Although,  the  volume  of  cereals  declined  strongly  in  2001,
output volume levels remained above those during the early to mid-1990s. Within the cereals sector, the
driving force for higher output volumes was the considerable expansion in grain maize production; the area
of grain maize increased by about 30% over the reference period (at the expense of barley and wheat in
particular) with a similar rise in average yields (those of barley and wheat remaining rather unchanged). 

Italy

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

150

125

100

75

50

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

Within  the  animal  sector,  there  was  output  volume  growth  for  pigs  (steady  increases  over  the
reference  period)  and  cattle  (restricted  to  the  period  up  until  1998).  Nevertheless,  there  were  strong
declines in livestock numbers for cattle, and within this dairy cows. The pig population in 2001 was also
down on the peak cycle numbers in 1990 but had picked up strongly since the cycle trough of the mid-
1990s. Within the pig sector, there appeared to be a move towards increasing numbers of fattening pigs
between 50 and 100 kg. 

The difference between the trends in livestock numbers and their output volumes (with rising carcass
weights) was underlined by the steady and relatively steep decline in the volume of feedingstuffs used by
the agricultural industry. The decline in overall intermediate consumption volumes was further assisted by
the steep decline in the use of fertilisers.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 107

 
eurostat

The number of agricultural holdings in Italy fell steeply in the decade between 1987 and 1997 (a
loss approaching some half a million holdings). These holdings were largely small holdings of under 10ha,
with  numbers  above  this  size  remaining  relatively  steady.  Such  losses  have  been  accompanied  by  a
considerable  downsizing  of  the  agricultural  labour  force,  which  has  concerned  part-time  workers  in
particular who represent about 85% of all workers. Nevertheless, Italy still has more agricultural labour
input than any other Member State (a fifth of the EU total). As with some other Member States, the country
is experiencing an ageing of the agricultural workforce. There has been an upward trend in the numbers of
workers over 65 years old but reductions in other age categories. Indeed nearly half of all workers were
aged over 55 years in 1997.

Luxembourg:

Unfortunately, it is not possible to present the results for Luxembourg because the revised Economic

Accounts for Agriculture have not yet been verified.

Netherlands:

The Netherlands has experienced rates of growth in the volume of output of the agricultural industry
that compare favourably with most other Member States (rates averaging +3.1% per year for GVAbp and
+1.5% per year for total output between 1986 and 2001). This growth has been supported by productivity
gains as well as capital accumulation. 

The  growth  in  agricultural  industry  output  has  been  driven  by  the  expansion  in  vegetable  and
horticultural (nursery plants, ornamental plants and flowers) production. Fresh vegetable production grew
strongly during the opening part of the reference period, having reached a plateau since about 1992. This
development closely followed the rise and subsequent stability in the area under outdoor fresh vegetables
(rather than that under glass). Plant and flower production has expanded at a relatively consistent and
fast  rate  (output  volumes  rising  at  an  average  +5.1%  per  year).  Areas  under  glass  and  outdoor  have
increased,  with  average  areas  per  holding  rising  strongly  (to  the  highest  averages  among  the  Member
States). 

Netherlands

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

125

100

75

50

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2001 (p)
2000

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

The expansion of plant and flower production under glass, particularly when providing off-season
supplies,  has  required  greater  amounts  of  energy,  for  both  gas  and  electricity.  Overall  intermediate
consumption  goods  and  services  volumes,  however,  were  remarkably  steady  over  the  reference  period.
Offsetting the higher volumes of energy and “other goods and services” (incl. water rates), were lower
volumes  for  fertilisers  and  feedingstuffs.  The  reduction  in  the  use  of  fertilisers  is  largely  due  to  the
tightening of tough environmental laws. The decline in the volume of feed used, however, is explained by
the fall in the number of cattle; over the reference period the cattle population is estimated to have fallen

108 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

 
eurostat

from about 5.1 million head to 3.8 million head, with that of dairy cows falling from 1.9 million head to
1.5 million head. Although the volume of milk has remained steady under production quotas, with an
increase in milk yield per cow, output volumes of cattle have declined. Under the review period there
appears to have been an almost complete pig cycle with rising volumes and pig numbers to the mid-1990s,
followed by a downward change to levels similar to the beginning of the reference period. 

Declines in the volume of agricultural labour have been at a much slower rate than other Member States.
Specialist horticultural production required increasing volumes of labour, particularly in the period through
until 1993. Specialist sheep, goats and other grazing livestock have also taken on more labour input. These
gains, in particular, have helped reduce the impact of the reduction in labour input on specialist dairy holdings.
The developments in these sectors also help explain the changing structure of labour between non-salaried
and salaried workers; the proportion of salaried labour rising from 25% to 35% of the agricultural workforce
during the reference period (which translates to an increase in the equivalent of 17,500 full-time salaried
workers). Dairy farms are typically family farms and the increased labour input on horticultural holdings (of
which there are steadily decreasing numbers) tends to be salaried labour. 

Horticultural  production  is  capital  intensive  and  the  expansions  that  have  taken  place  are  also
reflected in the strong rise in capital accumulation (an average +2.9% per year, setting the Netherlands
apart from other Member States). Such capital accumulation alone explains the overall rise in the multi-
factor input volume.

Austria:

Comparisons between the beginning and end of the review period (1990 to 2001) show that there
has been little volume growth in agricultural output in Austria, despite strong increases in 1998 and 1999.
This pattern is also the case for the developments in the volume of intermediate consumption goods and
services used. There has also been little change in capital input over the review period.

These developments help explain why the changes in multi-factor productivity so closely reflect the

changes in the partial productivity of labour (64).

Developments in the key products within the animal sector, when put together, exemplify the overall
volume developments for the industry as a whole. The volume of milk output was relatively steady during
the period 1990 to 1996. Since then, however, there has been relatively strong volume growth, despite
the fact that the number of dairy cows has continued to fall sharply (down about 250 000 head between
1991 and 2000). In contrast, the volume of cattle output has been on a downward trend since the early
1990s, despite a pick up in 1999. Although the number of pigs (and their output volume) peaked in 1998,
since when there have been significant reductions, the volume of pig output at the end of the review period
was a little higher than at the start.

Within the crop sector, the volume of wine output in 2000 and 2001 was down on the above-average
level of 1999 and a little down on the levels in 1990 and 1991. Nevertheless, volumes at the end of the
review period were significantly higher than the period 1992-1997. In the second half of the 1990s, the
volumes of fresh fruit were marked higher than in the first half, peaking in 2000 when volumes of summer
apples, pears and plums were high. The volume of cereals in Austria was lower at the end of the review
period than the beginning, despite a marked upturn in 2001. Within the group, the area sown to cereals
was fairly steady between 1992 and 2001 although significantly lower than in 1991. The main loss of area

(64) With the figures for agricultural labour input in Austria still under review, the provisional nature of the productivity indicators

should be emphasised. 

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 109

eurostat

has been to barley, which ceased to be the most widely sown of the cereals in 1998. The area sown to
wheat has increased sharply in the last two years of the review period with that of grain maize being on
a slight decline. For wheat and barley, although there were relatively strong annual fluctuations in yields,
there does not appear to be any upward trend. In contrast, grain maize yields have been rising despite the
lower yields recorded in 2001.

Austria

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

150

125

100

75

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

Within  the  intermediate  consumption  goods  and  services  sector,  there  were  significant  changes
within input groups. Although the overall volume of feedingstuffs consumed by the industry finished the
review  period  a  little  lower  than  the  beginning  of  the  1990s,  within  the  group  there  were  increasing
amounts of feed purchased from outside the industry (up by nearly 50%). This rise in external feed was at
the expense of feed produced and consumed on the same holding (down about 15%), although this is still
the  most  common  supply  of  feed.  Volumes  of  “other  goods  and  services”  purchased  rose  steadily  and
sharply, doubling between 1990 and 1999 before falling back a little. In contrast, there was a steady and
sharp fall in the amount of maintenance of materials.

There has been steady erosion of the capital stock in Austria since 1995. However, stronger capital
accumulation in the first half of the 1990s from a low level in 1990 is reflected in the small average rise
in capital over the review period as a whole.

The most distinctive trend in inputs has been the continued decline in the volume of agricultural
labour (a total fall of -22% over the review period, the equivalent of nearing 50 000 full-time workers,
although see Footnote 64). Almost exclusively, these workers have been family workers not receiving a
salary but rather sharing in farm profits.

Portugal:

Agricultural productivity gains in Portugal only relate to the partial labour productivity measure (an
average +2.9% per year) and the multi-factor indicator (an average +1.4% per year). These gains were of
a “regressive” nature because the rate of input decline was even faster than the significant decline in
output volume. 

The notable declines in output volume (averaging -2.5% per year in terms of GVAbp and -0.5% per
year  in  terms  of  total  output)  were  driven  by  the  fall  in  output  volume  of  cattle.  Domestic  sales  and
slaughtering  of  adult  bovine  have  fallen  sharply  over  the  review  period,  leading  to  a  steep  decline  in
output  volume  (down  by  a  little  over  half).  However,  it  is  important  to  underline  the  fact  that  cattle
numbers  have  remained  relatively  even  to  rising  (1.4  million  head  in  2000).  The  apparent  paradox  is
explained by the increasing number of animals classified as “fixed assets”. With output volumes of three
other key agricultural products remaining little changed between the ends of the reference period (fresh

110 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

 
eurostat

vegetables, poultry and cereals), the fuller effect of this decline in cattle output volume on levels for the
agricultural industry as a whole was noted.

The  relative  stability  in  cereal  volumes,  despite  strong  annual  fluctuations  caused  by  weather
conditions, was achieved despite across-the-board reductions in production areas; the total area of cereals
declined by half over the review period to some half a million hectares, with the reductions for soft wheat
(the area of durum wheat rising sharply from 1999), oats and grain maize being particularly strong. The
increase in yields, however, was restricted to grain maize (which more than doubled). Apart from grain
maize, therefore, output volumes of the other cereal types declined, exaggerated by the poor harvest in
2001.

Portugal

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

150

125

100

75

50

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2001 (p)
2000

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

Some further downward pressure on industry output volume over the review period available came
from wine, although the strong annual fluctuations make trends rather more difficult to assess. There have
been relatively average harvests in the past three years but at the start of the review period, there were
exceptional yields in 1987 and 1990. 

In contrast to other sectors within the industry, the volume of milk output increased significantly
(more  than  doubling).  This  has  been  achieved  through  greater  yields  per  cow,  a  part  result  of  the
restructuring of the livestock industry during the review period. Although there has been some regular
reduction in dairy herd numbers since 1996, improvements in yields have still resulted in ever increasing
volumes (albeit there being a fall in 2001).

The  volume  of  intermediate  consumption  goods  and  services  used  by  the  agricultural  industry
increased strongly over the period in question. These increases can be traced to the greater volumes of
feed  consumed  by  rising  livestock  numbers,  rising  use  of  “other  goods  and  services”  and  greater
maintenance of tools and buildings. Figures suggest a run-down in capital, centred on the period 1992 to
1997, since when there has been relative stability in the volume of fixed capital consumption.

The main reason for the overall decline in input volumes has been the steep and continued reduction
in the volume of agricultural labour. Labour reductions have been for both non-salaried (family labour in
Portugal) and salaried labour, although the former still predominates (accounting for about 75% of total
labour). Part-time work still predominates agriculture in Portugal, with over 60% of total persons working
less than half the average time of a normal full-time worker, and a further 24% between half- and full-
time. Indeed, structural data suggests that the greatest rates of decline in persons in agriculture have been
for the full-time workers. A striking feature of the labour force in Portugal is that there are more farmers
aged over 55 years than under, with many more over 65 years old (more than 25% in 1997) than under 35
years old (about 17% in 1997). Longer-term structural data points to a marked ageing of the workforce,
with many farmers continuing to work into old age on their small holdings (holdings under 10 ha still
accounting for 88% of all holdings in Portugal in 1997).

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 111

 
eurostat

Finland:

There have been strong multi-factor productivity gains in Finland during the period since 1979 (an
annual average of +2.2%). With small falls in the volume of output during the review (average annual
declines of -0.5% for GVAbp and -0.2% for total output), and declines in the multi-input volume bundle,
these gains have been of a “regressive” nature but point to significant technical changes. 

Finland

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

175

150

125

100

75

50

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2001 (p)
2000

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

The  agricultural  industry  in  Finland  is  dominated  by  the  animal  sector.  Within  the  sector  dairy
farming is the primary employer in the industry and milk is the most important contributor to the value
of the output of the agricultural industry. The downward pressure on the volume of industry output can be
traced in large part to the reduction in the volume of milk output that came with the introduction of quotas
(the cow herd falling sharply). This downward pressure was underlined by the reduction in the volume of
cattle output (cattle numbers also falling sharply to about one million head).

Output  volume  gains  were  somewhat  restricted  to  the  crop  sector,  where  there  was  continued
expansion in fresh vegetable production and, despite some relatively poor harvests in recent years, some
expansion in cereal production (areas increasing through until the end of the review period but yields
fluctuating wildly).

The volume of labour is estimated to have declined sharply and continuously over the period under
review. Nevertheless, latest structural data shows that there is a relatively strong proportion of young
farmers; three-quarters of the agricultural labour input was aged under 55 years old, with almost a quarter
under 35 years old. About half of all agricultural workers were engaged less than half-time in 1997, with
about a third working the equivalent of at least full-time.

Sweden:

In reviewing the productivity developments for Sweden in the period from 1974 to 2001, it should
be borne in mind that Sweden was not a member of the European Union until 1995. For the majority of
the period under review, therefore, developments occurred outside the immediate influence of the Common
Agricultural Policy.

During  the  period  under  review,  there  have  been  strong  increases  in  output  volumes  (averaging
+3.6% per year in terms of GVAbp and +0.8% per year in terms of total output) against a background of
reductions in the input volumes of intermediate consumption goods and services, capital and labour. This
suggests that there have been significant technical changes in the agricultural industry in Sweden. 

112 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

 
Sweden

eurostat

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2001 (p)
2000

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

The strong rise in the output volume of the agricultural industry over the review period has been the
result of specific expansions at particular moments. The first significant spurt of output growth was the
result of expansion in milk production in the period through until 1985 (output volumes coming close to
tripling over the eleven-year period). Such expansion was met with a voluntary quota scheme in 1985,
which although subsequently abolished in 1989, had the effect of curbing production. Since joining the
EU milk production has remained very steady (just over 10% down from the peak production level in 1985).
The second wave of growth can be attributed to the expansion in “ornamental plant and flower production”
(including  Christmas  trees)  and  fresh  vegetables.  Since  the  mid-1980s,  output  volumes  of  these  two
product sectors have risen steeply (each rising by about a third again), with specific programmes being
run just before accession in order to strengthen competitiveness. The third major push has come with the
increase in cattle output volumes during the 1990s (since the late 1980s, output volumes having risen by
almost half again). Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the overall cattle population has fallen in
the period for which data are available (1974 to 2001). Running the length of the period under review,
there has been a significant expansion in poultry production (output volumes more than tripling).

This  growth  in  output  volumes  for  the  agricultural  industry  has  been  achieved  despite  a  steady
reduction in intermediate consumption goods and services since 1978. This decline in input goods and
services can largely be explained by the rapid decline in the volume of fertilisers used by the industry since
the  early  to  mid-1980s,  as  tighter  environmental  regulations  were  put  in  place,  and  the  steady  but
considerable reduction in the volume of maintenance of materials and buildings. It is also important to
underline  the  development  for  feed,  since  this  is  the  primary  intermediate  consumption  input  in  the
agricultural industry; despite some cyclical fluctuations in feed consumption to fit with animal production
cycles,  the  volume  of  feed  has  remained  relatively  steady  over  the  review  period.  Nevertheless,  it  is
noteworthy that since 1990 increasing volumes of feed are being sourced from other agricultural holdings
than from outside the agricultural industry, although own produced and consumed feed together with feed
from outside the industry still dominate.

The decline in the volume of fixed capital consumption has been restricted to the decline in the fixed
capital of equipment in the period since 1988 (a significant fall of about 45%). In this period, the capital
accumulation in buildings has accelerated.

There has been a steep and steady decline in the volume of agricultural labour during the review period
(a total decrease of about 60%). These declines have been for both non-salaried labour input (essentially
family  labour)  and  salaried  labour  input  and  have  decreased  at  similar  rates.  Non-salaried  labour  still
predominates the remaining labour force, accounting for about 75% in 2001. The recent structural data that
exists suggests that specialist dairy holdings account for the greatest proportion of labour input (about 31%
in 1997), then mixed crops /livestock holdings (16%), cereals (14%), general cropping (13%) and horticulture

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 113

 
eurostat

(6%). The majority (61%) of agricultural labour is less than half time engaged in agricultural activity (full-
time engaged persons accounting for about 22%). Although there is greater labour input aged under 35 years
old than over 65 years old (unlike the relationship in most Southern European Member States), the distinction
is much less noticeable than for the other Scandinavian countries; labour input over 65 years old accounting
for about 14% of the total and 17% for under 35 years old in Sweden, compared to 11% and 35% respectively
in Denmark and 7% and 22% in Finland. 

United Kingdom:

In analysing the developments in productivity in the United Kingdom it is important to distinguish
between  two  separate  sub-periods,  before  and  after  about  1992.  Productivity  gains  of  a  “progressive”
nature were strongest in the opening two decades, with robust output volume growth built from higher
volumes  of  intermediate  consumption  and  capital  accumulation.  Since  then  “productivity”  gains  have
slowed and been of a more “regressive” nature, with lower agricultural output volumes but a faster falls
in the input volume bundle (lower volumes of intermediate consumption, capital input but particularly the
continued reduction in labour). 

United Kingdom

)
0
0
1
=
5
9
9
1
(

s
e
c
i
d
n
I

125

100

75

50

25

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2001 (p)
2000

Multi-factor productivity
(Industry output: bundle of labour, capital and raw materials)

Partial productivity
(GVAbp: labour)

Milk is the most valuable agricultural commodity in the United Kingdom. As with many other Member
States, the volume of milk output peaked in 1983, the year before milk quotas were introduced. These
controls on milk production curbed the progressive growth which had taken place from the mid-1970s.
There  was  a  subsequent  downward  trend  in  output  volume  (totalling  about  19%  through  until  2001),
resulting from a downsizing of the national dairy herd and despite rising yields per cow. 

One of the few increases in the volume of cattle output recorded over the period was in 1984 and
this had much to do with the slaughter of cows to accommodate the new milk policy. Since the mid-1980s,
however, there was a clear downward trend in the volume of cattle output which has accelerated with the
BSE and foot and mouth limitation policy and the lack of profitability in the sector. Some stability to the
animal sector was provided by the expansion in poultry production; the volume of output doubled since
the start of the 1980s, reflecting growing demand for white meat. Until the recent foot and mouth crisis,
there was also an upward trend in the volumes of sheep and pig output.

The volume of final crop output reached a high in 1984, with expansion in cereals output, oilseeds
production and a good fruit harvest. Final crop output volumes then fell back principally due to the lower
volume of cereals output. A new peak was reached in 1996, with the easing of the set-aside rate for arable
crops helping cereal and oilseeds output volumes to new highs. This coincided with good harvests for root
crops and a surge in horticultural production. 

114 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

 
eurostat

The volume of intermediate consumption goods and services increased relatively steadily through
until the mid-1990s. However, volumes have since fallen back, particularly for feedingstuffs, as an impact
of the BSE and foot and mouth crises and the loss of livestock numbers. The volume of fertilisers and plant
protection products used in agriculture in the United Kingdom rose particularly strongly during the period
of  expansion  in  cereal  and  oilseed  production  at  the  start  of  the  1980s.  Although  use  of  the  latter
continued to grow during following years, the amount of fertilisers used first stabilised and has also fallen
sharply at the end of the review period. The steady rise in the use of services and the cost of these services
was also a feature of the times. 

Over the review period there was a steady decline in the volume of agricultural labour. The largest
reductions  have  been  for  labour  on  specialist  dairy  farms,  specialist  mixed  crop  –  livestock  farms  and
specialist field crop – grazing livestock combined. The only area where there has been an increase in labour
input has been on specialist sheep holdings (although not at the rate of increase in such holdings). 

Over the review period there has been a small decline in the total agricultural area. There has been
a far more noticeable decline in the number of holdings, which has resulted in the average area per holding
rising even further away from the EU average (almost four-times the average in 1997). In large part this
distinction continues to be most noticeable for arable farms although average livestock holdings are also
among the largest in the European Union.

Technical box

In  choosing  the  precise  measures  of  agricultural  productivity,  Eurostat  has  had  to  make  a
number of choices; these have principally concerned the measures of output, the measures of input,
the price measures, the weights to be used for the factor inputs in the multi-factor indicator, quality
adjustment of labour and the index system to be used for the weights. 

In making its choices Eurostat has had to face both theoretical and practical difficulties, the
latter  predominantly  being  dictated  by  data  availability.  One  clear  policy,  however,  is  that  the
agricultural productivity indicators should be based within the frameworks of the revised Economic
Accounts for Agriculture (EAA’97) and their coherent counterpart, the Agricultural Labour Input (ALI)
statistics. 

Measures of output: Eurostat is aware that the outputs from agricultural production are more
than just physical measures of agricultural produce; there can be tangible environmental and social
outputs (resulting from policies to stem desertification for example). However, the integration of
environmental  and  social  accounting  into  agricultural  accounts  is,  whilst  under  discussion,  some
years from fruition. It is for this reason that Eurostat has adopted the measures of output (measured
in  constant  price  terms  because  of  the  heterogeneity  of  products)  and  indices  from  its  Economic
Accounts for Agriculture only. 

Measures of input: In not choosing to adopt a Total Factor Productivity (TFP) measure, Eurostat
has made the choice to exclude land as a factor input from its calculations. The main reason for this
concerns the absence of quality data on land prices in the Member States, that would be part of the
weighting  scheme.  Additionally,  there  is  the  difficulty  of  trying  to  measure  the  implicit  rental  of
owner-occupied land. Given that the volume of land was also thought to be the most stable factor
input, Eurostat chose not to include this input item and, therefore, to settle for a multi-factor rather
than total factor input.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 115

eurostat

The OECD manual prefers the use of actual hours worked as the favoured measure of labour input,
with  the  use  of  full-time  labour  equivalents  and  persons,  progressively  less  good  alternatives.  In
opting for full-time labour equivalent data, Eurostat recognised the absence of data on hours actually
worked for those working in the agricultural industry as a critical factor. However, on a more positive
note, the Agricultural Labour Input (ALI) statistics, from which the full-time labour equivalent data
(measure in Annual Work Units) are taken are fully coherent with the coverage of the agricultural
industry adopted as the measure of output (taken from EAA’97). Furthermore, the ALI statistics are
already  a  type  of  labour  account,  in  so  far  as  they  do  combine  existing  data  sources  within  a
harmonised framework. In some Member States, changing definitions over time in what is considered
normal full-time work have also been taken into account using chain indices to provide coherent
(unaffected by definitional change) developments.

Price measures: Basic prices for output have been selected since they are the principal focus of
the EAA’97 and they reflect the amount retained by the producer [and] is the price most relevant for
his decision making process (OECD, 2001). Eurostat did, however, carry out empirical work to look at
the impact of adopting a producer price. This work showed there to be almost no difference in the
measure  of  output  when  weighted  in  terms  of  either  basic  or  producer  prices.  This  seemed  to  be
explained by the accounting procedure adopted for breaking down subsidies into volume and price
components, in so far as the change in the volume component of the subsidies reflected the volume
change in the product to which the subsidy was linked.

Weights for factor inputs: The multi-factor productivity measure adopted requires weighting

schemes for three factor inputs; labour, capital, and raw materials.

Total labour input comprises both salaried and non-salaried labour input. The weight for salaried
labour input is the compensation of employees (in current euro prices). The weight for non-
salaried  labour  input  is  based  on  the  implicit  average  compensation  per  employee.  The
alternative was to base this on a three year average of net entrepreneurial income. The empirical
work carried out, suggested that there was little difference between the two methods. Eurostat
adopted the compensation per employee approach for non-salaried labour input, against the
OECD’s view that a common way to deal with this point is to assume that average compensation
[…] of a self-employed person equals that of a wage earner (OECD, 2001).

The choice of weight for capital input is not the preferred option of the OECD, because of the
practical  problems  in  drawing  up  a  capital  stock,  as  well  the  problem  that  money  spent  on
building capital stock could have been used in another way, which would have opened up the
issue of appropriate interest rates on alternative investments. Instead, Eurostat has used the
current prices of consumption of fixed capital as its weight. 

Raw materials are weighted by the current purchase prices of intermediate consumption. 

Adjustment of labour input: The adjustment of labour input for differences in type of labour
is the preferred approach of the OECD. Whilst recognising the heterogeneity of labour, Eurostat was
faced with data problems; although it would have been possible to break down the volume of labour
according to various socio-demographic characteristics (such as age and education among others)
there were no data sources available for the corresponding breakdown of remuneration of these labour
classes. From a policy perspective there was also uncertainty about whether it was desirable to quality
adjust to “constant quality labour inputs”.

116 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Index system to be used for the weights: Productivity is usually measured as a quantity index
of output over a quantity index of inputs. Indices are required because the heterogeneity of goods and
services does not permit simply adding up unit of different commodities. However, the results of the
index  aggregation  are  in  general  sensitive  to  the  choice  of  a  specific  index  number  formula  (OECD,
2001). Using annual weights against annual volumes creates a bias, because growth rates between
years can reflect changes in weights. Following the view that Fisher and Törnqvist [index systems]
come out first on most criteria (OECD, 2001), the Task Force proposed to adopt a Fisher index number
formula for weighting the input bundle. As with the output and input indices, the index system is
based on 1995 = 100.

In mathematical terms the multi-factor productivity measure is derived in the following way:

The Fisher index (F) for inputs is derived as

F =

LxP

where

L = Laspeyres index for inputs

P = Paasche index for inputs

where,

W0, Wt = weight at reference (1995) and current price respectively

Q0, Qt = volume index at reference (1995) and constant price respectively

i = type of input (labour, capital, intermediate consumption)

The multi-factor productivity index is:

Output index / Fisher index

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 117

ANNEXES

I.

II.

Notes on methodology

Detailed tables on the income from agricultural activity in
the EU

III. Detailed tables on the agricultural productivity in the EU

eurostat

I. Notes on methodology

A.1. The income indicators

The  estimates  of  the  agricultural  income  indicators  are  based  on  the  Economic  Accounts  for
Agriculture (EAA 97) (65), which in turn have been based on the ESA 95 (European System of Accounts).
The three income indicators are calculated as follows (a detailed description of the calculation steps can
be found in the introduction to this report):

Output of the agricultural industry

Intermediate
consumption

Gross value added at basic prices

Fixed capital
consumption

Net value added at basic prices

Other
subsidies on
production

Other taxes
on
production

Factor income

Indicator A

deflated,
divided by
AWU (total)

Factor income

Interest
received

Compensation of
employees

Land rents paid

Interest paid

Net entrepreneurial income

Indicator B

deflated,
divided by
AWU (non-
salaried)

Net entrepreneurial income

deflated

Indicator C

The  data  refer  to  the  agricultural  industry,  i.e.  they  focus  on  agricultural  output  (goods  and
services)  resulting  from  a  main  or  secondary  activity,  including  the  output  of  inseparable  non-
agricultural  secondary  activities (see  below,  Section  A.2)  on  agricultural  holdings.  The  income
aggregates  and  indicators  used  in  Chapters  1  and  2  of  this  publication  do  not  indicate  the  total  or
disposable income of households engaged in agriculture, since income may be derived from sources (other
activities, wages or salaries, social benefits, property income) other than “agricultural activity” in the

(65) Cf. Eurostat (2000): Manual on the Economic Accounts for Agriculture and Forestry EAA/EAF97 (Rev. 1.1), Theme 5, Methods and
Nomenclatures, Luxembourg.  This Manual is now available in all eleven official languages of the European Communities.

NOTES ON METHODOLOGY 121

eurostat

strict sense. In other words, agricultural income as described and analysed in this report must not be
regarded as farmers’ total income (66).

For Indicator B (the index of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income per non-salaried annual
work  unit),  data  for  14  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  only  are  shown  in  this  report;  for
methodological reasons no Indicator B is calculated for Germany, because in the new Länder of eastern
Germany there are a number of holdings organised as legal persons, in which, unlike sole proprietorships
and partnerships, wages and salaries are paid to all workers, including the members of/partners in the
enterprise. Holdings which are legal persons thus produce corporate profits (or losses) with no unpaid
labour force. In such a situation, Indicator B, the denominator of which is determined by changes in non-
salaried labour input, would be overestimated in relation to an actual individual income.

The income indicators published here refer to calendar years, and thus the figures differ from those

in the publications of certain countries which base their calculations on financial years.

A.2. The new methodology of the Economic Accounts for Agriculture

(EAA 97)

The introduction of the new methodology has resulted in a number of changes in the agricultural
accounts data, as a result of both the revision of the methodology itself and the use of new data sources.
Some of the changes have had a direct impact on value added and thus on agricultural income measures,
whereas others have altered only the level of certain aggregates without affecting value added or the
income measures (67).

Revisions which have had no impact on the level of agricultural income indicators (all things being

equal) are:

1. The valuation of output at basic prices. The basic price is defined as the price received by the

producer after deduction of all taxes on products but including all subsidies on products.

2. The abandonment of the concept of national farm: besides output sold by agricultural units (to
units  outside  the  agricultural  industry  or  to  other  agricultural  units),  stocked  or  used  for  own
consumption,  the  output  of  the  agricultural  industry  includes  that  share  which  is  used  as
intermediate consumption by the unit which produced it (for example, cereals used as animal feed).

Methodological revisions which did have an impact on the level of agricultural income indicators

include, more particularly:

1. The  recording  of  non-agricultural  secondary  activities  of  agricultural  units  where  these
activities  cannot  be  separated  from  the  principal  agricultural  activity.  These  are,  mainly,  the
processing of agricultural products and agri-tourism (“holidays on the farm”).

2. The exclusion of the output of units producing solely for own final consumption (e.g. the
kitchen  gardens  of  those  who  are  not  farmers)  and  for  which  agriculture  is  purely  a  leisure
activity.

3. The  recording  of  transactions  on  an  accruals  basis,  meaning  that  the  amounts  are  recorded
during the year in which the amount due or claim is created, transformed or ceases to exist. For

(66) For further information on this subject, please see footnote 7 in the introduction.

(67) For more details on the differences between the new and old methodologies, see Manual on the Economic Accounts for Agriculture

and Forestry, EAA/EAF97 (Rev. 1.1).

122 NOTES ON METHODOLOGY

example, the value of subsidies recorded in the accounts for year n corresponds to aid granted in
year n even if all or part of the amount in question is paid in year n+1 or later.

4. The reclassification of certain agricultural aid which used to be classed as “subsidies” and which
will now be recorded as “capital transfers”. The value of this aid will no longer be included in
the calculation of income.

eurostat

A.3. Agricultural labour input

Agricultural labour input is calculated in annual work units (AWU) to reflect the role of part-time
and seasonal work in agriculture. An AWU is equivalent to the time worked by one person employed full
time in agriculture on a holding over the whole year.

As  in  the  Economic  Accounts  for  Agriculture,  the  methodology  used  for  statistics  on  agricultural
labour input has been revised (68). Under the new methodology, there is a distinction between an AWU of
non-salaried labour input and an AWU of salaried labour input, the two combining to give total AWUs.

The  data  published  and  used  here  to  calculate  the  agricultural  income  indicators  are  based  on
changes in the number of AWUs. The harmonisation of time series at European Union level is an ongoing
process.

A.4. Aggregation of European Union data

Indices and rates of change for the European Union as a whole (EU-15 unless otherwise stated) can
be calculated either as weighted averages of national indices or rates of change, or calculated directly from
Community aggregates which in turn are calculated by converting national data into ecus/euros. In both
cases, a base year has to be chosen: in the first case, the one used for establishing the different countries’
share in the calculation of European Union averages, and in the second case the base year whose rates of
change are used for the aggregate calculations.

In this report, the calculations for the short-term (changes in 2001 compared with 2000) and long-

term (from 1990 to 2001) sections are based on slightly different methods and on different base years.

For the short-term section (Chapters 1 and 2 and Tables A.4 to A.8 of Annex II), the rates of change
in the volumes and nominal and real values of the European Union for 2001 compared with 2000 were
calculated as weighted averages of the corresponding estimated rates of change in the Member States.
The  weighting  factors  have  been  calculated  from  EAA  data  for  2000, converted  into  euro  at  2000
exchange rates: these weighting factors are, of course, specific to each item. Rates of change of nominal
and real prices have been derived from those of values and volumes. All in all, the method based on 2000
appears to be the most appropriate for short-term analysis and the most in tune with the method used by
the Member States for calculating rates of change in volumes and prices in 2001 for mixed product groups.

For the long-term section (Tables A.9 et seq. of Annex II), income indices and rates of change in
volumes and values for the European Union were calculated from EU aggregates expressed in ecus/euros
at constant 1995 exchange rates; for real values, the deflators are also based on 1995 = 100. The price
indices  and  rates  of  change  are  derived  from  the  corresponding  values  and  volumes.  For  reasons  of
consistency, the EAA at constant 1995 prices is used in the calculation of indices and rates of change in
volumes and prices for each Member State.

(68) Cf. Eurostat (2000): Target methodology for agricultural labour input statistics (Rev. 1), Theme 5, Methods and Nomenclature
series, Luxembourg.

NOTES ON METHODOLOGY 123

eurostat

A.5

Calculation of deflated time series

For  each  Member  State,  indices  and  rates  of  change  in  the  real-terms  prices  and  values  of
individual products, aggregates and indicators are obtained by deflating the corresponding nominal figures
with the implicit price index of gross domestic product at market prices. For long-term series, use is
made of the GDP price index with base 1995 = 100. For short-term changes, i.e. 2001 compared with 2000,
the rates of change for this index for 2001 and all Member States (with the exception of Germany, France,
the Netherlands and Austria, which were sending Eurostat their own estimates) are forecasts from the
European Commission’s Economic and Financial Affairs Directorate-General.

There are a number of important points in favour of using this deflator, such as its reliability and
comparability. The implicit GDP price index is an indicator of trends in the general level of prices of all
goods and services produced in a national economy. The price index of final national uses could also serve
as an appropriate deflator. Unlike the GDP price index, this takes immediate account of the influence of
external trade and thus reacts faster and less ambiguously to price changes for imports (e.g. energy price
changes). However, to ensure comparability with other Commission publications, it was decided not to
introduce a new deflator.

Real values for the European Union as a whole are calculated by deflating each Member State’s
nominal  values  (at  current  prices)  with  the  implicit  GDP  price  index  of  the  country  concerned  and
converting the results into ecus/euros (at 1995 exchange rates for the long term and 2000 rates for the
short term, as indicated above). The results are then added together to give real values for the European
Union. These aggregates, in real values, are then used for calculating indices and rates of change for EU 15,
obviating the need to calculate a “European Union deflator”. In particular, it is the European Union income
aggregates in this deflated form expressed in 1995 ecus/euros that are set against the number of annual
work units in the European Union as a whole for the calculation of the trend in income indicators for EU-
15 (and EUR-12).

where:

= Indicator A (in ecus/euros per AWU);
= Agricultural factor income (in national currency);
= Implicit price index of gross domestic product at market prices (1995=100);
= Exchange rate (1 ecus/euros = ...national currency);

IND A
FI
GDPpi
ER
ALItotal = Total agricultural labour input (in AWU);
i
t

= Member State (B...UK);
= Year (1973 ... 2001).

Finally,  this  method  makes  the  calculation  of  a  deflator  for  the  European  Union  as  a  whole
unnecessary, and therefore none is given in this publication. However, the “average rate of inflation for
the European Union” which could be derived from the above-mentioned real value calculation (a rate which
would  in  fact  differ,  depending  on  the  product  or  aggregate  chosen  for  calculating  it)  would  not
correspond to the figures in the Commission’s other publications for the average change in the implicit
price index of gross domestic product in the European Union (as this rate of change is generally calculated
from each Member State’s share in the European Union’s GDP expressed in PPS).

124 NOTES ON METHODOLOGY

II.

Table A.1.

Table A.2.
Table A.3
Table A.4.
Table A.5.
Table A.6.
Table A.7.
Table A.8.
Table A.9.
Table A.10.
Table A.11.
Table A.12.
Table A.13.
Table A.14.
Table A.15.
Table A.16.
Table A.17.
Table A.18.
Table A.19.
Table A.20.
Table A.21.
Table A.22.
Table A.23.
Table A.24.
Table A.25.
Table A.26.
Table A.27.
Table A.28.
Table A.29.
Table A.30.
Table A.31.
Table A.32.
Table A.33.
Table A.34.

Table A.35.

Table A.36.
Table A.37.
Table A.38.

eurostat

Detailed tables on the income from agricultural activity in the EU

Agriculture in the economy: gross value added at market prices of agriculture as % share
of gross domestic product at market prices
Agriculture in the economy: agricultural employment as % share of total employment
Economic accounts for agriculture in 2000 - at current prices and current exchange rates
% changes in volume, 2001 compared to 2000
% changes in nominal prices, 2001 compared to 2000
% changes in real prices, 2001 compared to 2000
% changes in nominal value, 2001 compared to 2000
% changes in real value, 2001 compared to 2000
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Belgique / Belgie
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Danmark
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Deutschland
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Ellada
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Espana
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - France
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Ireland
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Italia
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Luxembourg
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Nederland
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Österreich
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Portugal
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Suomi / Finland
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Sverige
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - United Kingdom
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - EUR-12
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - EU-15
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Czech Republic
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Estonia
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Hungary
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Lithuania
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Malta
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Poland
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Slovak Republic
Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 - Slovenia
Indicator A: indices of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit
(AWU) (“1995” = 100)
Indicator B: indices of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per non-salaried
annual work unit (AWU) (“1995” = 100)
Indicator C: indices of real net entrepreneurial income of agriculture (“1995” = 100)
Volume of total labour input in agriculture in annual work units (AWU) from 1990 to 2001
Volume of non-salaried labour input in agriculture in annual work units (AWU) from 1990
to 2001

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 125

eurostat

Table A.1. Agriculture in the economy: share of gross value added at market prices of agriculture

in gross domestic product at market prices (in %)

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

EUR-12
EU-15

1990

1.7
3.4
:
:
4.7
3.1
6.7
3.0
1.4
3.8
2.4
4.7
2.7
1.0
1.2

:
:

…

…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…

…
…

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

1.4
2.3
0.8
6.6
3.8
2.2
5.0
2.6
0.8
3.0
1.8
2.7
2.1
0.8
1.1

2.0
1.9

1.2
2.5
0.7
6.7
3.5
2.1
4.6
2.7
0.9
2.9
1.2
2.7
0.8
0.7
1.1

1.9
1.8

1.2
2.4
0.8
6.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.6
0.8
2.8
1.1
2.7
0.8
0.6
0.9

1.9
1.8

1.3
2.2
0.8
5.8
3.9
2.0
3.2
2.5
0.6
2.6
1.1
2.3
0.7
0.6
0.7

1.9
1.7

1.2
1.7
0.7
5.2
3.8
2.0
2.6
2.4
0.7
2.5
1.1
2.0
0.5
0.6
0.6

1.8
1.6

0.9
1.5
0.6
5.1
3.3
1.9
2.1
2.4
0.6
2.2
1.1
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.5

1.7
1.5

1.0
1.7
0.7
4.7
3.2
1.8
1.8
2.2
0.5
2.1
1.0
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.4

1.7
1.4

Source: Eurostat B-2 (National Accounts), Eurostat F-1 (Economic Accounts for Agriculture)

Table A.2. Agriculture in the economy: agricultural employment as share of total employment

(in %)

1985 … 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

9.0
4.8

9.9
5.7

9.2
5.5

9.2
5.1

2.8
4.6
3.1

2.6
4.7
3.3

2.8
4.8
3.5

2.6
5.2
4.0

2.6
3.5 … 3.1
4.0
6.0 … 5.1
3.0
4.9 … 3.6
28.1 … 23.2 21.4 21.2 20.6 20.3 19.8
8.5
:
… 10.9
7.9 … 6.0
4.5
15.8 … 14.7 13.4 13.1 12.2 11.7 11.2
:
…
8.4
7.0
4.4 … 3.7
6.2
3.7
5.1 … 4.6
3.8
3.8
7.0
:
…
:
… 17.0 16.5 10.9 10.9 11.2 10.9
:
6.8
:
…
:
2.5
:
…
:
1.9
2.1
2.2 … 2.0

7.4
3.0
4.0
:

7.2
3.0
3.9
:

:
3.4
4.3
:

:
:
1.9

:
:
2.1

:
:
1.9

:
:

:

:

2.3
3.1
2.7

2.6
3.5
2.8

1.9
2.1
2.7
3.5
3.4
3.5
2.5
2.6
2.7
19.7 19.3 17.3 16.5 16.5
6.2
7.3
7.6
7.9
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.3
7.6
8.7
10.4 10.0
4.8
5.3
6.1
6.2
2.4
2.8
2.3
2.5
3.6
3.7
3.2
3.4
5.9
6.2
6.6
7.2
11.5 12.6 13.0 12.0 11.9
5.0
5.9
6.8
2.4
2.4
2.4
1.4
1.6
1.9

6.8
4.0
8.2
5.0
1.9
3.2
6.0

6.3
2.4
1.7

5.3
2.5
1.4

EUR-12
EU-15

:
:

…
…

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

5.7
4.9

5.5
4.7

5.4
4.6

5.1
4.4

4.8
4.2

4.7
4.0

Source: Eurostat E-1 (Labour force survey)

126 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table A.3 Economic accounts for agriculture in 2000 at current prices and current exchange rates

(mio Euro)

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

2,921

2,653 18,277

5,823 18,016 31,105

1,058 24,140

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

157

54

570

3,405

2,152

2,668

4,863

107

2,593

0

161

15

0

69

2

129

75

10

0

9,446

2,124

2,877

1,415

2,078

7,533 117,278 129,541

187

327

0

5

263

15

303

354

1,548 17,036 19,508

0

0

0

452

452

- at basic prices

3,024

3,223 21,521

7,961 20,683 35,899

1,163 26,604

85

9,634

2,446

3,125

1,718

2,431

9,081 133,862 148,597

CEREALS (including seeds)

- at producer prices

205

1,059

5,031

- subsidies on product

106

496

2,644

- taxes on product

0

0

0

626

487

0

3,054

6,908

198

3,080

17

183

1,184

3,056

100

1,539

0

43

0

100

6

0

51

0

464

243

0

227

151

0

456

254

0

558

2,636 20,447 24,700

289

1,200

9,821 11,806

0

0

143

143

- at basic prices

310

1,554

7,675

1,113

4,238

9,921

297

4,518

23

234

707

379

710

848

3,836 30,125 36,363

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

333

215

2,150

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

16

54

75

0

761

161

806

961

0

846

2,855

75

1,223

560

1,170

0

5

0

2

330

29

- at basic prices

295

290

2,750

1,767

1,406

4,020

73

1,524

2

1

0

3

325

192

0

0

56

0

69

40

0

325

248

109

72

19

0

91

160

1,051

8,947 10,373

29

0

249

3,915

4,268

0

252

252

188

1,301 12,610 14,389

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

514

525

4,601

369

766

4,295

451

1,839

17

433

463

278

514

860

132 14,539 16,057

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

35

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

37

0

460

0

0

0

61

0

2

0

89

0

21

0

0

0

27

0

35

0

94

0

734

863

0

0

- at basic prices

548

525

4,601

369

804

4,755

451

1,901

19

523

485

278

541

895

226 15,273 16,920

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

1,243

558

3,945

1,491

5,395

5,201

184

7,305

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

4

0

0

0

0

- at basic prices

1,243

558

3,945

1,491

5,397

5,198

184

7,305

POTATOES (including seeds)

- at producer prices

324

117

928

310

554

1,139

69

417

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

31

0

0

0

0

0

- at basic prices

324

117

928

310

554

1,170

69

417

FRUITS

- at producer prices

281

35

691

1,347

4,735

2,338

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

0

0

0

0

0

0

141

0

55

0

127

2

- at basic prices

281

35

691

1,488

4,790

2,463

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

930

44

1,192

8,078

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

15

930

44

1,192

8,063

7

0

0

7

0

0

0

0

4,485

0

0

4,485

3,950

0

0

3,950

4

0

0

4

3

0

0

3

4

0

0

4

29

0

0

29

6,766

308

979

261

322

2,534 33,082 36,496

23

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

25

5

25

5

6,789

307

979

261

322

2,534 33,102 36,516

609

51

132

77

136

744

4,612

5,609

11

0

6

0

1

0

4

0

1

0

0

0

52

0

53

0

619

57

133

81

136

744

4,664

5,662

323

257

641

2

0

0

1

65

0

325

257

706

0

0

0

0

389

472

0

4

5

15

386

462

32

0

0

32

0

0

0

0

36

375 15,141 15,587

0

0

0

0

390

390

3

3

36

375 15,528 15,974

0

0

0

0

0 15,084 15,084

0

0

5

34

5

34

0 15,056 15,056

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 127

eurostat

Table A.3 Economic accounts for agriculture in 2000 at current prices and current exchange rates

(mio Euro)

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

1396.0

137.1

2326.6

621.3

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

1.9

0.0

8.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

3.3

0.0

- at basic prices

1397.9

145.1

2334.5

624.6

CEREALS (including seeds)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

551.8

0.0

0.0

551.8

297.4

0.8

0.0

298.2

234.9

1.1

0.0

236.0

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

POTATOES (including seeds)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

FRUITS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

76.3

0.0

0.0

76.3

147.4

0.0

0.0

147.4

81.0

0.0

0.0

81.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

49.7

6.8

0.0

56.6

8.4

1.0

0.0

9.4

30.4

0.0

0.0

30.4

12.9

0.0

0.0

12.9

25.5

0.0

0.0

25.5

7.8

0.0

0.0

7.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1006.8

234.9

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

1007.1

234.9

229.0

0.0

0.0

229.0

96.1

0.0

0.0

96.1

462.5

0.0

0.0

462.5

107.4

0.0

0.0

107.4

386.7

7.7

0.0

394.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

67.3

3.3

0.0

70.6

126.1

0.0

0.0

126.1

80.3

0.0

0.0

80.3

68.5

0.0

0.0

68.5

10.8

0.0

0.0

10.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

128 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

68.4

0.3

0.0

68.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.4

0.0

0.0

2.4

47.3

0.2

0.0

47.5

12.5

0.0

0.0

12.5

6.2

0.0

0.0

6.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5992.1

451.3

67.3

0.0

2.9

0.0

6059.3

454.2

2148.3

170.5

67.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

2215.6

170.5

629.5

0.0

0.0

629.5

727.3

0.0

0.0

727.3

837.5

0.0

0.0

837.5

1000.3

0.0

0.0

1000.3

558.5

0.0

0.0

558.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

75.1

0.9

0.0

76.0

26.9

0.0

0.0

26.9

86.8

0.0

0.0

86.8

43.7

2.0

0.0

45.7

47.6

0.0

0.0

47.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

421.4

20.5

0.0

441.9

64.5

14.8

0.0

79.3

21.3

2.8

0.0

24.1

11414.0

112.2

0.0

11526.2

4226.5

89.2

0.0

4315.7

1328.0

8.9

0.0

1336.8

120.4

1364.5

2.7

0.0

3.8

0.0

123.2

1368.3

48.6

0.0

0.0

48.6

21.9

0.2

0.0

22.0

71.6

0.0

0.0

71.6

71.8

0.0

0.0

71.8

1652.2

0.2

0.0

1652.5

1427.2

2.2

0.0

1429.4

1170.1

7.8

0.0

1177.9

71.8

0.0

0.0

71.8

eurostat

Table A.3. Economic accounts for agriculture in 2000 at current prices and current exchange

rates (mio Euro)

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

- at producer prices

23

144

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

0

0

0

0

- at basic prices

23

144

ANIMAL OUTPUT

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

809

564

15

739

830

0

1,358

1,569

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,324

663

0

1,987

22

734

291

75

518

0

0

0

0

18

0

8

0

0

0

22

734

309

83

518

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

808

11

0

819

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

72

0

0

72

8

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

2,944

2,944

2,057

2,057

15

15

4,986

4,986

61

2,481

2,691

4

0

37

0

41

0

65

2,518

2,733

- at producer prices

3,799

4,758 19,387

2,464 11,459 22,340

3,635 13,293

151

8,081

2,386

2,314

1,656

2,307 11,387 90,964 109,416

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

102

18

56

6

567

62

251

13

685

1,543

0

54

769

31

238

26

9

1

57

21

126

42

114

281

117

2,053

4,741

6,967

0

7

0

24

274

304

- at basic prices

3,882

4,808 19,892

2,701 12,144 23,829

4,374 13,505

159

8,117

2,470

2,428

1,930

2,423 13,416 95,432 116,079

ANIMALS

- at producer prices

2,753

3,165

9,814

1,261

8,610 13,685

2,153

8,248

64

4,470

1,354

1,506

518

1,017

6,928 54,436 65,547

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

97

14

56

0

567

251

685

1,541

0

0

0

23

767

12

238

26

9

0

52

0

126

113

5

0

62

0

85

2,017

4,508

6,666

0

0

80

80

- at basic prices

2,836

3,221 10,380

1,511

9,295 15,203

2,908

8,461

73

4,521

1,475

1,619

581

1,103

8,945 58,864 72,133

Cattle

- at producer prices

989

338

3,205

215

1,932

6,492

1,372

3,320

45

1,250

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

91

8

54

0

523

0

45

0

325

1,391

0

18

633

10

111

23

9

0

29

0

564

121

2

265

202

398

2,118 19,850 22,704

72

0

61

0

78

1,476

3,411

5,018

0

0

61

61

- at basic prices

1,072

393

3,728

260

2,256

7,865

1,995

3,408

54

1,278

684

337

263

475

3,593 23,200 27,661

Pigs

- at producer prices

1,435

2,337

5,126

276

3,698

3,024

272

2,151

17

2,422

656

484

229

393

1,311 19,791 23,831

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

5

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

1

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

14

14

16

14

- at basic prices

1,435

2,337

5,126

276

3,698

3,019

271

2,151

17

2,431

653

484

229

395

1,311 19,791 23,833

Equines

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

15

0

0

15

5

1

0

7

6

0

0

6

4

2

0

6

65

0

0

65

152

44

0

1

0

0

1

64

123

162

0

0

0

0

1

0

64

123

162

598

206

0

1,182

361

0

614

149

0

205

134

1

41

0

0

41

234

127

2

196

803

1,543

763

338

359

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

27

0

0

27

83

14

0

98

2

0

0

2

8

0

0

8

25

126

5

0

41

0

30

167

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

2

66

201

508

782

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

66

201

509

783

13

1,112

3,227

4,356

4

0

541

1,081

1,628

0

3

3

17

1,653

4,305

5,980

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 129

eurostat

Table A.3. Economic accounts for agriculture in 2000 at current prices and current exchange

rates (mio Euro)

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMAL OUTPUT

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.2

0.0

0.0

7.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.3

0.1

0.0

2.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

38.1

0.0

0.0

38.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.4

0.0

0.0

33.4

- at producer prices

1398.6

186.2

2077.9

454.2

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

21.4

0.0

7.3

0.0

16.7

0.0

0.3

0.0

- at basic prices

1420.0

193.6

2094.6

454.4

ANIMALS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Pigs

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Equines

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

788.1

6.2

0.0

794.3

204.0

5.1

0.0

209.1

453.8

0.0

0.0

453.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

1.6

70.4

0.1

0.0

70.6

16.1

0.0

0.0

16.1

45.3

0.0

0.0

45.3

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.5

0.1

0.0

0.7

1346.8

208.9

16.6

0.0

0.3

0.0

1363.4

209.2

100.4

0.3

0.0

100.6

48.5

0.3

0.0

48.8

700.7

121.7

7.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

708.0

121.7

7.1

0.0

0.0

7.1

37.1

0.0

0.0

37.1

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.7

1.5

0.0

0.0

1.5

130 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

83.4

0.0

0.0

83.4

53.5

0.0

0.0

53.5

5.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

19.3

0.0

0.0

19.3

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

90.6

0.0

0.0

90.6

5922.4

0.0

0.0

5922.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.7

744.1

31.0

0.0

775.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.3

0.0

0.0

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

173.6

0.1

0.0

173.8

495.5

11362.3

8.4

0.0

85.2

0.0

504.0

11447.5

3439.1

473.7

301.8

6682.2

0.0

0.0

7.5

0.0

8.4

0.0

39.1

0.0

3439.1

481.2

310.2

6721.4

457.5

112.6

119.5

1063.6

0.0

0.0

1.5

0.0

6.9

0.0

14.0

0.0

457.5

114.1

126.3

1077.6

2253.7

258.4

0.0

0.0

1.5

0.0

2253.7

259.9

52.9

0.0

0.0

52.9

6.0

0.0

0.0

6.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.3

6.6

4.6

0.0

11.2

98.3

0.3

0.0

98.5

3.3

0.4

0.0

3.7

6.7

0.9

0.0

7.6

3951.2

9.1

0.0

3960.3

64.6

0.4

0.0

65.0

59.1

6.6

0.0

65.7

eurostat

Table A.3. Economic accounts for agriculture in 2000 at current prices and current exchange

rates (mio Euro)

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

Poultry

- at producer prices

296

174

922

137

1,311

3,039

143

1,787

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

- at basic prices

296

174

922

137

1,311

3,040

143

1,787

1

0

0

1

675

84

466

74

103

2,142

8,936 11,354

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

675

84

466

74

103

2,142

8,937 11,355

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

1,046

1,593

9,573

1,203

2,849

8,655

1,482

5,045

87

3,612

1,032

808

1,138

1,289

4,459 36,528 43,869

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

5

4

0

6

0

62

0

13

0

0

2

31

2

19

0

0

0

1

5

21

0

37

0

0

218

7

32

0

36

24

233

194

301

224

- at basic prices

1,047

1,587

9,511

1,190

2,849

8,626

1,466

5,045

86

3,596

995

809

1,349

1,321

4,471 36,567 43,946

Milk

- at producer prices

892

1,516

8,606

968

2,119

7,682

1,445

4,129

83

3,208

852

695

846

1,146

3,791 31,524 37,977

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

5

4

0

6

0

62

0

13

0

0

2

31

2

19

0

0

0

1

0

21

0

36

0

0

218

7

32

0

36

24

228

193

295

224

- at basic prices

893

1,510

8,544

955

2,119

7,653

1,428

4,129

82

3,186

816

695

1,057

1,178

3,803 31,558 38,049

Eggs

- at producer prices

153

72

946

161

650

792

28

883

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

- at basic prices

153

72

946

161

650

792

28

883

Other animal products

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

1

0

0

1

5

0

0

5

22

0

0

22

74

0

0

74

79

181

0

0

0

0

79

181

9

0

0

9

32

0

0

32

4

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

346

123

5

0

0

0

351

123

84

0

0

84

48

0

0

48

95

609

4,218

4,993

0

0

0

0

5

0

6

0

95

609

4,223

4,999

58

0

0

58

56

0

0

56

29

244

0

0

0

0

29

244

48

0

0

48

59

786

898

0

0

0

0

0

0

59

786

899

- at producer prices

6,720

7,411 37,664

8,287 29,475 53,445

4,693 37,433

226 17,528

4,510

5,191

3,071

4,384 18,920 208,242 238,957

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

259

72

627

3,972

2,403

3,353

6,406

877

2,831

6

223

28

0

123

33

155

19

1

245

21

453

47

377

15

584

471

3,600 21,777 26,475

7

0

24

725

756

- at basic prices

6,906

8,031 41,412 10,662 32,827 59,728

5,537 40,110

244 17,751

4,916

5,553

3,648

4,855 22,497 229,294 264,676

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

33

305

1,379

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

0

0

0

0

0

0

- at basic prices

33

305

1,379

0

0

0

0

396

2,553

275

956

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

396

2,553

275

956

7

0

0

7

1,411

162

41

0

0

0

1,452

162

6

0

0

6

105

109

1,078

7,283

8,775

0

0

0

0

0

0

41

0

41

0

105

109

1,078

7,324

8,816

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

6,753

7,715 39,043

8,287 29,870 55,998

4,968 38,389

234 18,939

4,672

5,197

3,175

4,493 19,999 215,525 247,732

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

259

72

627

3,972

2,403

3,353

6,406

877

2,831

6

223

28

0

123

33

155

19

1

285

21

453

47

377

15

584

471

3,600 21,818 26,516

7

0

24

725

756

- at basic prices

6,939

8,336 42,792 10,662 33,223 62,281

5,812 41,065

252 19,203

5,078

5,558

3,753

4,964 23,575 236,617 273,492

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 131

eurostat

Table A.3. Economic accounts for agriculture in 2000 at current prices and current exchange

rates (mio Euro)

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

Poultry

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Milk

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Eggs

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Other animal products

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

129.7

0.0

0.0

129.7

610.6

15.2

0.0

625.7

519.7

15.2

0.0

534.9

90.9

0.0

0.0

90.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

2794.6

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

23.3

0.0

2817.9

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

24.5

0.0

0.0

24.5

- at producer prices

2819.1

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

23.3

0.0

2842.4

8.4

0.0

0.0

8.4

475.7

9.1

0.0

484.8

36.4

0.0

0.0

36.4

115.8

731.1

245.3

7.2

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

123.0

731.2

245.3

495.5

186.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

495.5

186.0

183.1

0.1

0.0

183.2

52.5

0.0

0.0

52.5

30.2

0.0

0.0

30.2

29.0

0.0

0.0

29.0

18.6

0.0

0.0

18.6

29.9

0.0

0.0

29.9

17.7

0.0

0.0

17.7

11.6

0.0

0.0

11.6

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.6

664.4

0.0

0.0

664.4

2483.3

0.0

0.0

2483.3

1983.5

0.0

0.0

1983.5

466.9

0.0

0.0

466.9

32.9

0.0

0.0

32.9

88.7

0.0

0.0

88.7

270.4

23.5

0.0

293.9

182.6

23.5

0.0

206.2

54.4

0.0

0.0

54.4

33.3

0.0

0.0

33.3

4404.5

1075.5

151.8

11914.4

1195.3

24.7

0.0

3.6

0.0

0.3

0.0

67.3

0.0

34.0

0.0

4429.2

1079.0

152.1

11981.7

1229.3

159.2

0.0

0.0

159.2

19.1

0.0

0.0

19.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

298.4

0.0

0.0

298.4

60.4

0.0

0.0

60.4

4563.7

1094.5

151.8

12212.9

1255.8

24.7

0.0

3.6

0.0

0.3

0.0

67.3

0.0

34.0

0.0

4588.4

1098.1

152.1

12280.1

1289.7

94.2

7.2

0.0

101.4

13.9

0.0

0.0

13.9

7.7

0.0

0.0

7.7

323.3

15.3

0.0

338.7

20.9

0.0

0.0

20.9

344.3

15.3

0.0

359.6

67.9

0.0

0.0

67.9

1489.9

9.1

0.0

1498.9

193.8

4680.1

0.0

0.0

46.0

0.0

193.8

4726.2

159.3

3638.6

0.0

0.0

45.9

0.0

159.3

3684.5

27.6

0.0

0.0

27.6

6.9

0.0

0.0

6.9

916.9

28.9

0.0

945.8

12.7

0.0

0.0

12.7

929.6

28.9

0.0

958.5

878.6

0.1

0.0

878.7

162.9

0.0

0.0

162.9

22776.4

197.4

0.0

22973.7

595.3

0.0

0.0

595.3

23371.6

197.4

0.0

23569.0

132 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table A.3. Economic accounts for agriculture in 2000 at current prices and current exchange

rates (mio Euro)

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

44

0

0

44

8

0

0

8

121

450

847

1,471

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

121

450

847

1,471

0

0

0

0

695

0

0

695

6

0

0

6

85

0

0

85

387

0

0

387

0

0

0

0

131

164

860

4,238

5,269

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

131

164

860

4,238

5,269

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

6,797

7,723 39,164

8,737 30,717 57,469

4,968 39,084

240 19,024

5,059

5,197

3,307

4,656 20,859 219,762 253,001

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

259

72

627

3,972

2,403

3,353

6,406

877

2,831

6

223

28

0

123

33

155

19

1

285

21

453

47

377

15

584

7

471

3,600 21,818 26,516

0

24

725

756

- at basic prices

6,983

8,344 42,913 11,112 34,070 63,752

5,812 41,760

258 19,288

5,465

5,558

3,884

5,127 24,435 240,855 278,761

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 

CONSUMPTION

4,298

4,797 25,316

2,896 11,447 32,033

3,110 13,419

128 10,525

3,021

2,845

2,615

3,452 13,924 111,653 133,827

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL

258

400

119

313

925

2,554

227

718

753

1,608

95

525

1,143

2,510

450

1,631

5

9

964

1,308

142

308

86

226

67

244

132

410

444

5,655

6,350

1,197 11,502 13,421

IMPROVERS

228

214

1,756

238

1,110

2,712

337

791

10

260

118

185

227

208

1,236

7,972

9,630

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- COMPENSATION 
OF EMPLOYEES

- OTHER TAXES 

ON PRODUCTION

+ OTHER SUBSIDIES 
ON PRODUCTION

182

188

162

112

1,163

746

218

75

814

458

2,551

1,026

60

100

649

28

6

7

307

258

85

187

134

32

55

54

76

28

1,002

6,224

7,464

433

3,159

3,732

2,359

2,516 10,792

1,103

4,481 11,706

1,288

6,861

50

3,412

1,166

1,606

1,114

1,348

3,459 45,937 53,260

269

353

1,943

51

1,011

2,254

143

280

12

603

212

51

67

139

297

614

1,343

40

81

302

498

480

2,541

67

275

105

526

2

7

115

1,343

55

229

65

43

5

148

250

1,072

6,991

8,666

63

105

100

109

489

998

1,935

2,663

7,022

8,425

296

572

3,480

146

878

4,645

294

2,022

20

1,957

519

463

538

792

3,594 15,257 20,215

2,685

3,546 17,598

8,216 22,623 31,719

2,702 28,341

130

8,763

2,444

2,713

1,269

1,675 10,511 129,202 144,934

600

947

7,153

612

2,757

7,836

557

7,658

54

2,408

1,411

683

722

690

3,240 32,451 37,327

2,085

2,599 10,445

7,605 19,866 23,883

2,146 20,683

75

6,355

1,033

2,030

546

985

7,271 96,751 107,607

268

553

3,707

486

2,898

5,256

254

6,319

11

1,936

248

542

433

241

3,113 22,358 26,264

17

113

424

176

132

1,269

13

563

1

417

81

7

0

0

151

3,101

3,365

57

180

1,681

293

1,161

1,469

437

1,616

29

132

1,129

285

1,407

405

531

9,695 10,811

= FACTOR INCOME

2,125

2,666 11,701

7,721 20,895 24,083

2,570 21,736

104

6,070

2,080

2,308

1,953

1,390

7,651 103,345 115,053

= NET OPERATING SURPLUS 

/ MIXED INCOME

1,857

2,114

7,994

7,235 17,997 18,827

2,316 15,417

- RENTS PAID

- INTEREST PAID

+ INTEREST RECEIVED

= NET ENTREPRENEURIAL 

162

397

0

183

1,212

995

2,137

94

0

281

333

0

755

2,078

183

318

1,152

1,764

272

1,034

0

0

0

0

93

11

11

0

4,134

1,833

1,765

1,520

1,149

4,539 80,987 88,788

73

1,247

200

122

149

59

52

191

0

94

208

0

149

380

5,340

6,052

358

1,038

8,896 11,288

18

0

259

371

INCOME

1,298

1,029

4,645

6,622 16,090 14,985

1,860 14,065

70

3,014

1,620

1,522

1,218

660

3,120 67,010 71,819

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 133

eurostat

Table A.3. Economic accounts for agriculture in 2000 at current prices and current exchange

rates (mio Euro)

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

19.1

0.0

0.0

19.1

363.3

15.3

0.0

378.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

16.6

0.0

0.0

16.6

1.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

229.9

0.0

0.0

229.9

120.5

0.0

0.0

120.5

4563.7

1111.1

152.8

12442.8

1376.3

24.7

0.0

3.6

0.0

0.3

0.0

67.3

0.0

34.0

0.0

66.6

0.0

0.0

66.6

996.2

28.9

0.0

453.7

0.0

0.0

453.7

23825.3

197.4

0.0

4588.4

1114.6

153.1

12510.1

1410.3

1025.2

24022.7

2819.1

23.3

0.0

2842.4

1974.5

214.6

2912.9

50.6

67.1

113.5

98.7

55.1

1101.6

102.0

105.0

24.5

256.5

4.1

58.7

14.9

2.1

5.7

83.1

14.4

4.3

20.9

6.3

209.2

343.0

188.9

164.7

16.3

1222.7

356.7

127.7

159.2

124.6

738.5

29.3

158.6

85.3

36.7

3.1

313.2

50.7

13.1

19.1

29.4

63.8

7753.6

1069.6

551.9

15279.4

2.7

5.4

1.3

0.9

1.3

35.5

6.6

3.0

0.0

7.1

130.1

1630.3

565.8

336.4

78.3

3647.0

496.6

348.5

298.4

221.9

64.2

172.1

53.5

75.2

27.8

412.8

21.4

64.5

60.4

117.7

22.7

70.5

31.8

27.2

22.4

299.5

30.5

18.2

12.7

16.4

512.9

2505.8

1054.9

741.8

210.1

7115.5

1078.9

684.4

595.3

780.0

867.9

164.1

1675.5

376.1

89.3

4756.5

340.6

473.2

8743.3

332.3

49.4

456.0

119.9

4.2

1223.2

181.0

189.1

2555.1

535.6

114.7

1219.5

256.2

85.1

3533.3

159.6

284.2

6188.2

11.9

720.0

300.7

62.7

2199.7

0.0

299.1

16.1

0.0

450.4

500.0

78.6

447.9

13.2

144.9

1351.2

903.4

144.5

112.5

18.1

106.2

146.8

576.2

76.2

47.1

73.8

23.3

-21.5

1.9

2.0

114.7

36.1

2.0

7.3

2.1

29.0

78.0

13.9

4.3

246.6

0.7

85.9

147.1

3381.4

168.6

74.0

2661.4

0.3

1.8

4.5

1.6

2.2

0.0

92.0

208.4

23.2

664.6

171.1

70.2

2384.2

202.1

345.6

44.9

10.4

18.2

4.0

20.3

35.3

319.4

683.3

6421.1

256.8

4221.4

6.6

17.2

9.7

304.5

441.4

85.0

242.6

3560.5

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE

CONSUMPTION

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL 
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- COMPENSATION 
OF EMPLOYEES

- OTHER TAXES 

ON PRODUCTION

+ OTHER SUBSIDIES 
ON PRODUCTION

= FACTOR INCOME

= NET OPERATING SURPLUS 

/ MIXED INCOME

- RENTS PAID

- INTEREST PAID

+ INTEREST RECEIVED

= NET ENTREPRENEURIAL 

INCOME

134 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

Table A.4 Percentage changes in volume, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

eurostat

+ CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

-6.2

-5.0

-1.7

0.7

1.4

10.3

- taxes on product

-15.0

:  

-12.3

- at basic prices

-6.0

-1.3

2.9

-5.8

-5.9

-8.9

-5.8

-4.5

-0.5

-4.9

-8.4

:  

-7.2

-4.0

-5.4

CEREALS (including seeds)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

-11.3

-9.6

0.5

3.2

9.3

9.7

-8.4

-6.9

-30.2

-34.9

-8.6

-9.3

3.6

9.0

-5.0

4.0

-0.2

9.7

-2.0

-0.6

-1.3

-1.9

-11.7

-6.9

-1.5

-1.3

:  

:  

-11.1

-1.5

2.2

11.1

6.4

3.4

0.0

-6.3

10.0

-0.6

-6.0

-8.4

-0.4

-6.2

-7.9

-13.5

:  

:  

:  

-6.4

-1.2

-8.9

-3.7

-0.1

-10.5

-8.6

-0.2

-1.6

7.8

-12.8

-11.0

13.2

-30.9

-11.3

-6.5

-7.2

-20.6

-18.6

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-9.3

:  

-1.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-10.7

1.3

9.4

-7.8

-31.5

-8.8

2.7

-2.5

-9.9

-0.5

9.7

-20.0

-11.1

-6.8

-20.0

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

-10.0

-12.3

- subsidies on product

10.1

-16.1

-3.5

12.4

-6.0

-4.3

- taxes on product

-15.0

:  

-12.3

:  

:  

0.0

- at basic prices

-7.9

-13.3

1.4

-5.0

-5.8

-11.9

-5.0

-6.9

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

1.5

1.5

:  

0.0

0.6

-2.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.8

1.8

1.3

5.9

:  

:  

9.0

:  

:  

-0.8

-4.9

-2.5

-2.5

-8.8

-11.8

-6.9

-5.0

-22.8

-3.6

-1.3

-12.1

:  

-4.3

-17.1

6.8

11.6

-7.0

-3.0

5.8

29.4

-3.1

-8.5

-5.1

1.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-11.2

-11.2

-21.0

-3.6

7.9

-5.5

10.7

-3.9

-3.9

-5.6

-5.5

-1.0

-11.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

-11.9

-6.5

-6.5

4.4

4.4

12.5

13.1

0.1

3.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

1.5

0.0

0.6

-2.6

1.8

1.7

9.0

-2.5

0.1

0.0

-1.4

-11.2

-6.5

4.4

12.8

0.3

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

2.4

0.1

-1.0

-1.4

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.3

1.6

:  

- at basic prices

2.4

0.1

-1.0

-1.4

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

-0.4

-1.9

-5.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.1

0.5

:  

-0.4

-1.9

-5.1

0.1

POTATOES (including seeds)

- at producer prices

-24.3

-5.0

-0.5

-5.6

-5.2

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.0

-3.2

:  

1.4

-3.1

-18.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.0

-4.0

:  

- at basic prices

-24.3

-5.0

-0.5

-5.6

-5.2

-1.0

1.4

-3.1

-18.4

-4.0

FRUITS

:  

1.6

0.2

2.2

-0.3

2.5

1.9

0.2

3.0

-1.3

0.0

0.0

:  

-2.0

-0.2

-0.3

:  

:  

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.0

-1.3

0.0

-2.0

-0.2

-0.3

-2.8

-2.8

-11.9

-11.9

-3.5

-3.5

:  

:  

:  

2.8

:  

:  

-2.8

-11.9

-3.5

2.8

- at producer prices

-30.1

-10.0

-18.7

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-8.4

-2.2

1.1

11.9

-5.0

-8.7

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

-0.9

-46.7

-10.0

-9.0

3.0

20.3

-0.1

3.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-10.0

:  

47.7

:  

-9.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-30.1

-10.0

-18.7

-7.8

1.2

-5.2

0.0

-0.9

-46.7

-10.0

-9.0

7.1

20.3

-0.1

3.9

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.9

-3.0

-23.2

-6.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.9

-3.0

-23.2

:  

-6.7

-6.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.2

-14.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.2

-14.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

6.0

10.0

:  

10.0

10.9

6.0

10.0

10.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.8

-1.3

-7.6

-2.6

-6.3

-5.3

-3.8

-6.0

-7.1

-2.5

-3.0

-2.3

-7.6

-2.9

-7.5

-6.4

-3.8

-7.2

-6.9

-2.5

0.5

4.2

:

0.7

-4.1

-3.6

2.5

-4.1

-3.1

6.0

-2.4

-2.9

-5.7

10.0

2.7

-5.7

-3.2

-3.6

2.5

-3.2

-2.9

6.0

-2.4

-2.7

-5.7

10.0

2.7

-5.7

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 135

eurostat

Table A.4 Percentage changes in volume, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

-12.1

-18.6

:  

-12.5

-17.6

-20.0

:  

27.3

-95.8

:  

26.9

47.0

31.3

:  

47.0

-12.0

:  

:  

-12.5

-11.9

:  

:  

-11.9

17.0

-12.2

:  

13.9

24.4

-10.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

24.4

-14.8

-1.4

-2.2

-6.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.4

-2.2

:  

:  

-6.7

-2.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

-41.1

:  

:  

0.0

6.4

:  

:  

+ CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

8.4

12.6

:  

8.4

CEREALS (including seeds)

- at producer prices

20.3

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

18.5

17.2

:  

18.5

3.4

9.1

:  

3.4

20.3

-17.9

POTATOES (including seeds)

- at producer prices

-24.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

-25.9

133.2

:  

- at basic prices

-24.0

-25.7

FRUITS

- at producer prices

-16.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-16.9

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.3

:  

:  

1.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

-11.5

-5.7

18.2

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-11.5

-5.7

18.2

-2.2

136 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

-6.2

-7.4

:  

-6.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-1.4

-2.7

:  

-1.4

-18.6

-18.6

:  

7.1

17.3

:  

7.2

21.1

17.3

:  

21.0

-2.5

:  

:  

-2.5

35.2

-16.8

:  

34.9

67.3

:  

:  

67.3

45.6

2.5

:  

45.1

-1.4

33.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.4

33.9

-4.7

17.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.7

17.7

-15.8

:  

:  

-26.0

-26.0

:  

-7.6

-2.5

:  

-7.3

2.9

1.6

:  

2.7

-36.1

-20.3

:  

-34.2

-5.7

-7.1

:  

-5.7

2.3

:  

:  

2.3

-21.7

0.0

:  

10.6

-1.4

:  

10.5

26.5

11.9

:  

26.2

8.7

-43.1

:  

8.4

-0.8

-2.5

:  

-0.8

3.0

-2.7

:  

3.0

-17.3

-21.6

:  

-41.1

-18.6

-15.8

-26.0

-21.5

-17.3

30.2

:  

:  

-20.2

-26.3

:  

34.4

-7.4

-24.5

15.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.3

30.2

-20.2

34.4

-7.4

-24.5

15.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.8

:  

:  

2.8

2.8

:  

:  

2.8

Table A.4. Percentage changes in volume, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

eurostat

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at producer prices

0.0

-10.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.0

-10.0

+ ANIMAL OUTPUT

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-8.9

-8.9

-8.9

-8.9

48.1

48.1

:  

48.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.2

0.5

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

3.1

0.0

:  

:  

11.3

:  

:  

27.6

27.6

-9.5

-9.5

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.8

11.3

27.6

-9.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-39.8

:  

:  

-39.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

8.6

8.6

17.1

17.1

:  

:  

12.2

12.2

10.0

:  

:  

2.9

2.9

:  

0.0

-0.5

-25.9

:  

:  

-0.6

-2.7

-1.1

-5.2

:  

:  

:  

10.0

2.9

0.0

-2.3

-0.6

-1.2

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMALS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Pigs

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Equines

-3.6

-5.8

-4.1

-3.7

-6.0

-6.0

-6.0

-6.0

-2.2

-2.2

-2.2

-2.2

-2.5

-5.5

2.2

0.0

-3.3

-71.0

-2.5

2.3

5.0

0.0

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.9

0.1

-0.2

-1.5

0.2

-0.3

-1.2

-1.5

4.6

3.2

0.0

1.2

-1.4

-30.7

:  

0.0

-14.6

4.2

-0.1

-3.6

3.6

3.2

0.3

-0.2

-1.4

-30.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.9

0.8

-1.2

3.6

0.0

0.2

-12.2

-7.2

-1.0

0.0

-0.5

-0.1

1.1

1.1

2.5

2.5

-1.0

-1.9

-1.2

-28.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.6

-13.3

-1.0

-0.5

1.1

2.5

-1.2

-8.3

1.1

0.3

-1.1

1.1

1.7

0.3

-1.1

1.7

-1.4

-1.5

-1.4

-1.4

1.5

3.0

1.6

1.6

-0.1

3.0

-3.9

-6.4

1.0

-3.9

-8.0

-7.5

-0.6

2.8

-1.0

-0.4

-1.8

-7.7

:  

-2.1

0.5

2.8

-0.9

-7.7

2.5

-0.5

0.0

2.1

2.3

-2.1

1.1

1.6

-2.6

-16.3

:  

1.4

1.1

-4.7

1.7

2.2

-5.8

-16.6

:  

:  

-0.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.3

-8.0

0.7

-1.3

1.8

1.8

-8.2

2.9

2.9

-11.0

-11.0

:  

:  

2.9

-11.0

3.0

2.5

2.8

2.9

-6.4

-6.4

-1.9

-1.9

3.0

3.0

-7.1

-11.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

-6.4

-1.9

3.0

-8.8

5.0

1.3

-1.1

4.1

1.0

3.1

1.9

-8.6

-1.9

-4.3

2.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.0

1.3

-1.1

4.1

:  

:  

20.0

1.0

0.0

3.1

-8.0

-8.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.1

1.1

:  

-8.2

:  

:  

1.9

-8.6

-8.0

-1.9

-4.3

2.1

1.1

-8.2

0.4

-5.4

-2.0

0.1

0.2

-5.6

-2.9

-0.2

-1.5

-6.3

-5.1

-2.0

0.2

-5.9

5.7

0.2

0.2

-8.4

-3.1

-0.3

-0.2

-8.8

-2.9

-0.9

-1.9

-7.5

-5.1

-2.8

0.2

-5.1

5.7

0.2

- at producer prices

0.3

0.0

-19.6

0.0

10.1

0.0

5.4

16.7

-39.6

-4.0

-14.2

34.5

15.2

0.0

0.0

2.2

1.4

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-71.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-71.4

-71.4

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.3

0.0

-19.6

0.0

10.1

0.0

4.8

16.7

-39.6

-4.0

-14.2

34.5

15.2

0.0

0.0

2.0

1.3

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

-0.7

-0.7

13.0

0.0

2.1

2.2

-2.0

-2.0

3.9

3.9

3.4

3.4

-4.3

-38.9

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-10.0

- at basic prices

-0.7

9.0

2.2

-2.0

3.9

3.4

-18.7

2.0

1.8

2.0

1.9

14.6

14.6

0.0

0.0

:  

:  

14.6

0.0

5.3

9.5

9.5

5.9

-10.1

-10.1

-4.4

-4.4

-13.3

-20.4

-13.3

-31.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-10.1

-4.4

-13.3

-23.9

1.3

-3.5

-1.6

0.1

-4.3

-12.6

-1.6

-6.6

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 137

eurostat

Table A.4. Percentage changes in volume, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

+ ANIMAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMALS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Pigs

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Equines

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

6.4

:  

:  

6.4

8.0

:  

:  

8.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

50.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

50.0

-0.4

:  

:  

-0.4

-2.1

:  

:  

-10.0

-4.2

:  

-9.8

-18.0

-40.6

:  

-2.1

-18.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-69.2

-36.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.1

-13.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

-67.9

1.1

-13.3

-1.4

:  

:  

-1.5

-7.6

:  

:  

-7.7

7.2

3.9

:  

7.1

12.7

-14.2

:  

12.6

7.3

:  

:  

0.4

3.3

:  

0.4

-0.4

3.2

:  

-0.4

-15.0

-15.0

:  

-0.3

-4.2

:  

-0.3

0.3

-9.8

:  

0.2

-5.1

-5.1

:  

-5.1

-7.8

12.9

-11.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-49.9

-50.0

:  

7.3

-15.0

-8.3

12.9

-11.9

-49.9

- at producer prices

-0.9

12.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.9

12.6

-7.0

-7.0

:  

-7.0

-8.1

:  

:  

-8.1

4.3

:  

:  

4.3

-3.7

:  

:  

-12.0

-11.3

:  

-3.7

-12.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-33.3

-33.3

:  

-33.3

0.0

-20.0

0.0

29.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

-20.0

0.0

29.2

19.3

-14.2

:  

12.6

0.6

-33.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.6

-33.3

4.4

:  

:  

4.4

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-4.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-46.8

-46.9

:  

-4.6

-46.9

138 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

0.0

2.3

28.5

:  

2.8

1.6

28.5

:  

2.4

1.0

35.0

:  

2.8

-4.5

0.0

:  

-4.5

8.1

0.0

:  

7.2

10.3

0.0

:  

9.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.1

-26.2

:  

-3.1

-0.6

0.9

:  

-0.6

-2.4

-2.5

:  

-2.4

-12.9

7.8

:  

-12.6

-4.4

-7.5

:  

-4.4

-2.1

0.0

:  

-2.1

-5.1

-37.9

:  

-8.4

3.3

0.0

1.5

3.3

0.6

-0.9

-1.6

0.7

0.4

-1.0

-1.6

0.4

2.3

4.0

-0.9

2.3

3.5

0.0

1.5

3.5

0.7

-0.5

-3.1

0.7

0.3

-0.6

-3.1

0.4

3.3

4.1

-0.9

3.3

0.5

0.1

:  

0.5

0.1

0.1

:  

0.1

6.5

6.5

:  

2.2

1.4

1.4

2.2

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.5

9.2

:  

:  

Table A.4. Percentage changes in volume, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

eurostat

Poultry

- at producer prices

-3.4

7.0

7.9

-1.1

4.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.0

0.0

:  

- at basic prices

-3.4

7.0

7.9

-1.1

4.0

2.0

2.8

5.7

29.2

-4.0

2.8

5.7

29.2

-4.0

1.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

6.6

6.6

17.5

17.5

:  

:  

2.9

4.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

6.6

17.5

2.9

4.0

:  

1.5

1.6

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Milk

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Eggs

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

-3.3

0.1

:  

:  

-71.0

-3.0

0.2

0.1

0.8

0.0

0.2

0.8

6.2

0.0

:  

-0.5

3.2

0.1

2.6

0.0

0.0

:  

-16.1

:  

:  

1.2

4.0

1.0

1.2

-2.1

-3.5

:  

-4.5

-1.1

-2.1

:  

-3.5

:  

1.6

2.6

6.2

-0.5

3.6

0.1

-3.6

0.2

0.3

5.8

-0.5

3.4

-0.5

1.6

1.0

-1.1

-4.6

:  

:  

:  

-71.0

-3.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

-16.1

:  

:  

5.8

-0.5

3.8

-0.5

1.6

1.6

:  

:  

:  

-4.6

-1.1

-1.1

:  

-4.6

2.5

0.0

0.0

2.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

4.0

4.0

- at producer prices

4.2

3.0

-0.1

4.3

8.1

-1.0

-2.6

2.8

25.5

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.9

4.7

-0.2

:  

:  

-0.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

4.2

3.0

-0.1

4.3

8.1

-1.0

-2.6

2.8

25.5

4.0

-0.9

4.7

-0.2

6.5

9.2

Other animal products

- at producer prices

0.0

0.0

-16.5

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

0.0

0.0

-3.6

1.8

-19.5

-4.0

-19.8

-1.7

11.9

0.0

-21.4

1.5

-0.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.0

0.0

-16.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

-3.6

1.8

-19.5

-4.0

-19.8

-1.7

11.9

0.0

-21.4

1.5

-0.1

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

-4.1

-5.2

0.8

0.6

- taxes on product

-12.1

-71.0

- at basic prices

-4.1

0.8

0.9

8.8

-8.8

1.7

-4.1

-5.5

-4.6

-4.4

-1.1

0.3

-2.9

-6.7

1.7

-25.9

:  

-4.1

-13.9

-1.0

-3.3

-2.0

-0.9

-0.5

-1.3

-0.9

-2.9

-2.2

1.6

-2.9

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

0.0

-2.9

-8.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.0

-2.9

-8.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

-4.6

0.0

-1.7

1.4

-1.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.6

-2.5

1.0

-2.6

-2.0

-2.0

:  

0.7

8.7

-0.1

1.5

-0.8

-6.7

10.0

-1.2

-1.4

-4.6

0.0

-1.9

0.4

-4.7

-4.2

-15.1

:  

1.4

-0.1

-6.4

-1.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

-3.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.4

-2.2

-5.5

-1.4

-2.1

-2.0

-1.6

-3.9

-5.8

-1.8

-2.3

-2.0

:  

:  

-4.6

0.0

-1.7

1.4

-1.6

-2.0

-1.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

-3.8

-2.1

-2.3

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

-4.1

-5.2

0.7

0.6

- taxes on product

-12.1

-71.0

- at basic prices

-4.0

0.7

0.6

8.8

-8.8

1.4

-4.1

-5.5

-4.6

-4.4

-1.3

0.3

-2.7

-6.7

1.5

-25.9

:  

-4.1

-13.9

-1.0

-3.2

-2.0

-0.8

-0.5

-1.3

-0.8

-2.9

-2.2

1.6

-2.8

-2.6

-2.4

1.0

-2.6

0.6

8.7

-0.1

1.4

-0.8

-6.7

10.0

-1.2

-1.4

-4.6

0.0

-1.9

0.4

-4.7

-4.2

-15.1

:  

1.4

-0.1

-6.3

-1.4

-2.2

-5.5

-1.5

-1.6

-3.9

-5.8

-1.8

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 139

eurostat

Table A.4. Percentage changes in volume, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

Poultry

- at producer prices

13.3

23.3

-4.5

4.8

10.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

13.3

23.3

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Milk

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Eggs

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Other animal products

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

-1.0

-1.9

:  

-1.0

-1.9

-1.9

:  

-1.9

4.1

:  

:  

4.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.1

-2.8

:  

4.0

12.0

12.0

:  

12.0

1.9

10.1

:  

1.9

1.0

:  

:  

1.0

10.1

10.1

:  

10.1

-18.0

:  

:  

3.9

4.3

:  

3.9

4.3

4.3

:  

4.3

3.3

:  

:  

3.3

0.1

:  

:  

0.1

-18.0

-1.0

-7.8

:  

-1.3

14.6

-28.7

:  

14.4

:  

:  

-4.5

3.8

:  

:  

3.8

4.0

:  

:  

4.0

5.9

:  

:  

5.9

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-7.6

:  

:  

-7.9

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.2

-2.8

:  

3.1

0.0

13.0

-35.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

13.0

-35.4

-0.9

-7.8

:  

-1.2

14.6

-28.7

:  

14.3

-8.0

:  

:  

-8.3

140 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

:  

:  

4.8

3.5

:  

:  

3.5

2.9

:  

:  

2.9

4.5

:  

:  

4.5

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

0.7

-7.4

:  

0.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.7

-7.4

:  

0.7

:  

:  

10.0

2.0

:  

:  

2.0

1.0

:  

:  

1.0

6.3

:  

:  

6.3

-0.4

:  

:  

-0.4

3.4

17.3

:  

3.4

1.7

:  

:  

1.7

3.3

17.3

:  

3.4

1.4

:  

:  

1.4

3.9

7.4

:  

4.2

7.4

7.4

:  

7.4

-6.1

:  

:  

-6.1

1.4

:  

:  

1.4

7.1

-5.3

:  

6.7

-7.6

:  

:  

-7.6

6.3

-5.3

:  

6.0

9.3

:  

:  

9.3

3.4

:  

:  

3.4

2.8

:  

:  

2.8

7.8

:  

:  

7.8

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-2.2

6.5

:  

-1.9

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-2.2

6.5

:  

-1.9

10.0

12.0

:  

10.0

1.9

3.9

:  

1.9

1.2

3.8

:  

1.3

6.1

10.1

:  

6.1

-5.6

:  

:  

-5.6

5.0

-0.4

:  

5.0

-1.7

:  

:  

-1.7

4.8

-0.4

:  

4.8

eurostat

Table A.4. Percentage changes in volume, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

0.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

-0.3

1.5

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

-0.3

1.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.9

1.7

3.6

-1.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.9

1.7

3.6

-1.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.2

-0.6

1.8

1.7

1.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.2

-0.6

1.8

1.7

1.6

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

-4.1

-5.2

0.7

0.6

- taxes on product

-12.1

-71.0

- at basic prices

-4.0

0.7

0.6

8.8

-8.8

1.4

-3.9

-5.5

-4.6

-4.2

-1.1

0.3

:  

-1.0

-2.6

-6.7

-4.0

-3.0

1.5

-25.9

-13.9

-2.0

-0.7

-0.5

-1.3

-0.7

-2.8

-2.2

1.6

-2.7

-2.5

-2.4

1.0

-2.5

0.5

8.7

-0.1

1.2

-0.8

-6.7

10.0

-1.2

-1.1

-4.6

0.0

-1.7

0.3

-4.4

-4.2

-15.1

:  

-0.1

1.4

-6.0

-1.4

-2.2

-5.5

-1.4

-1.5

-3.9

-5.8

-1.7

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 

CONSUMPTION

0.8

-0.5

0.1

-1.9

1.8

-1.5

2.0

-0.7

-0.1

-2.2

0.0

-1.3

-3.8

0.0

-0.4

-0.6

-0.6

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

-0.3

-1.0

0.0

-5.0

-1.0

2.0

-1.6

0.1

-4.6

-4.6

1.3

0.0

31.6

6.4

1.5

-4.0

0.0

0.0

-5.0

-1.0

-0.5

0.3

-9.8

1.6

1.9

0.3

-4.9

-0.8

6.4

1.0

-0.8

-0.4

-0.4

-0.4

-1.0

-5.0

-1.0

-10.8

-7.0

-12.0

-10.6

-1.2

0.0

-10.0

-4.2

-2.0

-6.3

-1.2

-5.7

-6.8

-6.5

-1.0

-5.0

0.0

1.9

0.0

1.3

-1.0

-1.0

0.1

-1.6

0.5

-1.9

0.5

4.4

8.2

-12.5

-9.8

0.0

1.3

3.1

4.1

-0.8

-0.8

-1.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

-15.0

10.0

-2.0

3.5

0.3

-0.2

-9.2

-1.8

-2.4

-0.2

1.1

-7.0

0.1

0.2

1.0

-6.5

-2.5

0.9

-6.4

-6.3

1.3

0.7

0.8

0.7

0.0

-3.0

1.5

-0.3

0.1

0.0

-2.9

2.5

0.0

-1.0

0.2

12.2

1.0

-2.0

0.4

0.5

0.3

-1.0

0.0

-3.0

-2.9

1.5

-6.2

4.2

-8.9

3.6

2.1

0.0

0.0

0.9

-1.7

2.7

3.2

-0.1

-1.6

-1.0

-1.0

-0.2

0.8

5.1

0.0

-0.9

0.9

0.0

0.1

2.7

0.6

1.3

-1.1

1.3

-1.0

0.0

0.0

1.5

1.2

-4.6

0.0

-1.4

3.3

0.0

-2.0

0.0

2.8

-1.9

0.7

0.0

0.3

0.2

-11.8

2.4

3.4

-5.0

-2.4

-4.6

-6.5

-0.7

-5.3

-2.9

2.7

-1.2

2.7

-0.3

-13.5

-2.1

-2.8

-1.6

-3.0

-1.2

:  

1.9

1.2

:  

1.5

0.0

0.0

-0.6

1.0

-2.5

-3.7

-2.7

-14.7

4.4

6.6

:  

-3.0

-6.5

:  

-1.6

-9.2

-4.0

7.2

-1.9

9.5

2.0

-18.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 141

eurostat

Table A.4. Percentage changes in volume, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

1.0

:  

:  

1.0

3.3

17.3

:  

3.3

-9.4

:  

:  

-9.4

5.0

-5.3

:  

4.7

:  

-5.9

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-2.0

6.5

:  

-1.8

0.2

1.8

0.6

1.8

-7.0

1.2

1.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

-5.3

-14.2

-17.2

-11.3

-2.8

-1.5

-1.2

-10.6

-7.6

1.4

-26.0

37.8

-0.4

81.1

-4.1

0.0

-6.8

-3.1

:  

5.8

0.0

:  

10.1

:  

:  

1.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.0

:  

:  

-2.0

4.7

-0.4

:  

4.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 

CONSUMPTION

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL 
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

3.2

-2.8

:  

3.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-0.9

-7.8

:  

-1.2

-3.3

-3.4

2.5

-3.8

2.2

2.1

-9.8

-0.4

-0.4

0.0

3.1

1.6

1.3

1.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

14.6

-28.7

:  

14.3

7.4

7.4

14.3

11.6

3.0

2.0

2.0

17.8

1.0

13.0

11.8

26.3

-1.0

36.6

0.0

-20.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

-20.1

-7.9

:  

:  

-8.2

-0.8

-13.7

-7.7

0.6

-7.4

:  

0.6

8.5

-2.5

7.2

19.1

-30.5

-8.0

0.0

-1.5

0.0

15.7

0.0

0.0

-22.9

-7.7

-30.0

-6.8

6.5

12.2

6.8

12.5

:  

4.7

-5.2

7.2

-5.8

142 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

4.0

4.0

1.8

4.0

2.6

11.1

-0.1

5.4

7.8

-9.3

2.2

2.7

Table A.5. Percentage changes in nominal prices, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

eurostat

+ CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

CEREALS (including seeds)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

14.2

8.0

12.6

13.9

9.4

12.2

1.9

5.6

:  

2.5

-0.5

-11.5

1.3

-2.4

3.4

13.1

20.7

6.0

2.7

6.3

5.0

11.3

1.4

0.0

:  

-1.6 -130.7

3.2

5.8

1.7

1.7

7.5

-4.8

-1.9

7.5

6.0

5.5

14.3

63.6

15.4

4.5

0.0

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.6

:  

- at basic prices

10.4

3.6

-3.8

10.5

21.3

8.6

3.4

3.6

1.4

0.9

3.4

3.3

0.9

0.9

2.5

3.8

9.7

:  

4.5

6.8

13.3

0.0

6.9

-0.6

10.8

0.6

24.4

-0.3

-8.5

-6.1

-1.4

-4.4

-9.0

8.2

0.4

13.4

13.6

-1.6

25.4

11.9

1.8

2.2

8.7

:  

:  

:  

2.7

2.1

10.3

3.6

3.7

1.8

3.6

0.2

75.4

-2.2

14.3

10.2

27.0

8.4

6.8

1.8

11.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.1

2.6

5.7

-6.0

26.2

3.7

15.9

7.9

4.9

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

9.2

3.8

6.9

-16.5

10.2

14.1

5.1

5.8

- subsidies on product

-64.4

-9.5

-43.7

8.5

-5.3

2.2

:  

-1.5

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

12.6

3.8

:  

0.5

1.3

-8.4

:  

:  

0.0 -130.7

-2.8

3.7

10.7

9.7

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

0.0

33.7

:  

0.0

-8.6

1.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.1

5.6

6.6

9.9

:  

:  

-6.2

:  

:  

0.9

4.3

6.6

4.6

22.2

11.7

:  

7.3

2.8

-12.1

:  

:  

9.1

-8.6

1.6

-7.4

9.2

2.5

14.9

-20.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

18.8

7.3

-0.7

2.4

-0.6

8.2

7.7

7.1

-8.7

2.2

2.1

0.0

7.6

10.0

11.7

-2.1

10.8

1.1

0.0

-15.0

11.1

26.7

31.4

7.1

-0.1

11.1

-0.9

11.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

2.1

0.0

-8.6

1.8

-4.6

7.0

-6.2

6.5

1.0

10.3

-1.6

1.1

1.4

-13.2

9.5

0.4

-0.2

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

3.8

2.1

3.3

1.3

-2.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-50.8

:  

- at basic prices

3.8

2.1

3.3

3.8

-2.9

2.2

0.0

0.0

2.2

POTATOES (including seeds)

5.7

18.3

7.5

10.4

1.3

2.0

2.6

-0.7

2.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.7

-2.4

:  

:  

-1.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.7

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.4

1.5

-0.4

2.2

2.6

-0.7

2.4

1.7

5.7

21.0

7.5

2.7

10.4

- at producer prices

84.6

10.0

27.5

20.0

21.0

22.0

38.3

25.9

0.0

60.0

0.0

19.2

28.6

30.9

29.8

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-13.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

8.5

-8.7

-9.1

8.3

-2.9

12.1

-17.1

:  

-2.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-6.5

-2.5

-6.6

-2.5

- at basic prices

84.6

10.0

27.5

20.0

21.0

21.1

38.3

25.9

0.0

59.1

-8.7

8.2

0.6

19.0

28.6

30.5

29.5

FRUITS

- at producer prices

44.9

0.0

12.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

12.0

15.6

15.1

12.6

8.5

6.5

57.8

3.5

10.7

-17.4

0.8

2.7

1.9

:  

:  

6.0

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-71.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

11.7

-9.3

2.4

11.5

-9.3

2.4

20.0

11.1

:  

9.9

3.5

- at basic prices

44.9

0.0

12.0

12.3

14.9

12.3

8.5

6.5

57.8

19.9

0.4

-17.4

0.8

2.7

11.2

10.9

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.0

7.4

-27.1

-1.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.0

7.4

-27.1

:  

0.0

-1.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.5

3.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.5

3.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.2

-6.4

:  

-13.9

-9.9

-0.1

2.2

-6.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.7

-1.7

-13.8

-13.8

-0.1

-1.7

-0.1

-1.7

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 143

eurostat

Table A.5. Percentage changes in nominal prices, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

+ CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

2.2

187.4

:  

2.5

CEREALS (including seeds)

- at producer prices

10.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

11.6

8.5

-11.8

:  

8.4

-20.8

-36.9

:  

-20.8

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

6.1

:  

:  

6.1

POTATOES (including seeds)

- at producer prices

-16.8

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-16.8

FRUITS

5.3

10.5

:  

5.6

-1.6

10.8

:  

-0.1

6.5

11.3

:  

6.9

5.3

:  

:  

5.3

6.4

:  

:  

6.4

16.2

-14.5

:  

16.1

-5.0

28.0

:  

-5.0

-11.5

28.0

:  

-11.5

22.2

:  

:  

3.3

:  

:  

3.3

-5.3

:  

:  

-5.3

-4.0

:  

:  

22.2

-4.0

6.6

:  

:  

6.6

0.8

:  

:  

0.8

-1.8

-4.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.8

-4.8

-2.4

92.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.4

92.0

- at producer prices

-5.3

12.3

-8.6

-52.7

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.3

12.3

-8.6

-52.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

144 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

7.1

16.5

:  

7.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

3.9

13.7

:  

3.9

20.3

41.1

:  

20.4

13.6

21.3

:  

13.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

10.7

20.2

:  

10.7

5.4

:  

:  

3.3

5.3

:  

3.4

-13.4

4.8

:  

5.4

-10.0

-2.3

19.6

:  

-2.0

1.1

19.6

:  

1.6

5.8

:  

:  

5.8

0.0

:  

:  

11.7

-2.4

:  

11.6

71.9

:  

:  

0.0

71.9

10.6

:  

:  

10.6

-15.1

:  

:  

-15.1

-22.4

:  

:  

-22.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

6.5

:  

:  

6.5

13.5

34.9

:  

14.4

0.2

:  

:  

0.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.2

19.8

:  

-1.0

-1.4

21.6

:  

-1.0

9.7

0.1

:  

9.7

-0.5

-4.3

:  

-0.5

5.2

13.7

:  

5.2

-8.2

29.7

:  

-8.1

-15.5

21.3

:  

-15.5

1.3

:  

:  

1.3

2.4

2.0

:  

2.3

8.1

11.1

:  

8.2

8.6

:  

:  

8.6

30.3

0.0

:  

30.0

3.7

:  

:  

3.7

1.3

:  

:  

1.3

eurostat

Table A.5. Percentage changes in nominal prices, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at producer prices

0.0

0.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.0

0.0

+ ANIMAL OUTPUT

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.3

-11.3

12.2

20.7

-24.2

:  

7.4

-18.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.1

3.7

:  

0.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.9

0.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.1

0.0

2.1

0.0

:  

:  

2.7

:  

:  

23.3

-7.2

5.0

15.1

:  

:  

1.9

0.1

-3.9

2.0

2.7

12.5

5.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-10.0

:  

:  

-10.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.5

-8.7

20.7

-5.8

-3.5

-8.7

20.7

-5.8

-6.4

-10.3

0.0

:   400.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.6

70.0

1.7

5.2

1.5

10.7

:  

:  

:  

-6.4

3.3

0.0

2.1

1.8

1.7

- at producer prices

2.7

8.0

6.0

7.8

10.7

2.3

2.3

4.6

0.2

4.4

7.3

6.7

- subsidies on product

62.4

83.0

12.3

-15.9

-13.4

20.8

11.7

24.1

74.8

60.2

20.0

31.0

1.7

6.0

2.9

29.5

5.8

6.2

5.1

12.2

0.9

5.0

6.7

24.1

0.9

7.2

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMALS

3.4

4.2

-0.4

8.9

56.7

-57.0

:  

-9.3

-10.1

6.1

6.0

9.4

3.5

2.8

- at producer prices

2.5

9.8

3.7

12.1

12.2

1.6

- subsidies on product

71.0

83.0

12.3

-15.9

-13.4

20.8

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

4.3

4.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

11.0

4.1

7.5

10.4

4.3

3.5

- at producer prices

-17.7

-11.9

-23.6

1.9

-15.8

-12.0

- subsidies on product

82.2

85.7

15.9

23.8

10.0

25.7

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

6.4

-9.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

1.8

-18.1

5.7

-12.1

-5.4

Pigs

0.9

11.7

-0.4

2.0

-7.6

13.7

-0.5

-4.0

5.3

11.5

-8.8

5.6

-73.7

:  

-5.4

:  

38.5

:  

:  

-0.5

5.1

5.0

8.2

7.8

2.2

4.2

6.0

5.4

-8.3

74.8

5.3

3.7

7.1

8.4

7.4

67.7

20.0

31.5

28.3

40.5

2.1

0.8

5.3

5.2

13.0

10.6

:  

:  

2.5

6.0

0.5

5.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

8.7

10.5

10.0

1.9

2.3

5.8

2.3

5.7

-5.7

-18.2

-23.0

-14.7

77.8

76.0

167.3

21.4

-6.3

57.8

1.3

1.3

29.0

44.2

9.8

6.8

-13.6

-11.2

25.9

21.5

0.9

-3.0

:  

:  

-2.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.2

-18.7

-8.4

7.5

7.8

8.3

8.6

1.0

-8.2

1.0

-5.7

- at producer prices

14.1

15.9

19.0

29.2

26.7

18.0

15.9

25.3

18.5

15.0

20.1

23.5

15.7

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

2.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

13.7

15.9

19.0

29.2

26.7

Equines

16.7

18.0

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-89.1

:  

:  

2.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

16.9

-7.7

:  

3.2

20.4

19.1

:  

:  

-93.1

-82.9

8.0

8.0

15.9

25.3

18.5

14.6

20.2

23.5

15.7

16.8

3.2

20.4

19.0

- at producer prices

4.8

2.1

2.0

2.6

0.0

0.0

-9.2

20.1

4.0

8.0

23.9

5.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

-0.2

0.3

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

4.8

2.1

2.0

2.6

0.0

0.0

-8.9

20.1

4.0

8.0

23.9

5.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

-0.2

0.4

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

10.0

12.9

25.0

8.0

9.7

25.7

44.5

8.5

19.5

9.0

3.9

18.2

0.0

- subsidies on product

-25.5

0.0

-30.4

-24.9

-34.2

-22.7

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.5

0.0

- at basic prices

3.2

9.2

12.7

-0.4

-0.6

16.2

32.9

-21.3

-37.0

-19.4

-14.8

-17.0

-10.0

2.1

1.0

-3.8

15.5

11.3

-20.1

-25.3

-23.9

0.9

-2.0

:  

:  

-8.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

11.4

4.9

0.9

9.6

-5.0

1.8

-8.6

0.6

5.6

0.6

2.4

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 145

eurostat

Table A.5. Percentage changes in nominal prices, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

+ ANIMAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMALS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Pigs

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.7

:  

:  

4.7

8.7

31.9

:  

9.0

13.3

142.5

:  

14.2

-16.1

159.0

:  

-11.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

5.1

:  

0.4

20.4

-4.1

:  

19.5

27.0

106.8

:  

27.1

27.6

:  

:  

27.9

- at producer prices

24.5

28.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Equines

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

24.5

28.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

6.5

24.0

:  

17.9

0.0

31.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.0

31.2

21.2

:  

:  

0.2

66.6

:  

10.3

146 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.3

15.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.3

15.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

13.5

-1.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

13.5

-1.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

-21.4

:  

:  

0.0

8.1

:  

:  

8.1

24.1

1.8

:  

24.0

31.9

2.1

:  

31.5

1.5

-56.5

:  

1.3

47.2

5.0

:  

46.8

17.6

-1.1

14.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

17.6

-1.1

14.4

53.9

-11.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

53.9

-11.7

1.0

:  

:  

1.0

7.1

:  

:  

7.1

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

7.9

:  

:  

0.0

19.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

19.6

11.0

19.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

11.0

19.0

-35.2

:  

:  

5.6

:  

:  

5.6

21.2

7.9

-35.2

:  

:  

-21.4

-0.9

13.2

:  

-0.3

-0.1

74.6

:  

0.8

-7.9

109.6

:  

-6.4

-0.8

18.1

:  

-0.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

26.1

94.1

:  

53.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

0.0

6.9

36.1

:  

7.5

7.4

36.1

:  

8.4

-1.5

38.9

:  

1.4

12.1

0.0

:  

12.1

35.7

0.0

:  

32.1

5.7

35.0

:  

8.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.2

3.2

:  

3.2

10.9

16.7

:  

11.0

16.8

41.0

:  

16.9

-0.4

80.0

:  

0.9

23.2

6.9

:  

23.1

20.8

0.4

:  

20.7

17.3

69.1

:  

20.8

Table A.5. Percentage changes in nominal prices, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

eurostat

Poultry

- at producer prices

10.8

8.3

9.0

13.0

13.8

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

8.0

0.0

:  

4.8

-2.0

0.5

20.0

3.1

-4.2

6.0

3.7

-2.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-60.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.5

3.1

- at basic prices

10.8

8.3

9.0

13.0

13.8

8.0

4.8

-2.0

0.5

20.0

-4.2

6.0

3.7

-2.8

:  

:  

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

3.2

4.1

8.5

3.4

- subsidies on product

:  

:  

:  

-40.0

6.2

0.0

3.5

0.0

4.3

1.1

6.2

3.3

12.1

5.9

:  

:  

:  

-3.8

:  

-73.7

:  

-6.2

:  

:  

-1.4

-0.2

38.5

-1.4

-0.8

11.0

-0.5

254.3

:  

:  

-0.7

13.6

56.7

-57.0

:  

-19.4

-16.7

8.2

4.0

6.2

3.6

4.1

1.1

7.2

3.9

12.8

5.9

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Milk

0.0

2.7

-0.4

4.1

3.9

0.0

:  

:  

- at producer prices

5.6

3.9

9.0

3.8

8.8

4.4

2.9

6.6

4.5

14.7

7.8

1.1

-1.5

13.0

- subsidies on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Eggs

0.0

5.0

-0.4

3.9

56.7

-57.0

-19.4

-16.7

8.7

4.7

8.8

4.0

4.3

2.9

7.6

5.2

:  

:  

:  

-73.7

:  

:  

:  

-6.3

15.6

:  

:  

-0.2

38.5

-0.8

254.3

:  

:  

7.7

0.6

-1.4

16.0

- at producer prices

-10.4

9.1

4.0

-0.6

-1.4

-1.8

2.3

-7.2

0.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.0

-3.8

:  

- at basic prices

-10.4

9.1

4.0

-0.6

-1.4

-1.8

2.3

-7.2

0.0

-7.0

Other animal products

1.2

-5.7

-14.3

6.8

87.8

:  

0.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.7

-14.3

6.9

0.3

:  

0.9

1.2

- at producer prices

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.5

0.0

8.3

-17.2

4.8

5.0

2.0

-5.3

-1.1

-6.8

0.0

-3.5

0.0

-0.2

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-40.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-40.0

-40.0

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.5

0.0

8.3

-17.2

4.8

5.0

2.0

-5.3

-1.1

-6.8

0.0

-3.5

0.0

-0.2

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

7.6

29.3

10.1

8.4

5.9

12.5

-0.4

6.4

2.8

-8.3

4.7

9.9

6.0

2.1

3.8

13.7

2.1

9.6

18.2

-17.7

:  

-5.1

-19.8

1.6

6.0

5.6

4.9

2.5

3.9

3.4

0.9

3.9

1.3

5.7

42.4

23.8

3.7

-1.0

-73.7

:  

-5.5

4.9

6.1

3.3

7.6

18.6

2.2

8.3

1.1

9.8

38.5

2.4

0.8

26.5

8.1

4.3

:  

:  

3.2

7.7

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

0.0

3.0

1.5

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.0

3.0

1.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

0.6

2.0

7.7

4.2

3.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.5

2.0

:  

2.0

4.2

1.1

5.8

-1.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.6

2.0

7.7

4.2

3.0

3.5

2.0

4.2

1.1

5.8

-1.5

2.6

2.2

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

7.5

29.3

10.1

8.3

5.7

12.5

-0.4

6.3

2.8

-8.3

4.7

9.9

5.9

2.1

3.8

13.7

2.4

9.6

18.2

-17.7

:  

-5.1

-19.8

1.6

6.0

5.5

4.8

2.8

3.9

3.4

0.9

3.9

1.3

5.5

42.4

20.7

3.6

-1.0

-73.7

:  

-5.5

4.8

5.9

3.3

7.6

18.6

2.2

8.3

1.1

9.8

38.5

2.4

0.9

26.5

7.6

4.3

:  

:  

3.2

7.3

4.2

5.4

0.9

4.3

4.5

5.8

-2.6

4.6

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 147

7.1

-1.9

-1.5

7.1

4.8

-2.6

-1.6

4.8

5.9

-2.5

-1.6

5.9

-2.4

-3.8

0.9

-2.4

5.2

-1.9

-1.5

5.2

5.3

29.0

-12.7

5.5

6.4

29.6

-12.8

6.6

-1.7

-1.9

0.9

-1.7

4.3

5.5

0.9

4.4

2.6

2.0

4.6

5.9

-2.6

4.7

2.2

2.0

:  

:  

eurostat

Table A.5. Percentage changes in nominal prices, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

Poultry

- at producer prices

17.9

18.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Milk

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Eggs

:  

:  

:  

:  

17.9

18.9

2.7

-9.4

:  

2.4

3.8

-9.4

:  

3.4

16.0

-5.8

:  

14.7

18.1

-5.8

:  

16.4

- at producer prices

-3.2

10.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.2

10.2

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Other animal products

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.3

46.9

:  

5.7

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

6.2

46.9

:  

6.6

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

14.7

2.6

:  

14.2

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

13.8

2.6

:  

13.4

11.3

1.5

:  

11.3

2.9

-2.7

:  

2.8

3.5

-2.6

:  

3.4

3.0

-54.2

:  

3.0

19.5

1.5

:  

19.2

10.3

-54.2

:  

10.3

5.1

:  

:  

5.1

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

6.0

:  

:  

6.0

-1.4

12.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.4

12.5

10.3

-1.4

-0.2

:  

:  

10.3

:  

:  

-1.4

-2.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.2

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-2.1

2.4

:  

-1.7

1.1

2.4

:  

1.2

6.2

:  

:  

6.2

9.0

:  

:  

9.0

10.1

13.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

10.1

13.4

-2.3

10.8

-54.2

:  

10.8

9.6

:  

:  

9.6

7.0

2.3

:  

7.0

1.4

:  

:  

1.4

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

7.9

:  

:  

7.9

9.2

42.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

9.2

42.0

7.1

2.3

:  

7.1

8.3

:  

:  

8.3

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

2.3

16.5

:  

2.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.3

16.5

:  

2.3

-1.1

29.8

-8.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.1

29.8

-8.0

-1.2

-68.7

0.0

-12.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.2

-68.7

0.0

-12.6

2.7

19.6

:  

2.8

7.3

:  

:  

7.3

2.8

19.6

:  

2.9

4.6

13.8

:  

4.8

5.4

16.1

:  

5.7

4.5

18.5

:  

4.6

5.4

13.5

12.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.4

13.5

12.8

4.7

13.8

:  

4.9

5.5

16.1

:  

5.8

4.7

18.5

:  

4.8

148 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table A.5. Percentage changes in nominal prices, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

0.0

0.0

1.6

3.7

4.2

0.3

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

1.6

3.7

4.2

0.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.0

3.0

3.2

2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.0

3.0

3.2

2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.3

6.4

3.7

2.3

2.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.3

6.4

3.7

2.3

2.6

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE

7.5

29.3

10.1

8.3

5.7

12.5

-0.4

6.2

2.8

-8.3

4.7

9.9

5.9

2.1

3.7

13.7

2.4

9.6

18.2

-17.7

:  

-5.0

-19.8

1.6

5.9

5.5

4.7

2.8

3.9

3.4

0.9

3.9

1.4

42.4

-73.7

5.5

20.7

:  

4.8

5.8

3.5

-1.0

-5.5

3.2

7.6

18.6

2.2

8.3

1.0

9.8

38.5

2.2

1.1

26.5

7.5

4.3

:  

:  

3.3

7.1

4.2

5.4

0.9

4.3

4.4

5.8

-2.6

4.6

CONSUMPTION

3.0

5.6

1.1

2.9

2.4

3.8

2.0

4.4

3.0

6.1

1.7

5.3

1.3

4.8

3.0

3.1

3.2

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL 
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

5.4

-8.0

4.0

-4.0

3.4

1.5

4.1

1.1

-1.1

1.9

1.3

-19.1

-7.0

-1.9

0.8

-4.1

6.0

-2.7

8.0

13.5

4.2

0.8

14.0

1.3

-1.3

-3.5

9.7

3.6

1.5

-2.7

2.4

-0.4

2.5

-0.5

9.6

20.0

12.8

11.7

7.6

14.5

16.4

4.9

13.4

20.0

25.3

17.9

7.1

18.3

10.4

12.2

12.3

0.0

2.7

4.0

5.0

7.0

6.4

2.0

0.0

-1.3

1.6

2.1

2.2

0.5

0.6

2.4

0.5

1.6

6.5

0.1

-0.1

0.3

0.7

2.1

8.0

0.7

-0.2

2.7

1.5

4.5

5.3

-4.4

0.0

-0.3

1.6

1.1

4.8

-3.3

1.3

0.4

0.6

4.9

5.5

-2.7

-2.1

8.0

0.8

1.2

3.6

0.4

1.1

4.1

5.1

3.0

2.7

3.1

1.1

3.5

7.5

1.9

1.1

4.0

1.2

3.7

1.3

4.7

3.0

2.9

3.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

3.0

0.7

1.5

3.9

4.3

3.9

1.5

3.5

2.0

6.8

7.7

2.4

2.5

5.5

3.0

4.0

3.5

0.6

2.6

5.0

4.2

3.7

0.3

2.3

5.8

1.0

0.0

2.7

2.4

2.5

2.2

1.9

5.0

0.6

4.1

3.3

1.0

2.9

2.2

3.0

3.5

2.6

4.3

3.8

0.7

1.0

1.9

1.8

18.0

7.2

2.4

6.9

7.2

5.6

3.7

3.7

6.7

5.5

4.9

11.4

3.9

0.2

13.5

5.3

5.8

2.6

3.0

1.3

:  

7.8

2.6

:  

1.8

3.0

3.5

2.3

3.3

2.7

3.0

2.2

23.1

8.6

3.0

:  

7.1

6.6

:  

4.4

9.6

6.3

8.2

14.1

5.4

-1.7

19.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 149

eurostat

Table A.5. Percentage changes in nominal prices, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 

CONSUMPTION

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL 
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

6.2

46.9

:  

6.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

13.1

2.6

:  

12.7

8.1

2.9

8.9

8.2

6.8

6.8

6.0

20.5

20.5

0.0

20.5

18.3

12.5

20.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

7.1

2.3

:  

7.1

10.6

15.6

6.4

15.0

12.0

8.0

10.0

13.2

6.3

9.2

9.2

2.0

8.4

0.2

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

8.2

:  

:  

8.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

28.8

-0.1

46.6

9.1

:  

:  

9.1

2.3

16.5

:  

2.3

1.2

2.7

0.8

44.0

7.6

6.4

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

2.8

19.6

:  

2.9

:  

2.1

:  

9.0

2.1

:  

2.0

:  

:  

:  

8.0

2.3

3.2

0.0

3.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

7.1

:  

:  

7.1

4.8

13.8

:  

5.0

9.2

8.4

10.1

11.5

2.3

8.8

12.1

5.9

6.1

5.4

5.9

-3.9

7.1

-10.7

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

5.1

16.1

:  

5.4

10.1

5.0

12.9

32.2

8.8

3.7

8.3

8.4

8.4

13.5

7.7

-0.2

7.7

-5.9

1.8

:  

:  

1.8

4.7

18.5

:  

4.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

150 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

Table A.6. Percentage changes in real prices, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

eurostat

+ CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

11.8

-1.1

-1.8

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

5.8

10.3

11.5

CEREALS (including seeds)

0.1

9.5

-1.0

2.4

3.4

9.5

-3.2

-4.5

2.6

-12.6

:  

0.0

16.9

:  

-3.1 -129.3

-0.4

-3.6

2.6

-0.6

4.2

-3.0

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

7.1

9.9

-1.2

4.4

-6.0

-3.1

4.1

2.1

3.8

10.7

57.6

13.6

-0.2

-4.5

1.0

-1.2

-1.7

0.8

0.7

-1.7

0.7

6.5

:  

1.5

1.7

7.9

0.0

1.8

-2.3

-10.4

-8.0

-3.4

4.1

9.1

-1.6

4.6

-1.9

10.9

-3.4

23.1

9.4

-0.6

1.1

1.3

:  

:  

:  

-0.2

0.3

0.3

7.8

1.1

-3.5

7.6

-4.2

-6.3

18.4

-10.9

-3.6

68.8

-4.5

11.6

8.2

24.6

5.9

4.4

-0.3

9.0

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.1

:  

-1.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.3

- at basic prices

8.1

0.6

-5.0

7.0

16.9

6.9

-1.3

-0.1

-0.4

0.7

-8.0

21.5

1.3

13.8

5.4

2.8

1.4

1.5

-0.2

1.4

0.5

8.7

-2.3

3.2

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

7.0

0.8

5.5

-19.1

6.2

12.3

0.3

3.1

18.7

2.2

0.7

5.0

- subsidies on product

-65.2

-12.1

-44.4

5.1

-8.8

0.6

:  

-4.0

8.4

-13.9

-12.0

-0.8

-9.6

7.2

0.6

12.3

4.8

5.5

-22.6

-10.9

-11.5

- taxes on product

10.3

:  

- at basic prices

1.6

-2.4

0.0

-9.6

:  

:  

-1.6 -129.3

-5.8

0.0

9.0

4.7

-1.7

1.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

15.4

2.2

-2.7

-1.4

-2.9

6.2

5.3

:  

:  

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

-2.1

30.9

:  

-2.9

-9.8

-1.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-8.6

1.8

5.0

8.1

:  

:  

-10.4

:  

:  

3.9

2.0

-2.9

4.4

4.8

6.4

-4.1

8.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.7

-2.3

-16.6

23.7

28.9

8.6

4.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.0

-2.9

-9.8

-1.5

-8.1

5.3

-10.4

3.8

-2.0

5.0

-3.6

-2.7

-1.0

-14.8

7.0

-1.6

-2.3

0.6

-0.2

-2.2

8.7

0.6

0.4

-2.9

9.0

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

1.7

-0.8

2.0

-1.9

-6.4

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-52.6

:  

-1.6

0.6

-1.6

-2.1

-3.2

-0.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.1

-7.1

:  

:  

-3.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.8

-1.8

:  

3.5

13.9

5.0

7.9

-1.6

-0.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.0

-1.4

-2.0

-0.8

- at basic prices

1.7

-0.8

2.0

0.5

-6.5

0.6

-2.1

-3.2

-0.5

-3.1

3.5

16.5

5.0

0.8

7.9

POTATOES (including seeds)

- at producer prices

80.8

6.9

25.9

16.2

16.6

20.1

32.0

22.7

-2.9

52.4

-10.5

-2.3

17.0

25.7

27.5

26.6

4.2

-6.5

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-14.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.3

-10.9

9.5

-18.6

:  

-4.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-8.8

-4.5

-8.9

-4.5

- at basic prices

80.8

6.9

25.9

16.2

16.6

19.2

32.0

22.7

-2.9

51.5

-10.6

4.1

-1.8

16.8

25.7

27.1

26.2

FRUITS

- at producer prices

41.9

-2.9

10.6

8.4

10.9

10.8

3.5

3.8

53.2

14.3

1.4

6.5

-19.3

-1.1

0.3

8.6

8.3

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

12.0

-1.8

4.4

:  

:  

-1.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.8

:  

- at basic prices

41.9

-2.9

10.6

8.8

10.7

10.5

3.5

3.8

53.2

14.2

7.7

1.4

:  

-72.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.4

-19.3

-1.1

0.3

-11.8

-11.8

0.7

8.0

0.7

7.8

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.2

4.0

-29.8

-3.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.2

4.0

-29.8

:  

-1.6

-3.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.8

0.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.8

0.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.2

-9.9

:  

-17.1

-11.7

-1.6

-2.1

-10.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.7

-3.7

-17.1

-17.1

-2.8

-3.7

-2.8

-3.7

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 151

eurostat

Table A.6. Percentage changes in real prices, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

+ CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

CEREALS (including seeds)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

-2.7

173.4

:  

-2.5

5.5

:  

:  

6.2

3.2

-16.1

:  

3.2

-24.6

-39.9

:  

-24.7

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

0.9

:  

:  

0.9

POTATOES (including seeds)

- at producer prices

-20.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-20.9

FRUITS

-0.1

4.8

:  

0.1

-6.7

5.1

:  

-5.3

1.0

5.5

:  

1.4

-12.5

17.9

:  

-12.5

-18.5

17.9

:  

-18.5

12.6

:  

:  

2.7

:  

:  

2.7

-5.8

:  

:  

-5.8

-4.6

:  

:  

12.6

-4.6

4.6

13.8

:  

4.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.9

12.7

:  

-7.6

-4.7

12.7

:  

-4.2

-0.3

:  

:  

-0.3

3.3

12.2

:  

3.3

-1.6

:  

:  

-4.7

-2.9

:  

-4.6

-20.1

-3.3

:  

-1.6

-17.0

4.3

-8.9

:  

4.2

-0.2

-1.8

0.2

:  

:  

0.2

-5.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.8

-9.6

:  

:  

-9.6

-5.4

-10.1

90.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

-10.1

90.8

:  

:  

-0.2

1.0

:  

:  

1.0

10.2

-18.9

:  

10.1

-2.3

-5.7

60.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.3

-5.7

60.5

4.2

:  

:  

4.2

-20.0

:  

:  

-20.0

-0.5

:  

:  

-0.5

6.0

25.9

:  

6.8

-7.1

12.6

:  

-7.0

-7.3

14.4

:  

-6.9

3.2

-6.5

:  

3.2

-6.0

-11.1

:  

-6.0

-1.3

11.1

:  

-1.3

-13.3

21.1

:  

-13.2

-21.0

18.5

:  

-5.6

-5.9

:  

-5.6

-0.3

2.5

:  

-0.2

0.2

:  

:  

0.2

20.2

-7.8

:  

19.9

-26.8

-6.5

-4.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-26.8

-6.5

-4.4

-21.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-6.6

-6.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-6.6

-6.6

1.5

11.1

:  

1.5

17.5

37.9

:  

17.6

10.9

18.5

:  

11.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at producer prices

-10.0

6.5

-15.8

-53.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-10.0

6.5

-15.8

-53.0

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

152 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table A.6. Percentage changes in real prices, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at producer prices

-2.1

-2.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-2.1

-2.9

+ ANIMAL OUTPUT

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.0

8.6

16.9

-14.5

-27.0

:  

4.0

-21.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.6

1.1

:  

-2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.3

-3.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.6

-1.6

-2.5

-4.5

:  

:  

0.1

:  

:  

19.7

-9.9

0.0

9.6

:  

:  

-1.3

-3.5

-5.4

-2.6

0.1

9.2

0.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-13.4

:  

:  

-13.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-6.4

-6.4

-11.6

-11.6

16.9

-8.7

16.9

-8.7

-9.9

-12.4

-1.9

:   388.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.9

66.1

-1.9

1.9

-1.9

7.3

:  

:  

:  

-9.9

0.9

-1.9

-0.3

-1.8

-1.8

- at producer prices

0.6

4.9

4.7

4.4

6.7

0.7

-2.3

2.0

- subsidies on product

59.1

77.8

10.9

-18.6

-16.6

18.9

6.6

21.0

-2.7

69.7

-0.6

52.5

5.1

2.7

17.6

26.1

-0.7

3.5

1.0

27.1

3.4

3.8

2.5

9.4

2.7

8.8

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMALS

1.3

2.1

-3.2

5.7

54.7

-58.3

:  

-10.7

-14.2

-1.7

-74.4

:  

-7.3

:  

35.3

:  

:  

-2.4

-10.6

4.8

2.6

5.4

1.9

-1.9

2.3

2.0

0.0

6.0

3.8

-0.2

2.2

3.6

2.8

3.0

- at producer prices

0.4

6.7

2.4

8.6

8.1

0.0

- subsidies on product

67.5

77.8

10.9

-18.5

-16.6

18.9

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

2.1

2.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

7.8

2.8

4.1

6.4

2.7

1.9

-3.7

6.6

-4.9

-2.6

21.0

-1.7

4.0

-10.9

0.3

1.6

3.1

5.9

5.4

69.7

59.7

17.6

26.6

25.3

37.9

-0.2

-1.5

2.6

10.2

:  

:  

-1.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.1

4.5

-0.5

1.0

3.0

4.6

7.9

7.9

-0.5

3.1

2.6

8.0

-0.1

3.0

- at producer prices

-19.4

-14.4

-24.6

-1.4

-18.9

-13.4

-11.8

-8.1

-20.6

-26.7

-16.5

- subsidies on product

78.4

80.4

14.4

19.9

6.0

23.8

8.5

73.3

70.9

154.6

19.0

-9.8

51.9

-1.1

26.0

-0.6

41.5

7.3

4.3

-15.6

-13.3

23.0

18.7

- taxes on product

4.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.6

- at basic prices

-11.3

-1.1

-19.1

2.3

-15.3

-6.9

-5.0

-8.3

-1.7

-5.5

:  

:  

-4.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.5

-5.0

-22.6

-10.2

3.5

5.3

6.3

6.1

-10.3

-1.5

-7.9

Pigs

- at producer prices

11.7

12.6

17.5

25.1

22.1

16.1

10.6

22.1

15.1

9.5

17.7

18.9

13.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

0.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

11.4

12.6

17.5

25.1

22.1

:  

:  

14.8

16.1

-4.5

10.6

Equines

:  

:  

:  

:  

-89.6

:  

:  

0.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

14.7

-9.4

:  

0.9

17.4

16.0

:  

:  

-93.5

-83.4

5.9

5.9

22.1

15.1

9.2

17.8

18.9

13.0

14.6

0.9

17.3

16.0

- at producer prices

2.7

-0.8

0.7

-0.6

-3.6

-1.6

-13.3

17.1

1.0

2.9

21.3

1.1

-2.3

-1.9

-0.4

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.3

-4.5

-2.4

-4.5

:  

:  

- at basic prices

2.6

-0.8

0.7

-0.6

-3.6

-1.6

-13.1

17.1

1.0

2.9

21.3

1.1

-2.3

-1.9

-0.4

-3.2

-2.4

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

7.7

9.7

23.4

4.6

5.7

23.7

37.9

5.8

16.0

3.8

1.8

13.8

-2.3

0.2

-6.0

12.0

8.1

- subsidies on product

-27.0

-2.9

-31.3

-27.3

-36.6

-23.9

-4.1

-23.3

-38.8

-23.2

-16.5

-20.1

-12.1

-0.9

-21.9

-27.6

-26.0

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.5

- at basic prices

1.1

6.1

11.3

-3.6

-4.2

14.4

26.8

-1.7

-4.5

:  

:  

-10.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.5

8.1

-0.1

-1.1

5.5

-7.2

0.0

-10.7

2.5

-2.5

-0.5

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 153

eurostat

Table A.6. Percentage changes in real prices, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at producer prices

-0.4

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

+ ANIMAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMALS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Pigs

:  

:  

-0.4

3.4

25.4

:  

3.7

7.8

130.7

:  

8.6

-20.2

146.4

:  

-16.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.1

-0.3

:  

-4.7

14.2

-9.0

:  

13.3

20.5

96.1

:  

20.6

21.0

:  

:  

21.3

- at producer prices

18.4

22.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

18.4

22.3

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Equines

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.8

14.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.8

14.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.7

-26.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.7

-26.6

14.3

-6.3

:  

14.2

21.4

-6.0

:  

21.1

-6.5

-59.9

:  

-6.7

35.6

-3.3

:  

35.2

12.8

-3.5

:  

:  

12.8

16.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.5

-3.4

:  

:  

16.9

-3.4

1.9

:  

:  

1.9

7.8

:  

:  

7.8

53.0

-13.7

-4.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.5

5.7

:  

-6.9

-6.7

63.0

:  

-5.9

-14.0

95.7

:  

53.0

-13.7

-4.8

-12.6

6.5

:  

:  

6.5

-2.3

12.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.3

12.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.8

-7.8

:  

-7.8

-1.4

25.5

:  

-0.8

-0.9

25.5

:  

0.0

-9.1

28.1

:  

-6.5

3.4

-7.8

:  

3.4

25.2

-7.8

:  

21.8

-2.5

24.5

:  

0.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.2

-3.1

:  

-2.2

4.3

9.2

:  

4.3

9.6

31.3

:  

9.8

-6.1

68.6

:  

-4.9

15.8

-1.4

:  

15.7

13.5

-7.4

:  

13.4

8.5

57.9

:  

11.9

-7.4

10.3

:  

-7.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

17.7

81.2

:  

43.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.3

17.9

:  

12.1

-5.1

20.8

-0.6

8.4

12.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.2

20.8

-0.6

8.4

12.2

-5.0

58.0

:  

4.7

11.6

7.3

-36.7

-0.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

11.6

7.3

-36.7

-0.5

154 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

Table A.6. Percentage changes in real prices, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

eurostat

Poultry

- at producer prices

8.5

5.2

7.6

9.5

9.7

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

6.3

-1.6

:  

0.0

-4.5

-2.4

14.3

1.0

-7.8

3.5

1.7

-5.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-62.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.5

1.0

- at basic prices

8.5

5.2

7.6

9.5

9.7

6.3

0.0

-4.5

-2.4

14.3

-7.8

3.5

1.7

-5.1

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

1.0

1.1

7.1

0.1

- subsidies on product

:  

:  

:  

-41.9

2.3

0.0

1.8

-1.6

-0.5

-1.5

3.2

-1.6

9.9

1.9

:  

:  

:  

-8.4

:  

-74.4

:  

-8.1

:  

:  

54.7

-58.3

:  

-20.6

-20.5

6.8

0.8

2.3

1.9

-0.6

-1.5

4.1

-1.0

10.5

1.9

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

-2.1

0.6

-3.2

1.1

Milk

- at producer prices

3.4

0.9

7.6

0.6

4.8

-0.3

0.3

3.5

-0.5

12.3

3.8

- subsidies on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Eggs

-2.1

2.9

-3.2

0.9

2.3

-1.6

:  

:  

54.7

-58.3

-20.6

-20.5

7.3

1.4

4.8

2.4

-0.4

0.3

4.5

0.2

:  

:  

:  

-74.4

:  

:  

:  

-8.2

13.2

:  

:  

3.7

:  

:  

-3.7

-2.5

35.3

-3.7

-1.3

-2.5

35.3

-1.8

-2.6

8.5

-2.3

246.2

:  

:  

-2.6

11.0

-3.3

10.5

-2.7

246.2

:  

:  

-3.3

13.4

- at producer prices

-12.3

6.0

2.7

-3.7

-5.0

-3.3

-2.3

-9.5

-2.9

-11.4

-0.8

-9.2

-16.3

4.8

-2.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-8.4

:  

:  

-1.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

84.3

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-12.3

6.0

2.7

-3.7

-5.0

-3.3

-2.3

-9.5

-2.9

-11.4

-0.8

-9.2

-16.3

4.9

-2.0

Other animal products

- at producer prices

-2.1

-2.9

-1.3

3.2

-3.6

6.6

-21.0

2.1

1.9

-2.9

-7.2

-4.8

-9.0

-1.9

-5.7

-2.6

-2.7

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-41.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-41.9

-41.9

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-2.1

-2.9

-1.3

3.1

-3.6

6.6

-21.0

2.1

1.9

-2.9

-7.2

-4.8

-9.0

-1.9

-5.7

-2.6

-2.7

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

5.4

26.7

7.8

6.1

2.8

9.3

-3.2

3.3

1.5

-9.5

1.4

6.4

2.1

2.2

-1.6

11.9

-2.5

4.6

1.3

0.8

-1.7

38.3

0.6

17.9

1.6

-3.0

16.7

-20.3

:  

-6.6

-23.4

-1.7

-74.4

:  

-7.4

0.3

2.6

1.8

3.2

-2.1

1.3

1.8

1.0

1.2

3.6

14.2

-1.6

4.2

-1.3

7.2

35.3

0.0

-1.1

24.2

5.7

1.9

1.7

3.0

:  

:  

-1.1

1.3

5.3

1.8

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

-2.1

0.1

0.2

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-2.1

0.1

0.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

-3.1

0.4

2.8

1.6

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.4

-2.8

:  

-0.1

0.3

-1.3

3.8

-3.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

-2.8

:  

:  

-3.1

0.4

2.8

1.6

0.0

-1.5

-0.1

0.3

-1.3

3.8

-3.8

0.0

-0.4

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

5.3

26.7

7.8

6.1

2.7

9.3

-3.2

3.2

1.5

-9.5

1.4

6.4

2.0

2.1

-1.6

11.9

-2.2

4.6

1.3

0.8

-1.6

38.3

0.5

15.0

1.5

-3.0

16.7

-20.3

:  

-6.6

-23.4

-1.7

-74.4

:  

-7.4

0.3

2.6

1.7

3.1

-1.9

1.3

1.8

0.8

1.2

3.6

14.2

-1.6

4.2

-1.3

7.2

35.3

0.0

-1.0

24.2

5.2

1.9

1.6

3.0

:  

:  

-1.1

1.3

4.8

1.8

1.9

3.4

-4.5

2.1

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 155

4.5

-3.5

-3.5

4.5

2.3

-4.9

-3.4

2.3

3.4

-4.8

-3.4

3.4

-4.8

-8.4

-1.1

-4.8

2.7

-3.5

-3.5

2.7

2.8

26.0

-14.3

3.0

3.8

26.7

-14.3

4.1

-4.1

-6.4

-1.1

-4.1

2.0

3.4

-4.5

2.1

-0.4

-2.8

eurostat

Table A.6. Percentage changes in real prices, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

Poultry

- at producer prices

12.2

12.8

-2.3

-0.1

-8.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Milk

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Eggs

:  

:  

:  

:  

12.2

12.8

-2.3

-13.8

:  

-2.6

-1.3

-13.8

:  

-1.6

- at producer prices

-7.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Other animal products

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

-7.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.2

39.7

:  

0.5

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.1

39.7

:  

1.4

10.0

-6.5

:  

9.7

1.5

-57.8

:  

1.5

4.4

:  

:  

4.4

9.7

:  

:  

9.7

1.4

12.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.4

12.7

2.0

-57.8

:  

2.0

0.9

:  

:  

0.9

-1.4

-5.8

:  

-1.4

0.8

:  

:  

0.8

-0.6

:  

:  

7.2

:  

:  

7.2

10.0

-10.6

:  

8.8

12.0

-10.6

:  

10.4

4.5

:  

:  

4.5

-5.1

:  

:  

-5.1

8.8

-2.7

:  

8.3

-5.1

0.6

41.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.1

0.6

41.1

7.9

-2.7

:  

7.5

-1.4

-5.8

:  

-1.4

7.6

:  

:  

7.6

156 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

:  

:  

-0.1

-6.0

:  

:  

-6.0

-5.7

:  

:  

-5.7

:  

:  

-8.0

-8.6

-4.4

:  

-8.2

-5.6

-4.4

:  

-5.5

3.8

:  

:  

3.8

-2.1

:  

:  

-2.1

0.5

:  

:  

0.5

-6.8

21.2

-15.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-6.8

21.2

-15.1

4.2

-6.5

:  

4.1

-3.1

-8.4

:  

-3.1

-2.4

-8.3

:  

-2.5

-3.2

-57.8

:  

-3.2

:  

:  

-2.3

-3.6

:  

:  

-3.6

-4.6

:  

:  

-4.6

-2.3

:  

:  

-2.3

-2.3

:  

:  

-6.9

-70.8

-7.8

-17.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.6

-2.3

-6.9

-70.8

-7.8

-17.5

-0.1

13.8

:  

-0.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.1

13.8

:  

-0.1

-3.2

12.7

:  

-3.1

1.1

:  

:  

1.1

-3.1

12.7

:  

-3.0

-2.3

6.2

:  

-2.1

-1.6

:  

:  

-1.6

-2.3

6.2

:  

-2.1

-2.8

7.1

:  

-2.5

4.7

:  

:  

4.7

-2.7

7.1

:  

-2.4

-1.7

11.1

:  

-1.6

5.6

:  

:  

5.6

-1.6

11.1

:  

-1.5

eurostat

Table A.6. Percentage changes in real prices, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

-2.1

-2.9

0.3

0.4

0.4

-1.2

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.1

-2.9

0.3

0.4

0.5

-1.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.4

0.0

-1.8

-0.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.4

0.0

-1.8

-0.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.6

4.4

1.3

-0.2

0.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.6

4.4

1.3

-0.2

0.2

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 

5.3

26.7

7.8

6.0

2.7

9.3

-3.2

3.2

1.5

-9.5

1.4

6.4

2.0

-1.6

2.0

11.9

-2.2

4.6

16.7

-20.3

:  

-6.5

-23.4

0.3

2.5

1.7

3.0

-1.9

1.3

0.8

-1.7

1.3

-1.6

38.3

-74.4

0.5

15.0

:  

1.7

0.8

1.4

-3.0

-7.4

1.1

3.6

14.2

-1.6

4.2

-1.4

7.2

35.3

-0.2

-0.8

24.2

5.0

1.9

:  

:  

1.4

4.7

1.6

3.0

-1.1

1.7

1.9

3.4

-4.5

2.0

CONSUMPTION

0.8

2.5

-0.2

-0.3

-1.4

2.1

-2.6

1.8

0.0

1.1

-0.3

1.4

-1.1

2.9

0.6

0.7

0.8

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL 
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

3.2

-9.9

1.0

-6.7

2.1

0.2

0.8

-2.1

-4.7

-1.8

-0.3

-8.5

-22.8

-6.4

-1.8

-6.5

2.9

-5.5

2.9

8.1

2.1

-1.3

9.7

-2.5

-3.6

-5.8

7.6

1.7

-0.9

-4.9

-0.2

-2.9

-0.1

-3.0

7.3

16.6

11.4

8.1

3.7

12.7

11.1

2.2

10.1

14.3

22.7

13.5

4.6

16.1

7.9

9.7

9.7

-2.1

0.6

1.9

2.0

3.9

3.4

0.7

-1.3

-2.6

-1.6

-1.1

-1.0

-3.2

-3.1

-1.3

-1.1

0.0

4.9

-4.4

-4.6

-4.2

-1.8

-0.5

5.3

-2.2

-3.1

-0.3

-3.3

-0.5

0.3

-6.3

-2.0

-2.3

-2.2

-2.7

0.9

-5.6

-1.1

-1.9

-1.3

3.0

3.5

-4.9

-4.3

5.5

-1.4

-1.1

1.2

-1.8

-1.3

1.6

3.0

0.1

1.4

-0.2

-2.6

1.9

2.6

-0.7

-1.8

-1.0

-0.8

-0.2

-1.1

2.7

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.9

-0.1

1.0

0.1

-0.6

0.2

0.6

1.0

0.1

-2.2

1.9

0.4

1.9

2.8

-0.2

-0.1

2.4

0.0

-1.0

-1.4

-1.5

0.5

1.1

0.3

1.3

-2.0

0.4

3.8

-1.3

-2.3

0.4

-0.2

0.1

-0.4

-0.2

2.0

-0.7

0.8

-0.5

-0.6

-1.7

-0.4

0.0

-1.4

0.5

0.4

1.4

-1.1

-1.3

-0.5

-0.6

15.6

4.1

1.1

3.5

3.3

3.9

-1.0

1.1

3.6

0.5

2.8

7.2

1.5

-1.7

10.9

2.6

3.2

0.5

0.1

0.0

:  

3.9

1.0

:  

-0.8

0.0

-1.4

0.3

-0.6

0.3

1.1

-0.1

20.5

5.5

1.7

:  

3.2

5.0

:  

1.8

6.4

1.2

6.0

9.8

2.9

-3.5

16.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 157

eurostat

Table A.6. Percentage changes in real prices, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-2.1

6.2

:  

-1.9

1.9

1.2

2.8

4.1

-4.5

1.6

4.6

-1.1

-1.0

-1.6

-1.1

-10.3

0.0

-7.8

-4.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.8

-4.4

-3.1

7.1

:  

-2.7

1.5

-3.2

4.1

21.9

0.4

-4.4

-0.1

0.0

0.0

4.7

-0.7

-8.0

-0.6

-1.6

11.1

:  

-1.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-16.7

-13.2

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 

CONSUMPTION

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL 
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

1.1

39.7

:  

1.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.1

:  

:  

-5.1

7.3

-2.7

:  

6.9

2.6

-2.4

3.3

2.6

1.3

1.3

0.5

14.3

14.3

-5.1

14.3

12.3

6.7

14.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.4

-5.8

:  

-1.4

1.8

6.5

-2.0

5.9

3.1

-0.5

1.3

4.2

-2.1

0.6

0.6

-6.1

-0.2

-7.7

-0.6

:  

:  

-0.6

7.5

:  

:  

7.5

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

28.0

-0.7

45.7

6.5

:  

:  

6.5

-0.1

13.8

:  

0.0

-1.1

0.3

-1.5

40.7

5.1

3.9

-2.3

-2.1

-2.1

-5.7

:  

:  

-5.7

-3.1

12.7

:  

-3.1

:  

-3.8

:  

2.7

-3.8

:  

-3.9

:  

:  

:  

1.8

-0.1

0.8

-2.3

1.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

158 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table A.7. Percentage changes in nominal value, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

+ CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

CEREALS (including seeds)

7.1

2.6

-4.3

7.0

0.1

6.4

0.8

-2.4

-2.6

6.3

-1.9

5.7

-0.2

1.9

5.1

9.0

1.5

0.9

-8.4

2.1

5.2

11.9

1.9

1.6

8.2

6.3

-5.7

4.1

-2.0

3.1

17.7

-12.0

0.8

2.3

:  

-11.1

10.0

:  

-8.6

:  

-0.4

:  

:  

-0.1

12.4

:  

:  

:  

-5.9

1.2

0.4

-0.2

-0.9

0.1

5.7

1.4

-7.1

5.3

1.9

8.0

-4.0

0.9

0.5

1.0

- at producer prices

-3.0

2.2

- subsidies on product

1.5

10.9

4.0

7.5

-1.5

-26.0

6.4

6.6

-3.5

4.7

4.4

9.7

-0.6

-11.0

0.5

0.8

1.3

22.3

3.1

3.0

-12.7

-12.9

3.0

-13.9

21.2

1.3

17.8

-13.1

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-11.6

:  

-0.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-1.5

5.0

5.2

2.0

-16.9

-1.0

6.2

-0.1

-7.6

5.2

3.1

0.9

-7.8

8.1

-13.7

-4.6

5.4

-3.9

-1.3

0.8

1.6

-5.9

1.0

-5.1

4.0

-3.9

-2.1

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

-1.6

-9.0

3.1

-21.4

0.5

0.7

-2.1

- subsidies on product

-60.8

-24.1

-36.7

3.9

-6.5

-10.1

- taxes on product

-4.3

:  

-11.1

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-4.4

-12.9

-7.1

-7.7

-2.3

-2.4

2.1

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

1.5

35.7

:  

0.0

-8.1

-0.9

-3.4

8.0

2.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

7.5

16.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.5

-5.7

0.1

-0.8

3.9

2.0

-5.6

-7.5

:  

:  

:  

3.5

9.7

1.4

7.5

5.9

9.0

-0.5

0.4

-1.9

-11.3

19.8

-6.2

-19.8

-10.9

-11.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-6.2

3.5

7.1

-3.3

10.0

4.0

3.5

-9.3

-3.6

-9.3

-3.0

0.1

7.7

10.0

11.7

-3.1

-2.3

-10.2

-6.5

-11.2

18.2

37.2

25.0

21.2

0.0

14.5

-0.4

16.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

3.7

0.0

-8.1

-0.9

-2.9

8.8

2.3

3.9

1.1

10.3

-3.1

-10.2

-5.2

-9.4

23.4

0.7

0.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.1

1.3

-0.1

1.8

25.5

-9.8

0.0

25.7

-9.9

0.0

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

6.3

2.2

2.3

-0.2

-1.6

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-50.0

:  

- at basic prices

6.3

2.2

2.3

2.3

-1.7

2.2

0.0

0.0

2.2

POTATOES (including seeds)

5.9

21.9

6.1

8.2

1.1

1.7

2.2

-2.6

-2.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.8

-2.0

:  

:  

-0.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.7

0.0

:  

2.2

-2.6

-2.8

1.8

5.9

24.6

6.1

2.7

8.2

- at producer prices

39.8

4.5

26.8

13.3

14.7

20.8

40.3

22.0

-18.4

53.6

5.3

-11.9

15.0

32.2

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-16.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.2

-5.6

0.0

-20.0

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

-6.7

-9.4

- at basic prices

39.8

4.5

26.8

13.3

14.7

19.8

40.3

22.0

-18.4

52.7

-7.0

5.2

-11.4

14.8

32.2

25.1

25.4

FRUITS

- at producer prices

1.3

-10.0

-8.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.6

13.1

16.4

14.0

:  

:  

- at basic prices

1.3

-10.0

-8.9

3.6

16.2

6.9

-3.1

0.0

6.4

8.5

5.5

-16.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

8.0

0.0

-5.8

14.1

-0.6

0.7

6.6

:  

-57.4

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

8.5

5.5

-16.0

7.9

-5.8

7.5

-0.6

0.7

6.6

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.1

4.1

-44.0

-8.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.1

4.1

-44.0

:  

-6.7

-8.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.1

-11.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.1

-11.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.8

3.0

:  

-5.3

0.0

5.9

12.4

2.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

8.3

-3.9

0.0

8.0

-7.3

-5.2

2.6

-7.3

8.2

-3.9

0.0

7.9

-7.3

-5.2

2.6

-7.3

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 159

eurostat

Table A.7. Percentage changes in nominal value, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

34.3

-18.0

+ CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

10.8

223.7

:  

11.1

CEREALS (including seeds)

- at producer prices

33.4

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

28.5

3.3

:  

28.5

-18.1

-31.1

:  

-18.1

:  

:  

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

-6.1

-7.5

-10.0

:  

-7.6

-18.9

-11.4

:  

24.7

-2.3

:  

21.8

3.7

:  

:  

3.7

0.3

:  

:  

21.0

-94.6

:  

20.6

30.0

68.0

:  

30.0

-9.1

:  

:  

-9.6

-16.6

:  

:  

-16.6

52.0

-14.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

52.0

-18.2

4.2

:  

:  

4.2

16.1

:  

:  

-5.9

:  

:  

-5.9

-6.9

:  

:  

-6.1

0.3

16.1

-6.9

POTATOES (including seeds)

- at producer prices

-36.8

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

-13.9

99.3

:  

-2.4

13.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-36.8

-13.8

-2.4

13.1

FRUITS

- at producer prices

-21.3

13.8

-2.8

-38.4

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-21.3

13.8

-4.7

-38.4

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

160 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

0.4

7.9

:  

0.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

2.4

10.6

:  

2.4

-2.1

14.9

:  

-2.0

-9.3

-10.7

:  

-9.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.6

40.3

:  

5.0

22.5

40.3

:  

23.0

3.1

:  

:  

3.1

49.6

0.0

:  

49.3

76.3

:  

:  

76.3

62.7

0.0

:  

61.9

-1.4

130.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.4

130.4

-4.5

2.6

:  

-4.1

-10.9

6.5

:  

-7.6

-34.5

-18.6

:  

-32.7

2.0

3.2

:  

2.0

5.3

25.4

11.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.3

25.4

11.1

-28.5

:  

:  

-16.1

0.0

:  

-28.5

-15.3

2.0

0.0

:  

2.0

9.2

18.2

:  

9.3

24.7

36.0

:  

24.9

19.3

-43.0

:  

18.9

-1.3

-6.6

:  

-1.3

8.3

10.6

:  

8.3

-24.1

1.6

:  

-24.0

4.3

:  

:  

4.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.2

-21.7

-2.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.2

-21.7

-2.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.1

:  

:  

4.1

4.1

:  

:  

4.1

eurostat

Table A.7. Percentage changes in nominal value, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at producer prices

0.0

-10.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.0

-10.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.9

2.2

10.0

-2.1

31.4

12.2

:  

21.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.3

4.2

:  

0.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.9

0.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.1

0.0

5.3

0.0

:  

:  

14.3

:  

:  

57.3

18.4

-5.0

4.2

:  

:  

1.9

0.1

-3.9

4.8

14.3

43.5

-4.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-45.8

:  

:  

-45.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.8

6.9

4.8

6.9

:  

:  

5.7

5.7

3.0

-7.1

0.0

:   400.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.2

25.9

1.1

2.4

0.4

4.9

:  

:  

:  

3.0

6.9

0.0

-0.3

1.1

0.5

+ ANIMAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMALS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

0.2

53.5

0.0

1.6

-1.2

61.1

0.0

0.9

10.4

83.0

6.6

7.6

15.8

2.3

3.5

5.8

1.6

0.3

6.7

4.8

12.4

-17.1

-10.6

19.1

-22.7

24.4

80.0

49.9

23.4

20.9

4.2

5.5

4.0

3.0

31.6

-11.1

5.5

6.1

5.4

2.1

-71.1

57.0

-56.9

:  

-9.3

-23.2

-0.2

-73.3

:  

-6.3

:  

38.5

:  

:  

-2.4

-11.6

11.3

6.6

5.6

13.9

3.4

-0.9

6.1

6.7

0.9

7.7

5.5

4.3

5.3

1.0

5.6

5.3

15.2

83.0

4.6

10.8

16.2

1.9

0.7

12.4

-17.1

-10.6

19.1

-22.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

16.4

5.0

6.2

14.3

4.3

3.7

-12.5

-5.3

8.6

24.4

-0.2

9.1

-8.3

80.0

-3.2

55.2

4.3

6.2

23.4

21.3

10.9

25.6

9.3

-3.8

43.5

-15.9

5.5

6.6

:  

:  

2.8

-2.5

0.0

5.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.7

7.2

12.5

11.9

-6.5

5.6

5.1

0.9

-0.7

4.7

- at producer prices

-22.6

-12.8

-24.0

3.0

-13.7

-12.9

-8.7

-7.0

-15.9

-31.5

-12.1

-12.3

- subsidies on product

71.2

85.7

15.8

25.2

12.8

23.3

-19.0

75.1

81.1

137.9

24.5

47.7

-0.6

26.4

4.3

1.9

-14.8

-12.9

48.5

-5.3

18.0

12.4

- taxes on product

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.6

-13.7

- at basic prices

-14.9

0.8

-18.4

6.8

-9.9

-6.5

-11.9

-0.5

-4.4

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.1

0.6

-27.7

-5.7

0.6

5.7

11.6

-1.0

-10.0

-4.1

-8.3

Pigs

- at producer prices

11.6

21.7

20.5

27.8

31.9

19.2

19.5

27.7

8.3

5.8

17.9

18.2

18.1

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

11.3

21.7

20.5

27.8

31.9

Equines

40.0

19.2

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-90.0

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

19.5

27.7

8.3

5.4

17.9

18.2

18.1

18.1

-5.3

18.2

-6.7

:  

-5.3

20.7

19.3

:  

:  

-93.5

-83.8

14.2

20.6

14.2

19.3

- at producer prices

5.1

2.1

-18.0

2.6

10.1

0.0

-4.3

40.2

-37.2

3.7

6.2

41.2

16.7

0.0

1.9

1.9

1.7

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-71.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-71.4

-71.4

:  

:  

- at basic prices

5.1

2.1

-18.0

2.6

10.1

0.0

-4.6

40.2

-37.2

3.7

6.2

41.2

16.7

0.0

1.9

1.8

1.7

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

9.2

27.6

27.7

5.8

14.0

30.0

38.2

10.7

36.9

9.0

9.4

6.3

0.0

-11.5

-23.4

17.0

6.6

- subsidies on product

-26.0

0.0

-28.8

-26.4

-31.7

-20.1

-38.6

-19.9

-27.8

-19.4

-6.6

-25.4

-18.2

-12.5

-44.9

-27.9

-33.5

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-10.0

- at basic prices

2.5

19.0

15.1

-2.5

3.3

20.2

8.0

3.0

-0.1

:  

:  

27.6

4.9

0.0

6.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.0

-1.5

-9.5

-11.7

-30.5

5.7

-1.0

-4.3

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 161

eurostat

Table A.7. Percentage changes in nominal value, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

+ ANIMAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMALS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Pigs

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-69.2

-33.1

:  

4.7

-67.8

29.1

-0.3

:  

27.9

43.2

77.3

:  

43.2

37.0

:  

:  

8.4

26.4

:  

8.7

13.6

118.8

:  

14.5

-20.4

145.8

:  

-16.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.4

:  

:  

3.4

24.6

5.1

:  

24.5

31.3

5.4

:  

31.0

-13.7

-63.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

11.8

:  

:  

11.8

8.7

:  

:  

8.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.1

:  

:  

5.1

6.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

17.8

:  

:  

0.0

7.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

17.8

-10.8

8.5

:  

7.7

-10.0

12.0

:  

:  

-18.1

3.8

:  

6.7

12.0

-17.7

41.9

-0.3

-11.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-53.8

4.8

:  

37.3

-13.9

41.1

-0.3

-11.0

-53.1

- at producer prices

23.3

45.1

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Equines

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

23.3

45.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

-29.0

-17.4

:  

-21.4

0.0

:  

:  

1.0

19.5

42.9

:  

24.2

36.9

-2.4

:  

36.5

5.0

:  

:  

5.0

-1.5

4.3

15.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-12.6

4.8

:  

-1.5

4.3

15.2

-12.5

0.0

43.4

19.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

43.4

19.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

21.9

-28.1

-32.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.7

:  

:  

-32.9

3.1

:  

21.9

-28.1

-32.4

0.7

-18.2

162 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

0.0

9.4

74.8

:  

10.5

9.2

74.8

:  

11.0

-0.5

87.5

:  

4.3

7.1

0.0

:  

7.0

46.7

0.0

:  

41.6

16.6

35.0

:  

18.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.1

-23.9

:  

0.1

10.2

17.8

:  

10.3

14.0

37.4

:  

14.1

-13.2

94.1

:  

-11.8

17.7

-1.1

:  

17.7

18.2

0.4

:  

18.1

11.2

5.0

:  

10.6

Table A.7. Percentage changes in nominal value, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

eurostat

Poultry

- at producer prices

7.0

15.9

17.6

11.8

18.4

10.2

7.7

3.6

29.9

15.2

4.7

2.1

24.5

6.7

1.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

7.0

15.9

17.6

11.8

18.4

10.2

7.7

3.6

29.9

15.2

0.0

4.8

:  

-58.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.1

24.5

6.7

1.0

10.7

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

3.8

0.7

8.6

4.2

12.8

- subsidies on product

:  

:  

:  

-40.0

:  

:  

:  

-71.1

57.0

-56.9

-19.4

-30.1

-73.3

:  

-7.2

7.6

1.2

9.0

9.8

2.2

1.1

-0.2

13.5

4.6

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.2

38.5

-0.4

259.1

:  

:  

1.0

8.3

4.9

12.7

3.0

7.9

1.2

10.0

5.2

10.5

2.2

0.7

-0.2

16.1

- at producer prices

5.6

0.1

9.2

4.1

15.1

7.9

2.4

8.3

5.5

13.4

2.8

1.1

-1.4

14.7

- subsidies on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

-71.1

57.0

-56.9

-19.4

-30.1

0.4

8.9

4.9

15.1

3.5

8.3

2.4

9.4

6.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

-73.3

:  

:  

:  

-7.3

14.4

:  

:  

-0.2

38.5

-0.7

259.1

:  

:  

2.8

0.6

-1.4

17.8

2.9

0.0

3.4

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Milk

0.0

3.3

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Eggs

0.0

5.0

- at producer prices

-6.6

12.4

3.9

3.7

6.6

-2.8

-0.4

-4.6

25.5

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.3

0.0

:  

- at basic prices

-6.6

12.4

3.9

3.7

6.6

-2.8

-0.4

-4.6

25.5

-3.2

0.3

-1.3

-14.5

13.8

9.5

-0.1

:  

0.0

0.3

:  

:  

:   100.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

-1.3

-14.5

13.9

9.5

-0.1

Other animal products

- at producer prices

0.0

0.0

-16.5

6.5

0.0

8.3

-20.2

6.7

-15.5

-2.1

-24.1

-2.8

4.3

0.0

-24.2

1.5

-0.3

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-40.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-40.0

-40.0

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.0

0.0

-16.5

6.5

0.0

8.3

-20.2

6.7

-15.5

-2.1

-24.1

-2.8

4.3

0.0

-24.2

1.5

-0.3

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

3.2

6.7

- subsidies on product

22.6

13.2

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

-3.2

-71.1

4.0

7.3

3.8

-0.3

7.8

3.4

0.5

3.9

4.8

2.4

0.9

6.0

3.9

-18.8

3.0

2.9

-1.7

39.3

2.9

20.8

4.4

7.6

-21.4

:  

-8.9

-30.9

-0.4

-73.3

:  

-5.6

1.3

4.6

1.4

0.5

3.0

1.9

3.3

4.8

6.7

10.7

12.4

6.9

-0.4

4.8

38.5

0.4

1.1

3.0

21.2

-11.5

2.8

3.1

:  

:  

-4.6

3.1

0.8

2.9

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

0.0

0.0

-6.6

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

0.0

0.0

-6.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

-4.0

2.0

5.9

5.7

1.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.4

0.0

:  

0.0

4.2

1.1

5.8

-5.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.5

0.0

:  

:  

-4.0

2.0

5.9

5.7

1.4

1.4

0.0

4.2

1.1

5.8

-5.3

0.5

-0.2

- at producer prices

3.2

6.4

- subsidies on product

22.6

13.2

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

-3.2

-71.1

3.9

7.0

3.4

-0.3

7.8

3.1

0.5

3.9

4.7

2.4

0.9

6.0

4.0

-18.8

3.1

2.9

-1.6

39.3

2.8

17.8

4.3

7.6

-21.4

:  

-8.9

-30.9

-0.4

-73.3

:  

-5.6

1.3

4.5

1.5

0.8

3.1

1.8

3.1

4.7

6.7

10.7

12.4

6.9

-0.3

4.8

38.5

0.4

1.3

2.6

21.2

-11.5

2.8

3.1

:  

:  

-4.6

3.1

0.5

2.8

2.8

1.7

-8.2

2.8

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 163

10.7

-1.9

0.0

5.5

-3.4

-3.1

5.5

6.4

-3.5

-3.1

6.3

9.0

-1.9

0.0

8.9

6.0

28.4

-15.5

6.2

6.7

28.9

-15.5

7.0

1.5

2.1

0.0

1.5

2.9

1.7

-8.2

2.8

-0.2

0.0

eurostat

Table A.7. Percentage changes in nominal value, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

4.8

16.6

0.0

23.0

Poultry

- at producer prices

33.6

46.6

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Milk

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Eggs

:  

:  

:  

:  

33.6

46.6

1.7

-11.1

:  

1.4

1.8

-11.1

:  

1.5

20.5

-1.7

:  

19.2

23.2

-1.7

:  

21.4

- at producer prices

0.8

13.8

33.8

13.7

:  

33.5

12.4

-49.6

:  

12.4

0.3

:  

:  

0.3

14.5

:  

:  

14.5

11.2

17.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

11.2

17.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.8

13.8

22.0

-49.6

:  

22.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Other animal products

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

9.6

42.9

:  

9.9

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

6.8

:  

:  

6.8

9.6

42.9

:  

9.9

0.1

-10.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.1

-10.1

13.6

-5.4

:  

12.7

22.7

-27.1

:  

22.4

0.0

23.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

23.4

12.7

-5.4

:  

12.0

22.7

-27.1

:  

22.5

7.4

:  

:  

7.4

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-0.3

:  

:  

-0.6

-8.2

:  

:  

-8.2

-0.4

:  

:  

-0.7

164 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

16.6

0.0

23.0

1.7

:  

:  

1.7

1.0

:  

:  

1.0

5.1

:  

:  

1.8

10.0

:  

2.4

8.6

10.0

:  

8.7

9.8

:  

:  

9.8

12.1

:  

:  

12.1

21.9

-0.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

5.1

21.9

-0.8

22.5

13.7

:  

22.5

4.9

1.1

:  

4.8

4.8

1.2

:  

4.8

9.3

-49.6

:  

9.2

-1.7

-68.2

0.0

-17.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.7

-68.2

0.0

-17.5

6.1

40.3

:  

6.3

9.1

:  

:  

9.1

6.2

40.3

:  

6.4

12.0

7.8

:  

11.9

3.0

23.6

:  

3.7

9.7

18.0

:  

9.8

-2.7

13.5

10.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.7

13.5

10.8

11.3

7.8

:  

11.2

3.2

23.6

:  

3.8

9.8

18.0

:  

9.8

:  

:  

4.8

2.1

:  

:  

2.1

0.5

:  

:  

0.5

4.5

:  

:  

4.5

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

3.0

7.9

:  

3.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.0

7.9

:  

3.0

eurostat

Table A.7. Percentage changes in nominal value, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

0.0

0.0

11.8

3.7

3.9

1.8

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

11.8

3.7

3.9

1.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

9.1

4.8

6.9

0.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

9.1

4.8

6.9

0.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.8

5.8

5.5

4.0

4.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.8

5.8

5.5

4.0

4.3

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 

3.1

22.6

-3.2

3.9

6.4

13.2

-71.1

7.0

3.4

-0.3

7.8

3.1

0.6

3.9

-21.4

1.4

4.7

2.4

0.9

6.0

:  

-8.9

4.4

1.5

4.0

-18.8

-30.9

0.8

3.2

2.9

-0.4

3.2

-1.4

39.3

-73.3

1.9

2.8

17.8

:  

3.2

4.0

7.6

-5.6

4.4

6.7

10.7

12.4

6.9

-0.1

4.8

38.5

0.5

1.4

2.7

21.2

-11.5

:  

:  

3.2

0.7

2.8

3.1

-4.6

2.8

2.9

1.7

-8.2

2.8

CONSUMPTION

3.8

5.0

1.2

0.9

4.2

2.2

4.1

3.7

2.9

3.8

1.7

4.0

-2.5

4.9

2.6

2.5

2.7

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL 
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- COMPENSATION 
OF EMPLOYEES

- OTHER TAXES 

ON PRODUCTION

+ OTHER SUBSIDIES 
ON PRODUCTION

= FACTOR INCOME

= NET OPERATING SURPLUS 

/ MIXED INCOME

- RENTS PAID

- INTEREST PAID

5.1

-8.9

4.0

-8.8

2.4

3.5

2.5

1.2

-5.6

-2.8

2.6

-7.0

6.5

4.4

2.3

-7.9

6.0

-2.7

2.6

12.4

3.6

1.1

2.8

2.9

0.6

-3.2

4.3

2.8

7.9

-1.7

1.6

-0.8

2.2

-1.0

8.5

14.0

11.7

-0.3

0.1

0.8

4.1

3.6

13.4

8.0

20.0

15.5

0.4

16.9

4.2

4.6

5.0

-1.0

-0.3

2.7

6.0

7.0

7.7

1.0

-1.0

-1.2

0.0

2.6

0.3

1.0

5.0

10.8

-12.1

-9.7

-0.1

1.6

7.9

3.0

4.5

1.3

6.2

0.7

-0.2

2.7

-13.7

15.0

3.2

-1.0

0.3

-0.4

-7.7

-0.7

2.3

-3.4

2.4

-6.7

0.6

5.1

6.5

-9.1

-4.5

9.0

-5.7

2.6

4.3

-5.9

1.9

4.8

5.1

-0.1

4.2

2.8

1.2

3.5

4.3

4.4

1.1

3.0

1.4

16.4

2.3

2.6

3.4

3.5

3.3

2.0

2.0

0.9

0.0

2.3

-4.8

8.2

-4.9

7.6

3.6

3.5

2.0

7.7

5.9

5.2

5.8

5.4

1.4

3.0

2.5

0.4

3.4

10.4

4.2

2.7

1.1

2.3

5.9

3.7

0.6

4.1

1.3

3.8

1.2

1.9

5.0

2.1

5.4

-1.5

1.0

1.5

5.6

3.0

1.4

2.6

7.2

1.9

1.4

1.0

2.1

2.0

4.1

9.7

5.8

1.5

4.6

0.7

-3.0

2.9

1.0

2.4

7.7

10.0

6.8

-0.2

-1.8

3.1

2.9

1.0

-0.1

0.1

1.6

9.8

3.8

2.1

3.3

3.0

3.5

1.7

4.4

0.2

-0.8

-0.5

3.1

2.6

5.0

13.3

9.8

1.5

3.8

-0.3

-4.4

2.8

-0.5

2.0

16.0

11.9

15.5

0.3

-2.3

3.1

3.0

4.0

0.0

1.6

1.9

9.6

3.4

0.5

2.5

6.9

6.0

1.4

3.2

1.6

-1.4

0.9

3.7

3.3

0.0

25.0

1.2

0.4

3.6

1.5

65.9

0.6

0.0

3.5

0.0

7.1

:  

:  

-10.4

1.8

2.0

0.0

4.9

5.0

1.0

1.0

7.3

1.8

1.8

2.7

-14.3

4.0

-13.2

12.2

6.8

9.2

0.8

0.2

15.4

3.0

0.0

0.0

:  

:  

18.0

14.0

54.5

4.6

0.4

5.3

3.8

5.0

6.2

0.0

-0.4

-0.5

0.0

0.0

5.8

2.9

2.5

0.0

9.3

3.3

3.6

4.5

-2.4

3.3

0.6

-0.2

0.4

-9.2

:  

:  

87.9

6.1

3.8

11.3

26.8

13.8

2.8

2.4

0.0

0.0

12.6

17.1

-3.8

-0.3

2.8

6.0

-2.8

-0.4

4.0

4.7

5.3

4.8

:  

:  

8.5

2.7

3.5

1.0

0.3

0.0

84.3

3.8

5.9

-0.6

-8.5

8.9

3.7

3.7

1.4

0.4

12.5

3.9

4.1

1.3

-0.5

:  

:  

:  

+ INTEREST RECEIVED

:  

= NET ENTREPRENEURIAL

INCOME

6.7

31.0

15.6

2.5

3.6

-0.4

6.6

4.1

1.2

3.7

13.4

20.0

4.7

5.8

11.4

4.3

5.0

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 165

eurostat

Table A.7. Percentage changes in nominal value, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 

CONSUMPTION

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL 
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- COMPENSATION 
OF EMPLOYEES

- OTHER TAXES 

ON PRODUCTION

+ OTHER SUBSIDIES 
ON PRODUCTION

= FACTOR INCOME

= NET OPERATING SURPLUS 

/ MIXED INCOME

- RENTS PAID

- INTEREST PAID

+ INTEREST RECEIVED

= NET ENTREPRENEURIAL

INCOME

9.6

42.9

:  

9.9

4.7

7.3

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.5

2.2

8.5

8.5

6.8

6.8

21.6

-4.2

37.5

2.8

12.0

-33.3

24.2

164.3

19.0

19.0

19.0

:  

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

12.1

-5.4

:  

11.4

4.5

-0.6

11.6

4.1

9.1

9.0

-4.4

20.0

20.0

0.0

24.2

20.3

14.0

23.0

9.8

0.0

33.2

23.6

53.6

0.0

11.0

0.0

64.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

22.7

-27.1

:  

22.5

18.8

24.2

21.6

28.3

15.4

10.2

12.2

33.3

7.4

23.4

22.1

28.8

7.3

36.8

5.9

25.1

17.4

34.9

49.3

8.9

0.4

5.7

65.1

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

-0.4

:  

:  

-0.7

-0.8

-13.7

-7.7

19.1

-8.0

0.0

-1.5

0.0

15.7

0.0

0.0

-0.7

-7.7

2.6

-0.7

0.0

0.0

2.7

4.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.2

-12.8

:  

:  

-12.8

2.9

7.9

:  

2.9

9.9

0.1

8.0

0.1

0.3

13.3

12.2

7.0

12.8

:  

7.0

-2.1

7.2

-2.6

-5.1

1.0

:  

:  

1.0

6.1

40.3

:  

6.3

10.6

-1.1

10.0

15.3

2.1

12.2

12.3

11.1

6.9

9.1

-0.4

-0.7

0.4

-1.1

-2.5

:  

19.7

0.0

-2.5

-2.1

16.4

-15.8

:  

-2.1

-20.2

-3.7

-4.1

-1.1

19.8

59.3

-5.6

-2.9

:  

:  

-2.9

10.1

7.8

:  

10.0

2.8

2.7

-5.6

-7.6

-9.2

5.8

10.4

4.6

-5.1

-2.7

7.4

32.5

6.8

61.6

9.6

-4.8

-30.1

11.1

21.2

-0.5

-2.9

16.3

52.8

0.0

:  

:  

0.0

3.0

23.6

:  

3.6

10.3

6.9

13.5

34.5

1.2

4.9

10.3

8.4

8.4

13.5

-20.3

-4.3

7.7

-12.3

8.2

-0.3

:  

:  

-0.3

9.6

18.0

:  

9.6

10.2

10.2

9.5

16.5

4.2

9.2

9.7

17.6

6.4

11.1

6.6

8.7

1.9

11.4

2.9

:  

16.4

34.4

-7.2

-10.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

-11.6

-14.8

8.3

11.1

6.9

12.6

23.4

:  

166 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table A.8. Percentage changes in real value, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

+ CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

CEREALS (including seeds)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

4.9

0.5

-6.3

4.8

-5.0

-0.6

-2.7

3.3

-0.5

-3.6

:  

-12.2

-5.6

3.0

6.5

-5.5

1.9

-1.7

0.3

0.3

4.1

:  

-10.0 -127.8

-1.7

-0.9

-3.3

-4.5

-1.5

0.9

-1.1

-1.7

-2.9

-1.2

-11.1

-0.9

0.2

6.5

-0.1

-0.5

:  

:  

-2.1

-9.8

0.3

-0.2

4.1

2.3

8.2

4.0

-7.9

1.7

-3.8

0.7

15.5

-14.0

:  

:  

:  

-6.2

-1.0

-1.8

-0.7

7.8

2.7

6.1

-4.6

-28.7

3.1

2.7

-5.1

3.0

-0.4

4.7

-3.1

-1.8

-13.6

-1.7

-4.3

16.5

1.0

0.9

-16.0

-14.9

1.1

-15.9

16.7

-1.1

15.6

-15.1

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-13.0

:  

-3.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-3.5

2.0

3.9

-1.3

-19.9

-2.5

1.3

-2.6

-10.3

0.2

1.0

-2.9

-10.0

6.1

-15.6

-1.8

-0.1

-7.7

-1.5

-6.5

3.2

-6.1

-3.4

-1.7

-0.8

-7.7

-1.5

-7.1

1.8

-6.1

-4.2

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

-3.7

-11.6

1.8

-23.9

-3.2

-0.9

-6.6

-2.0

-8.3

-1.5

7.5

-2.4

5.0

3.9

6.5

-2.6

-1.8

- subsidies on product

-61.6

-26.2

-37.5

0.6

-9.9

-11.5

:  

-8.1

-10.2

- taxes on product

-6.3

:  

-12.2

:  

:  

-1.6 -127.8

- at basic prices

-6.4

-15.4

-8.3

-10.6

-5.8

-4.0

-2.6

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

-0.5

32.9

:  

-2.9

-9.3

-4.1

-6.9

6.3

-2.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.6

14.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.4

-3.3

1.3

-0.6

:  

:  

-3.9

-14.6

17.0

-8.0

-21.6

-13.1

-13.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-10.7

-10.7

:  

-8.9

-1.5

4.9

-6.9

7.4

2.1

1.1

-5.7

-5.2

-2.8

4.6

4.8

6.4

-5.1

-4.3

-13.6

-8.7

-12.9

15.4

34.6

22.2

18.4

-2.1

12.0

-2.5

13.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

1.6

-2.9

-9.3

-4.1

-6.4

7.1

-2.4

1.3

-1.9

5.0

-5.0

-13.6

-7.4

-11.0

20.6

-1.4

-1.6

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

4.1

-0.7

1.0

-3.3

-5.2

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-51.8

:  

-1.6

0.6

-1.6

-2.5

-5.1

-5.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.1

-6.6

:  

:  

-2.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.8

-1.9

:  

3.7

17.3

3.6

5.8

-1.8

-1.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.7

-1.6

-1.7

-1.1

- at basic prices

4.1

-0.7

1.0

-0.9

-5.3

0.6

-2.5

-5.1

-5.6

-3.1

3.7

19.9

3.6

0.8

5.8

POTATOES (including seeds)

- at producer prices

36.9

1.5

25.2

9.7

10.5

18.9

33.9

18.9

-20.7

46.3

-8.6

1.4

-14.0

12.9

29.2

22.3

22.5

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-17.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.8

-11.2

-9.1

-2.3

-21.5

:  

-2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

36.9

1.5

25.2

9.7

10.5

17.9

33.9

18.9

-20.7

45.5

-8.9

1.3

-13.5

12.7

29.2

FRUITS

- at producer prices

-0.8

-12.6

-10.1

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.6

9.6

12.1

9.9

5.2

-4.7

:  

:  

-1.6

3.5

2.8

-18.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.9

-4.8

-7.7

9.8

-2.9

-1.2

4.2

:  

-59.0

:  

-2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-0.8

-12.6

-10.1

0.3

12.0

4.7

3.5

2.8

-18.4

2.8

-7.7

3.5

-2.9

-1.2

4.2

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.3

0.8

-46.0

-9.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.3

0.8

-46.0

:  

-8.1

-9.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.5

-14.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.5

-14.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

3.7

-0.9

:  

-8.9

-2.0

3.7

8.2

-1.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-12.1

-12.2

-2.0

21.9

-2.0

22.2

5.2

-6.5

-1.7

4.9

-9.2

-8.7

-0.2

-9.2

5.1

-6.5

-1.7

4.8

-9.2

-8.7

-0.2

-9.2

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 167

eurostat

Table A.8. Percentage changes in real value, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

+ CROP OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

5.4

208.0

:  

5.7

CEREALS (including seeds)

- at producer prices

26.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

INDUSTRIAL CROPS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

FORAGE PLANTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

22.3

-1.7

:  

22.2

-22.1

-34.5

:  

-22.1

27.7

-22.2

18.2

-7.4

:  

15.5

40.0

-14.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

40.0

-18.7

-12.2

-14.7

:  

-12.4

-23.1

-15.9

:  

:  

:  

-1.6

-4.8

:  

:  

11.4

-95.0

:  

11.0

19.7

54.7

:  

19.7

-9.7

:  

:  

-10.1

-17.1

:  

:  

-17.1

:  

:  

-4.0

6.9

:  

:  

6.9

:  

:  

-6.5

-7.4

:  

:  

-7.4

VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

-10.7

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-10.7

-4.8

POTATOES (including seeds)

- at producer prices

-39.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

-18.3

89.0

:  

-10.1

12.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-39.9

-18.2

-10.1

12.4

FRUITS

- at producer prices

-25.1

7.9

-10.5

-38.8

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

8.1

:  

0.1

-4.3

12.2

:  

-4.3

-11.4

-12.7

:  

-1.9

5.4

:  

-1.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.4

32.2

:  

-1.0

15.4

32.2

:  

16.0

-2.8

:  

:  

-2.8

39.7

-6.6

:  

39.4

64.6

:  

:  

-11.9

-5.4

:  

-11.6

-17.8

-1.8

:  

64.6

-14.8

51.9

-6.6

:  

51.1

-39.6

-25.0

:  

-37.9

-6.0

-4.8

:  

-5.9

2.4

:  

:  

2.4

-5.9

-7.8

:  

-5.9

-0.7

17.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.7

17.1

-32.6

:  

:  

-21.7

-6.6

:  

-32.6

-20.9

-1.6

-13.4

-27.8

-8.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.6

-4.0

-6.5

-2.3

-7.1

115.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.3

-7.1

115.1

- at basic prices

-25.1

7.9

-12.2

-38.8

-11.4

-1.6

-13.4

-27.8

WINE

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

168 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

-3.9

:  

:  

-3.9

-3.9

2.7

11.1

:  

2.8

17.2

27.9

:  

17.4

12.2

-46.8

:  

11.8

-6.7

-13.3

:  

-6.8

1.6

8.1

:  

1.6

-28.3

-5.1

:  

-28.2

:  

:  

-9.2

-3.9

:  

:  

Table A.8. Percentage changes in real value, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

eurostat

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at producer prices

-2.1

-12.6

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-2.1

-12.6

+ ANIMAL OUTPUT

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.9

-1.0

6.5

-5.2

26.6

8.2

:  

16.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.8

1.6

:  

-2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.5

11.4

-5.6

-1.6

-1.3

-3.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.5

:  

:  

52.7

14.9

-9.5

-0.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.3

-3.5

-5.4

0.1

11.4

39.3

-9.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-47.8

:  

:  

-47.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.6

3.5

6.5

2.4

1.6

3.5

6.5

2.4

-0.9

-9.3

-1.9

:   388.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.4

23.1

-2.4

-0.9

-3.0

1.7

:  

:  

:  

-0.9

4.4

-1.9

-2.5

-2.4

-3.0

- at producer prices

-1.9

7.2

5.3

4.2

11.6

0.7

-1.2

3.1

- subsidies on product

50.3

77.8

11.0

-19.8

-13.9

17.2

-26.2

21.3

-1.3

74.8

-4.5

42.8

4.5

0.9

20.9

16.4

1.8

3.0

2.0

0.6

29.2

-13.1

2.9

3.5

2.8

-0.3

- taxes on product

-2.1

-71.9

55.0

-58.2

:  

-10.7

-26.7

-2.7

-74.0

:  

-8.2

:  

35.3

:  

:  

-4.3

-13.3

- at basic prices

-0.5

8.1

5.3

2.3

9.8

1.8

-5.4

3.4

3.6

-3.9

5.5

1.5

1.9

3.3

-1.3

3.0

2.7

ANIMALS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

-3.3

57.8

-2.1

-1.2

11.9

77.8

3.3

7.3

12.0

0.3

-3.8

5.9

-11.0

11.0

-19.7

-13.9

17.2

-26.0

74.8

-7.8

47.8

2.1

2.2

8.3

7.2

-6.0

20.9

16.8

22.7

40.9

-17.8

2.9

4.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

13.1

3.7

2.8

10.2

2.7

2.0

-16.5

:  

:  

-2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.1

-9.6

6.3

-0.2

-7.1

3.7

3.2

9.9

9.8

-8.7

3.0

21.3

-2.7

- at producer prices

-24.2

-15.3

-25.0

-0.3

-16.8

-14.3

-12.8

-9.4

-18.3

-34.7

-13.9

-15.6

- subsidies on product

67.7

80.4

14.3

21.2

8.7

21.4

-22.6

70.7

75.8

126.6

22.0

42.2

-2.9

23.4

2.4

45.8

-0.4

-7.5

15.3

-16.9

-15.0

- taxes on product

-2.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.0

-17.6

- at basic prices

-16.6

-2.1

-19.4

3.5

-13.2

-8.0

-15.9

-3.0

-6.8

Pigs

:  

:  

-2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-6.5

-2.3

-31.1

-7.6

-3.2

3.2

9.5

-3.3

-12.2

-10.5

- at producer prices

9.3

18.2

19.0

23.8

27.1

17.3

14.0

24.5

5.2

0.8

15.5

13.8

15.3

-7.4

17.6

16.3

2.4

-1.5

-3.1

2.1

9.8

-6.5

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

-2.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

9.0

18.2

19.0

23.8

27.1

:  

:  

37.8

17.3

-4.5

14.1

Equines

:  

:  

:  

:  

-90.5

:  

:  

-2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

24.5

5.2

0.4

15.5

13.8

15.3

15.9

-7.4

16.0

-8.4

:  

:  

:  

-93.8

-84.2

12.0

17.5

12.0

16.2

- at producer prices

2.9

-0.8

-19.0

-0.6

6.1

-1.6

-8.6

36.7

-39.0

-1.3

4.1

35.9

14.0

-1.9

-0.4

-1.2

-1.1

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-72.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-72.7

-72.7

:  

:  

- at basic prices

2.9

-0.8

-19.0

-0.6

6.1

-1.6

-8.9

36.7

-39.0

-1.3

4.1

35.9

14.0

-1.9

-0.4

-1.3

-1.1

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

7.0

23.9

26.1

2.4

9.8

27.9

31.9

7.9

32.9

3.8

7.2

2.3

-2.3

-13.1

-25.2

13.5

3.5

- subsidies on product

-27.6

-2.9

-29.7

-28.8

-34.2

-21.4

-41.4

-21.9

-29.9

-23.2

-8.5

-28.2

-20.1

-14.1

-46.1

-30.2

-35.4

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-14.1

- at basic prices

0.4

15.6

13.6

-5.6

-0.4

18.3

3.1

0.4

-2.6

:  

:  

-2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.1

23.9

-0.1

4.7

-5.2

-11.6

-13.4

-32.0

2.5

-4.1

-7.1

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 169

eurostat

Table A.8. Percentage changes in real value, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

2.6

:  

:  

2.6

4.3

:  

:  

4.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.7

10.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.7

10.0

1.5

:  

:  

1.5

5.6

:  

:  

-16.7

1.3

:  

-16.0

-23.5

-3.1

:  

5.6

-23.2

OLIVE OIL

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

OTHER CROP PRODUCTS

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at producer prices

-0.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

-70.8

-36.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.8

-0.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.4

-69.4

-4.8

-0.6

11.2

:  

:  

11.1

8.0

:  

:  

7.9

22.4

-5.4

:  

21.4

35.8

68.2

:  

35.8

29.9

:  

:  

14.8

-3.2

:  

14.6

20.9

-2.9

:  

20.6

-20.6

-66.0

:  

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

+ ANIMAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMALS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Cattle

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Pigs

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Equines

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Sheep and goats

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

3.1

20.2

:  

3.4

8.1

108.1

:  

8.9

-24.3

133.8

:  

-20.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

-32.4

-21.4

:  

-25.2

41.0

-2.6

-16.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-56.9

-2.2

:  

30.2

-20.7

40.3

-2.6

-16.1

-56.2

- at producer prices

17.3

37.7

:  

:  

:  

:  

17.3

37.7

26.1

-10.1

:  

25.7

-2.1

:  

:  

-2.1

1.9

:  

:  

1.9

8.6

:  

:  

-18.4

-2.2

:  

8.6

-18.3

-5.1

-3.3

-0.6

40.1

12.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.2

-3.3

-0.6

40.1

12.2

13.4

35.5

:  

17.8

12.3

-28.5

-33.9

-5.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

12.3

-28.5

-33.9

-5.0

-23.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-37.4

-3.8

:  

170 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.8

-7.8

:  

-7.8

0.9

61.3

:  

1.9

0.7

61.3

:  

2.3

-8.2

72.9

:  

-3.8

-1.3

-7.8

:  

-1.3

35.3

-7.8

:  

30.6

7.5

24.5

:  

9.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.2

-28.5

:  

-5.2

3.7

10.2

:  

3.7

7.1

27.9

:  

7.2

-18.2

81.8

:  

-16.9

10.6

-8.7

:  

10.6

11.1

-7.4

:  

11.0

3.0

-1.9

:  

2.5

Table A.8. Percentage changes in real value, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

eurostat

Poultry

- at producer prices

4.8

12.6

16.1

8.2

14.0

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

8.4

-1.6

:  

2.8

1.0

26.1

9.7

2.6

-1.7

21.6

4.7

-1.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-59.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.0

2.6

- at basic prices

4.8

12.6

16.1

8.2

14.0

8.4

2.8

1.0

26.1

9.7

-1.7

21.6

4.7

-1.3

1.3

-1.6

1.8

-1.6

:  

:  

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

1.7

-2.2

7.2

0.9

8.7

- subsidies on product

:  

:  

:  

-41.9

- taxes on product

-2.1

-71.9

55.0

-58.2

:  

:  

2.7

-1.4

5.8

-0.4

7.6

-1.6

-20.6

-33.3

:  

:  

:  

-4.8

:  

-74.0

:  

-9.1

:  

:  

- at basic prices

1.2

-1.9

6.9

1.6

8.6

1.4

3.0

-1.4

6.8

0.2

8.2

-1.6

Milk

- at producer prices

3.4

-2.7

7.8

0.8

10.9

- subsidies on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

- taxes on product

-2.1

-71.9

55.0

-58.2

:  

:  

3.0

-0.2

5.2

0.5

11.1

-1.1

-20.6

-33.3

:  

:  

:  

-74.0

:  

:  

:  

-9.2

12.0

:  

:  

-1.1

- at basic prices

2.9

-2.5

7.5

1.6

10.9

1.8

3.3

-0.2

6.2

1.2

Eggs

- at producer prices

-8.6

9.1

2.6

0.4

2.7

-4.3

-4.9

-7.0

21.9

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.9

-4.8

-1.8

-5.0

-16.5

:  

:  

-2.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

-1.3

-2.5

35.3

-1.7

-1.3

-2.5

35.3

-1.8

-2.1

10.9

-2.2

250.9

:  

:  

-2.1

13.4

-3.2

12.1

-2.6

250.9

:  

:  

-3.2

15.1

11.6

96.3

:  

7.0

:  

:  

8.0

-3.5

-2.0

8.0

3.0

-5.7

-4.9

3.0

3.8

-5.7

-4.9

3.8

-2.6

-4.8

-2.0

-2.6

6.3

-3.5

-2.0

6.3

3.5

25.4

-17.0

3.7

4.2

26.0

-17.0

4.5

-1.0

-2.6

-2.0

-1.0

- at basic prices

-8.6

9.1

2.6

0.4

2.7

-4.3

-4.9

-7.0

21.9

-7.8

-1.8

-5.0

-16.5

11.7

7.0

Other animal products

- at producer prices

-2.1

-2.9

-17.6

3.2

-3.6

6.6

-23.9

4.0

-17.9

-6.7

-25.6

-6.4

1.9

-1.9

-25.9

-1.1

-2.8

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-41.9

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.0

0.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-41.9

-41.9

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-2.1

-2.9

-17.6

3.1

-3.6

6.6

-23.9

4.0

-17.9

-6.7

-25.6

-6.4

1.9

-1.9

-25.9

-1.1

-2.8

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

1.0

3.7

- subsidies on product

20.1

10.0

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

-5.2

-71.9

1.8

4.2

2.5

-1.6

6.4

2.1

-2.7

0.6

-23.9

-1.9

1.0

-1.3

-0.7

-0.8

4.3

-22.5

0.4

0.3

-4.6

35.2

-2.0

15.0

2.3

5.5

:  

-10.3

-34.0

-2.9

-74.0

:  

-7.5

0.8

-0.2

-4.1

0.4

-1.1

-1.6

2.7

2.7

6.5

8.2

2.9

-2.7

2.3

35.3

-1.9

-0.7

0.7

18.9

-13.5

0.3

0.7

0.4

-0.7

:  

:  

-6.4

-10.0

1.2

-1.5

0.3

0.3

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

-2.1

-2.9

-7.8

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

- at basic prices

-2.1

-2.9

-7.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

-7.5

0.4

1.1

3.0

-1.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-3.4

-4.8

:  

-2.0

0.3

-1.3

3.8

-7.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.0

-4.8

-2.7

-4.8

:  

:  

-7.5

0.4

1.1

3.0

-1.6

-3.4

-2.0

0.3

-1.3

3.8

-7.5

-2.1

-2.7

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

1.0

3.4

- subsidies on product

20.1

10.0

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

-5.2

-71.9

1.8

3.9

2.1

-1.6

6.4

1.8

-2.7

0.6

-23.9

-1.9

0.9

-1.3

-0.7

-0.7

4.3

-22.5

0.5

0.3

-4.5

35.2

-2.1

12.2

2.2

5.5

:  

-10.3

-34.0

-2.9

-74.0

:  

-7.5

0.7

-0.1

-3.8

0.5

-1.1

-1.8

2.5

2.7

6.5

8.2

2.9

-2.6

2.3

35.3

-1.9

-0.6

0.2

18.9

-13.5

0.2

0.7

0.3

-0.7

:  

:  

-6.4

-10.0

1.2

-1.8

0.3

0.2

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 171

eurostat

Table A.8. Percentage changes in real value, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

Poultry

- at producer prices

27.1

39.0

:  

:  

:  

:  

27.1

39.0

-0.3

:  

:  

-0.3

2.3

:  

:  

2.3

9.9

:  

:  

9.9

-6.6

13.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

-6.6

13.4

23.2

4.7

:  

22.9

3.5

-53.6

:  

3.5

-3.3

-15.4

:  

-3.6

-3.1

-15.4

:  

-3.5

14.3

-6.8

:  

13.1

16.8

-6.8

:  

15.1

7.9

:  

:  

7.9

13.8

-0.3

-4.1

:  

:  

13.8

2.4

17.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.3

-1.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

-4.1

-4.8

:  

:  

2.4

17.2

-1.8

-4.8

-5.0

2.7

:  

-4.4

1.4

2.7

:  

1.5

1.3

:  

:  

1.3

3.4

:  

:  

3.4

12.3

-53.6

:  

12.3

6.8

:  

:  

6.8

2.1

:  

:  

2.1

-0.9

13.8

-8.5

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-0.9

13.8

-8.5

14.7

4.7

:  

14.6

-1.2

-4.9

:  

-1.3

-1.2

-4.8

:  

-1.3

2.6

-53.6

:  

2.6

-5.0

-17.2

-0.6

-2.3

-7.3

-70.3

-7.8

-22.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.0

-17.2

7.7

-10.2

:  

6.9

13.0

-32.8

:  

12.7

-5.1

13.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

-5.1

13.6

6.9

-10.2

:  

6.2

13.0

-32.8

:  

12.8

:  

:  

-0.6

-0.9

:  

:  

-1.2

-8.8

:  

:  

-8.8

-1.0

:  

:  

-1.3

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.3

-7.3

-70.3

-7.8

-22.1

0.6

5.4

:  

0.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

0.6

5.4

:  

0.6

0.0

32.2

:  

0.2

2.8

:  

:  

2.8

0.1

32.2

:  

0.3

4.6

0.6

:  

4.5

-9.2

:  

:  

-9.2

3.9

0.6

:  

3.8

-5.0

14.0

:  

-4.4

4.7

:  

:  

4.7

-4.8

14.0

:  

-4.3

3.2

10.7

:  

3.2

3.8

:  

:  

3.8

3.2

10.7

:  

3.3

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Milk

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Eggs

- at producer prices

-4.1

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

Other animal products

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

-4.1

:  

:  

:  

:  

4.3

35.9

:  

4.5

+ AGRICULTURAL SERVICES OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

= AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

1.6

:  

:  

1.6

4.3

35.9

:  

4.5

172 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table A.8. Percentage changes in real value, 2001 compared to 2000

B 

DK 

D 

EL

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

A

P 

FIN

S

UK  EUR-12 EU-15

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

-2.1

-2.9

10.4

0.4

0.1

0.2

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-2.1

-2.9

10.4

0.4

0.1

0.2

:  

:  

:  

:  

6.3

1.7

1.8

-1.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

6.3

1.7

1.8

-1.4

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.4

3.8

3.1

1.4

1.8

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

1.4

3.8

3.1

1.4

1.8

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 

1.0

20.1

-5.2

1.8

3.4

10.0

-71.9

3.9

2.1

-1.6

6.4

1.8

-2.6

0.6

-23.9

-1.8

0.9

-1.3

-0.6

4.3

:  

-10.3

0.6

-0.1

-0.7

-22.5

-34.0

-3.8

0.6

0.3

-2.9

0.6

-4.3

35.2

-74.0

-1.0

-2.1

12.2

:  

-1.7

1.9

5.5

-7.5

2.3

2.7

6.5

8.2

2.9

-2.4

2.3

35.3

-1.9

-0.5

18.9

0.4

-13.5

:  

:  

1.3

-1.6

0.2

0.7

-6.4

0.3

0.3

-0.7

-10.0

0.3

CONSUMPTION

1.7

2.0

-0.1

-2.3

0.4

0.6

-0.7

1.1

-0.1

-1.2

-0.4

0.1

-4.8

2.9

0.3

0.1

0.2

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

2.9

1.0

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

-10.8

-11.4

1.1

2.2

-0.8

-2.0

-9.1

-6.3

1.0

-8.5

1.7

-0.4

-0.3

-10.2

2.9

-5.5

-2.3

7.0

1.5

-1.0

-1.1

-1.0

-1.8

-5.5

2.4

0.9

5.4

-4.0

-1.0

-3.3

-0.5

-3.4

6.2

10.7

10.3

-3.5

-3.6

-0.8

-0.7

1.0

10.1

2.9

17.6

11.2

-1.9

14.7

1.8

2.2

2.6

-3.0

-3.1

0.6

3.8

3.9

4.7

-0.3

-2.3

-2.5

-3.2

-0.6

-2.9

-2.7

-13.5

-13.8

1.2

6.8

0.0

6.2

-1.7

-0.3

-2.6

-1.3

3.5

-2.2

-3.1

-0.3

-17.8

9.5

-1.7

-3.0

-1.7

-2.5

-11.2

-4.4

-1.5

-5.7

0.0

-8.9

-1.2

-11.1

3.1

4.5

-6.7

6.5

-7.7

0.2

1.8

-8.0

-0.5

2.3

3.0

-2.9

2.9

-0.5

-2.5

1.9

-0.4

1.8

-1.8

-1.9

-0.7

12.0

-0.1

0.7

1.0

1.2

1.0

-0.1

-0.1

-2.0

-2.8

1.0

-6.0

4.8

-7.9

3.7

-0.1

1.9

0.4

2.8

1.1

2.5

3.1

2.4

-1.6

-1.9

-2.4

-1.7

1.3

6.3

0.3

0.3

-1.3

0.4

3.9

1.4

-1.7

1.7

-1.3

1.4

-1.3

-0.2

2.0

0.8

2.0

-5.0

-0.6

-3.1

2.9

0.0

-3.4

0.5

3.2

-0.5

-0.5

-1.3

-0.3

-0.4

1.9

6.6

4.5

-1.7

0.8

-0.9

-7.4

0.3

-2.0

-2.4

5.5

5.9

4.3

-2.0

-4.0

0.5

0.3

-1.1

-2.9

-1.2

-1.6

5.8

2.2

-2.6

0.7

0.0

-1.4

-0.4

0.5

-2.1

-2.6

-2.8

0.7

0.2

2.8

10.1

8.4

-1.7

0.1

-1.9

-8.7

0.2

-3.4

-2.8

13.7

7.7

12.8

-1.6

-4.6

0.4

0.3

1.8

-2.9

0.3

-1.3

5.6

1.8

-4.1

-0.1

3.8

1.0

-0.7

-0.7

-0.8

-3.2

-1.4

1.2

0.7

-2.1

21.4

-0.1

-2.8

-0.2

-0.1

58.4

-1.9

-2.9

-1.4

-2.0

3.1

:  

:  

-12.5

-0.6

-0.4

FERTILISERS AND SOIL 
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- COMPENSATION 
OF EMPLOYEES

- OTHER TAXES 

ON PRODUCTION

+ OTHER SUBSIDIES 
ON PRODUCTION

= FACTOR INCOME

-2.1

2.7

1.0

9.0

-14.3

3.9

13.7

12.2

47.5

5.5

-1.4

0.8

-1.1

0.5

0.3

79.0

-2.4

-1.1

4.0

9.0

22.0

-2.7

9.5

1.6

6.5

0.8

80.1

1.5

6.5

0.7

1.0

1.9

6.1

1.0

0.9

-0.8

-2.2

9.7

1.2

1.3

-0.9

-3.0

-3.1

-2.5

-2.1

-2.5

-4.8

10.3

12.7

0.7

3.9

-7.4

-4.0

2.3

2.8

2.3

1.6

3.4

-0.9

-2.8

-1.6

-10.6

-4.9

-11.8

:  

:  

-4.8

-4.8

:  

:  

-1.9

:  

:  

:  

= NET OPERATING SURPLUS 

/ MIXED INCOME

- RENTS PAID

- INTEREST PAID

2.9

12.1

-1.1

-1.1

0.1

-2.9

7.9

-0.4

-1.4

-0.5

-1.0

-17.0

+ INTEREST RECEIVED

:  

-2.9

:  

:  

0.0

1.2

2.3

0.0

-1.9

-2.0

-1.6

0.0

1.0

-1.7

-2.2

0.0

= NET ENTREPRENEURIAL 

INCOME

4.6

27.3

14.1

-0.7

-0.2

-2.0

1.8

1.5

-1.8

-1.2

11.1

15.5

2.3

3.8

8.9

1.5

2.2

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 173

eurostat

Table A.8. Percentage changes in real value, 2001 compared to 2000

CZ

EE

HU

LT

MT

PL

SK

SI

CC-8

+ SECONDARY ACTIVITIES (INSEPARABLE)

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

:  

:  

:  

:  

= OUTPUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ‘INDUSTRY’

- at producer prices

- subsidies on product

- taxes on product

- at basic prices

- TOTAL INTERMEDIATE 

CONSUMPTION

SEEDS AND PLANTING 
STOCK

ENERGY; LUBRICANTS

FERTILISERS AND SOIL 
IMPROVERS

PLANT PROTECTION 
PRODUCTS

VETERINARY EXPENSES

FEEDINGSTUFFS

MAINTENANCE 
OF MATERIALS

MAINTENANCE 
OF BUILDINGS

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

OTHER GOODS 
AND SERVICES

= GROSS VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- FIXED CAPITAL 
CONSUMPTION

= NET VALUE ADDED 
AT BASIC PRICES

- COMPENSATION 
OF EMPLOYEES

- OTHER TAXES 

ON PRODUCTION

+ OTHER SUBSIDIES 
ON PRODUCTION

= FACTOR INCOME

= NET OPERATING SURPLUS 

/ MIXED INCOME

- RENTS PAID

- INTEREST PAID

+ INTEREST RECEIVED

= NET ENTREPRENEURIAL 

INCOME

4.3

35.9

:  

4.5

-0.4

2.1

3.2

3.3

3.3

3.3

-2.8

3.3

3.3

1.6

1.6

15.6

-8.8

30.8

-2.2

6.6

-36.5

18.1

151.5

13.2

13.2

13.2

:  

-5.1

:  

:  

-5.1

6.3

-10.2

:  

5.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

13.0

-32.8

:  

12.8

-0.8

-5.7

5.9

-1.3

3.5

3.4

-9.3

13.8

13.8

-5.1

17.8

14.1

8.1

16.7

4.1

-5.1

26.3

17.2

45.7

-5.1

5.3

-5.1

55.6

9.4

14.3

12.0

18.2

6.2

1.4

3.3

22.8

-1.1

13.6

12.4

18.6

-1.2

26.0

-2.5

15.2

8.1

24.2

37.4

0.3

-7.5

-2.7

52.0

174 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

-0.6

-14.8

-4.8

-9.4

-7.8

-6.3

:  

:  

-0.6

-1.0

:  

:  

-1.3

-1.3

-14.2

-8.2

18.4

-8.5

-0.6

-2.1

-0.6

15.0

-0.6

-0.6

-1.3

-8.3

2.0

-1.3

-0.6

-0.6

2.1

3.7

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

3.6

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

-14.8

-4.8

-9.4

-7.8

-6.3

0.5

5.4

:  

0.5

7.3

-2.2

5.5

-2.2

-2.0

10.7

9.6

4.6

10.2

:  

4.6

-4.4

4.7

-4.8

-7.3

0.0

32.2

:  

0.2

2.8

0.6

:  

2.7

-5.0

14.0

:  

-4.5

3.0

10.7

:  

3.1

4.2

-6.7

3.7

8.7

-3.8

5.7

5.9

4.7

0.8

2.8

-6.1

-6.4

-5.4

-6.7

-8.1

-4.0

-4.1

-11.9

-13.7

-15.2

-1.2

3.1

-2.4

-11.4

-9.2

0.3

23.7

-0.3

50.9

2.3

1.7

-1.4

4.7

24.1

-6.7

-3.2

1.8

0.0

0.0

4.7

-26.5

-11.7

-0.6

-19.1

-0.2

3.6

2.9

3.1

9.8

-2.1

2.7

3.3

10.1

0.0

4.1

0.4

2.1

-4.2

4.7

-3.3

:  

12.8

-11.1

:  

10.0

-2.3

-4.8

-4.4

13.8

-17.8

:  

-24.8

-9.2

-9.6

-6.8

12.9

50.1

-4.4

-11.1

-34.7

3.7

13.1

-7.1

-9.4

8.6

42.6

23.9

-14.4

-17.8

-7.8

-7.8

-7.8

-18.4

-20.4

1.7

4.2

-0.2

5.7

16.1

:

Table A.9.

eurostat

Belgique / Belgie

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
103.3
103.2
95.3
101.3
128.1
117.5
117.7
113.5
110.8
111.8
100.0
105.7
110.7
103.0
87.8
97.0
101.7
+4.9

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
34.8
...
53.0
...
75.7
77.9
79.0
80.8
84.8
87.3
89.7
93.0
96.5
98.3
100.0
101.2
102.5
104.2
105.5
106.9
109.1
+2.1

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
136.5
132.5
120.6
125.3
151.0
134.5
131.2
122.0
114.9
113.8
100.0
104.4
107.9
98.8
83.3
90.7
93.2
+2.7

185.5
...
150.0
...
129.4
127.6
123.7
120.0
117.3
115.0
112.3
107.4
104.5
101.9
100.0
95.2
94.8
91.8
90.1
88.0
85.9
-2.4

:

:

...

...
105.5
103.8
97.5
104.4
128.8
116.9
116.8
113.6
109.9
111.7
100.0
109.7
113.9
107.7
92.4
103.1
108.6
+5.3

Table A.10.

Danmark

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

89.7
86.1
76.5
78.4
85.4
100.0
101.3
97.9
75.5
71.1
86.4
96.9
+12.2

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
24.8
...
42.0
...
73.7
76.6
80.6
82.6
86.9
90.1
92.6
95.3
96.6
98.3
100.0
102.5
104.7
105.8
108.6
112.6
115.9
+2.9

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

99.5
92.9
80.3
81.2
86.9
100.0
98.8
93.5
71.3
65.5
76.7
83.6
+9.0

220.2
...
174.9
...
133.5
128.7
123.8
116.8
115.4
117.2
113.4
110.7
109.2
103.6
100.0
99.1
96.8
92.5
87.8
85.1
82.6
-3.0

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

84.9
82.0
72.5
74.4
83.9
100.0
99.7
96.6
77.1
74.6
90.1
101.2
+12.3

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 175

eurostat

Table A.11.

Deutschland

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

115.5
106.6
97.6
97.4
100.0
107.8
110.3
99.0
90.0
105.1
112.2
+6.8

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
46.4
...
58.8
...
74.9
77.3
78.8
80.0
81.9
84.5
87.8
92.2
95.6
98.0
100.0
101.0
101.7
102.8
103.3
102.9
104.2
+1.3

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

131.5
115.6
102.0
99.3
100.0
106.7
108.5
96.3
87.1
102.1
107.7
+5.5

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

143.6
120.7
112.5
105.3
100.0
96.2
93.5
90.9
90.3
89.0
85.4
-4.0

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

91.6
95.8
90.7
94.3
100.0
110.9
116.1
105.9
96.5
114.7
126.1
+9.9

Ellada

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Table A.12.

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

91.7
100.0
99.1
102.8
106.5
110.7
110.0
111.9
+1.8

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
2.9
...
6.1
...
23.6
28.0
32.3
37.7
43.1
52.1
62.4
71.6
81.9
91.1
100.0
107.4
114.7
120.7
124.3
129.2
133.4
+3.3

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

100.6
100.0
92.3
89.6
88.3
89.0
85.1
83.9
-1.4

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          

124.9
115.7
106.6
108.1
109.8
104.8
100.0
96.9
93.8
93.0
92.2
89.6
87.0
-2.9

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

96.1
100.0
95.2
95.5
94.9
96.6
95.1
96.5
+1.5

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

176 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

Table A.13.

eurostat

España

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

79.4
79.1
71.4
84.4
96.7
100.0
116.3
121.4
123.9
116.0
120.5
126.1
+4.6

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
10.1
...
23.6
...
53.9
59.7
63.3
67.0
71.7
76.9
82.2
87.8
91.7
95.3
100.0
103.5
105.9
108.5
111.6
115.4
119.7
+3.8

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

103.2
96.2
81.3
92.0
101.5
100.0
112.4
114.6
114.2
104.0
104.4
105.3
+0.8

233.2
...
174.4
...
119.5
115.1
111.9
109.5
104.5
101.1
95.6
93.2
102.2
101.1
100.0
100.1
101.0
103.0
96.5
87.0
85.5
-1.8

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

102.1
100.6
87.3
90.0
100.4
100.0
112.3
113.5
110.9
107.7
120.0
123.2
+2.6

Table A.14.

France

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

39.1
...
47.7
...
77.0
79.2
79.6
76.6
89.2
96.0
83.4
88.4
85.4
95.3
100.0
99.1
101.2
104.4
100.7
100.1
100.5
+0.4

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
24.2
...
40.9
...
76.2
80.1
82.4
84.9
87.5
90.0
92.7
94.5
96.7
98.4
100.0
101.5
102.8
103.7
104.2
105.2
106.8
+1.6

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

161.2
...
116.5
...
101.1
98.9
96.6
90.3
101.9
106.6
90.0
93.6
88.3
96.9
100.0
97.7
98.5
100.6
96.7
95.2
94.1
-1.1

202.3
...
178.3
...
146.6
141.5
136.6
131.7
126.4
121.4
116.5
111.6
105.9
102.6
100.0
97.6
95.1
93.2
91.5
89.9
88.3
-1.8

79.7
...
65.3
...
68.9
69.9
70.7
68.5
80.7
87.8
77.3
83.8
83.4
94.4
100.0
100.2
103.5
108.0
105.7
105.9
106.6
+0.7

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 177

eurostat

Table A.15.

Ireland

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

84.6
77.3
87.4
90.9
91.1
100.0
103.1
96.4
95.5
84.2
89.7
94.5
+5.3

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
17.4
...
33.8
...
74.1
78.3
80.1
82.8
87.0
86.7
88.3
90.7
95.4
97.1
100.0
102.3
106.5
112.8
117.5
122.5
128.4
+4.8

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

97.6
87.6
96.4
95.3
93.8
100.0
100.8
90.5
84.7
71.6
73.2
73.6
+0.5

126.7
113.2
112.0
108.8
105.4
100.0
100.2
92.5
90.2
82.7
80.3
74.9
-6.7

77.1
77.4
86.1
87.6
89.0
100.0
100.6
97.8
93.9
86.6
91.2
98.3
+7.8

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Table A.16.

Italia

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
66.2
69.9
73.2
70.8
78.1
76.9
87.1
87.6
85.6
90.2
100.0
106.2
108.2
106.5
110.6
105.8
109.4
+3.3

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
9.2
...
20.4
...
55.9
60.3
64.0
68.3
72.7
78.7
84.7
88.5
92.0
95.2
100.0
105.3
107.8
110.7
112.5
115.0
118.0
+2.6

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
118.5
116.0
114.3
103.5
107.4
97.7
102.8
99.0
93.0
94.7
100.0
100.9
100.4
96.2
98.4
92.0
92.7
+0.7

:          
...
:          
...
152.9
149.7
144.9
136.7
128.7
125.1
123.0
119.2
109.1
104.0
100.0
95.4
92.7
88.7
83.3
81.1
81.5
+0.5

:          
...
:          
...
77.5
77.4
78.9
75.8
83.4
78.1
83.6
83.0
85.3
91.1
100.0
105.7
108.3
108.5
118.1
113.5
113.7
+0.2

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

178 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

Table A.17.

eurostat

Luxembourg

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
91.1
95.1
91.8
92.5
110.0
100.8
92.2
92.6
93.9
90.2
100.0
101.4
93.7
103.4
94.0
95.6
96.2
+0.6

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
36.5
...
50.5
...
79.1
81.3
82.0
82.6
85.5
88.4
89.7
93.6
94.3
99.3
100.0
101.8
104.7
107.5
110.2
114.2
117.7
+3.0

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Table A.18.

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
115.2
116.9
111.8
112.0
128.7
114.0
102.8
99.0
99.6
90.8
100.0
99.6
89.5
96.2
85.3
83.7
81.7
-2.4

256.8
...
204.1
...
147.5
142.6
135.8
130.4
127.3
120.8
117.1
112.2
109.4
104.3
100.0
96.1
93.5
92.1
90.2
87.0
85.5
-1.7

:          
...
:          
...
78.1
82.0
82.4
85.9
101.1
94.4
87.8
88.2
91.1
87.1
100.0
103.6
95.7
104.5
94.5
96.2
95.6
-0.6

Nederland

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
:          

96.6
88.4
90.9
107.3
105.3
108.2
103.2
86.4
96.7
100.0
100.2
110.7
99.1
88.5
88.6
92.0
+3.8

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
45.7
...
67.1
...
86.2
86.3
85.7
86.5
87.4
89.4
91.9
94.1
95.8
98.1
100.0
101.2
103.2
105.0
106.8
110.8
116.3
+5.0

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
:          

112.0
103.2
105.1
122.7
117.8
117.7
109.7
90.2
98.6
100.0
99.1
107.3
94.4
82.8
80.0
79.1
-1.1

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          

105.6
105.6
105.7
102.2
105.0
106.1
104.8
102.0
100.0
102.1
102.4
100.3
99.9
99.7
96.3
-3.4

97.7
99.5
116.1
115.2
112.0
103.4
86.1
96.7
100.0
97.0
104.8
94.1
83.0
80.2
82.1
+2.4

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 179

eurostat

Table A.19.

Österreich

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

93.8
94.2
88.4
78.3
90.7
100.0
87.9
81.7
80.7
77.6
78.4
87.2
+11.3

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
40.3
...
55.6
...
75.8
77.8
79.5
80.7
83.1
85.8
89.1
92.3
95.0
97.6
100.0
101.3
102.2
102.8
103.5
104.7
106.9
+2.1

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

109.3
105.8
95.8
82.4
93.0
100.0
86.8
80.0
78.5
74.9
74.9
81.6
+9.0

115.7
114.1
111.5
109.0
104.4
100.0
96.8
96.2
95.1
94.5
92.0
90.5
-1.7

94.4
92.7
85.9
75.6
89.0
100.0
89.7
83.1
82.6
79.3
81.4
90.2
+10.9

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Table A.20.

Portugal

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
:          
...
:          

49.6
63.4
53.0
68.8
86.9
87.8
67.2
63.7
89.9
100.0
107.0
99.8
96.2
106.5
100.3
114.1
+13.8

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
3.9
...
9.6
...
37.1
44.7
49.2
54.7
60.5
68.4
75.3
83.9
90.1
96.7
100.0
103.1
107.0
111.1
114.8
118.3
122.9
+3.9

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
:          
...
:          

:          
...
:          
...
:          

:          
...
:          
...
:          

111.0
128.9
96.8
113.7
127.0
116.6
80.1
70.7
93.0
100.0
103.8
93.3
86.5
92.7
84.8
92.9
+9.5

176.1
165.9
155.8
144.4
134.3
124.2
114.2
104.1
102.0
100.0
94.6
89.2
84.0
78.7
79.4
77.8
-2.0

63.0
77.7
62.1
78.7
94.6
93.8
70.1
67.9
91.1
100.0
109.7
104.6
103.1
117.9
106.8
119.4
+11.8

180 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

Table A.21.

eurostat

Suomi / Finland

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

:          
...
41.5
...
80.6
81.6
64.0
90.3
97.4
106.7
96.8
85.1
83.8
88.0
100.0
80.7
80.0
70.6
73.6
87.3
90.9
+4.0

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
20.5
...
38.0
...
68.1
71.0
74.0
80.1
85.0
89.6
91.2
92.0
94.2
96.0
100.0
99.8
101.8
104.9
104.7
108.0
110.6
+2.4

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:          
...
109.4
...
118.3
114.9
86.5
112.8
114.6
119.1
106.1
92.5
89.0
91.6
100.0
80.9
78.6
67.3
70.3
80.8
82.2
+1.6

:          
...
:          
...
159.8
153.3
151.4
132.4
122.4
119.3
115.9
114.2
109.3
104.6
100.0
97.9
95.6
90.9
86.4
77.9
75.6
-3.0

:          
...
:          
...
74.0
75.0
57.1
85.2
93.7
99.8
91.6
81.0
81.5
87.6
100.0
82.7
82.1
74.0
81.3
103.7
108.7
+4.7

Sverige

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Table A.22.

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

31.9
...
50.2
...
63.7
70.5
66.2
73.3
84.3
98.9
87.1
77.4
84.3
84.3
100.0
90.2
94.4
99.7
86.9
92.4
94.9
+2.7

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
19.7
...
33.4
...
60.3
64.5
67.6
71.9
77.7
84.6
91.0
92.0
94.4
96.6
100.0
101.4
103.2
104.1
104.8
105.8
107.8
+1.9

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

162.1
...
150.3
...
105.5
109.3
98.0
101.9
108.5
116.9
95.6
84.2
89.3
87.2
100.0
88.9
91.5
95.8
82.9
87.3
88.0
+0.8

205.3
...
171.8
...
140.6
131.7
128.1
121.1
116.5
110.6
107.2
105.3
104.8
103.2
100.0
96.6
93.3
88.9
84.7
81.2
78.0
-4.0

78.9
...
87.5
...
75.1
83.0
76.5
84.1
93.1
105.7
89.2
79.9
85.2
84.5
100.0
92.1
98.1
107.8
97.9
107.5
112.9
+5.0

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 181

eurostat

Table A.23.

United Kingdom

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

19.0
...
33.0
...
49.7
53.1
55.9
54.9
62.2
62.7
64.6
71.9
85.9
90.2
100.0
95.0
74.9
65.1
63.3
54.7
56.8
+3.8

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
15.6
...
33.3
...
63.4
65.5
69.0
73.2
78.6
84.6
90.2
93.8
96.2
97.5
100.0
103.3
106.2
109.4
112.2
114.2
116.8
+2.3

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

121.9
...
98.9
...
78.5
81.1
81.1
75.0
79.2
74.2
71.6
76.7
89.3
92.6
100.0
92.0
70.5
59.6
56.4
47.9
48.6
+1.5

147.5
...
136.4
...
122.0
119.7
117.3
114.9
112.0
109.8
107.9
105.9
104.6
102.2
100.0
98.3
97.1
95.5
92.3
86.5
84.8
-1.9

82.7
...
72.5
...
64.3
67.8
69.1
65.3
70.7
67.5
66.4
72.4
85.4
90.6
100.0
93.6
72.6
62.3
61.1
55.4
57.3
+3.5

Table A.24.

EUR-12

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

94.5
100.0
104.3
107.0
105.5
102.0
104.0
107.9
+3.7

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

98.0
100.0
101.3
101.7
98.1
93.3
93.3
94.3
+1.0

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

116.7
111.0
107.1
103.3
100.0
97.2
94.8
92.7
89.1
86.0
84.4
-2.0

:          
...
:          
...
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

94.9
100.0
104.2
107.3
105.8
104.7
108.4
111.7
+3.0

182 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

Table A.25.

eurostat

EU-15

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1973 to 2001 (Indices, 1995=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

1973
...
1978
...
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

:          

…      

:          

…      

:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

93.7
100.0
103.2
103.7
101.0
97.5
99.0
102.9
+3.9

:          

…      

:          

…      

:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

:          

…      

:          

…      

:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

97.1
100.0
100.3
98.6
93.9
89.1
88.7
89.8
+1.2

:          

…      

:          

…      

:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

116.0
110.7
107.0
103.2
100.0
97.3
95.0
92.8
89.2
86.0
84.3
-2.0

:          

…      

:          

…      

:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          
:          

94.0
100.0
103.1
103.8
101.1
99.9
103.2
106.6
+3.3

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 183

eurostat

Table A.26.

Czech Republic

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1995 to 2001 (Indices, 2000=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

:
:
:
109.6
86.3
100.0
124.2
24.2

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
73.9
80.4
86.8
96.2
99.2
100.0
105.1
5.1

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:
:
:
114.0
87.1
100.0
118.1
18.1

:
:
:
98.3
89.4
100.0
98.0
-2.0

:
:
:
115.9
97.3
100.0
120.5
20.5

Table A.27.

Estonia

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1995 to 2001 (Indices, 2000=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

:
:
:
:
106.0
100.0
123.6
23.6

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
61.3
75.6
83.6
91.4
95.5
100.0
105.4
5.4

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:
:
:
:
111.0
100.0
117.2
17.2

:
:
122.9
110.7
119.4
100.0
100.0
0.0

:
:
:
:
93.0
100.0
117.2
17.2

Table A.28.

Hungary

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1995 to 2001 (Indices, 2000=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

:
:
:
115.6
98.4
100.0
134.9
34.9

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
52.3
63.4
75.1
84.5
91.6
100.0
108.6
8.6

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:
:
:
136.7
107.3
100.0
124.2
24.2

:
120.1
114.4
110.8
107.4
100.0
98.0
-2.0

:
:
:
123.4
99.9
100.0
126.8
26.8

184 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

Table A.29.

eurostat

Lithuania

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1995 to 2001 (Indices, 2000=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

:
:
:
202.2
137.8
100.0
102.7
2.7

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
62.8
78.5
88.9
94.9
97.9
100.0
100.6
0.6

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:
:
:
213.2
140.7
100.0
102.1
2.1

:
:
133.3
117.9
105.9
100.0
89.9
-10.1

:
:
:
180.9
132.9
100.0
113.6
13.6

Table A.30.

Malta

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1995 to 2001 (Indices, 2000=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

:
:
:
100.2
94.3
100.0
97.5
-2.5

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
90.7
91.5
93.6
95.7
98.3
100.0
102.4
2.4

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:
:
:
104.7
95.9
100.0
95.2
-4.8

:
:
100.3
100.8
99.3
100.0
96.7
-3.3

:
:
:
103.9
96.6
100.0
98.4
-1.6

Table A.31.

Poland

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1995 to 2001 (Indices, 2000=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

:
:
:
113.3
91.5
100.0
96.3
-3.7

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
57.8
68.6
78.2
87.4
93.3
100.0
106.1
6.1

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

:
:
:
129.6
98.1
100.0
90.8
-9.2

:
135.0
127.1
114.5
100.4
100.0
101.2
1.2

:
:
:
113.3
97.7
100.0
89.7
-10.3

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 185

eurostat

Table A.32.

Slovak Republic

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1995 to 2001 (Indices, 2000=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

107.3
114.6
120.5
101.3
102.7
100.0
111.1
11.1

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
75.2
78.6
83.8
88.1
93.9
100.0
107.1
7.1

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

142.6
145.7
143.7
115.0
109.4
100.0
103.7
3.7

:
:
140.5
125.0
109.5
100.0
91.0
-9.1

:
:
102.3
91.9
99.9
100.0
114.0
14.1

Table A.33.

Slovenia

Major components of the calculation of Indicator A from 1995 to 2001 (Indices, 2000=100)

Factor income, 
nominal

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
% 01/00

67.9
71.8
91.9
88.0
86.2
100.0
92.8
-7.2

Implicit price index of
gross domestic 
product at market 
prices
68.1
75.6
82.3
88.8
94.6
100.0
108.4
8.4

Factor income, real

Total agricultural 
labour input in AWU
(1)

Real factor income per 
AWU

99.8
95.0
111.6
99.2
91.2
100.0
85.6
-14.4

106.6
107.1
110.1
107.2
104.6
100.0
100.0
0.0

93.6
88.7
101.4
92.5
87.1
100.0
85.6
-14.4

186 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

Table A.34.

eurostat

Indicator A

Indices of the real income of factors in agriculture per annual work unit (AWU) 
from 1990 to 2001, (”1995” = 100)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 % 01/00

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

98.4  

98.1  

109.2   109.1   106.1   102.6   104.2  
86.7  
76.7  
89.8  
90.0  
94.1  
:
:
:
:
96.6  
83.7  
97.9  
78.7  
85.4  
89.4  
80.2  
89.2  
79.9  
83.9  
84.5  
79.0  
91.0  
90.6  
97.4  
117.6   114.4   105.6  
92.4  
99.8  
101.7  
69.9  
93.6  
94.3  
89.9  
110.8   101.7  
86.7  
96.7  
114.6  
76.4  
70.1  
71.3  

96.3   101.4  
86.3  
93.4   102.4   106.4   100.5  
78.9  
95.3   107.1  
81.5  
88.8   105.8   105.5   102.2  
94.8   112.8   123.9  
98.3   109.0   114.1   104.0  
92.7  
99.4  
97.9  
99.5  
97.7  
98.9   103.0  
96.3  
95.9   107.7   108.9   106.4   103.3   115.1   118.2  
96.1   101.8   102.0   105.5   110.0   107.6   107.8   108.6  
94.5   101.8  
92.2   103.6   104.2   101.4  
92.1   101.1   106.8   109.5   109.7   119.4   114.7   115.0  
98.6  
98.7   107.8  
89.9   103.2   106.9  
83.8  
96.1  
98.8   102.1  
95.8   107.7  
97.1  
88.9  
99.7   109.4   104.3   102.8   117.5   106.5   119.1  
90.9  
91.8  
97.2   111.0  
90.2   115.2   120.7  
82.1  
99.8   106.4   116.9   106.2   116.6   122.5  
91.7   108.5  
60.5  
98.8  
95.6   105.5  

78.6  
89.2  
:
86.4  
84.9  
90.8  
86.2  
94.0  
87.9  
81.4  
67.7  
90.4  
92.4  
90.2  

99.1   107.0  
89.5  
96.5  

99.3  
81.9  
87.6  

97.5  
84.7  
85.4  

58.5  

89.7  

91.2  

76.7  

65.8  

64.5  

97.3  

5.3  
12.3  
9.9  
1.5  
2.6  
0.7  
7.8  
0.2  
-0.6  
2.4  
10.9  
11.8  
4.7  
5.0  
3.5  

EUR12
EU-15

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

94.9   101.0   104.1   104.8   102.1   100.9   104.2   107.6  
95.1   100.3   104.6   107.6   106.1   105.0   108.8   112.1  

3.3  
3.0 

Table A.35.
Indicator B
Indices of real net agricultural entrepreneurial income, per non-salaried annual work unit (AWU)
from 1990 to 2001, (”1995” = 100)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 % 00/99

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

:
98.9  

:
99.3  

:

125.7   120.6   112.6   105.5   106.0  
79.0  
54.4  
85.8  
:
:
:
:
:
:
85.6  
70.4  
87.9  
71.8  
79.7  
88.0  
71.8  
83.3  
71.9  
65.6  
70.6  
58.3  
87.3  
89.0  
99.1  
124.8   118.5   104.6  
92.0  
99.3  
101.8  
41.3  
73.8  
82.4  
64.6  
84.0  
102.9  
63.6  
88.9  
125.9  
64.9  
53.0  
50.9  

57.4  
:
:
77.7  
76.7  
88.7  
70.5  
90.6  
79.5  
77.8  
35.5  
75.1  
76.4  
88.7  

78.7   110.0   111.3   100.5  

89.5   104.5   110.4   101.4  
56.8  
:

:

79.2  
41.4  
:

94.6   101.9  
80.9   106.2  

:

:

92.4  

86.2  

82.5  

97.5  

98.8   101.2   100.1   103.0  
99.0   102.1  
93.9  
94.9   111.2   117.3   114.9   112.3   124.4   131.1  
94.5   102.5   102.9   108.5   113.5   109.1   108.7   109.5  
91.8   104.1   104.1  
94.0  
85.6   101.2   113.2   121.5   126.5   144.0   136.3   138.4  
94.8  
99.5   112.4  
86.8   103.5   109.8  
71.3  
92.4  
97.8   102.9  
95.6   108.5  
93.5  
85.9  
81.5   101.0   117.4   108.9   106.6   128.9   112.9   133.1  
91.6   123.8   133.0  
93.5   114.8  
79.8   119.6   100.6   121.0   127.1   102.5   123.3   132.8  
37.1  
94.7   108.1  

99.3   111.0  
88.7  
95.9  

93.2  
68.2  
82.6  

95.4  
73.2  
81.5  

97.2  

91.7  

95.7  

80.5  

62.7  

45.5  

43.9  

33.5  

EUR12
EU-15

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

7.8  
31.2  
:
2.9  
5.4  
0.8  
9.0  
1.6  
1.7  
4.6  
13.2  
18.0  
7.5  
7.7  
10.9  

:
:

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 187

eurostat

Table A.36.

Indicator C

Indices of real net entrepreneurial income of agriculture from 1990 to 2001, 
(”1995” = 100)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 % 01/00

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

:
81.2  
86.8  
78.8  
88.6  

:
65.6  
91.7  
91.6  
78.1  

90.0   100.4   106.5  
93.8  
91.5   116.8   126.7  
92.7  
95.1  

149.2   140.0   124.4   112.6   109.6  
62.9  
90.5  
101.8  
60.5  
93.9  
112.9   121.6  
:
:
:
80.8  
89.9  
83.1  
111.6  
95.0  
88.6  
76.3  
73.6  
124.6   108.0   101.0   100.7  
82.3  
128.6   125.2   110.7  
85.2  
119.3   114.5   103.2  
37.8  
48.4  
94.5  
114.4  
81.6  
72.9  
96.9  
122.4  
79.9  
66.8  
95.1  
138.8  
91.6  
67.2  
55.1  
53.2  

93.5  
50.0  
94.0  
91.6  
94.1   110.2   113.1   111.5  
99.3   100.9   102.5  
82.1  
88.9  

87.1  
83.3  
71.3  
82.0   109.9   108.1  
34.3  
82.6  
64.9  
91.7  
77.8   101.5   115.8  
103.8   101.1  
88.3  
89.0  
93.1  
95.7  
98.8  
99.0  
99.9  
98.1   102.6  
91.1  
92.9  
95.8  
69.2  
95.1   101.6   103.3  
68.0  
66.9  
89.4   101.0   109.6   114.0   110.9   117.5   106.1   107.6  
84.5  
77.6  
92.6   102.3  
91.4   103.8   104.9  
79.0  
69.6  
63.2  
89.7  
98.5   100.8   100.6   111.6  
64.0  
74.9  
80.7  
84.2  
99.9   108.0  
83.2  
76.0  
92.0  
88.4   102.1  
89.5   101.0  
97.4  
84.9   102.8   112.3  
72.7  
88.6  
97.2   114.2  
90.6  
88.6  
69.2  
88.5  
88.3   102.4   106.3  
98.7   116.5   116.0  
82.1   119.3  
33.0  
30.3  
41.1  
44.0  
61.4  
95.9  
96.2   107.9  

4.6  
27.3  
14.1  
-0.7  
-0.2  
-2.0  
1.8  
1.5  
-1.8  
-1.2  
11.1  
15.5  
2.3  
3.8  
8.9  

EUR12
EU-15

:
:

:
:

:
:

:
:

96.2   99.5   104.3   106.4   100.7   94.3   92.8   94.2  
95.8   100.6   103.6   102.1   94.7   88.2   86.6   88.5  

1.5  
2.2  

Table A.37.

Volume of total labour input in agriculture in annual work units (AWU) 
from 1990 to 2001 in 1000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 % 01/00

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

:

90.2  
99.4  

87.8  
98.0  

85.6  
93.0  

84.0  
89.8  

79.6  
86.9  

77.1  
83.0  

75.7  
78.8  

73.9  
76.4  

94.3  
96.6  
105.2   101.8  

72.1  
80.0  
74.1  
89.0  
1041.5   876.0   816.1   763.8   725.5   698.2   678.0   659.8   655.1   645.5   619.4  
746.1   687.2   696.7   707.9   675.3   644.6   624.4   604.8   599.5   594.4   577.3   560.8  
1100.6   1039.9   1013.9   1112.1   1099.6   1088.2   1089.2   1099.0   1121.0   1050.5   946.7   930.1  
1370.1   1314.9   1260.1   1195.0   1158.7   1128.9   1101.3   1074.1   1052.2   1033.0   1015.0   996.7  
293.5   262.2   259.4   252.0   244.3   231.7   232.2   214.3   208.9   191.7   186.1   173.6  
1830.0   1800.3   1744.7   1596.6   1521.6   1463.3   1396.7   1356.4   1297.8   1218.5   1186.9   1192.8  
4.2  
225.4   231.6   233.9   231.1   224.8   220.5   225.1   225.7   221.2   220.2   219.8   212.3  
216.2   213.2   208.4   203.7   195.1   186.8   180.8   179.7   177.7   176.5   171.9   169.0  
907.0   839.1   771.0   702.9   689.1   675.4   638.8   602.5   567.0   531.5   536.3   525.4  
167.0   162.2   159.9   153.0   146.4   140.0   137.0   133.9   127.3   121.0   109.1   105.8  
70.1  
99.4  
429.5   422.0   414.5   409.1   399.7   391.2   384.4   379.9   373.8   361.0   338.2   331.7  

86.8  

94.2  

94.6  

96.3  

89.9  

92.7  

73.0  

79.9  

76.1  

83.8  

5.4  

4.9  

5.8  

5.5  

6.0  

5.1  

4.7  

4.3  

4.4  

4.6  

4.5  

-2.4  
-3.0  
-4.0  
-2.9  
-1.8  
-1.8  
-6.7  
0.5  
-1.7  
-3.4  
-1.7  
-2.0  
-3.0  
-4.0  
-1.9  

EUR12
EU-15

:
:

7692.2 7319.7 7063.6 6809.5 6593.9 6408.4 6252.7 6114.0 5872.4 5672.8 5562.2
8312.4 7928.2 7664.9 7394.8 7164.7 6968.6 6803.3 6650.6 6388.3 6160.5 6038.0

-2.0  
-2.0 

188 DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU

Table A.38.

Volume of non-salaried labour input in agriculture in annual work units (AWU) 
from 1990 to 2001 in 1000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 % 01/00

eurostat

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

79.2
83.2
85.1
76.5
72.4
74.6
77.2
71.3
613.2
729.1
:
571.3
624.9
626.0
680.8
623.7
814.5
741.6
754.8
828.7
1109.1 1058.0 1007.6
947.5
229.9
236.2
235.8
264.7
1166.2 1161.2 1101.2 1001.5
4.7
162.0
185.5
590.5
147.1
69.9
252.3

4.9
165.7
190.0
649.9
152.6
70.2
253.1

5.1
165.4
195.2
709.3
156.1
71.5
254.2

5.3
161.3
198.5
768.6
160.9
73.7
255.6

74.1
67.7
534.7
589.1
811.1
908.3
222.4
966.6
4.5
157.7
177.1
577.0
140.7
68.8
248.2

72.0
65.0
507.9
556.4
790.2
875.1
209.5
923.2
4.3
153.4
168.7
563.6
134.6
66.7
244.1

68.9
63.2
492.9
540.3
789.2
844.1
212.9
895.5
4.1
158.7
162.5
529.7
130.9
65.5
241.1

69.1
60.7
479.3
524.6
767.5
813.2
195.6
868.4
3.9
157.5
160.9
495.9
125.2
64.3
239.3

66.1
57.2
449.2
520.8
772.4
789.6
190.6
810.9
3.9
152.0
159.1
464.9
116.4
61.0
236.5

64.5
53.8
440.0
517.1
708.1
768.3
174.1
754.8
3.8
148.9
157.9
433.9
107.4
57.6
228.9

63.1
52.2
433.2
499.2
633.8
748.2
169.3
719.8
3.6
146.9
153.4
433.9
96.9
55.5
221.6

61.2
50.6
415.0
481.9
600.3
728.0
158.0
719.1
3.5
138.7
150.6
424.8
92.2
53.5
217.6

-3.0
-3.0
-4.2
-3.5
-5.3
-2.7
-6.7
-0.1
-3.4
-5.6
-1.8
-2.1
-4.9
-3.6
-1.8

EUR12
EU-15

:
:

5879.3 5567.1 5369.0 5163.2 4958.9 4829.6 4661.0 4495.8 4278.7 4101.4 3973.4
6279.6 5962.7 5762.5 5547.9 5334.6 5199.4 5025.4 4850.5 4619.0 4430.7 4295.1

-3.1
-3.1 

DETAILED TABLES ON THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE EU 189

eurostat

III.

Table B.1.

Table B.2.

Table B.3.

Table B.4.

Table B.5.

Table B.6.

Table B.7.

Table B.8.

Detailed tables on the agricultural productivity in the EU

Volume indices of agricultural industry output (in basic prices), from 1990 to 2001
(1995 = 100)

Volume indices of gross value added at basic prices, from 1990 to 2001 (1995 = 100)

Volume indices of Consumption of fixed Capital, from 1990 to 2001 (1995 = 100)

Volume indices of total agricultural labour, from 1990 to 2001 (1995 = 100)

Volume indices of agricultural intermediate consumption, from 1990 to 2001
(1995 = 100)

Consumption of fixed capital, from 1990 to 2001 - in current prices and Mio Euro

Compensation of employees, from 1990 to 2001 - in current prices and Mio Euro

Imputed compensation of non-salaried workers, from 1990 to 2001 - in current prices
and Mio Euro

Table B.9.

Intermediate consumption, from 1990 to 2001 - in current prices and Mio Euro

Table B.10.

Laspeyres index for capital

Table B.11.

Laspeyres index for labour

Table B.12.

Laspeyres index for intermediate consumption

Table B.13.

Laspeyres index for all (capital, labour, intermediate consumption inputs)

Table B.14.

Paasche index for capital

Table B.15.

Paasche index for labour

Table B.16.

Paasche index for intermediate consumption

Table B.17.

Paasche index for all (capital, labour, intermediate consumption inputs)

Table B.18.

Fisher index for all (capital, labour, intermediate consumption inputs)

Table B.19.

Multi-Factor Productivity (Ratio Table B.1. to Table B.18.)

DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 191

eurostat

Table B.1

Volume indices of agricultural industry output (in basic prices), from 1990 to 2001 
(1995 = 100)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

83.9  

100.0  

88.5  

98.7  

95.7  

97.6  

97.4  

100.0  

96.0  

97.0  

100.5   100.0  

99.5  

95.5  

93.8   101.0  

98.0  

100.0   100.2   101.9  

104.5   102.9  

101.8   102.5  

:

:

102.5  

99.6  

99.8  

98.7  

100.0   103.0   103.9  

105.8   107.5  

112.1   113.7  

:

:

:

:

100.0  

97.5  

98.1  

100.5   103.6  

101.0  

96.7  

117.8  

116.8   114.7   110.9   109.6  

100.0   126.9   133.9  

136.9   140.3  

144.3   142.8  

96.7  

97.4  

94.8   101.2  

97.3  

97.9  

100.0   103.5   105.0  

107.3   109.5  

108.9   105.5  

96.4   102.3  

98.5  

99.3  

100.0   103.2   101.6  

104.0   101.9  

102.1   100.1  

95.2  

102.3   102.3  

99.9  

99.1  

100.0   100.7   100.8  

101.9   106.1  

103.6   102.8  

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

93.5  

95.5  

97.9  

98.7  

99.6  

100.0  

99.4  

96.8  

101.3   104.7  

104.8   102.1  

102.1  

102.9  

99.1  

99.4   102.4  

100.0  

98.4   101.1  

106.3   109.4  

103.3   104.5  

113.9  

120.2   110.2   102.4   104.2  

100.0   106.1   101.3  

99.3   112.5  

106.7   105.4  

108.6  

105.2  

98.4  

94.7  

93.4  

97.2  

98.0  

100.0   101.4   103.8  

97.2  

98.7  

104.7   102.9  

86.3  

95.7  

95.5  

100.0   103.6   105.8  

101.0   104.1  

103.5   103.5  

98.8  

100.7   101.2  

98.7  

99.8  

100.0  

99.5   100.7  

101.1   101.9  

98.2  

92.3

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Table B.2

Volume indices of gross value added at basic prices, from 1990 to 2001 
(1995 = 100)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

96.7  

95.6  

:

:

96.6   115.5   116.2   101.2  

100.0  

99.6   103.1  

109.5   113.3  

127.9   112.8  

95.4  

85.8  

99.3  

95.4  

100.0  

99.6   100.2  

104.5   101.4  

100.3   102.7  

103.2   103.8   100.1  

95.8  

100.0   107.2   105.8  

106.6   111.3  

122.8   127.0  

:

:

:

:

100.0  

96.7  

98.1  

101.3   106.3  

102.9  

97.7  

127.3  

125.9   123.1   119.4   116.1  

100.0   138.9   147.9  

152.7   157.3  

165.4   161.4  

96.6  

90.6   102.3  

97.2  

97.5  

100.0   105.6   107.1  

109.4   113.4  

111.9   106.7  

107.4  

104.6   115.0   104.7   102.2  

100.0   107.2   106.6  

105.4  

98.8  

100.5  

94.0  

88.8  

98.4  

99.8  

98.0  

98.3  

100.0   101.6   102.9  

104.5   111.2  

107.9   107.1  

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

84.9  

87.5  

91.7  

94.6  

98.1  

100.0  

98.0  

92.8  

101.2   106.8  

107.6   104.5  

106.7  

107.0   101.4   100.4   107.0  

100.0  

95.5  

98.0  

109.1   112.6  

105.7   108.6  

126.6  

133.9   116.0   100.3   104.8  

100.0   105.2   100.4  

95.1   110.5  

102.5   101.3  

127.1  

116.6   102.2   106.4   116.4  

100.0   106.1   112.6  

97.3  

94.5  

109.1   112.0  

98.4  

90.1  

81.6  

96.2  

89.4  

100.0   106.7   116.2  

101.3   112.7  

109.6   109.2  

104.5  

107.2   108.4   102.0   102.2  

100.0  

98.6   100.7  

103.1   106.7  

104.1  

90.1

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

192 DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

Table B.3

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Table B.4

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

eurostat

Volume indices of Consumption of fixed Capital, from 1990 to 2001 
(1995 = 100)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

:      

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

108.0  

103.9   102.6   101.5   100.4  

100.0  

99.6  

99.3  

97.9  

97.2  

96.3  

93.4  

:      

:      

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

95.9  

96.4  

97.1  

97.5  

98.3  

100.0   101.2   102.3  

103.7  

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

105.5  

104.9   103.6   101.9   100.6  

100.0   100.2   100.9  

102.0   103.4  

104.8   106.0  

:      

:      

:      

:

:

:

86.0  

89.8  

90.9  

94.8  

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

100.0   102.0   103.5  

104.9   105.9  

106.2  

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

95.2  

98.6  

99.4  

100.0  

98.9  

97.9  

101.1   100.5  

100.8   100.8  

94.3  

99.7  

97.0  

100.0  

98.0  

96.6  

95.6  

94.9  

93.4  

92.8  

118.9  

118.0   116.2   110.4   104.9  

100.0  

96.3  

93.6  

92.4  

92.5  

92.8  

93.7  

121.0  

119.9   116.0   110.6   105.0  

100.0  

95.7  

92.3  

90.3  

88.7  

87.0  

84.8  

114.3  

109.2   106.3   103.9   102.0  

100.0  

96.1  

94.7  

93.3  

93.3  

90.9  

87.6  

101.2  

100.6   100.0  

99.4  

99.6  

100.0   101.5   101.6  

100.2  

98.4  

96.0  

93.4  

Volume indices of total agricultural labour, from 1990 to 2001 
(1995 = 100)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

115.0  

112.3   107.4   104.5   101.9  

100.0  

95.2  

94.8  

91.8  

90.1  

88.0  

85.8  

117.2  

113.4   110.7   109.2   103.6  

100.0  

99.1  

96.8  

92.5  

87.8  

85.1  

82.6  

:

143.6   120.7   112.5   105.3  

100.0  

96.2  

93.5  

90.9  

90.3  

89.0  

85.4  

115.7  

106.6   108.1   109.8   104.8  

100.0  

96.9  

93.8  

93.0  

92.2  

89.6  

87.0  

115.4  

109.0   106.3   102.2   101.1  

100.0   100.1   101.0  

103.0  

96.5  

87.0  

87.0  

121.4  

116.5   111.6   105.9   102.6  

100.0  

97.6  

95.1  

93.2  

91.5  

89.9  

88.3  

126.7  

113.2   112.0   108.8   105.4  

100.0   100.2  

92.5  

90.2  

82.7  

80.3  

74.9  

125.1  

123.0   119.2   109.1   104.0  

100.0  

95.4  

92.7  

88.7  

83.3  

81.1  

81.5  

120.8  

117.1   112.2   109.4   104.3  

100.0  

96.1  

93.5  

92.1  

90.2  

87.0  

85.9  

102.2  

105.0   106.1   104.8   102.0  

100.0   102.1   102.4  

100.3  

99.9  

99.7  

96.3  

115.7  

114.1   111.5   109.0   104.4  

100.0  

96.8  

96.2  

95.1  

94.5  

92.0  

90.5  

134.3  

124.2   114.2   104.1   102.0  

100.0  

94.6  

89.2  

84.0  

78.7  

79.4  

77.8  

119.3  

115.9   114.2   109.3   104.6  

100.0  

97.9  

95.6  

90.9  

86.4  

77.9  

75.6  

110.6  

107.2   105.3   104.8   103.2  

100.0  

96.6  

93.3  

88.9  

84.7  

81.2  

78.0  

109.8  

107.9   105.9   104.6   102.2  

100.0  

98.3  

97.1  

95.5  

92.3  

86.5  

84.8

DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 193

eurostat

Table B.5

Volume indices of agricultural intermediate consumption, from 1990 to 2001 
(1995 = 100)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

77.4  

84.9  

84.8  

87.3  

94.9  

100.0  

93.8  

93.2  

94.9  

91.9  

83.9  

84.5  

103.9  

101.6   100.9   102.4   100.2  

100.0   100.8   103.5  

104.5   104.2  

103.0   102.5  

:       102.1  

96.9  

99.7   100.5  

100.0   100.3   102.8  

105.3   105.1  

105.4   105.5  

:      

:

:

:

:

100.0  

99.9  

98.1  

98.4  

95.8  

95.5  

93.6  

99.3  

96.8  

86.1  

99.1  

98.6  

94.4  

97.0  

100.0   103.7   106.9  

106.2   108.5  

106.5   108.4  

99.0   100.2  

97.4  

98.3  

100.0   101.4   102.8  

105.2   105.6  

105.8   104.2  

87.2  

88.0  

91.7  

96.1  

100.0  

98.7  

96.1  

102.5   105.2  

103.9   106.0  

107.8  

110.0   107.1   103.6   100.7  

100.0  

99.0  

96.8  

96.7  

96.2  

95.1  

94.5  

:      

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

102.3  

103.7   103.9   102.6   101.0  

100.0   100.7   100.6  

101.3   102.9  

102.3   100.0  

97.5  

98.8  

96.8  

98.4  

98.0  

100.0   101.6   104.4  

104.1   106.9  

101.3   101.3  

100.7  

106.1   104.2   104.5   103.6  

100.0   106.9   102.2  

103.7   114.6  

111.0   109.5  

96.5  

109.3  

93.6  

86.5  

97.4  

94.8  

87.6  

91.3  

86.1  

100.0  

98.4  

98.1  

97.1   101.4  

101.9  

98.0  

89.2  

95.5  

99.1  

100.0   101.7  

99.6  

100.8  

98.9  

99.9   100.0  

94.9  

95.4  

97.4  

100.0   100.5   100.6  

99.4  

98.1  

93.5  

93.2

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Table B.6

Consumption of fixed capital, from 1990 to 2001 - in current prices and Mio Euro

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

472.5  

498.1   523.3   567.8   603.1  

618.0   571.1   607.6  

608.3   606.0  

600.2   606.2  

851.0  

837.2   849.5   878.0   878.4  

923.9   930.0   928.5  

929.5   949.1  

946.8   945.9  

:      6393.8   6847.7   7228.9   7258.1   7537.8   7427.8   7198.5   7142.7   7140.0   7153.0   7158.1  

:      

:

:

:

:

611.5   641.4   634.4  

609.6   624.4  

611.8   621.8  

2523.5   2599.1   2460.8   2223.1   2209.5   2324.3   2479.3   2525.6   2572.4   2660.1   2756.8   3027.7  

6611.0   6783.4   6950.4   7057.9   7127.9   7113.7   7254.4   7254.6   7352.7   7606.0   7836.0   8137.0  

442.8  

455.8   465.6   448.0   465.7  

478.3   513.2   555.2  

536.9   543.7  

556.7   568.3  

7163.0   7658.3   7642.1   6797.1   6710.0   6235.7   6996.1   7234.7   7295.6   7453.0   7657.5   7912.3  

28.3  

32.9  

34.6  

36.0  

37.8  

38.5  

37.9  

37.0  

38.1  

53.4  

54.4  

56.1  

1785.6   1888.3   2008.8   2176.2   2211.6   2286.9   2253.6   2194.7   2261.2   2317.0   2407.8   2492.0  

1034.8   1139.3   1197.2   1363.9   1351.5   1454.8   1434.7   1394.5   1397.0   1412.0   1411.0   1434.6  

624.9  

648.9   691.9   667.5   622.7  

618.8   617.6   583.2  

580.4   592.5  

683.4   713.4  

1181.3   1132.3   947.1   817.0   865.8  

786.4   742.8   717.3  

705.9   711.3  

722.4   723.7  

714.3  

728.2   713.3   609.5   625.5  

638.1   683.0   670.0  

649.7   663.8  

690.0   684.5  

2455.8   2473.1   2274.0   2192.0   2269.9   2256.6   2429.6   2886.5   2979.7   3066.6   3239.7   3221.9

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

194 DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

Table B.7

Compensation of employees, from 1990 to 2001 - in current prices and Mio Euro

eurostat

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

169.9  

189.6   205.8   235.0   251.9  

267.5   265.5   260.8  

271.7   273.0  

268.5   279.1  

445.7  

436.0   467.1   463.3   458.7  

493.9   511.5   541.6  

538.3   558.1  

552.7   552.7  

:      5757.3   4301.2   4353.5   4240.3   4455.1   4031.1   3576.9   3601.3   3520.5   3706.9   3764.8  

:      

:

:

:

:

455.7   479.4   499.9  

472.4   489.1  

486.1   495.4  

2527.1   2727.3   2526.4   2200.5   2181.4   2187.5   2276.0   2602.1   2766.9   2788.1   2898.1   3176.4  

3866.9   3928.8   4130.6   4373.4   4371.7   4593.2   4665.3   4700.0   4878.1   5064.4   5256.0   5434.0  

316.0  

293.8   277.8   260.6   263.0  

266.1   244.9   270.2  

256.4   256.4  

253.9   255.1  

8712.7   8834.7   9344.8   7797.2   7106.6   6347.1   6604.8   6653.5   6469.1   6247.7   6318.9   6476.9  

4.2  

4.7  

5.2  

5.9  

6.1  

6.7  

7.3  

6.5  

6.7  

10.3  

10.9  

11.6  

1245.3   1302.1   1404.5   1500.9   1497.0   1531.3   1570.3   1582.7   1661.8   1779.0   1935.8   2052.0  

192.2  

201.7   215.1   226.4   230.9  

247.8   238.0   228.1  

240.3   245.3  

247.5   250.9  

605.2  

685.1   628.3   602.6   511.4  

508.9   500.3   513.6  

516.0   516.4  

542.4   559.6  

538.8  

557.0   475.3   376.9   381.7  

433.9   391.6   376.2  

381.1   413.9  

432.7   439.6  

286.6  

295.0   298.7   240.4   239.4  

238.3   250.9   235.1  

231.4   236.6  

241.2   237.9  

2403.0   2537.8   2418.0   2290.6   2355.3   2215.6   2311.3   2787.7   2922.7   3079.2   3112.7   3140.2 

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Table B.8

Imputed compensation of non-salaried workers, from 1990 to 2001 - in current prices 
and Mio Euro

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

1257.6

1421.0

1481.8

1591.1

1623.0

1604.9

1647.7 1716.2

1632.9

1572.4

1569.9

1566.6

1230.8

1194.1

1248.5

1238.4

1232.0

1295.8

1256.0 1255.9

1191.6

1203.9

1192.3

1192.3

:

:

13432.5 10036.1 10159.9

9896.5 10393.9

9678.1 8628.1

7681.5

7201.4

7563.9

7643.8

:

:

:

:

2874.6

3080.1 3269.7

3126.0

3271.8

3107.3

3025.9

7197.0

7219.0

6882.0

6435.1

6130.9

5799.8

5986.6 6023.8

6130.4

5766.9

5870.2

5783.4

16432.0 16180.2 16483.2 16742.8 15857.8 15837.4 15305.1 14643.7 14667.6 14699.5 14745.2 14722.6

2904.2

2624.3

2827.9

2711.4

2670.5

2511.1

2701.3 2826.6

2670.6

2529.1

2564.0

2583.7

15304.7 16053.8 15991.0 13122.4 12378.5 10847.8 11799.8 11837.4 10773.2 10169.1

9737.6

9833.3

36.1

38.5

40.7

40.4

40.1

42.2

42.8

38.5

38.0

55.6

56.3

54.7

3133.7

3258.2

3417.3

3518.7

3518.2

3500.7

3753.1 3660.4

3650.1

3715.1

3900.9

3867.0

2345.5

2389.2

2436.6

2541.9

2497.1

2563.6

2348.8 2172.2

2303.7

2334.5

2309.2

2310.3

3361.0

3743.5

3371.8

3165.9

2632.4

2565.4

2429.0 2389.4

2349.4

2295.8

2298.4

2363.0

14299.4 14357.4

9975.5

9380.2

9420.0 10873.9

8402.3 5413.1

4069.8

3268.7

3436.8

2980.2

823.5

849.1

857.7

690.3

687.8

683.8

771.7

775.8

742.9

736.6

765.0

769.8

3531.7

3842.8

3791.4

3685.6

3858.7

3676.6

3886.1 4743.5

5033.1

5335.3

5913.7

5987.7

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 195

eurostat

Table B.9

Intermediate consumption, from 1990 to 2001 - in current prices and Mio Euro

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

3738.0

3860.0

4018.1

4020.1

4249.9

4489.1

4374.4 4294.7

4146.4

3981.6

4298.4

4462.1

4542.1

4436.9

4473.8

4639.9

4474.6

4562.5

4667.8 4810.0

4744.2

4679.1

4797.6

4892.5

:

:

25641.8 24999.5 25645.6 26159.1 26858.7 26495.3 26227.5 25162.3 24782.7 25315.6 25608.1

:

:

:

:

2834.4

2991.3 2949.7

2768.3

2798.5

2895.5

2922.4

11358.8 11597.8 11242.5

9567.7

9701.5

9905.4 10730.4 10963.4 10963.0 11061.0 11446.9 11928.8

28188.1 28409.3 28638.9 28051.3 28661.1 30242.0 31718.6 31645.8 31356.2 31181.5 32032.7 32747.0

2324.1

2362.8

2448.2

2451.5

2614.6

2694.5

2827.3 2900.5

2890.7

2980.8

3109.5

3235.6

15844.4 16791.7 15674.3 13784.4 12797.7 12319.1 13837.2 13643.5 13270.4 13237.1 13419.2 13915.1

121.2

120.1

127.5

119.7

118.0

127.0

130.4

121.4

125.8

122.7

128.2

128.9

9006.6

9330.6

9601.5

9847.1

9826.3 10065.0 10226.1 9982.9

9944.0 10096.4 10525.4 10921.7

2912.9

2954.2

2982.8

3186.5

3138.3

2980.5

3069.0 3026.3

2912.1

3047.5

3020.7

3071.5

2692.3

3024.8

3059.1

2787.0

2650.6

2602.7

2778.2 2730.3

2739.3

2985.5

2845.3

2958.4

3621.9

3193.0

2820.2

2660.5

2705.5

2522.9

2407.6 2438.1

2375.5

2462.7

2614.9

2549.8

3710.7

3362.9

3142.5

2783.5

2828.7

2863.9

3300.6 3217.7

3215.9

3196.7

3452.3

3620.5

11351.8 11939.0 11414.0 11245.7 11540.3 11618.8 12516.6 14003.0 13280.2 13289.0 13924.4 14286.3

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Table B.10

Laspeyres index for capital

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.137

0.132

0.130

0.129

0.127

0.127

0.126

0.126

0.124

0.123

0.122

0.119

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.110

0.130

0.111

0.129

0.112

0.128

0.112

0.125

0.113

0.124

:

:

:

0.113

0.180

0.117

0.065

0.165

0.115

:

:

:

0.120

0.190

0.116

0.064

0.157

0.115

:

:

:

0.125

0.189

0.114

0.062

0.153

0.114

:

:

:

0.130

0.200

0.108

0.060

0.150

0.113

:

:

:

0.131

0.195

0.103

0.057

0.147

0.114

:

:

:

:

0.115

0.116

0.123

0.123

0.080

0.082

:

:

:

:

0.132

0.130

0.201

0.197

0.098

0.095

0.054

0.051

0.144

0.139

0.114

0.116

:

:

0.118

0.124

0.083

:

:

0.129

0.194

0.092

0.050

0.137

0.116

:

:

0.119

0.126

0.084

:

:

0.133

0.192

0.091

0.049

0.135

0.114

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.127

0.085

0.129

0.085

:

:

0.132

0.191

0.091

0.048

0.135

0.112

:

:

0.133

0.188

0.091

0.047

0.131

0.110

:

:

:

0.131

:

:

:

0.133

0.186

0.092

0.046

0.126

0.107

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

196 DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table B.11

Laspeyres index for labour

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

0.309

0.288

:

0.569

0.456

0.429

0.591

0.602

0.276

0.296

0.450

0.656

0.923

0.230

0.327

0.301

0.279

0.433

0.524

0.431

0.412

0.528

0.592

0.267

0.304

0.443

0.607

0.896

0.223

0.322

0.288

0.272

0.364

0.531

0.420

0.395

0.523

0.573

0.256

0.307

0.433

0.557

0.884

0.219

0.316

0.280

0.269

0.339

0.540

0.404

0.374

0.508

0.525

0.250

0.303

0.423

0.508

0.845

0.219

0.312

0.273

0.255

0.317

0.515

0.399

0.363

0.492

0.500

0.238

0.295

0.405

0.498

0.809

0.215

0.305

0.268

0.255

0.246

0.244

0.302

0.290

0.491

0.476

0.395

0.396

0.354

0.345

0.467

0.468

0.481

0.459

0.228

0.219

0.289

0.296

0.388

0.375

0.488

0.462

0.774

0.757

0.208

0.201

0.298

0.293

0.254

0.238

0.282

0.461

0.399

0.336

0.432

0.446

0.213

0.296

0.373

0.436

0.740

0.194

0.289

0.246

0.228

0.274

0.457

0.407

0.330

0.421

0.427

0.210

0.290

0.369

0.410

0.703

0.186

0.285

0.242

0.216

0.272

0.453

0.381

0.324

0.386

0.400

0.206

0.289

0.366

0.384

0.669

0.176

0.275

0.236

0.209

0.268

0.440

0.344

0.318

0.375

0.390

0.199

0.289

0.357

0.388

0.603

0.169

0.258

0.230

0.203

0.257

0.428

0.344

0.312

0.350

0.392

0.196

0.279

0.351

0.380

0.585

0.162

0.253

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Table B.12

Laspeyres index for intermediate consumption

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

0.498

0.651

:

:

0.487

0.506

0.390

0.371

:

0.592

0.401

0.416

0.167

0.707

0.550

0.546

0.637

0.557

:

0.486

0.518

0.395

0.379

:

0.600

0.406

0.439

0.149

0.631

0.557

0.545

0.632

0.528

:

0.483

0.525

0.399

0.369

:

0.602

0.398

0.431

0.151

0.577

0.558

0.561

0.642

0.544

:

0.463

0.510

0.415

0.357

:

0.594

0.405

0.432

0.157

0.618

0.561

0.610

0.629

0.548

:

0.475

0.515

0.435

0.347

:

0.585

0.403

0.428

0.149

0.642

0.572

0.643

0.603

0.627

0.632

0.545

0.547

0.418

0.418

0.490

0.508

0.523

0.531

0.453

0.447

0.345

0.341

:

:

0.579

0.583

0.411

0.418

0.413

0.442

0.173

0.170

0.647

0.658

0.588

0.591

0.599

0.649

0.561

0.410

0.524

0.538

0.435

0.333

:

0.583

0.429

0.423

0.169

0.645

0.591

0.610

0.655

0.574

0.412

0.520

0.551

0.464

0.333

:

0.586

0.428

0.429

0.168

0.652

0.584

0.591

0.653

0.573

0.401

:

0.553

0.477

0.331

:

0.596

0.440

0.474

0.175

0.640

0.576

0.539

0.646

0.575

0.400

:

0.554

0.471

0.328

:

0.592

0.417

0.459

0.176

0.647

0.550

0.544

0.643

0.575

0.392

:

0.545

0.480

0.326

:

0.579

0.417

0.453

0.169

0.647

0.548

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 197

eurostat

Table B.13

Laspeyres index for all (capital, labour, intermediate consumption inputs)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

1.077

1.048

1.035

1.040

1.011

1.000

1.002

1.013

1.007

0.992

0.978

0.964

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

1.053

1.065

1.027

1.059

1.015

1.047

0.978

1.009

0.987

1.001

:

:

:

1.001

1.031

1.189

1.154

1.103

0.993

:

:

:

1.024

1.040

1.161

1.110

1.012

0.994

:

:

:

1.034

1.020

1.102

1.097

0.950

0.987

:

:

:

1.027

1.028

1.049

1.062

0.986

0.986

:

:

:

1.011

1.003

1.029

1.014

1.004

0.991

:

:

:

:

1.000

1.020

1.000

0.999

1.000

0.997

:

:

:

:

1.000

1.009

1.000

0.990

1.000

0.998

1.000

0.978

1.000

0.998

1.000

1.000

:

:

1.040

0.999

0.950

:

:

1.007

0.996

0.950

0.959

0.976

0.997

:

:

1.047

1.006

0.969

:

:

1.010

0.989

0.929

0.920

0.972

0.983

:

:

:

:

:

:

1.003

0.948

1.000

0.931

:

:

1.017

0.996

0.949

0.891

0.951

0.964

:

:

1.013

0.961

0.938

0.825

0.947

0.917

:

:

:

0.988

:

:

:

0.990

0.953

0.925

0.799

0.936

0.907

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Table B.14

Paasche index for capital

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.111

0.117

0.118

0.120

0.124

0.127

0.127

0.124

0.128

0.132

0.131

0.134

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.111

0.114

0.112

0.117

0.110

0.119

0.112

0.123

0.111

0.126

:

:

:

0.137

0.178

0.072

0.050

0.113

0.123

:

:

:

0.132

0.180

0.068

0.049

0.127

0.118

:

:

:

0.128

0.186

0.077

0.057

0.134

0.114

:

:

:

0.129

0.187

0.084

0.056

0.136

0.114

:

:

:

0.130

0.193

0.092

0.062

0.140

0.114

:

:

:

:

0.115

0.114

0.123

0.123

0.080

0.080

:

:

:

:

0.132

0.128

0.201

0.207

0.098

0.101

0.054

0.065

0.144

0.142

0.114

0.113

:

:

0.112

0.123

0.082

:

:

0.129

0.212

0.100

0.087

0.144

0.116

:

:

0.111

0.124

0.081

:

:

0.128

0.213

0.102

0.104

0.144

0.123

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.126

0.081

0.125

0.081

:

:

0.129

0.211

0.100

0.117

0.147

0.126

:

:

0.127

0.216

0.116

0.115

0.147

0.129

:

:

:

0.126

:

:

:

0.128

0.219

0.115

0.128

0.147

0.129

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

198 DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table B.15

Paasche index for labour

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

0.220

0.202

:

:

0.357

0.304

0.425

0.408

0.176

0.282

0.338

0.406

0.633

0.181

0.274

0.240

0.208

0.261

:

0.378

0.312

0.450

0.410

0.188

0.275

0.339

0.440

0.669

0.204

0.284

0.252

0.220

0.257

:

0.383

0.329

0.461

0.437

0.197

0.277

0.348

0.452

0.644

0.219

0.295

0.272

0.216

0.272

:

0.414

0.355

0.465

0.462

0.210

0.281

0.347

0.501

0.675

0.205

0.294

0.273

0.232

0.282

:

0.407

0.352

0.463

0.481

0.219

0.288

0.362

0.480

0.701

0.205

0.304

0.268

0.293

0.246

0.242

0.302

0.299

0.491

0.511

0.395

0.384

0.354

0.347

0.467

0.468

0.481

0.491

0.228

0.239

0.289

0.293

0.388

0.377

0.488

0.490

0.774

0.752

0.208

0.211

0.298

0.298

0.303

0.246

0.286

0.546

0.386

0.349

0.511

0.507

0.237

0.294

0.366

0.523

0.677

0.221

0.318

0.312

0.253

0.285

0.555

0.385

0.360

0.511

0.514

0.233

0.302

0.391

0.552

0.650

0.226

0.344

0.318

0.272

0.278

0.568

0.398

0.369

0.534

0.531

0.302

0.307

0.388

0.559

0.621

0.238

0.368

0.310

0.274

0.290

0.565

0.439

0.372

0.541

0.533

0.309

0.312

0.398

0.562

0.689

0.241

0.399

0.311

0.279

0.303

0.573

0.428

0.374

0.570

0.525

0.307

0.318

0.401

0.570

0.676

0.243

0.404

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Table B.16

Paasche index for intermediate consumption

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

0.857

0.619

:

:

0.485

0.529

0.451

0.313

:

0.580

0.461

0.367

0.191

0.613

0.614

0.761

0.633

0.490

:

0.485

0.519

0.472

0.309

:

0.570

0.447

0.352

0.192

0.659

0.606

0.761

0.630

0.559

:

0.493

0.508

0.462

0.301

:

0.562

0.451

0.379

0.226

0.703

0.605

0.718

0.628

0.543

:

0.496

0.512

0.456

0.320

:

0.563

0.443

0.369

0.220

0.674

0.607

0.666

0.634

0.547

:

0.495

0.520

0.453

0.326

:

0.570

0.444

0.399

0.235

0.651

0.592

0.643

0.680

0.627

0.629

0.545

0.554

0.418

0.416

0.490

0.482

0.523

0.531

0.453

0.456

0.345

0.356

:

:

0.579

0.570

0.411

0.426

0.413

0.411

0.173

0.205

0.647

0.648

0.588

0.589

0.670

0.617

0.559

0.409

0.464

0.528

0.461

0.358

:

0.570

0.425

0.430

0.278

0.659

0.570

0.656

0.613

0.548

0.403

0.460

0.512

0.444

0.363

:

0.561

0.408

0.427

0.325

0.659

0.552

0.674

0.608

0.553

0.407

0.458

0.504

0.449

0.371

:

0.548

0.405

0.408

0.354

0.669

0.547

0.761

0.622

0.549

0.427

0.468

0.506

0.461

0.380

:

0.548

0.427

0.403

0.356

0.671

0.569

0.763

0.630

0.549

0.442

0.460

0.515

0.460

0.386

:

0.565

0.429

0.410

0.389

0.682

0.575

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 199

eurostat

Table B.17

Paasche index for all (capital, labour, intermediate consumption inputs)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.932

0.958

0.968

0.963

0.990

1.000

0.998

0.987

0.994

1.012

1.027

1.042

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.953

0.946

0.974

0.948

0.986

0.956

1.021

0.990

1.013

0.999

:

:

:

0.999

0.976

0.845

0.874

0.908

1.011

:

:

:

0.977

0.966

0.860

0.910

0.991

1.008

:

:

:

0.968

0.985

0.908

0.927

1.056

1.014

:

:

:

0.974

0.976

0.954

0.951

1.015

1.015

:

:

:

0.989

0.998

0.971

0.998

0.997

1.009

:

:

:

:

1.000

0.980

1.000

1.001

1.000

1.003

:

:

:

:

1.000

0.991

1.000

1.010

1.000

1.002

1.000

1.022

1.000

1.002

1.000

1.000

:

:

0.962

1.001

1.054

:

:

0.992

1.003

1.053

1.041

1.025

1.004

:

:

0.956

0.995

1.035

:

:

0.991

1.012

1.081

1.078

1.029

1.019

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.999

1.064

1.002

1.083

:

:

0.984

1.005

1.067

1.093

1.053

1.041

:

:

0.987

1.041

1.080

1.160

1.059

1.096

:

:

:

1.015

:

:

:

1.011

1.049

1.095

1.192

1.072

1.109

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Table B.18

Fisher index for all (capital, labour, intermediate consumption inputs)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

1.109

1.075

1.056

1.055

1.019

1.000

1.002

1.006

0.989

0.965

0.953

0.935

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

1.042

1.079

1.022

1.066

1.015

1.048

0.985

1.011

0.993

1.000

:

:

:

0.981

1.031

1.203

1.095

1.136

1.003

:

:

:

1.010

1.042

1.199

1.062

1.046

1.003

:

:

:

1.025

1.022

1.132

1.010

0.992

0.998

:

:

:

1.022

1.032

1.076

0.999

1.013

0.997

:

:

:

1.009

1.006

1.037

0.942

1.014

0.995

:

:

:

:

1.000

1.017

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.001

:

:

:

:

1.000

1.008

1.000

0.988

1.000

0.991

1.000

0.934

1.000

0.990

1.000

1.001

:

:

1.035

0.998

0.966

:

:

1.005

0.991

0.954

0.861

0.966

0.991

:

:

1.043

1.001

0.984

:

:

1.008

0.982

0.936

0.814

0.956

0.968

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.997

0.968

0.996

0.957

:

:

1.009

0.988

0.953

0.793

0.932

0.945

:

:

1.007

0.955

0.929

0.758

0.921

0.903

:

:

:

0.987

:

:

:

0.989

0.948

0.920

0.729

0.906

0.891

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

200 DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU

eurostat

Table B.19

Multi-Factor Productivity (Ratio Table B.1. To Table B.18.)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 (p)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

90.1

91.8

88.9

95.7

96.2

100.0

100.1

101.4

105.7

106.6

106.8

109.6

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

113.0

114.3

113.0

112.6

110.4

89.6

88.9

96.6

96.2

97.9

:

:

:

95.2

99.0

94.7

99.2

92.6

98.5

:

:

:

94.5

98.8

100.3

92.7

90.6

:

:

:

95.5

97.0

97.3

92.4

87.0

100.4

101.4

:

:

:

96.6

96.3

95.2

97.3

94.5

99.0

:

:

:

98.8

101.8

100.5

104.1

94.2

100.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

124.8

129.4

103.5

105.2

103.1

105.2

:

:

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

:

:

:

:

98.6

99.6

96.3

102.1

107.0

106.2

108.6

120.6

104.5

109.5

99.4

101.6

:

:

131.2

107.2

105.7

:

:

100.5

108.3

106.1

119.3

105.6

104.4

:

:

:

:

:

:

109.9

105.2

109.3

106.7

:

:

103.8

110.8

118.0

124.4

111.6

107.8

:

:

104.0

108.1

114.8

138.1

112.4

108.7

:

:

:

106.9

:

:

:

103.3

110.2

114.5

141.2

114.2

103.6

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

DETAILED TABLES ON THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE EU 201

This publication presents an analysis of the developments in income from agricultural activity in
2001  over  2000  as  well  as  over  the  period  1991  to  2001.  The  data  published  for  2001  are  the  latest
available estimates on the Economic Accounts for Agriculture (EAA) and on the Agricultural Labour Input
statistics, as sent by the Member States and a number of Candidate Countries. The developments of the
three measures of income from agricultural activity in 2001 are presented and analysed for the European
Union as a whole in Chapter 1 and then broken down by Member State in Chapter 2. The same measures
of income from agricultural activity for some of the Candidate Countries are presented and analysed in
Chapter 3. The analysis for Member States is accompanied by an analysis of agricultural productivity in
Chapter 4.