Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Development of agri-environmental indicators for monitoring the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy {SEC(2006) 1136}
Date: 2006-09-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common agricultural policy, data collection, environmental protection, exchange of information, sustainable development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.9.2006 
COM(2006) 508 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Development of agri-environmental indicators for monitoring the integration of 
environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy 

{SEC(2006) 1136} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  Communication  represents  an  initiative  by  the  Commission  to  report  on  the  work 
undertaken with regard to the development of indicators for monitoring the integration of 
environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy (CAP). 

It  describes  the  political  context  for  the  development  of  agri-environmental  indicators, 
analyses  the  need  to  develop  such  indicators  in  relation  to  the  ongoing  process  of 
reforming the CAP, reviews the progress made with their development, and identifies key 
challenges  and  actions  for  future  work.  On  the  basis  of  these  elements,  the  Commission 
considers  that  in  order  to  meet  the  growing  policy  needs  the  information  system  for 
monitoring  the  integration  of  environmental  concerns  into  the  CAP  has  to  be  further 
developed,  strengthened  and  consolidated,  in  particular  by  establishing  a  permanent  and 
stable arrangement for its management. 

The  Communication  is  accompanied  by  a  Commission  staff  working  document,  which 
describes  in  greater  detail  the  work  done  on  developing  and  compiling  the  agri-
environmental  indicators,  sets  out  the  main  findings  and  elaborates  on  the  proposals 
outlined in this Communication. 

2. 

THE POLICY CONTEXT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS 

The Cardiff European Council (June 1998) endorsed the principle that the environmental 
dimension should be integrated in all Community policies. It also stressed the importance 
of  developing  appropriate  environmental  indicators  to  assess  the  impact  of  different 
economic sectors – including agriculture – on the environment, and to monitor progress in 
integrating environmental concerns.  

The Helsinki European Council (December 1999) adopted the strategy for integrating the 
environmental  dimension  into  the  CAP.  The  strategy  sets  environmental  integration 
objectives for water, land use and soil, climate change and air quality, as well as landscape 
and biodiversity, affirming that the preservation of natural resources is an essential element 
for the long-term sustainability of agriculture. In its conclusions, the Council requested a 
regular reporting on progress in integration, based on agri-environmental indicators. 

The  Göteborg  European  Council  (June  2001)  endorsed  the  EU  Sustainable  Development 
Strategy1, which requires that the economic, social and environmental effects of all policies 
be  taken  into  account  in  decision-making.  It  also  adopted  the  conclusions  of  the 
Agriculture  Council  (April  2001)  on  environmental 
integration  and  sustainable 
development  in  the  CAP,  inviting  the  Commission  to  regularly  monitor  and  evaluate  the 
Council’s integration strategy, and calling upon the Commission to continue its efforts to 
further improve the set of agri-environmental indicators and to define the statistical needs 
for these indicators. 

In  response  to  the  Council’s  requests,  the  Commission  issued  two  Communications.  The 
first  Communication  “Indicators  for  the  Integration  of  Environmental  Concerns  into  the 

1 

COM(2001) 264,  “A  Sustainable  Europe  for  a  Better  World:  A  European  Union  Strategy  for  Sustainable 
Development”. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Common  Agricultural  Policy”2  identified  a  set  of  35  agri-environmental  indicators  and 
presented an analytical framework for their development. 

The second Communication “Statistical Information Needed for Indicators to Monitor the 
Integration of Environmental Concerns into the CAP”3 elaborated further on the indicator 
concept  and  identified  potential  data  sources  and  information  needed  to  make  the 
indicators operational. 

These two Commission Communications provided the conceptual input for the launching 
of  the  IRENA  operation  (Indicator  Reporting  on  the  Integration  of  Environmental 
Concerns into Agriculture Policy) in September 2002. This operation, which was aimed at 
developing a set of agri-environmental indicators, was finalised at the end of 2005. 

The Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy, adopted by the European Council in 
June 2006, reaffirmed that sustainable development has to be integrated into policy-making 
at  all  levels,  by  promoting  coherence  between  all  EU  policies  and  ensuring  that  major 
policy decisions are taken in full knowledge of their economic, social and environmental 
impact.  

3. 

INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS INTO THE CAP 

3.1. 

Progress in integrating the environment into the CAP 

By managing a large part of the European Union’s territory4, agriculture plays an important 
role in the conservation of the EU’s environmental resources. Over centuries, farming has 
contributed to the creation and maintenance of a wide variety of semi-natural habitats and 
agricultural  landscapes,  which  host  a  rich  variety  of  wildlife  and  support  a  diverse  rural 
community. 

in 

to  change 

the  future.  Technological  developments  (e.g. 

During  the  past  few  decades,  European  farming  has  changed  considerably  and  it  will 
continue 
improved 
agrochemicals  and  seeds,  better  livestock  breeds)  have  allowed  farms  to  increase  yields, 
thereby  making  farming  more  competitive.  However,  changes  in  land  use  and  farming 
practices,  linked  to  specialisation  and  intensification,  have  also  been  associated  with 
negative  impacts  on  water,  soil,  air,  biodiversity  and  habitats.  At  the  same  time,  the 
abandonment  of  farming  in  marginal  areas,  driven  by  social  and  economic  factors,  is 
posing a serious threat to the farmed environment and to rural landscapes. 

The  latest  reforms  of  the  CAP  have  responded  to  the  double  challenge  of  reducing 
agricultural  pressures  on  the  environment  and  favouring  the  delivery  of  environmental 
services by farming. 

Since  1992,  the  CAP  has  increasingly  been  adapted  to  better  serving  the  aims  of 
sustainability  by  means  of  a  fundamental  reform  process  designed  to  move  away  from  a 
policy  of  price  and  production  support  to  a  policy  of  direct  income  aid  and  rural 
development measures. The next step in that reform process was Agenda 2000, which laid 
down  that  the  CAP  should  not  only  improve  the  competitiveness  of  EU  agriculture, 
guarantee  food  safety  and  quality  and  stabilise  farm  incomes,  but  also  provide 

2 
3 
4 

COM(2000) 20 of 26 January 2000. 
COM(2001) 144 of 20 March 2001. 
Over 40% of the land in the EU-25 is occupied by agriculture. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
environmental  benefits,  enhance  the  rural  landscape  and  support  the  competitiveness  of 
rural areas across the European Union. 

The  2003  CAP  reform5  took  forward  the  integration  of  environmental  concerns  into  the 
CAP. It reinforced a number of measures that encourage land use and practices compatible 
with the protection of environmental resources, both in the first pillar (market and income 
policy) and in the second pillar (rural development policy). 

In  the  first  pillar,  the  main  measures  are  decoupling,  mandatory  cross-compliance  and 
modulation. The decoupling of most direct payments from production reduces many of the 
incentives  for  intensive  production  that  have  increased  environmental  risks.  With  cross-
compliance, the full granting of direct payments is conditional on observance of a number 
of  statutory  management  requirements  on  the  whole  farm,  including  environmental 
standards. The beneficiaries of direct payments are also obliged to maintain all agricultural 
land  in  good  agricultural  and  environmental  condition.  Modulation  makes  it  possible  to 
transfer support from the first to the second pillar, which can increase the budget available 
for agri-environmental measures. 

The 2004 reform of the market regimes for tobacco, olive oil, cotton and hops, along with 
the sugar reform of 2005, confirmed the change of direction taken by the CAP in 2003. 

In the second pillar, a number of measures exist to promote the protection of the farmed 
environment.  The  new  Rural  Development  Regulation  for  the  period  2007–20136  links 
environmental  measures  to  the  objectives  of  the  Sixth  Community  Environment  Action 
Programme7.  The  Community  strategic  guidelines8  identify  three  priority  areas  for 
measures  to  improve  the  environment  and  the  countryside:  biodiversity  and  the 
preservation  and  development  of  high  nature  value  farming  and  forestry  systems  and 
traditional agricultural landscapes, water, and climate change. The main new measures are 
more explicit support to farmers in Natura 2000 and other high nature value areas. Support 
for  areas  with  handicaps  and  for  agri-environment  measures  is  maintained.  In  the  future, 
cross compliance will also apply to most of the environmental measures. 

These developments of the CAP call for better monitoring of the evolution of agricultural 
production  systems  and  land  use  patterns  at  regional  level  and  of  its  effects  on  the 
environment.  While  other  indicator  exercises  from  the  EU  (e.g.  Structural,  sustainable 
development,  rural  development  indicators)  and  other  international  organisations  (e.g. 
OECD, Convention on Biological Diversity) include some agri-environmental indicators, a 
set  of  indicators  targeted  to  measure  the  progress  of  environmental  integration  into  the 
CAP is necessary to assess the impact of policy decisions, identify shortcomings in current 
measures  and  needs  for  new  policy  initiatives  and,  where  appropriate,  to  improve  the 
targeting and tailoring of the measures to local conditions. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support 
schemes  under  the  common  agricultural  policy  and  establishing  certain  support  schemes  for  farmers 
(OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1). 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1698/2005  of  20  September  2005  on  support  for  rural  development  by  the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1). 
Decision  1600/2002/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying  down  the  Sixth  Community 
Environmental Action Programme (OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1). 
Council Decision 2006/144/EC of 20 February 2006 (OJ L 55, 25.2.2006, p. 20). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

The need for agri-environmental indicators in support of the policy process 

The integration of environmental concerns into the CAP is a dynamic process that requires 
regular  monitoring.  Agri-environmental  indicators  are  key  tools  in  this  monitoring 
exercise. They can serve a variety of policy purposes: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

to provide information on the current state and ongoing changes in the condition of 
the farmed environment; 

to track the impact of agriculture on the environment; 

to assess the impact of agricultural and environmental policies on the environmental 
management of farms; 

to inform agricultural and environmental policy decisions; 

to illustrate agri-environmental relationships to the broader public. 

A  coherent  system  of  agri-environmental  indicators  must  be  able  to  capture  the  main 
positive  and  negative  effects  of  agriculture  on  the  environment  and  to  reflect  regional 
differences  in  economic  structures  and  natural  conditions.  In  this  way  it  will  provide 
valuable  information  for  assessing  agriculture  policy  in  terms  of  its  contribution  to  the 
preservation of environmental resources on which the future of agriculture and society at 
large depend. 

4. 

PROGRESS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS  

4.1. 

The IRENA operation 

The purpose of the IRENA operation was to develop and compile, for the EU-15, the set of 
35 agri-environmental 
the  Commission  Communications 
COM(2000) 20 and COM(2001) 144, at the appropriate geographical levels and, as far as 
possible, on the basis of existing data sources. 

indicators 

identified 

in 

The outputs delivered by the IRENA operation are the following: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

40  indicator  fact  sheets9  and  their  corresponding  data  sets,  covering  42  indicators 
and sub-indicators; 

an Indicator Report, which reviews agri-environmental interactions on the basis of 
the  indicator  results  and  describes  the  progress  made  in  the  development  and 
compilation of the agri-environmental indicators; 

an Indicator-based Assessment Report on the integration of environmental concerns 
into  the  CAP,  which  assesses  the  usefulness  of  the  indicator  system  for  policy 
evaluation; and 

an Evaluation Report, which analyses the implementation of the IRENA operation, 
evaluates the indicators and data sources used, and identifies areas for future work. 

9 

Although  the  number  of  indicators  identified  in  COM(2000) 20  is  35,  some  are  divided  into  sub-indicators. 
Moreover,  an  indicator  on  atmospheric  emissions  of  ammonia  was  added  following  a  request  by  Member 
States. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2. 

Key results regarding indicator development 

The  IRENA  operation  has  led  to  substantial  progress  in  the  development  of  agri-
environmental indicators at EU-15 level, and particularly regarding concepts, identification 
of  data  sources  and  compilation  of  data  sets.  Annex 1  of  the  Commission  staff  working 
document provides the list of the 42 indicators and sub-indicators concerned, and describes 
their definitions, data sources, geographical reporting level, and the time series used. 

The main results can be summarised as follows: 

•  out  of  the  42  (sub-)indicators,  11  have  been  evaluated  as  being  useful,  30  as  being 
potentially useful, and only one is considered as having low potential. However, within 
each group, there are indicators at different levels of development (see section 6);  

•  about one third of the indicators are based on data at regional level (NUTS10 2 and 3). 
Nearly  two  thirds  are  national-level  indicators.  Several  indicators  of  the  state/impact 
domains were developed on the basis of modelled data or case studies; 

•  with regard to the temporal scale, about half of the indicators use time series. Eighteen 

indicators cover the period between 1990 and 2000. 

Moreover,  the  IRENA  operation  has  generated  a  substantial  amount  of  knowledge  and 
expertise  on  the  technical  feasibility  of  the  indicators  and  their  interpretation.  A  large 
amount  of  information  has  been  gathered  on  the  state  of  and  trends  in  environmental 
conditions relating to agriculture, and on the measures available to deliver environmental 
integration. 

Through  the  IRENA  operation,  close  co-operation  and  communication  on  agri-
environmental  indicators  have  been  established  between  the  Commission,  the  European 
Environment  Agency  (EEA)  and  the  Member  States.  Member  States11  provided  useful 
feedback  on  the  indicator  fact  sheets  and  the  Indicator  Report,  in  particular  regarding 
indicator concepts, data quality and data presentation. 

5. 

CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE WORK ON AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS 

During  the  IRENA  operation,  several  limitations  became  apparent  in  a  number  of 
indicators: 

(1)  deficiencies  in  the  data  sets  related  to  certain  indicators,  in  terms  of  harmonisation 
(e.g. farm management), data quality (e.g. genetic diversity), geographical coverage 
(e.g.  water  quality)  and/or  availability  of  data  series  (e.g.  area  under  organic 
farming); 

(2) 

(3) 

the models underpinning the computation of certain indicators need methodological 
improvement or further validation (e.g. soil erosion; soil quality); 

some indicators still require further conceptual improvement (e.g. farm management; 
landscape state; high nature value farmland areas).  

10 
11 

Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. 
The "Agriculture and Environment" group of Eurostat was the consultation forum with the Member States for 
the IRENA operation, in association with the EEA-EIONET agriculture group. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
These limitations do not invalidate the usefulness of the indicators for agri-environmental 
analysis.  Rather,  they  suggest  that  further  work  is  needed  on  these  indicators  to  improve 
the  concepts  and  methodological  approaches,  improve  data  collection  methods,  develop 
new data sets where necessary, and improve/validate existing modelling tools. 

Based  on  their  level  of  development,  the  IRENA  indicators  can  be  grouped  into  three 
categories (see also the table in the Annex): 

A. 

B. 

C. 

operational indicators, for which concepts and measurement are well-defined, and for 
which data are available at national and, where appropriate, at regional level; 

indicators that are well-defined but have not reached their full information potential 
because  of  a  lack  of  regional  or  harmonised  data,  or  owing  to  weaknesses  in  the 
modelling approaches on which they are based; 

indicators that need substantial improvements in order to  become  fully  operational. 
This  category  includes  indicators  that  still  need  conceptual  and  methodological 
improvement, and indicators where the quality of existing data needs to be improved, 
new  data  need  to  be  collected,  or  where  the  underlying  models  need  further 
elaboration and validation.  

In addition, the indicators need to be extended to also cover the new Member States. 

6. 

THE WAY FORWARD: FUTURE WORK ON AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS 

On the basis of the elements mentioned above, three key challenges for future work on EU 
agri-environmental indicators can be identified: 

– 

– 

– 

streamlining  the  IRENA  indicator  set,  while  strengthening  its  relevance  for  policy 
purposes; 

consolidating  the  selected  set  of  indicators,  extending  the  coverage  to  the  new 
Member States and correcting existing weaknesses; 

setting up a permanent and stable arrangement needed for the long-term functioning 
of the indicator system. 

6.1. 

Streamlining the IRENA indicator set and strengthening its policy relevance 

In  the  light  of  the  conceptual  and  technical  limitations  of  certain  indicators,  a  critical 
choice has to be made regarding the list of indicators that are to be maintained and further 
developed. 

A key criterion for this choice is the relevance of the indicators as an information tool for 
policy-making.  In  this  respect,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  that  monitoring  environmental 
integration  entails  several  levels  of  analysis  and  assessment  regarding,  for  instance, 
specific sectoral measures, horizontal policy instruments, rural development programmes, 
etc.,  within  an  overall  integration  strategy.  To  perform  the  analyses  at  these  different 
levels, it is important to have a coherent set of agri-environmental indicators that captures 
the  regional  diversity  of  agricultural  production  systems  (e.g.  specialisations,  production 
patterns, farming methods), as well as the positive and negative influences that they exert 
on  the  different  environmental  resources.  Moreover,  the  whole  set  of  indicators  should 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
remain  adaptable  to  future  policy  needs,  for  example,  in  response  to  evolving  water 
policies, new CAP measures, or trends in the wider socio-economic context. 

Certain  agri-environmental  indicators  are  currently  being  considered  for  inclusion  in  the 
Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  for  the  rural  development  programmes 
for the period 2007–2013. These common indicators cover priority environmental issues, 
i.e. biodiversity and high nature value areas, water, and climate change12. 

A  further  criterion  for  the  selection  of  the  indicators  that  should  be  maintained  is  the 
technical  feasibility  of  their  development.  The  IRENA  operation  has  shown  that  certain 
indicators  are  too  complex  or  their  development  would  require  a  disproportionate 
investment of resources. 

Finally, in the future, some IRENA indicators are proposed to be treated as sub-indicators 
of other indicators with which they are closely associated. 

With  a  view  to  covering  the  different  levels  of  monitoring  environmental  integration,  and 
based on the work carried out until now, the Commission proposes: 

• 

to  maintain  a  core  set  of  28  indicators,  which  includes  26  IRENA  indicators  and  two 
new indicators covering new agri-environmental issues (see table annexed). 

6.2. 

Consolidating  the  selected  set  of  indicators,  extending  the  coverage  to  the  new 
Member States and correcting existing weaknesses 

The IRENA operation has broadly achieved its objective of using the available and easily 
accessible agri-environmental information and data at EU-15 level. It is now important to 
maintain the streamlined set of indicators, update the corresponding databases and extend 
their coverage to the new Member States. 

However,  it  is  also  important  to  overcome  the  limitations  that  currently  restrict  the 
information  potential  of  certain  indicators.  To  this  end,  efforts  need  to  be  made  during  a 
transition  period  for  the  conceptual  and  methodological  improvement  of  these  indicators 
and for the collection of the necessary data or better access to existing data, in particular at 
regional level. In this respect, the full involvement and commitment of the Member States, 
which are ultimately responsible for data collection, is necessary. 

The Commission suggests that the following actions be undertaken: 

• 

• 

• 

to  further  develop  existing  legislation  related  to  agricultural  data,  both  statistical  and 
administrative, with a view to covering the data needs for agri-environmental indicators 
more effectively; 

to  set  up and develop new EU surveys,  where appropriate, particularly regarding farm 
management practices and the use of farm inputs; 

to  examine,  in  the  context  of  the  ongoing  process  of  updating  the  Farm  Accountancy 
Data Network (FADN), the scope for improving and extending the use of the FADN in 
order  to  respond  to  the  increasing  demand  for  agri-environmental  reporting  and 
analyses; 

12 

These indicators are: population of farmland bird species, high nature value areas, gross nutrient balance, and 
production of renewable energy. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  where necessary, to improve and validate the modelling frameworks; 

• 

to  continue  looking  for  better  indicators  for  agricultural  biodiversity,  habitats  and 
landscapes; 

• 

to explore possibilities for gathering better data: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

from  environmental  monitoring  systems,  in  particular  under  the  Nitrates 
Directive,  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives; 
through spatialisation methods (e.g. redistribution of agricultural data reported 
at administrative level to other geographical units) and other techniques related 
to spatial data (e.g. area-frame surveys, geo-referencing methods); 
from  non-public  data  providers  (e.g.  pan-European  common  bird  monitoring 
database);  this  may  require  the  consolidation  and  harmonisation  of  existing 
data sets to increase their transparency and quality; 
for 
through  other  European 
Environment  and  Security  (GMES)  and  the  Infrastructure  for  Spatial 
Information in Europe (INSPIRE); 
through the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS); 

initiatives,  such  as  Global  Monitoring 

• 

to strengthen co-ordination with other indicator activities13. 

6.3. 

Setting up a permanent and stable arrangement needed for the long-term functioning 
of the indicator system 

Defining the relevant indicators, calculation methods and data sources is only a part of the 
work required to build the information system for monitoring environmental integration.  

To arrive at a fully operational system that can serve the various policy purposes, the work 
carried out during the IRENA operation on a temporary basis needs to be transformed into 
a  stable  process  of  systematic  collection  of  the  data  needed  for  developing,  compiling, 
maintaining and updating the indicators. This requires a permanent and stable arrangement 
under the lead of Eurostat, on the basis of close co-operation with the Statistical Offices of 
the Member States and the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, and in collaboration 
with other European bodies (such as the EEA). 

The establishment of such a permanent and stable arrangement should be a priority task for 
future  indicator  development  at  EU  level.  This  task  includes  identifying  and  allocating 
among  the  partner  institutions  clear  responsibilities  for  the  management  of  the  new 
information system on a permanent basis, without creating new bureaucratic structures. 

The Commission proposes: 

• 

to establish a permanent and stable arrangement needed for the long-term functioning of 
the  indicator  system.  This  is  a  long-term  project  that  requires  the  support  and  the  full 
participation  and  commitment  of  the  Member  States,  in  particular  as  regards  the 
collection and delivery of the necessary data. 

13 

See last paragraph of chapter 3.1. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
ANNEX 

Proposal for a consolidated agri-environmental indicator set 

DPSIR 

Domain 

Sub-domain 

No 

Indicator 

s
e
s
n
o
p
s
e
R

s
e
c
r
o
f
g
n
i
v
i
r
D

Public policy 

Technology 
and skills 

Market  signals 
and attitudes 

Input use 

Land use 

Farm 
management 

Trends 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Agri-environmental commitments 

Agricultural  areas  under  Natura 
2000 

Farmers’  training  levels  and  use  of 
advisory 
environmental 
services 

farm 

Area under organic farming 

Mineral fertiliser consumption 

Consumption of pesticides 

Irrigation 

Energy use 

Land use change 

Cropping/Livestock patterns 

Farm management practices 

Intensification/extensification 

Specialisation 

Risk of land abandonment 

EN 

Main limitations/improvement needed1 (X) 

Data quality 2 

O 

X 

X 

X 

S 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Level of 
development 

Conceptual 
improvement 

Model 
improvement 

Availability of 
regional data 

B 

A 

A/B 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

A 

B 

C 

A 

B 

B 

B 

B/C 

A 

A 

C 

10 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a consolidated agri-environmental indicator set (continued) 

DPSIR 

Main limitations/improvement needed1 (X) 

Domain 

Sub-domain 

No 

Indicator 

Level of 
development 

Conceptual 
improvement 

Model 
improvement 

Availability of 
regional data 

Pollution 

15  Gross nitrogen balance  

s
t
i
f
e
n
e
b
d
n
a

s
e
r
u
s
s
e
r
P

Resource 
depletion 

Benefits 

Biodiversity 
and habitats 

Natural 
resources 

16 

17 

18 

Risk of pollution by phosphorus  

Pesticide risk 

Ammonia emissions 

19  Greenhouse gas emissions  

20  Water abstraction 

21 

Soil erosion 

22  Genetic diversity 

23 

24 

25 

26 

High nature value farmland 

Production of renewable energy  

trends  of 

farmland 

Population 
birds  

Soil quality 

27.1  Water quality – Nitrate pollution 

27.2  Water quality – Pesticide pollution  

Landscape 

28 

Landscape – state and diversity 

B 

New 

New 

B 

A 

C 

B 

C 

C 

B 

B 

C 

B 

B 

C 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

t
c
a
p
m

I
/
e
t
a
t
S

1 

2 

More details on indicator description and measurements, and the improvements needed, are provided in Annex 2 of the Commission staff working document. 
Data  sources  that  need  improvement:  S  =  statistical  data  sources  (e.g.  Farm  Structure  Survey),  Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network;  O  =  other  sources  (e.g. 
administrative data; annual progress reports on the implementation of Rural Development Programmes). 

Data quality 2 

S 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

O 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

11 

EN