COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Austria’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Austria, EU strategy, agricultural policy, climate change policy, common agricultural policy, cooperation on agriculture, digitisation, food security, innovation, rural development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2020  SWD(2020) 367 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Austria’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy        {COM(2020) 846 final} - {SWD(2020) 368 final} - {SWD(2020) 369 final} - {SWD(2020) 370 final} - {SWD(2020) 371 final} - {SWD(2020) 372 final} - {SWD(2020) 373 final} - {SWD(2020) 374 final} - {SWD(2020) 375 final} - {SWD(2020) 376 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.  COMMISSION 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR 

AUSTRIA’S 

CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN 

2 

1.1  Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food 

security 

2 

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

3 

1.3  Strengthen  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  and  address  societal 

concerns 

4 

1.4  Modernising the sector by fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation 

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

1.5  Recommendations 

5 

5 

2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

AUSTRIA 

8 

2.1  Support  viable  farm  income  and  resilience  across  the  EU  territory  to 

enhance food security 

8 

2.2  Enhance  market  orientation  and  increase  competitiveness  including 

greater focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

2.3 

Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

9 

11 

2.4  Contribute  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  as  well  as 

sustainable energy 

12 

2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air 

13 

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

15 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas   18 

2.8  Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local  development  in 

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

19 

2.9 

Improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and 
health,  including  safe,  nutritious  and  sustainable  food,  as  well  as  animal 
welfare. 

21 

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

23 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR 

AUSTRIA’S 

CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN  

In  the  framework  of  the  structured  dialogue  for  the  preparation  of  the  common 
agricultural policy (CAP) strategic plan, this document contains the recommendations for 
the  CAP  strategic  plan  of  Austria.  The  recommendations  are  based  on  analysis  of  the 
state of play, the needs  and the priorities for agriculture and rural areas in Austria. The 
recommendations address the specific economic, environmental and social objectives of 
the  future  CAP  and  in  particular  the  ambition  and  specific  targets  of  the  Farm  to  Fork 
Strategy  (F2F)  and  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030.  As  stated  in  the  Farm  to  Fork 
Strategy,  the  Commission  invites  Austria,  in  its  CAP  strategic  plan,  to  set  explicit 
national values for the Green Deal targets1, taking into account its specific situation and 
these recommendations. 

1.1  Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food 

security 

For  Austrian  farmers  the  shift  to  a  sustainable  food  system  means  both  significant 
economic opportunities as well as challenges. In particular, data shows a significant gap 
between  farm  income  and  income  from  the  rest  of  the  economy  over  time.  This  gap  is 
even larger when it comes to small- and medium-sized farms (the income per worker of 
farms  below 5 hectares (ha) is 45% of the average income for the rest of the economy, 
for  farms  between  10  and  20  hectares  it  is  60%  of  the  average),  farms  in  areas  with 
natural  constraints  (ANC)  classified  as  mountain  areas    (nearly  60%  of  the  income 
outside ANC) and also for some sectors (e.g. sheep, goats, and cattle below 60% of the 
average income). 

The  Austrian  organic  sector  is  demonstrating  that  economic  and  environmental 
objectives  provide  synergies.  The  area  under  organic  farming  (certified  plus  in 
conversion)  is  increasing  in  Austria,  covering  24.1%  of  the  country’s  total  Utilised 
Agricultural  Area  (UAA)  (leader  in  the  EU).  In  terms  of  productivity,  Austrian 
agriculture  undergoes  constant  improvement  mainly  due  to  improving  labour  and  land 
productivity.  Similarly,  fixed  capital  consumption  has  been  increasing  in  Austria, 
showing a continuous investment in fixed assets and machinery. This is partly due to the 
high  costs  linked  to  the  topography.  The  high  proportion  of  small  farms  that  need  to 
invest in basic equipment can also weigh on this result. Finally, to cushion farm income 
from  climatic  risks,  risk  management  instruments  and  strategies  have  been  constantly 
expanded  in  recent  years  with  about  80%  of  arable  land  being  insured  against  hail  and 
more than 60% of arable land against other major harmful events. 

At the same time, the share of the value added for Austrian farmers in the food chain is 
20%  (below  EU  average),  and,  while  absolute  gross  value  added  by  producers  rose  by 
13%  between  2008/09  and  2016/17,  the  total  value  added  in  the  food  supply  chain  in 
Austria  rose  by  34%.  This  economic  position  of  farmers  in  the  food  chain,  at  least 
unbalanced,  is  characterised  by  only  35  recognised  producer  organisations  in  Austria 
(153 per million holdings vs an EU average of 254 per million holdings) and most had 
annual turnovers similar to small and medium-sized enterprises. 

1   It  concerns  the  targets  on  use  and  risk  of  pesticides,  sales  of  antimicrobials,  nutrient  loss,  area  under 

organic farming, high diversity landscape features and access to fast broadband internet. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Climate  change  mitigation  is  an  important  issue  for  Austria’s  agriculture.  Greenhouse 
Gas  (GHG)  and  air  pollution  emissions  from  enteric  fermentation  and  manure 
management  are  considerable,  and  emissions  from  cropland  due  to  land  use  change 
increased  considerably  in  recent  years.  Between  2004  and  2018,  permanent  pasture  in 
Austria decreased from 60% to 47%, which runs counter to the trend in the EU-27, and 
emissions from manure management have increased more than at the level of the EU-27 
in recent years. The reasons for the reduction in permanent pasture were abandonment or 
afforestation  in  inaccessible  areas,  and  the  conversion  of  grassland  and  heathland  into 
arable  land  or  permanent  crops  in  other  areas,  with  negative  consequences  for 
biodiversity.  Austria  will  need  to  reduce  its  GHG  emissions  from  agriculture  to 
contribute to EU Green Deal targets. Austria should prioritise action to reduce methane 
and nitrous oxide emissions, including from the livestock sector, by reducing the use of 
conventional  fertilisers  and  supporting  land  use  and  land  management  practices  for 
maintaining and improving carbon sequestration, including the protection of bogs.  

Regarding  air  pollution,  93%  of  the  total  reported  ammonia  emissions  in  Austria  come 
from  agricultural  sources  and  ammonia  emissions  from  agriculture  have  slightly 
increased  over  time.  This  jeopardises  the  chances  of  reaching  the  reduction  targets  for 
ammonia in accordance with the National Emissions Ceilings (NEC) Directive for both 
2020 and 2030. Concerning water quality, surface and groundwater do not always meet 
the  requirements  of  the  Nitrate  Directive,  in  particular  in  the  northeast  and  eastern 
groundwater  bodies.  Diffuse  agricultural  pollution  is  one  of  the  pressures  on  surface 
waters affecting 18% of water bodies.  

Hence,  strategies  should  be  developed  and  implemented  to  ensure  compliance  and  to 
improve synergies between the CAP and the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework 
Directive. On water quantity, irrigation is still limited to a few areas in Austria. In light 
of  climate  change  the  quantities  of  water  abstracted  should  be  monitored,  which  is  not 
yet the case. Also, a comprehensive gap assessment for nutrients and pesticides under the 
Water Framework Directive is not available yet.  

Building on the extensive use of, and positive experience with, agri-environment-climate 
commitments during the 2014-2020 programming period and making use of a wide range 
of actions offered by the forthcoming Horizon Europe mission on soil health, Austria is 
encouraged  to  focus  on  further  improving  soil  health.  This  would  lead  to  multiple 
environmental  benefits  including  reduced  vulnerability  to  erosion  and  increased 
resilience of the agricultural ecosystem to the impacts of climate change (water retention 
capacity, etc.). The considerable soil erosion problems, which can be found especially on 
slopes with orchards, vineyards and maize-dominated production systems, should also be 
addressed  through  adequate  means  (soil  coverage).  On  arable  land,  more  diverse  and 
longer  crop  rotations,  and  appropriate  tillage/cultivation  practices  are  among  the 
measures to address erosion problems.  

With 24% of its utilised agricultural area under organic farming - 15% of UAA is organic 
permanent grassland - Austria has the highest share in the EU. At the same time, it has to 
be  considered  that  in  Austria,  dairy  cows  in  organic  farming  can  be  kept  in  housing 
without  any  permanent  access  to  pasture1.  There  is  an  opportunity  to  further  expand 
organic  farming  -  as  well  as  other  low-input  production  systems  including  extensive 
grazing  and  other  practices  typical  of  high-nature-value  farming  –  and  to  ensure  that 
these  areas  include  sufficient  landscape  elements  to  fully  reap 
their  multiple 
environmental benefits.  

3 

 
 
In Austria most high nature value farmland (HNVF) is located in mountain areas (44% of 
mountain areas are considered HNVF, whereas in areas without natural constraints only 
5%  are  considered  HNVF)2.  Austria  will  need  to  address  the  decline  of  biodiversity  in 
both agricultural and forest areas.  

The  farmland  bird  index  was  63.7  in  2019  (for  EU-27  in  2017:  82.5)3.  Over  the  last 
decades, the Austrian farmland bird index has shown a decline in common farmland bird 
populations.  According  to  the  latest  Article  17  report  of  the  Habitats  Directive  (2013-
2018),  almost  all  grassland  types  within  Natura  2000  areas  are  in  unfavourable 
conservation status. The Austrian prioritised action framework (PAF) indicates the need 
to  make  existing  management  measures  more  suitable  for  different  grassland  habitats. 
Habitats  and  species  of  cropland  are  also  increasingly  endangered  largely  due  to 
agricultural  intensification  and  the  trend  towards  more  vegetable  and  maize,  and  less 
cereal  cultivation.  The PAF for Austria points to  the need to  preserve niche habitats  in 
cropland  areas  through  a  series  of  measures  that  include  the  promotion  of  extensive 
farming practices, a reduction or  elimination of  inputs, the creation of perennial  fallow 
land and flower strips, the preservation and maintenance of landscape elements, as well 
as specific conservation measures for certain habitats and species. 

In  view  of  more  frequent  occurrence  of  extreme  weather  conditions  due  to  climate 
change, agricultural and forest ecosystems need to be made more resilient. Forests should 
be supported to adapt to climate change through measures such as planting more diverse 
and site-adapted tree species as part of sustainable forest management to achieve a high 
level  of carbon dioxide (CO2) binding, making forests less vulnerable to  pests (such as 
spruce  beetles)  and  diseases  and  other  impacts  of  climate  change,  and  making  forests 
more useable for society. 

1.3  Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal 

concerns  

Delivering on the Farm to Fork Strategy and embarking on the transition towards a green 
and modern agricultural sector over the next decade means closely involving the young 
generation of farmers in this endeavour. While Austria is doing comparatively very well 
in  this  regard,  it  will  need  to  keep  farming  attractive  for  young  people,  an  important 
factor for lively rural areas.  

However,  Austria  also  witnesses  phenomena  linked  to  ageing  and  depopulation  in 
particular a strong old age dependency ratio and projected negative demographic trends 
until 2032 for some specific territories. This could be due, among other things, to the gap 
of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita between urban and rural areas and to specific 
challenges,  which  often  exist  for  certain  vulnerable  parts  of  society.  This  is  true  in 
particular for women in rural employment (the gender gap in rural employment is at 10 
percentage points) as well as the risk of poverty in rural areas, which is clearly higher for 
EU and non-EU born residents than for natives; in Austria the presence of non-EU born 
residents  in  urban  areas  differs  strongly  from  their  presence  in  rural  areas.  To  achieve 
gender  equality,  there  must  be  careful  consideration  of  the  specific  needs  of  women  in 
agriculture and rural areas.  

Addressing the specific needs of rural areas will require investments in both physical and 
human capital - including for a dynamic bio-economy (forestry investments decreased by 
30% between 2005 and 2017) - underpinned by adequate financial resources and paying 
particular attention to those territories and stakeholders most in need. At the same time, 
ensuring  the  protection  of  agricultural  workers,  especially  the  precarious,  seasonal  and 
undeclared ones, will play a major role in delivering on the respect of rights enshrined in 
4 

 
 
legislation,  an  essential  element  of  the  fair  EU  food  system  envisaged  by  the  Farm  to 
Fork Strategy.  

The  Strategy  also  aims  to  contribute  to  sustainable  EU  food  systems,  which  implies, 
among  other  things,  prioritising  a  stronger  shift  towards  consumer  preferences  in  such 
areas  as  quality  production,  more  balanced  diets  and  health.  This  relies  strongly  on  a 
sustainable use of pesticides. In the case of Austria, the overall weighted index for both 
harmonised risk indicators has been evolving upward due in part to the increased use of 
CO2  in  the  storage  of  crops4.  In  order  to  reverse  this  trend  Austria  will  need  to 
demonstrate a high level of ambition in line with the new Farm to Fork pesticides targets 
taking  into  account  their  use  and  the  agricultural  production  of  their  regions.  Animal 
welfare is another priority area for the Farm to Fork strategy and Austria should promote 
best  practice  management,  especially  for  pigs,  which  is  also  important  for  the 
sustainability  of  food  production  systems.  Furthermore,  Austria  should  also  make  an 
effort to shift towards healthier, more environmentally sustainable diets. 

1.4  Modernising the sector by fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation 

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake  

The Austrian agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) is overall strong and 
integrated, yet some aspects deserve further attention.  

Sustained  training  efforts  and  improved  knowledge  exchange  and  co-creation  in 
interactive innovation projects help to make farmers stronger agents of the modernisation 
of  the  agricultural  sector.  However,  up-to-date  results  and  findings  of  research  projects 
and  experimentation  at  universities  and  research  centres  tend  to  be  insufficiently  used 
and targeted for advice and teaching and for farmers.  

Building  on  positive  experiences,  the  Austrian  AKIS  can  further  strengthen  knowledge 
flows  by  making  full  use  of  new  possible  CAP  interventions  in  the  area  of  knowledge 
exchange and interactive innovation. This can be achieved through: i) better integration 
of  research  in  AKIS  to  bridge  the  gap  between  research  and  practice,  ii)  coordinated 
support to advisors to learn from other EU Member States, iii) a ‘mobility budget’  for 
advisors  and  iv)  the  innovation  networking  activities  of  the  CAP  network5.  For  the 
national AKIS to respond to the ever growing information needs to farmers, foresters and 
rural entrepreneurs, and to speed up innovation addressing all CAP objectives (economic, 
environmental  and  social),  it  is  essential  to  enhance  further  links  between  public  and 
private advisors and to invest in their training and skills. Advisors should be supported to 
help capture individual innovative grass roots ideas and to develop these ideas by helping 
to  prepare  and  implement  European  Innovation  Partnership  (EIP)  operational  group 
projects (‘innovation support services’).  

Despite the support to projects and training, the use of digital technologies in agriculture 
or  smart  farming  is  generally  limited.  Austria  shows  also  overall  below-average  levels 
for connectivity, the use of internet services, and the integration of digital technologies. 
The use of digital-based solutions is also limited at the level of CAP administration. 

1.5  Recommendations  

To  address  the  above  interconnected  economic,  environmental/climate  and  social 
challenges the Commission considers that the Austrian CAP strategic plan needs to focus 
its priorities and concentrate its interventions on the following points, while adequately 
taking into account of the specificities of Austrian agriculture and rural areas: 

5 

 
 
 
Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food security 

  Improve the viability of farms, especially smaller and mountain farmers in areas 
of  natural  or  specific  constraints  through  a  more  targeted  and  effective 
distribution  of  direct  payments,  through  the  application,  for  example,  of  the 
complementary redistributive income support for sustainability and the reduction 
of payments. 

  Improve  the  position  of  farmers  in  the  food  supply  chain  by  supporting 
investments  focused  on  higher-priced  markets  and  products,  such  as  organic 
products  and  food  items  with  geographical  indications.  There  should  be  further 
emphasis on plant-based or forestry production, and on livestock production that 
has a lower environmental and climate footprint and involves higher standards of 
greater animal welfare.  

  Raise supply chain co-operation while developing skills and new markets by 
supporting  the  formation,  recognition  and  growth  of  producer  organisations 
(POs). Investments made jointly through POs in physical and human capital (e.g. 
digital skills) could in some cases be more effective than individual investments.  

Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  to  contribute  to  the  environmental- 
and climate-related objectives of the Union 

  Improve the health of agricultural soil and its capacity for storing carbon by 
supporting appropriate management practices. These could include more diverse 
and  longer  crop  rotations,  optimised  fertilisation,  improved  maintenance  and 
management of landscape features, and appropriate tillage/cultivation practices on 
arable land, as well as support for carbon farming. 

  Foster  climate  change  mitigation  in  particular  by  reducing  the  impact  on  the 
climate  from  livestock  farming  through  support  for  practices  and  developments 
such  as:  use  of  emission-reducing  feed  mixes  that  respect  the  requirements  of 
good animal health in line with the Methane Strategy; low-emission techniques of 
manure storage and application; and more generally, the use of precision farming. 

  Foster  climate  change  adaptation  in  agriculture  through  measures  including: 
enhanced  diversity  and  use  of  site  adapted  and  ‘climate  proof’  crops;    green 
infrastructure and natural water retention measures for decreasing the impacts of 
extreme  weather  events  including  floods  and  droughts;  pest  and  disease 
surveillance  and  management.  Flanking  support  for  related  training  and 
innovation may be needed.  

  Reduce nutrient losses  in areas with high nitrate figures through reinforcement 
of  mitigation  measures,  optimization  of  fertilisation  practices  and  fertilisation 
reductions in line with the Green Deal target on nutrient losses. 

  Fostering sustainable forest management, enhancing multi-functionality, forest 
protection and restoration of forest ecosystems to reach good condition of habitats 
and  species  linked  to  the  forests  in  order  to  enhance  ecological  services  and 
biodiversity.  Maintain  and  improve  carbon  sequestration  and  build  resilience  to 
threats such as climate change impacts on forests. In certain regions, there should 
be a specific focus on planting more diverse and site-adapted tree species. Austria 
should promote the use of woody biomass for long-living materials, namely in the 
building sector. 

6 

 
 
  Support biodiversity conservation on agricultural land, contributing to the EU 
Biodiversity strategy targets. Support commitments to help maintain or restore to 
favourable  conservation  status  of  habitats  and  species  of  Community  Interest 
identified  and  prioritised  in  the  PAF  for  CAP  funding,  which  may  include: 
supporting landscape features (in line with the related EU Green Deal target), as 
well  as  low-input  production  systems  –  including  extensive  grazing  and  other 
practices, with a particular focus on grassland habitats, wetlands and bogs.  

Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal demands 

  Counter phenomena of an ageing society and depopulation by enhancing the 
economic  attractiveness  of  rural  areas  and  alleviating  the  specific  difficulties  of 
vulnerable  groups  in  terms  of  employment  and  risk  of  poverty.  Suitable 
approaches include supporting investments in basic infrastructure and services, as 
well  as  in  economic  diversification  –  e.g.  on  farms  or  within  the  bio-economy, 
including  via  investments  in  small  and  medium  enterprises  with  a  focus  on 
forestry and rural tourism and in human capital. In doing so it will be important to 
ensure synergies with other EU and national funds.   

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  targets  on  pesticides  by  promoting  the 
sustainable  use  of  pesticides,  in  particular  by  ensuring  the  uptake  of  integrated 
pest management practices.  

Fostering  and  sharing  of  knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation  in  agriculture  and 
rural areas, and encouraging their uptake 

  Sustain efforts to strengthen AKIS by intensifying networking activities within 
and  beyond  Austria  and  structuring  knowledge  exchange  and  innovation 
processes  among  the  relevant  actors,  especially  between  researchers,  farmers, 
advisors and the CAP networks. 

  Contribute  to  the  EU  Green  deal  target  on  broadband  by  supporting 
investments in fast broadband coverage and step up the digital transition of the 
farming sector, not only through improved broadband coverage but also through 
support  for  innovative  data-based  solutions  for  farms  –  especially  small  farms 
and those located in mountainous areas. In doing so it will be important to ensure 
synergies with other EU and national funds. 

7 

 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

AUSTRIA 

Austria  covers  an  area  of  83  879  km²  of  which  almost  80%  is  rural.  Of  the  total  area, 
32% is agricultural land while forests cover 44%. Agriculture and forestry sectors are the 
economic  backbone  of  rural  areas  and  they  play  a  vital  role  in  keeping  rural  areas  a 
liveable  and  vibrant  environment.  Austrian  agriculture  can  be  described  as  highly 
developed  and  is  characterised  by  small-scale  family  structures.  The  majority  of  farm 
holdings  (87%)  are  located  in  mountain  areas  and  areas  facing  natural  constraints  with 
dairy products, livestock, crops, and timber as important agricultural outputs. Rural areas 
are not only important with respect to nature protection and rural tourism but ensure food 
security across Austria as well as provide for vital rural livelihoods.  

2.1  Support  viable  farm  income  and  resilience  across  the  EU  territory  to 

enhance food security 

In Austria, the agricultural income is on average about 48% of the average wage in the 
whole economy between 2005 and 2019. This share ranges from 56% in 2011 to 40% in 
2015 and is more or less equal to the EU average6.  

The average factor income fluctuates around €19 000 between 2005 and 2019 (close to 
EU  average)7.  Direct  payments  form  about  26%  of  the  factor  income.  Direct  payments 
and payments under rural development form together, on average, a substantial 48% of 
the  income  and,  in  particular,  61%  in  ANC  mountain  area8.  In  2018,  20%  of  the 
beneficiaries farmed 53% of the land and received 57% of direct payments9.  

However,  large  differences  exist  for  the  agricultural  factor  income  between  farm  sizes, 
agricultural  sectors  and  type  of  areas  facing  natural  constraints  (mountains).  Factor 
income  tends  to  increase  with  physical  farm  size  (factor  income  of  farms  below  5 
hectares  is  45%  of  the  average,  for  farms  between  10  and  20  hectares  it  is  60%  of  the 
average)  while    the  direct  payments  and  payment  to  ANC  per  hectare  is  decreasing. 
However,  the  differentiation  of  the  direct  payments  and  payment  to  ANC  per  hectare 
does  not  allow  to  compensate  the  important  differences  in  income  between  small  to 
medium farms on one hand and large farms on the other hand (as illustrated by the result 
indicator R6 at only 96% in 2017). Income tends to be higher for the largest  economic 
farm sizes while the direct payments and payment to ANC per hectare is decreasing.  

For  sectors,  the  agricultural  factor  income  is  above  average  for  field  crops,  granivores 
while  direct  payments,  and  payment  to  ANC  per  hectare  is  comparable  with  other 
sectors. Income in the sheep and goat sector is about half of the average income and it is 
also  very  low  for  cattle  farms  despite  slightly  higher  level  of  the  direct  payments  and 
payment  to  ANC  per  hectare  for  these  sectors  (the  direct  payment  per  hectare  is 
comparable  in  all  sectors  except  for  cattle  where  it  is  lower).  Most  sectors  see 
fluctuations in income over time (in particular for granivores and field crops).  

Income  by  region  (i.e.  ANC/non-ANC)  also  shows  wide  differences.  Despite  a  higher 
total income support per hectare (direct payments (which per hectare are comparable for 
all  types  of  areas)  +  ANC  payment,  +57%  in  2018),  mountain  areas  still  have  a 
significantly lower income (-39% in 2018) than non-ANC areas. In other ANC areas, the 
higher  total  income  support  per  hectare  appear  to  fill  most  of  the  gap  with  the  income 
outside ANC10.  

Among  other  reasons,  including  its  exposure  to  climatic  risks  (mountain  areas  can  be 
more exposed to overall increase of extreme weather conditions), farm incomes strongly 

8 

 
 
fluctuate. This  leads  to  the need to  deploy risk  management instruments and strategies. 
The  offer  of  insurance  has  been  constantly  expanded  in  recent  years  and  constantly 
adapted to meet the needs. Farmers have already accepted the offer well. This is shown in 
particular by the high level of insurance. This is about 80 % of arable land in the case of 
hail and more than 60 % of arable land in the case of other major harmful events11. 

Trend in agricultural income (versus average wage in the economy) in Austria 

Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms  

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy  

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy – EU-27 

Source: Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. CAP context indicators C.25 
Agricultural factor income and CAP context indicator C.26 Agricultural entrepreneurial income. 
Income based on EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06], adding back the 
compensation of employees to the entrepreneurial income and divided by the total number of annual 
working units. Note: 2019 data estimated. The average wage in the economy based on EUROSTAT 
[nama_10_a10_e] thousand hours worked using employees domestic concept and [nama_10_a10], 
item wages and salaries. 

2.2  Enhance  market  orientation  and  increase  competitiveness  including 

greater focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

Around 40% of the population lives in predominantly rural regions. The total number of 
farms  declined  between  2005  and  2016  in  Austria  from  170  000  to  132  500  farms12. 
Small farms (<€4000) are the most numerous and represent 19% of the total number of 
farms.  The  agricultural  area  declined  to  2.69  m  hectares  in  2016  (mainly  permanent 
grassland, -29%), including due to land ceiling, and livestock density increased from 0.75 
(2005)  to  0.90  (2016).  The  agricultural  area  of  extensive  grazing  (area  under  grazing 
livestock  production  below  1  livestock  unit/ha  of  forage  area)  decreased  between  2005 
and 2013 from 44% to 34% of the total agricultural land (UAA). 

More  than  85%  of  the  holdings  in  Austria  farm  are  operating  under  natural  constraints 
(ANC  areas),  corresponding  to  63%  of  the  total  UAA  (2019)13.  Agricultural  factor 
income  per  worker  in  mountain  areas  are  lower  since  2005  compared  to  other  areas. 
Austria  is  using  the  Voluntary  Coupled  Support  scheme  but  at  low  rate  (2%  of  direct 
payments in 2018), targeted to the livestock sector (beef and sheep and goat)14. 

The  area  under  organic  farming  (certified  plus  in  conversion)  is  increasing  in  Austria, 
covering  about  639  000  hectares  in  201815.  With  24.1%  of  the  UAA  under  organic 
farming in 2018, Austria has the highest share of agricultural land under organic farming 
in  the  EU.  Austria  offers  comprehensive  support  programmes  (6th  highest  national  co-
financing)  that  ensure  compensation  for  higher  costs  or  lower  yields  on  the  land,  co-
finance  investments,  support  the  education  and  advice  of  organic  farmers  and  the 
9 

 
 
marketing and sale of organic products. Continuous investments into training and advice 
in downstream activities could support the sector in meeting the growing demand. 

Austria  agricultural  trade  balance  is  largely  driven  by  trade  with  EU  partner  countries 
(period  analysed  is  2002-2018,  in  volumes16).  In  the  animal  sector,  Austria  is  a  net 
exporter of most of the  dairy  products  to  EU trading partners, especially drinking milk 
and  fresh  dairy  products.  Cheese  net  exports  are  mainly  driven  by  exports  to  extra-EU 
countries.  In  the  case  of  butter,  Austria  relies  significantly  on  imports  from  other  EU 
countries.  Regarding  meat  trade,  Austria  is  a  net  exporter  of  pig  meat  towards  non-EU 
countries and a net importer of poultry from EU partner countries. Austrian’s meat trade 
balance declined since 2012. Over the period 2002-2018, Austria became a net importer 
of cereals, while oilseeds imports continued to increase (while stabilized in recent years). 
This is explained by a valorisation of the agricultural sector towards higher added-value 
products. 

Total  factor  productivity  in  Austria  has  been  increasing,  mainly  driven  by  improving 
labour and land productivity (see graph below). In 2018, 118 000 people worked in the 
agricultural sector, representing more than 3% of the total workforce (-20% compared to 
2005)17.  Nevertheless,  the  compensation  of  employees  has  increased.  Fixed  capital 
consumption  has  been  increasing  in  Austria  (+11%  from  2005  to  2019)18  showing  a 
continuous investment in fixed assets and machinery. This is partly due to the high costs 
linked to the topography. The high proportion of small farms that need to invest for basic 
equipment  can  also  weigh  on  this  result.  Sharing  machinery  through  producers’ 
organizations could alleviate some costs. Research and Innovation support is ongoing in 
Austria but private investments in research and innovation are still lagging behind due to 
farm size. 

Share  of  farm  managers  having  received  basic  or  full  training  attained  46%  in  201619. 
The  share  of  managers  that  received  a  full  training  is  significantly  higher  than  the  EU 
average.  In  specific  areas,  as  the  digital  skills  of  the  workforce,  investments  in  human 
capital  could  be  strengthened  (in  2017,  only  39%  of  workers  had  above-basic  digital 
skills20), through trainings and knowledge transfers.  

Total factor productivity in agriculture in Austria (Index 2005 = 100) 

Total factor productivity 

Land productivity 

Labour productivity 

Capital productivity 

Intermediate costs productivity 

TFP EU-27 

Source: European Commission. CAP context indicator C.27 Total factor productivity. Based on 
EUROSTAT [aact_eaa05], [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01], [apro_cpsh1] and [ef_mptenure] and FADN. 

10 

 
 
 
2.3 

Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

The share of agriculture in the value added in the food supply chain (FSC) in the EU is 
around 27%; in Austria it is 20%. Absolute gross value added by producers rose by 13% 
between 2008/09 and 2016/17, but total value added in the FSC in Austria rose by 34%21. 
Agricultural  incomes in  Austria are only  about  48 % of the average national  wage  (see 
2.1).  Farmers  could  engage  in  more  downstream  activities,  i.e.  integrate  vertically,  or 
innovate  and  develop  markets  for  new  agricultural  products.  Joining  producer 
organisations (POs) that have the critical mass and the human and financial capital to do 
so could be one solution.  

The livestock sector generates 54% of Austria’s agricultural output (EU average 42%); in 
the  crop  sector  cereal  production  is  the  biggest  contributor22.  The  Commission’s  F2F 
Strategy calls for a more plant-based diet with more fruits & vegetables and better animal 
welfare. Farmers could transition to more plant-based or forestry production or otherwise 
concentrate  further  on  livestock  production  with  a  lower  environmental  and  climate 
footprint and greater animal welfare, and the sector could focus on animal products with 
more wholesome nutrition profiles (e.g. lower in salt and fat).  

In 2017, there were only 35 recognised POs in Austria (153 per million holdings vs an 
EU  average  of  254)  and  most  had  annual  turnovers  similar  to  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises23.  Austria  could  encourage  more  POs,  such  as  agricultural  cooperatives,  to 
seek recognition and encourage the formation of bigger POs that can better face operators 
in more concentrated downstream markets. No Inter-branch Organisation (IBO) has been 
recognised so far in Austria.  

In  Austria,  consumer  food  prices  are  24%  above  the  EU  average,  but  the  increase  in 
producer  prices  lags  behind24,25.  To  improve  price  transmission  along  the  FSC,  Austria 
could  improve  market  transparency  by  notifying  market  information  beyond  the 
minimum requirements of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1746.  

In  Austria,  56  product  names  have  been  granted  a  geographical  indication  (GI)26,  of 
which 36 are a protected designation of origin (PDO) (2% of all EU PDOs)27. In Austria 
organic farms had a higher net value per work unit than their conventional counterparts 
and  about  19%  of  all  farmers  in  Austria  are  organic  farmers  (3%  in  the  EU)28,29. 
Producers in Austria could continue to focus on such higher-priced markets and products, 
using more geographical indications (GI) and keeping the level of organic.  

Value added for primary producers in the food chain in Austria (in million EUR) 

Primary production 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 
% for primary producers (right axis) 

Food and beverage distribution 
% for primary producers – EU-27 

Source: European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Result indicator RPI_03 Value for 
primary producers in the food chain. 

11 

 
 
2.4  Contribute  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  as  well  as 

sustainable energy 

Between 1990 and 2018 overall greenhouse gas emissions increased by 0.6% in Austria - 
whereas the EU-27 saw a decrease of 22.5% during this period30 - with GHG emissions 
in Austria amounting to just above 80 million tonnes CO2 equivalents in 201831. During 
the  same  time  GHG  emissions  from  agriculture  decreased  considerably  less  in  Austria 
than  in  the  EU-27  (-10.7%  in  Austria,  compared  to  -20.6%  in  EU-2732)33.    Total 
emissions from agriculture increased as of 2013, similar to the trend in the EU-27 (slight 
increase). The share of agriculture (including soils) in total net emissions with land use, 
land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) accounted for 9.8% in Austria, which is below 
the EU average (12.7%)34. However, if upstream GHG emissions, such as energy use for 
mineral  nitrogen  fertilisers  or  land  use  change  for  feed  production,  were  added  to  the 
sector’s traditional emissions, agriculture would account for up to 20% of Austria’s total 
GHG emissions35.  

The  main  source  of  agricultural  GHG  emissions  in  Austria  (2018  figures)  was  enteric 
fermentation  with  a share of 57%,  compared to  an EU-27 average of 44%. The second 
biggest  source  were  agricultural  soils  (with  28%  lower  than  the  EU-average  of  38%), 
followed by manure management whose share (14%) has been close to the EU average36. 
Between  2013  and  2018,  GHG  emissions  from  enteric  fermentation  remained  stable, 
whereas emissions from manure management and soil management increased more than 
the  EU-27  average37.  The  emissions  of  methane  (CH4)  and  nitrous  oxide  (N2O)  per 
hectare of UAA are only slightly higher in Austria than the EU-average38.  

Between  1990  and  2018  GHG  emissions  due  to  Land  Use,  Land  Use  Change  and 
Forestry  (LULUCF)  decreased  by  -57%  in  Austria,  whereas  they  increased  by  3.1%  in 
the  EU-27.  Net  removals  are  reported  for  LULUCF  dominated  by  forestland  removals 
and harvested wood products. Forest and woodland areas cover 4.8 million ha in Austria, 
compared to an UAA of 2.7 million ha. It should be noted that emissions from cropland 
due to Land Use Change increased considerably in Austria between 2013 and 201839.  

The share of agriculture in the production of renewable energy was lower in Austria in 
2018  (5.4%)  than  the  EU  average  (12.1%).  The  share  of  forestry  in  the  production  of 
renewable  energy,  on  the  other  hand,  was  higher  in  Austria  (47%)  than  in  the  EU-28 
(41.4%).  Looking  at  the  production  of  renewable  energy  from  agriculture  and  forestry 
expressed as a share of total primary energy production Austria reaches 40% (more than 
twice as much as the EU average)40. In 2018 the share of agriculture and forestry in total 
final energy consumption in Austria was around 2%, which is slightly lower than the EU-
27 average (2.9%)41.   

In the 2014-2020 programming period Austria dedicated more than 26% of its European 
Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  allocation  to  agri-environment-
climate  measures  (AECM)42.  The  Austrian  rural  development  programme  (RDP) 
includes  the  target  to  cover  79%  of  agricultural  land  with  management  contracts  to 
improve  soil  management  and/  or  prevent  soil  erosion;  the  target  for  land  covered  by 
contracts to reduce GHG and / or ammonia emissions was only 4%43. Support for carbon 
sequestration and conservation in agricultural and forest areas44 through the RDP should 
be  enhanced.  The  same  goes  for  support  for  investments  in  livestock  management  to 
reduce GHG and/or ammonia emissions 45.  

The increase of average temperature in Austria is higher than the global average: While 
from 1980 onwards, globally, temperatures have risen by 0.5 °C, it increased by 1 °C in 

12 

 
 
Austria46.  Austria  has  increasingly  witnessed  draughts  and  heat  waves  in  recent  years 
(201547, 2018 and 201948), the damage to agriculture caused by droughts is estimated to 
be  €230  million  in  2018  and  €100  million  in  2019.  Austria  has  also  been  increasingly 
affected  by  severe  flood  events.  The  snowfall  line  has  already  risen  by  one  hundred 
meters since 1950.  

An  increase  of  extreme  events  can  cause  an  increase  in  annual  yield  fluctuations  in 
agricultural  production,  caused  by  heavy  precipitation,  regional  storm  damage  and 
regional frost and hail damage. Increased heavy precipitation also leads to an increased 
risk of soil erosion, especially in uncovered soil between rows and in hilly terrain. The 
increase in  temperature in recent  years has also  led to  an increased incidence of fungal 
and  bacterial  pathogens  in  wine  and  other  fruits  when  there  is  sufficient  humidity.  
Increasing periods of heat can also reduce the performance of farm animals. 

For forests, abiotic disruptive factors such as storms, late and early frosts and wet snow 
events  or  wildfires  could  also  cause  greater  damage  than  before.  These  disturbances 
could  also  trigger  mass  propagation  and  epidemics  of  important  forest  pests,  such  as 
spruce bark beetle.    

To reduce the potential impact and severity of climate change there is a need to improve 
the overall resilience of the agricultural ecosystem and to create stable forest ecosystems. 
The AgriAdapt LIFE project has recommended, inter alia, to focus on the improvement 
of soil health, better adaptation of the livestock sector to heat waves and the promotion of 
water efficiency (irrigation, less water intensive plants, etc.)49. This also corresponds to 
the findings of the AT climate change adaptation strategy50.  

Total Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (including and excluding LULUCF) in Austria  
(in million tonnes of CO2 equivalents) 

Grassland 
Cropland 
Agriculture 
% of agriculture in total GHG emissions (exc. LULUCF) 
% of agriculture (incl. emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 
EU-27 % of agriculture (incl. Emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 

Source: European Environmental Agency. As in EUROSTAT [env_air_gge] 

2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air 

For water, there are two parameters to be considered: the quality and quantity of water. 
For  quality,  in  Austria  the  main  problem  stems  from  nitrates  (N)  rather  than  from 
chemical  pollution.  Between  1995  and  2016,  the  nitrogen  surplus  in  Austria  decreased 

13 

 
 
showing  up-  and  downward  fluctuations  but  always  staying  under  the  EU  28  level:  It 
went down from 45 kg N/ha in 1995 over 44 kg/ha in 2000 to 21 kg/ha in 2009 but again 
up  to    41  kg/ha  in  2015,  while  in  the  EU  the  gross  nitrogen  balance  went  down  from 
63.16 kg/ha to 46 kg/ha in 2009 and 52,43 kg/ha in 2015.51. The phosphorus (P) surplus 
decreased between 1995 and 2008 (to a deficit) but increased after 2008 to a level of 2 
kg/ha/year of P in 201552. The surface water is affected as 18% of the surface waters are 
not  in  a  good  ecological  status  due  to  a  high  nutrient  load  of  Nitrates  and 
Orthophosphates. For the groundwater, during the period 2012 – 2015, 8.1 - 15.2% of the 
groundwater  monitoring  stations  showed  that  the  Nitrate  level  was  over  50  mg/l53 
compared  to  11.73  -  13.2%  in  EU  28.  Mainly  in  Eastern  Austria,  the  groundwater 
recharge is lower, leading to higher Nitrate concentration in the leachate. For the status of 
the  groundwater  apart  from  the  said  chemical  parameters,  permanent  grassland  has  an 
important function as a carbon sink due to its filtering capacity and its land use as such. 
However,  since  1999  the  carbon  sinks  were  reduced  by  59%  due  to  conversion  of 
permanent grassland into agricultural land. While between 2004 and 2018, the share of 
permanent  grassland  and meadows stayed with  around 30.7%  relatively  constant  in  the 
EU, it decreased in Austria between 2004 from 59.92% to 47.43% in 201854, at the same 
time the share of arable land increased by 10% in Austria while it decreased by 1% in EU 
27. In 2017, 78% of agricultural land was under contract to improve water management. 

The  review  of  Austria´s  second  River  Basin  Management  Plan  under  the  Water 
Framework Directive55 covered the rivers Danube (water exploitation index 5.51%, 4hm3 
used by agriculture), Rhine (water exploitation index 13.58%, 17hm3 used by agriculture) 
and Elbe (water exploitation index 16.16%, 5hm3 used by agriculture). It was noted that 
97%  of  the  groundwater  bodies  were  in  good  chemical  status  indicating  no  significant 
pressure  from  agriculture,  while  at  the  same  time  a  comprehensive  gap  assessment  for 
nutrients and pesticides had not been undertaken for any of the River Basin Management 
Plans, which Austria was recommended to do56. For surface water, the situation is not as 
good  with  100%  of  surface  waters  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  and  52% 
failing to achieve good ecological status.  

For  the  water  quantity,  58.3%  of  the  water  use  stems  from  agriculture,  forestry  and 
fishing  with  a  seasonal  peak  from  April  to  June.  There  is  a  concession,  authorisation, 
and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  surface  and  groundwater  abstractions  and  water 
impoundment, as required by good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC 2) 
under cross-compliance. Altogether, only 3.7% of the total utilised agricultural area was 
irrigable  in  Austria,  mainly  in  Niederösterreich  and  Burgenland  due  its  relatively  dry 
climate  and  the  cultivation  of  water  intense  crops  such  as  vegetables57.  However,  the 
quantities of water actually abstracted are not monitored in Austria. 

Regarding soil, the mean soil organic carbon content was 30.40 g/kg in 2015 (28.90g/kg 
in 2009)58, placing Austria in a lower position compared to the top score of Ireland with 
82.4 g/kg and below the EU average (43.1g/kg). For the soil quality, the humus content 
indicates  the  resilience  and  fertility  of  the  soil,  which  is  in  Austria  higher  in  grassland 
than in arable soils59. In the Austrian top soil, 1.2% mass of soil organic matter is stored. 
In  Austria,  only  0.3%  of  the  land  is  peatland.  In  2010,  in  EU27  in  average  a  share  of 
6.7% of agricultural  land was in  danger of severe erosion, while in  Austria 21% of the 
agricultural land. In 2016 however, the rate of severe erosion had decreased to 19.9% in 
Austria  but  only  slightly  to  6.6%in  EU  27  compared  to  2010,  still  putting  Austria  on 
position  three  among  Member  States60.  Loss  rates  differ  significantly,  with  relatively 
moderate 2 - 5% in Oberösterreich but high rates affecting parts of Tirol, Salzburg and 
Oberkärnten,  partly  linked  to  traditional  ways  of  using  slopes  by  also  maintaining 
humus61.  In  2017,  82%  of  agricultural  land  was  under  contracts  to  improve  soil 
14 

 
 
management.  In  Austria,  over  60%  of  tillable  agricultural  land  is  tilled  conventionally 
and  only  a  minor  share  is  under  zero  tillage62.  In  2016,  19%  of  arable  land  was  left 
without  soil  cover  during  winter,  increasing  the  risk  of  nutrient  leakage  and  soil 
erosion63. 

Regarding air, in 2017, the share of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture was 9.9% 
including  grassland  and  cropland.  Ammonia  (NH3)  pollution  to  the  atmosphere  (air 
pollution and nitrogen loss) stems 93% from agriculture64 coming from different sources 
(in  2018,  NH3  emission  from  agriculture  in  Austria  consisted  of  1%  from  pasture 
holding, 8% mineral fertiliser, 41% fertilisation (manure) and 48% manure/slurry storage 
in  stable/on  farm).  Over  time,  ammonia  emissions  from  agriculture  have  slightly 
increased rather than decreased in Austria: Since 2012, NH3 emissions increased by 2.2% 
to  64.6  kilotons  in  2017  with  the  biggest  share  stemming  from  non-dairy  cattle  (10.2 
kilotons), followed by dairy cattle, although since the 1990s the total number of bovines 
is declining. The change in the bovine keeping from tethering to open space stables led 
most  probably  to  an  increased  slurry  production,  later  used  as  cheap  urea  fertiliser 
together with the different feeding needs of high performance dairy cows. Moreover, less 
animals have access to pasture, as even on organic farms under Austria´s organic farming 
rules, dairy cows can be kept indoors without permanent access to pasture. Furthermore, 
studies show that insufficient manure storage contributes to increased NH3 emissions65.  

The  Commission  has  undertaken  an  assessment  of  the  risk  of  non-compliance  with  the 
emission  reduction  commitments  under  Directive  (EU)  2016/2284  (NEC  Directive) 
concluding that,  for both 2020-29  and for 2030 and beyond,  Austria would be  at  high-
risk of not reaching the emission reduction commitment for NH3  

Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Austria 

Kg P/ha/year 

Potential surplus of nitrogen on agricultural land (in kg N/ha/year) 

EU-27 GNB for Nitrogen 
Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year) 

Source: European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. 
Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

Biodiversity in Austria is characterised by its richness reflected in the above- the average 
size  of  the  Natura  2000  network  and  high  nature  value  extensive  farming  as  well  as 
important  landscape  density  and  diversity.  The  dominance  of  farming  with  low  input 
intensity  and  the  increasing  area  under  organic  farming  are  contributing  factors.  Good 
topographical  conditions  with  rich  biodiversity  resources  lay  down  the  foundation  for 
15 

 
 
maintaining high biodiversity through extensive farming (e.g. mountain area). However, 
the  status  of  biodiversity  in  terms  of  bird  indicators  and  habitats  conservation  show  a 
downward trend.  

The  farmland  bird  index  was  63.7  in  2019  (for  EU-27  in  2017:  82.5)66.  Over  the  last 
decades, the Austrian farmland bird index has shown a decline in common farmland bird 
populations.  In  the  period  1998-2018,  75%  of  the  indicator  species  experienced  a 
statistically significant decline67. On average, 40% of all bird stocks disappeared between 
1998 and 2018.  

In  Austria,  35%  of  grassland  habitats  protected  under  the  Habitats  Directive  are  in 
unfavourable-bad  status,  58%  in  unfavourable-inadequate  and  8%  in  favourable 
conservation status68.  

In 2018, the Ecological Focus Area (EFA) was 28 996 hectares. Catch crops or green cover 
accounted  for  52%  of  EFA.  Twenty-two  percent  of  EFA  was  nitrogen  fixing  crops  and 
20% fallow land69. In view of Austria’s implementation choices under cross-compliance, 
Austria should consider protecting more landscape elements in future in the baseline than 
is  currently  the  case.  The  share  of  land  under  management  contracts  supporting 
biodiversity  and/or  landscapes  and  forest  accounted  for  87%  while  the  EU  average  was 
15% in 2018.70 

There  is  a  decline  in  the  area  of  biodiversity-relevant  habitat  types  in  the  agricultural 
landscape  (low-intensity  arable  land,  fallow  land,  species-rich  mountain  pastures).  The 
suitability  of  the  existing  management  for  species  and  habitats  on  grassland  habitats  in 
Austria  has  recently  been  analysed71,  concluding  that  many  grassland  habitat  types  are 
managed in an unsuitable way72.  

Forest  area  is  increasing,  as  is  the  share  of  hardwood  in  managed  forests.  The  target 
value for deadwood, a  resource particularly important  for many  species  of animals  and 
fungi,  would  be  10%  deadwood  in  the  living  stock,  which  would  be  an  average  of  33 
m3/ha (standing and lying). Currently, however, the value is around 20 m3/ha or 6.2%. 
For  forest  habitats  and  species,  the  harvesting  of  deadwood,  afforestation  and  clear-
cutting has been reported as the most significant pressures. 

In Austria in 2017, more agricultural area was managed by farms with low input intensity 
(37.4%) than with high input intensity per ha (29.7%). These figures slightly differ from 
the EU-27 averages: 36% for high input and 27% for low input intensity73. In 2012, the 
size  of  the  agricultural  area  covered  by  high  nature  value  (HNV)  farming  was  much 
higher  in  Austria  than  the  average  for  the  EU-28:  HNV  made  75.6%  of  the  Austrian 
agricultural  area  while  it  was  only  32.3%  for  the  EU-2874.  Austria  has  an  extensive 
network of Natura 2000 sites, which occupy almost 58% of its territory (compared to the 
EU  average  of  20%).  The  share  of  agricultural  area  in  Natura  2000  is  12%.  This 
proportion is similar to the EU average of 11%.75  

The Austrian prioritised action framework indicates that the main pressures on grassland 
are  abandonment,  more  intensive  use  and  conversion  into  arable  land.  On  cropland 
habitats  and  species  are  increasingly  endangered  due  to  intensification  and  the  trend 
towards more vegetable and maize, and less cereal cultivation. 

Therefore, the PAF considers that the main need for grassland is support for management 
of marginal  yield areas  and  species-rich grassland, which is  adapted to  the specific site 
and target species. In order to preserve niche habitats in cropland areas, it is necessary to 
promote  extensive  low-input  farming,  the  creation  of  perennial  fallow  land,  the 
16 

 
 
conservation of habitats through land purchase, the creation of flower strips and lookout 
perches,  to  continue  the  programme  for  ground  breeding  birds  on  arable  land  and  to 
preserve and maintain landscape  elements.  In addition,  some Natura 2000 management 
plans still need to be drawn up or revised based on new findings. In addition, the nature 
dialogues  identified  the  need  to  consider  expected  threats  through  the  current  drive  for 
renewable  energy  production,  as  well  as  the  need  to  reduce  human-induced  changes  in 
hydrological conditions. 

There  is  a  certain  need  to  continue  to  promote  selective  measures  such  as  support  of 
dead  wood,  conservation  of  trees  with  caves  and  nesting  trees  as  well  as  large-scale 
projects  such  as  clearing  measures,  conservation  and  conversion  of  forest  habitats  or 
promotion  of  rare  tree  species.  There  is  also  a  need  to  promote  forest  management 
adapted to the respective forest habitats and to the presence of certain umbrella species 
such  as  capercaillie  or  white-backed  woodpecker.  Rejuvenation  is  to  take  place 
primarily  via  natural  rejuvenation,  afforestation  should  only  take  place  on  problem 
areas, e.g. for the area of the upper forest boundary. 

In  the  Forest  Europe  report  published  in  2015,  Austria  reported  that  11  tree  species,  18 
birds and 13 mammals were threatened.76 Concerning the species abundance category, in 
Austria  there  are  2-3  types  of  species.  According  to  the  Forest  Europe  report,  actually, 
21.6  %  of  forest  tree  species  are  threatened.  Austria  has  been  implementing  National 
Forest Programmes, Action Plans, and Strategic Programme at subnational level as well, 
which contributed to the achievement of biodiversity goals. Austria has specific objectives 
concerning biodiversity, namely objectives set for the protection of rare and endangered 
species.  

The  total  area  under  organic  farming  is  increasing  in  Austria,  covering  about  640  000 
hectares of land in 2018 accounting for 24.1% of the total UAA, which is well above the 
EU-27 average (8%)77. Organic production is an attractive business development option 
for  many  holdings  in  Austria.  In  recent  years  there  has  been  a  significant  increase  in 
organic  production  in  Austria,  mainly  due  to  a  good  market  situation,  adequate 
marketing of organic products and effective public support measures.  

Area under organic farming in Austria 

Hectares under organic farming 

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

% of area under organic 
farming in the EU-27 

Source: European Commission. CAP context indicator C.19 Agricultural area under organic farming. 
Based on EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Share of agricultural area covered by high-diversity landscape features 
Share of agricultural area covered by  
in the EU 
high-diversity landscape features  

20

15

10

5

0

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

7
2
U
E

Fallow land as % of agricultural area 
fallow land as % of agricultural area

Landscape features as % of agricultural area 
landscape elements as % of agricultural area*

Source: Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Based on EUROSTAT for land 
laying fallow and Joint Research Center based on LUCAS survey for estimation of landscape elements. 
* Linear elements considered here: Grass margins, shrub margins, single trees bushes, lines of trees, 
hedges and ditches. This estimation is to be taken with caution because of methodological caveats. 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

Austria’s situation of young farmers is quite favourable compared to the EU average with 
the highest share of young farmers below 40 years of age (Austria: 22.2%, EU: 10.7%)78. 
While  the  trend  in  Europe  declined  between  2010  and  2016,  Austria’s  share  of  young 
farmers increased within the same period. The ratio of farm managers under the age of 35 
to those aged 55 is also the highest in Austria (with 0.42 in 2016) across the EU.  

The ratio of female farmers compared to male farmers is about 1:3, which is also one of 
the  highest  ratios  in  Europe  in  2016.79  Traditionally,  family  farming  in  Austria  is 
dominated by patrilineal farm succession, where the farm is passed down from father to 
son. A daughter’s chance of being designated for farm succession is only 13.9%, while 
the  son’s  chance  is  54.4%.80  The  transfer  of  an  agricultural  holding  outside  one’s  own 
family  is  rather  rare  and  remains  the  exception.  The  average  economic  farm  size  in 
Austria has been increasing since 2007 across all age groups, but remains the biggest for 
farms managed by young farmers (25 -34 years old). The share of farm managers below 
35 years of age with at least basic level of agricultural training is higher than the share of 
total farm managers in Austria, meaning that the younger farmers are better trained than 
older  farmers,  which  can  be  seen  as  a  positive  trend  in  education.  The  share  of  young 
farmers  with  at  least  basic  agricultural  training  in  Austria  (roughly  60%)  is  also  high 
compared  to  the  EU  average  (40%)  and  displays  a  high  level  of  training  and  advisory 
services in Austria.81 

The  comparatively  favourable  age  structures  in  Austrian  agriculture  are  supported  by 
beneficial legal framework conditions, such as low property transfer tax for agricultural 
land within a family, compulsory insurances, broad possibilities of training and start-up 
funding under the Austrian Rural Development Programme 2014 -2020 (roughly 1.5% of 
the  total  RDP  volume).82  By  2018,  about  6739  young  farmers  (around  23%  of  young 
farmers  population)  had  already  received  €52.6  million  in  EAFRD  funding.  For  most 
farmers  it  is  possible  to  provide  credit  institutions  with  appropriate  guarantees  when 
applying for loans, as 93% of the farmed areas are owned by Austrian farmers and only a 
small  share  is  rented.83  However,  this  might  not  hold  true  for  young  farmers  and  new 
entrants. There is a growing trend of young farmers to split off part of their parent farms 

18 

 
 
to  form  a  new  farm,  which  may  lead  to  a  potential  lack  of  collateral  at  the  time  of 
applying for credit. 84 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Austria 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

Ratio < 35 y.o />= 55 y.o. (right axis) 

Source: EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 

2.8  Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local  development  in 

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

Austria  has  clearly  more  rural  (75%;  5th  highest  value  in  EU-27)  and  clearly  less 
intermediate  (18%)  areas  than  the  EU-27  (45%  and  46%)85;  rural  areas  are  most 
important  (over  80%  of  the  total  territory)  in  Tirol,  Oberösterreich  and  Burgenland86. 
Austrian  population  lives,  comparatively,  clearly  more  in  rural  (40%)  and  less  in 
intermediate/urban  (28%/32%)  areas  than  the  EU-27  (21%  and  39%/40%)87.  While 
recently population increased in all types of areas, it increased clearly less in rural areas 
(1.6%  in  2015-2019  compared  to  3.4%  in  intermediate  and  5.1%  in  urban  areas)88. 
Although Austria is among the Member States without a very strong old age dependency 
ratio,  it  is  strong  (between  38  and  42%)  in  parts  of  the  Centre,  of  Kärnten  and  of 
Burgenland89.  Negative  demographic  trends  until  2032  are  projected  for  the  Centre-
South and more positive ones (>0) for the extreme part of the Southeast90. In relation to 
other  EU  Member  States,  Austria  has  among  the  highest  shares  of  population  born  in 
another EU Member State in rural areas (6% in 2019 vs. 3% EU-27 average), but a rather 
low share of population born outside the EU in  rural  areas (3% in  2019 vs. 4% EU-27 
average);  Austria  is  among  the  Member  States  with  the  biggest  differences  between 
territories.91  
In  Austria,  between  2005  and  2019  both  the  total  and  the  rural  employment  rate92 
increased by around 7 percentage points (pp) (in particular before 2008 and after 2016) to 
respectively 74% and 77% (for the latter Austria ranks fifth among all EU MS).  Over the 
last  15  years  both  male  and  female  employment  grew  in  rural  areas  (82%  and  72% 
respectively  in  2019)  and  while  the  gender  gap  closed  by  2/5,  it  remains  at  10  pp  in 
201993. For both men and women the employment rate94 is clearly higher in rural than in 
urban  areas  independently  from  the  level  of  the  educational  background;  also  here  the 
gender gap shows (13 pp for the low and 5 pp for the high educated in rural areas)95.  

Between 2010 and 2017, employment fluctuated around 6% in tourism and around 1.9% 
in  the  food  industry,  while  decreasing  from  4.9%  to  3.7%  in  agriculture96;  the  primary 
sector  globally  still  accounted  for  8.2  %  of  the  employment  in  rural  areas  in  201697. 
Austria has  comparatively  a strong presence of  women in  farming with  31% of female 
farm  managers  (6th  highest  share  in  EU-28  in  2016;  28%  for  EU-28)98  and  41%  of 
agricultural labour force in 2016, which remains strongly family rooted99. Between 2007 
and  2016,  the  number  of  small  farmers  in  Austria  decreased  for  the  two  categories  of 
19 

 
 
 
smallest farms100 (respectively by -7 pp to 11% and -12 pp to 32%); the same dynamic 
holds  for  both  size  classes  in  terms  of  the  average  numbers  of  hectares  (respectively 
1.8% and 9.1% in  2016), livestock units (0.1%  and 2.4% in  2016) and standard output 
(0.2% and 2.3% in 2016).101 

In  the  aftermath  of  the  financial  crisis,  in  Austria  both  the  total  and  the  rural 
unemployment  rate102  first  slightly 
increased  between  2013  and  2015/16  and 
subsequently  decreased  until  2019  reaching  4.3%  and  2.1%  respectively.  This  means 
that,  both  in  terms  of  deterioration  and  level  of  unemployment,  rural  areas  have  been 
better  off  than  the  country  as  a  whole  and  that  Austria  has  the  third  lowest  rural 
unemployment  rate  in  EU-27  (nearly  6%  in  2019)  after  Czech  Republic,  Germany  and 
together  with  the  Netherlands.  The  situation  is  comparatively  less  favourable  for  the 
young  generation  (aged  20-24)  of  which,  despite  decreasing  by  over  3  pp  since  2015, 
nearly  4%  remain  unemployed  in  rural  areas103  (nearly  13%  for  EU-27)  in  2019;    the 
situation  between  young  men  and  women  is  rather  balanced  with  an  average  of 
respectively 5.8% and 5.7% between 2013 and 2017/2018. The population aged 50-64 in 
rural areas even has a lower unemployment rate of 1.6% (just over 4% for EU-27) which 
in essence corresponds to the unemployment rate for women (1.3%) and men (1.9%) of 
that age group in rural areas. To note that urban areas are clearly worse off in terms of 
unemployment rate (overall and for the age groups looked at).104 

In 2019, Austria had with close to 5% among the lowest share of young people neither in 
employment  nor  in  education  and  training  (aged  15-24)  and  of  early  leavers  from 
education and training (aged 18-24) in rural areas of all Member States and thus clearly 
below  the  EU-27  average  for  rural  areas  of  10.7%  (in  both  cases).105  Since  2009,  in 
Austria the educational level has improved in all types of areas (relative weight decreased 
for low education and increased for high education), but in 2018 the urban-rural gap for 
higher education had slightly increased to  13 pp. At the same time,  rural areas had the 
lowest share of population with low education (18% in 2018) of all territories.106 

Looking at GDP/capita, although between 2005 and 2016 in Austria rural areas became 
relatively  richer  and  intermediate  and  urban  areas  relatively  poorer,  with  respectively 
108%  and  144%  (intermediate  +  urban)  of  EU  average  in  2016,  the  historically  wide 
urban-rural gap largely persisted with 36 pp.107 Since 2010, the share of value added has 
grown  by  4  pp  in  EU-27  rural  areas  while  in  Austria  it  remained,  in  essence,  stable  in 
rural  areas (over 30%) and very slightly decreased in  the primary sector (from 1.4% to 
1.3%)108.  In  terms  of  tourism,  between  2012  and  2017  in  Austria  the  number  of  beds 
overall very slightly increased; since 2012 in Austria the share of beds in rural areas has 
been substantially higher than in EU-27 (70% vs 45% in 2018) and, just like it, decreased 
until 2018 (by 4 vs 6 pp)109.  

In 2005, in Austria, the poverty rate was between 15-20% for all type of territories; while 
from  2007  to  2018  it  fluctuated  around  15%  for  rural  and  intermediate  areas  it  rose  to 
25% for urban areas. Over 2010-2018 it was on average 12.5 pp lower in rural areas in 
Austria  than  in  EU-27110.  In  2017  the  risk  of  poverty  for  natives  in  rural  areas  was 
roughly 1/3 the one for migrants (both from the EU and third countries, the latter having 
a slightly higher risk than the former)111. Between 2012 and 2018, in  Austria the mean 
income  increased  for  all  territories  (15%  for  urban,  12%  for  intermediate  and  14%  for 
rural areas) reaching €27 700 for urban, €28 200 for intermediate and €27 500 for rural 
areas.  Mean  income  in  rural  areas  continues  to  be  higher  for  men  than  for  women  (ca. 
€860 in 2018). The median income basically follows the same patterns.112 It is currently 
higher than the EU-27 average for all types of territories (23 700 vs 15 200 in purchasing 
power standard for rural areas in 2018), but less dispersed113. 

20 

 
 
 In  Austria,  forests  cover  47.3%  of  the  total  land  area  and  other  wooded  land  1.6% 
(respectively  39.8%  and  5.3%  in  EU-27)114.  Between  2005  and  2017,  Austria  saw  a 
mixed  performance  in  major  economic  indicators  for  forestry  and  logging:  the  total 
output  increased  from  €1.795  to  €2.338  million  (wood  in  the  rough  accounted  for  the 
biggest share in 2017); the persons employed115 remained in essence constant at 19 000 
annual  working  units  (while  decreasing  for  EU-27);  the  alleged  labour  productivity116 
increased  from  €45  800  to  €56  600  Gross  Value  Added/person  employed;  and  the 
investments  decreased  by  30%  from  €190  to  €133  million117.  Austria  was  in  the  upper 
third of Member States both in terms of timber resources (2015118) and their net annual 
increment  (2010119).120  Between  2011  and  2015,  in  Austria  the  turnover  from  the  bio-
economy was roughly close to €50 billion (the strong growth of 2009-2011 flattened out) 
and  employment  roughly  around  350  000  persons;  the  turnover  per  person  employed 
increased  from  €124  000  in  2008  to  €148  000  in  2015  (from  €97  000  to  €119  000  for 
EU-27).  Food,  beverages  and  tobacco,  wood  products  and  furniture,  agriculture  and 
paper  were  the  four  most  important  sectors  (44%,  18%,  12%  and  12%  of  the  2015 
turnover and 24%, 12%, 51%, and 5% of 2015 employment).121 

In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  77  local  action  groups  were  established  under 
LEADER to advance the bottom-up approach engaging local actors in the development 
of their rural areas. This approach is very well perceived in Austria, achieves great results 
and  is  seen  as  necessary  to  be  continued.  Under  the  Austrian  rural  development 
programmes,  €198  million  EAFRD  money  (5%  of  Austria’s  EAFRD  envelope)  were 
allocated to the implementation of LEADER- including the 20% national co-financing it 
amounts up to 248 million. The frontrunner Tirol has even implemented the multi-fund 
Community-Led Local Development, together with the cohesion funds. 

2.9 

Improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and 
health,  including  safe,  nutritious  and  sustainable  food,  as  well  as  animal 
welfare. 

The most recent Commission audit of Austria122 found that while Austria had adopted a 
revised National Action Plan (NAP) under the Directive 2009/128/EC on sustainable use 
of  pesticides  for  the  period  2017  to  2021  the  National  Action  Plan  lacks  quantitative 
targets. In addition, it was noted that Austrian NAP does not identify active substances of 
very high concern and therefore does not  contain indicators to monitor the use of plant 
protection  products  containing  such  active  substances  and  measures  to  reduce  the 
associated risk. However, the audit concluded positively that there are measures in place 
to encourage farmers to implement integrated pest management, and the adherence of a 
large proportion of Austrian growers to different low pesticide-input schemes effectively 
contributes to a reduction of the risks.  

In a letter to the responsible services123 the Commission identified the implementation of 
Directive 2009/128 as a key issue. This letter highlighted, in common with the majority 
of other Member States, the need to have effective controls on the implementation of the 
general  principles  of  Integrated  Pest  Management  (IPM)  for  all  types  of  professional 
users.  

The Figures published by the Austrian authorities for the Harmonised Risk Indicator 1124 
for pesticide shows an increase in the evolution of the overall weighted index, against the 
baseline  of  100,  average  in  2011-2013  (see  graph  1).  A  major  reason  for  this  is  the 
inclusion  of  inert  gases  –  e.g.  carbon  dioxide  –  in  the  statistics.  In  Austria,  these  have 
only been approved since 2016 in the calculation of Harmonised Risk Indicator (HRI) 1. 
The  high  application  rates  resulting  from  the  application  characteristics  led  to  a 

21 

 
 
significant increase in the HRI 2016 in the field  of application of inert gases, primarily 
for storage treatment. In 2018, a total of 1 340 tonnes of inert gases were placed on the 
market in Austria, which is about 25% of the total amount of active substances placed on 
the market. Austria publishes the HRI1 without carbon dioxide  and the overall trend of 
the weighted index is then stable. 

There is a general positive development with regard to the second F2F target, concerning 
a  50%  reduction  in  pesticides,  which  are  candidates  for  substitution  (CfS).).  ESTAT, 
reported a decreasing trend and considered Austria as being of minor importance for the 
EU total sales of CfS.  

The  evolution  of  the  overall  weighted  index  for  Harmonised  Risk  Indicator  2  is  also 
upwards.  This  was  due  to  authorisations  relevant  for  minor  uses  under  Article  51  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2009.  In  addition,  the  low  number  of  newly  approved  active 
substances and the increased occurrence of harmful agents due to weather conditions also 
contributed. Emergency authorisations also played an important role in organic farming 
in Austria. 

Animal welfare is another priority area for the F2F Strategy, which is  also vital for the 
sustainability  of  food  systems.  In  relation  to  animal  welfare,  the  main  issue  already 
identified in a Commission letter to the responsible services was that tail docking of pigs 
is  still  a  routine  practice,  although  this  is  prohibited  as  a  routine  measure  by  EU  rules. 
The  percentage  of  pigs  reared  with  intact  tails  has  barely  changed  since  2016  and 
conditions on farm must improve if the number of tail-docked pigs is to start to decrease.  

The Farm to Fork Strategy sets a target to reduce the overall EU sales of antimicrobials 
for  farmed  animals  and  in  aquaculture  by  2030  by  50%.  New  EU  Regulations  on 
veterinary  medicines  and  on  medicated  feed,  applicable  as  of  2022,  will  provide  a 
framework for a wide range of concrete measures to fight against antimicrobial resistance 
and promote a more prudent and responsible use of antimicrobials in animals. Austria is 
already below the 2030 F2F target with reported results in 2018 as expressed as mg sold 
per  population  correction  unit  (PCU)  of  (50.1  mg  /PCU).  The  last  audit  report125 
concluded that the competent authorities have put in place several initiatives in order to 
bring  together  human  and  veterinary  aspects  of  antimicrobial  resistance  (AMR),  and 
these support the establishment of a "One Health” approach to tackle AMR development. 
The challenge for Austria will be to keep these positive indicators (see table below). 

Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents marketed 
mainly for food-producing animals in Austria 

Harmonised Risk Indicator 1 for pesticides in Austria 
(2011-2013 = 100) 

Sales in mg/PCU 

HRI 1 for EU-27 
Source (left): European Medicines Agency, European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial consumption 
(ESVAC). Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 countries in 2018 – trends from 2010 to 2018 Tenth 
ESVAC Report. EMA/24309/2020 

EU-27 

HRI 1 

Source (right):  European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for pesticides (HRI 1), by group of 
active substance. As in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51] 

22 

 
 
On  food  waste,  the  Austrian  services  have  launched  several  initiatives,  with  some  100 
cooperation  partners  actively  involved  and  numerous  measures  in  their  areas  to  reduce 
food losses and waste. Austrian waste prevention programme (2017-2023) does not give 
enough attention to food loss and waste occurring at the primary production level and the 
early  stages  of  the  supply  chain.  This  could  be  tackled  in  the  dedicated  food  waste 
prevention programme, as required by Article 29(2a) of the Waste Framework Directive 
2008/98/EC. 

Austria has  its challenges with  regard to  providing nutritious  and sustainable food as it 
has  a  high  estimated  consumption  of  red  meat126,  and  a  significant  part  of  Austria’s 
population  is  overweight  or  obese127.  Efforts  should  focus  on  shifting  towards  healthy 
sustainable  diets,  in  line  with  national  recommendations,  in  order  to  contribute  to 
reducing  rates  of  overweight,  obesity  and  the  incidence  of  non-communicable  diseases 
while  simultaneously  improving  the  overall  environmental  impact  of  the  food  system. 
This would include moving to a more plant based diet with less red meat and more fruits 
and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds. 

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Austria has been counted among 
the strongest128 and most integrated ones in the EU129.  

For the 2014-2020 programming period, Austria has earmarked 3.3% of their total rural 
development  (RD)  envelope  for  knowledge  transfer  &  information  actions  (M01), 
advisory  services,  farm  management/relief  services  (M02)  and  co-operation-EIP 
(M16)130.  This  is  somewhat  below  the  EU  average  of  3.6%.  Support  to  knowledge 
transfer  was  provided  through  the  training  of  more  than  600  000  participants  over  the 
2014-2020  period,  predominantly  farmers131.  In  2018,  the  share  of  holdings  with  RD 
support  for  investments  in  restructuring  or  modernisation132  was  with  9.6%  well  above 
the EU level of 1.3%. 

Up-to-date  results  and  findings  of  research  projects  and  experimentation  at  universities 
and  research  centres  however  tend  to  be  insufficiently  used  for  advice/teaching  of 
farmers. There is no platform or service point (‘networking point’) nor an advisory back-
office  which  regularly  collects  practical  concerns  for  research  projects  and  makes 
available  existing  best  practice  and  findings  of  research  projects  in  a  practical  and 
comprehensible form for advice, teaching/school (training) to farmers133. There is scope 
for stepping up networking activities to connect research actors such as universities and 
Horizon research projects with farmers and advisors. A good way to do so is to connect 
them via Operational Groups (OG), and to intensify the spreading of the information on 
the  EIP  website.  It  is  essential  to  structure  available  knowledge  and  data  e.g.  via 
knowledge  platforms  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  up-to-date  research  and 
innovation results.  

In  Austria  30  Operational  Groups  were  launched  under  the  European  Innovation 
Partnership (EIP-AGRI) exceeding its 2014-2020 target by 120%134. The average budget 
of an Austrian OG is €372 631.34    which is close to the EU mean135. The main themes 
addressed  by  the  OGs  are  plant  production  and  horticulture  as  well  as  pest/disease 
control.  The  partners  involved  in  OG  projects  are  mostly  farm  holders,  research 
institutes,  and  advisors.  Since  2016,  an  Innovation  Broker  as  a  national  mediation  and 
networking agency, has been supporting the implementation of EIP-AGRI in Austria. 

The  Austrian  National  Rural  Network  (NRN)  has  a  Strategic  advisory  group  on 
Innovation136. Hence, the 2020 NRN work programme foresees events such as on ‘smart 
23 

 
 
food  products’  and 

villages’,  ’speeding  up  innovation’,  ‘digital  possibilities  to  increase  the  marketing  of 
the  subject  area 
agricultural 
‘Innovation’.137  For  the  programming  period  2014-2020  the  planned  NRN  budget  of 
Austria was with  €6 million below EU average (€12.1 million). During 2015-2017, the 
Austrian  NRN  was  one  of  only  five  NRNs  in  the  EU  where  more  than  50%  of  all 
organised  events  related  to  advisors  and  innovation138.  Overall,  the  number  of 
beneficiaries advised (61 928) was more than thrice the EU average (18 595)139.  

‘innovation  brokers’  under 

In Austria, 46% of the total farm managers attained basic or full agricultural training in 
2016140.  While  this  is  above  EU  average  and  stable  since  2010,  the  share  having  basic 
agricultural  training  remains  on  par  with  the  EU  mean  and  the  proportion  with  only 
practical experience (52%) is relatively high141. In early September 2020 there are 2 fully 
operational Digital Innovation Hubs142 related to agriculture, hunting and forestry among 
a total of 142 hubs amongst EU members. Digital Innovation Hubs are to support scaling 
up digital innovations and bringing it to the “end users” and build up regional capacities 
to deploy those innovative digital technologies. 

forestry  sector,  characterised  by 
Given  Austria’s  small-scale  agriculture  and 
topographical and climatic challenges, the RDP supports projects that make digitalisation 
accessible to small farms. A population of just over 3 million now benefit from improved 
information  and  communications  technology  (ICT)  services143.  With  a  total  Digital 
Economy and Society Index (DESI) score of 54.32 in 2020 (range = 0 to 100), Austria is 
above  the  EU  average  of  52.57144.  However,  in  terms  of  overall  connectivity145,  use of 
internet  services146,  and  integration  of  digital  technologies147,  Austria  ranks  below  EU 
average for 2020.  

In 2013, there was a very strong territorial  gap in terms of fast broadband with 70% of 
overall households and only 21% of rural households covered. In 2019, 84% of overall 
households and, thanks to a very strong catch-up in particular since 2016, 68% of rural 
households  benefitted  from  fast  internet;  however,  the  territorial  gap  in  terms  of  fast 
broadband  coverage  still  amounts  to  16  pp.  In  2019,  the  share  of  people  with  basic  or 
above basic digital skills ranged roughly between 60% and 75% for all territories (lowest 
in  rural  areas);  this  places  Austria  among  the  Member  States  with  the  highest  and  less 
dispersed shares.148 

The use of modern digital information and communication technologies in agriculture or 
smart  farming  is  not  yet  highly  represented  but  there  are  training  projects  providing 
digital  skills  and  content149.  Austria  was  one  of  the  signatory  countries  of  the 
‘Declaration  of  cooperation  on  smart  and  sustainable  digital  future  for  European 
agriculture and rural areas’ in 2019150. Austria has not yet opted for the use of satellite-
based controls to monitor CAP implementation and is currently not part of ongoing EU 
projects  dealing  with  the  uptake  of  new  technologies  for  the  modernisation  of  CAP 
administrations,  CAP  controls  and  related  interactions  with  farmers151.  However,  all 
Austrian ministries carry out portfolio research, i.e. research and development activities 
for the preparation, support or implementation of policy decisions152. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Agricultural training of farm managers below 35 years (left) and total farm manager population (right) in Austria 

Managers with full 
agricultural training 

Managers with 
basic agricultural 
training 

Full training EU 
average 

Basic training 
EU average 

Source: European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers. 
Based on EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

Broadband coverage in Austria 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

Source: European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. 
DESI individual indicators – 1b1 Fast BB (NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc]  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1   According  to  Art.14(1)(b)(iii)  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  834/2007  of  28  June  2007  on  organic 
production  and  labelling  of  organic  products  and  repealing  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2092/91  livestock 
shall have permanent access to open areas, preferably pasture, whenever conditions and the state of the 
ground allow 

2   Guggenberger,  T.  Evaluierungsbericht  LE  14-20.  Wirkung  der  Ausgleichszahlungen  auf  die 
Biodiversität  und  den  Erosionsschutz  in  Österreich.  Antragsjahr  2016,  Arbeitspaket  G.  HBLFA 
Raumberg-Gumpenstein 
https://raumberg-
gumpenstein.at/component/rsfiles/download.html?path=FODOK%2Fsonstige%2Ffodok_3_19906_eval
uierungsbericht_guggenberger_az_2016.pdf     

3   2019 information provided by Austrian authorities. European Commission. CAP context indicator C.35 
Farmland birds index (FBI).  As in EUROSTAT [env_bio2], original  source: EBCC, BirdLife, RSPB 
and CSO 

4   European Commission. Harmonised risk indicators 

https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/harmonised-risk-indicators_en  
5   European Commission. Building stronger Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) to 

foster advice, knowledge and innovation in agriculture and rural areas. 2019. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/building-
stronger-akis_en.pdf 

6   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicators  C.25  Agricultural  factor  income  and  CAP  context 
indicator  C.26  Agricultural  entrepreneurial  income.  Income  based  on  EUROSTAT  [aact_eaa04], 
[aact_ali01]  and  [aact_eaa06],  adding  back  the  compensation  of  employees  to  the  entrepreneurial 
income  and  divided  by  the  total  number  of  annual  working  units.  Note:  2019  data  estimated.  The 
average  wage in the economy based on EUROSTAT [nama_10_a10_e] thousand hours worked using 
employees  domestic  concept  and  [nama_10_a10],  item  wages  and  salaries.  All  the  latest  data  for  the 
context indicators is available on the  EUROPA  website. See the  following  link  for  more information 
about  the  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  (CMEF)  to  assess  the  performance  of  the 
Common Agricultural Policy. 

7   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.25 Agricultural factor income. Based on EUROSTAT 

[aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06] 

8   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.ANC3  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018) 

9   European Commission. Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Own calculations 
based  on  FADN  (Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network)  data  (up  to  2018)  and  CATS  (Clearance  of 
Accounts Trailing System) data (up to 2018) 

10   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.ANC3  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018) 

11    Österreichische  Hagelversicherung  (Persönliche  Auskunft).  2019  as  in  Bundesministerium  für 
Landwirtschaft,  Regionen  und  Tourismus.  Entwurf  zur  SWOT-Analyse.  Arbeitspapier  zur  Erstellung 
des  Österreichischen  GAP-Strategieplans.  2019.  https://www.bmlrt.gv.at/land/eu-agrarpolitik-21-
27/nationaler-strategieplan/swot.html.  ECORYS,  Wageningen  Economic  Research.  Study  on  risk 
management in EU agriculture. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 2017. p. 141. 
Study  for  the  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (European  Commission). 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5a935010-af78-11e8-99ee-01aa75ed71a1  

12   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.17 Agricultural holdings (farms). Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg] 

13   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.32 LFA - ANC. Based on EUROSTAT [apro_cpsh1] 
14   European Commission. Direct payments 2015-2020 Decisions taken by Member States: State of play as 
from  December  2018.  Information  note.  2018.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/key_policies/documents/simplementation-decisions-ms-2018_en.pdf     

15   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.19 Agricultural area under organic farming. Based on 

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

16   European Commission. Agri-Food Markets. Agri Dashboard 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DataPortal/agricultural_markets.html   

17   EUROSTAT. [aact_ali01] 
18   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01] 
19   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]  

20   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document.  Country  Report  Austria  2020 
accompanying  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  European 
Council,  the  Council,  the  European  Central  Bank  and  the  Eurogroup  2020  European  Semester: 

26 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
assessment  of  progress  on  structural  reforms,  prevention  and  correction  of  macroeconomic 
imbalances, and results of in-depth reviews under Regulation (EU) No 1176/201. SWD/2020/519 final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1584543810241&uri=CELEX%3A52020SC0519 
21   European Commission. CAP Indicator – Data Explorer. CAP Result Indicator RPI_03 Distribution of 

Gross Value Added along the Food Chain. https://europa.eu/!Pj64rj   

22   European  Commission.  Analytical  Factsheet  for  Austria.  September  2019.  https://myintracomm-

collab.ec.europa.eu/networks/AGRIPI/Policy Fact Sheet/AT_analytical factsheet_final.pdf  

23   Arcadia International. The best ways for producer organisations to be formed, carry out their activities 

and be supported. European Commission, Brussels. 2019. http://doi.org/10.2762/034412  

24   EUROSTAT. [prc_ppp_ind]  
25   EUROSTAT. [prc_fsc_idx]  
26   European  Commission.  eAmbrosia  –  the  EU  geographical  indications  register:  1.8.  European 

Commission, Brussels, 2020. https://europa.eu/!Qm64FB   

27   European Commission. CAP Indicator – Data Explorer. CAP Output Indicator OIH_02 Distribution of 

EU Quality Schemes. https://europa.eu/!Pj64rj   

28   European Commission. Organic versus conventional farming, which performs better financially? Farm 

Economics Brief 4. 2013. https://europa.eu/!DN99NP  

29   European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  –  Data  Explorer.  CAP  Output  Indicator  OIH_03  Number  of 

certified registered organic operators. https://europa.eu/!hW48Uh  

30   N.B. that from 2014 onwards (until 2018) there was a slight increase in overall GHG emissions both in 

AT and at the level of the EU-27 (see endnote 31)  

31   European  Environmental  Agency 

– 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

(EEA).  EEA 

greenhouse 

gas 

data 

viewer. 

32   See endnote 31  
33   Between  2000  and  2016  agricultural  GHG  emissions  decreased  by  7.7%  in  the  EU  and  by  3.2%  in 

Austria. See endnote 31 

34   See endnote 311 
35   Lindthal,  T.  Fakten  zur  klimafreundlichen  Landwirtschaft  und  zur  Rolle  der  Bio-Landwirtschaft. 

Universität für Bodenkultur - Zentrum für Globalen Wandel und Nachhaltigkeit. Wien. 2019 

36   See endnote 311 
37   Trend GHG from manure management 2013 – 2018 (Austria: 5.03%, EU-27: 1.00%), trend GHG from 

soil management 2013 – 2018 (Austria: 3.21%, EU-27: 2.02%). See endnote 311 

38   European  Commission.  Aggregated  emissions  of  CH4  and  N2O  per  hectare  of  UAA.  EUROSTAT 
statistics 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=File:Figure_10_Aggregated_emissions_of_CH4_and_N2O_per_hectare_of_
UAA_(kilotonnes_CO2_equivalent_per_thousand_hectares),_2015.png  

explained. 

39   See endnote 31   
40   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.43 Production of renewable energy from agriculture 

and forestry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_c] and [nrg_cb_rw], and Strategie Grains 

41   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s]   

42   Rural Development Programme for Austria. 2014-2020 Version 7.1 
43   Almost the entire envelope for the agri-environment-climate measure was dedicated to Union priority 4, 
with  a  mere  0.96%  or  resources  dedicated  to  focus  area  5D  (reducing  GHG  and  ammonia  emissions 
from  agriculture)(see  endnote  42).  Austria’s  share  of  land  under  management  contracts  targeting  the 
reduction of GHG and  / or ammonia emissions  was 4% in 2018, compared to 2%  in the EU-27. See 
European 
Agri 
Dashboard.https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Climate.html 
44   In the EU-27 1% of such land is covered by support for this objective (see endnote 43). 
45   The  total  investment  in  renewable  energy  production  programmed  in  the  RDP  for  was  585  million 

Commission. 

Quality. 

Climate 

Change 

Air 

& 

EUR. Austria did not support energy efficiency through the RDP. (See endnote 42) 

46   Kromp-Kolb,  H.,  N.  Nakicenovic,  R.  Seidl,  K.  Steininger,  B.  Ahrens,  I.  Auer,  A.  Baumgarten,  B. 
Bednar-Friedl, J. Eitzinger, U. Foelsche, H. Formayer, C. Geitner, T. Glade, A. Gobiet, G. Grabherr, R. 
Haas, H. Haberl, L. Haimberger, R. Hitzenberger, M. König, A. Köppl, M. Lexer, W. Loibl, R. Molitor, 
H.  Moshammer,  H-P.  Nachtnebel,  F.  Prettenthaler,  W.  Rabitsch,  K.  Radunsky,  L.  Schneider,  H. 
Schnitzer,  W.  Schöner,  N.  Schulz,  P.  Seibert,  S.  Stagl,  R.  Steiger,  H.  Stötter,  W.  Streicher,  W. 
Winiwarter  (2014):  Synthesis.  In:  Austrian  Assessment  Report  Climate  Change  2014  (AAR14), 
Austrian Panel on Climate Change (APCC), Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna, Austria 

27 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
 
 
 
47   Stangl, M., Formayer, H., Höfler, A., Andre, K., Kalcher, M., Hiebl, J., Hofstätter, M., Orlik A., Michl, 
C.  Klimastatusbericht  Österreich  2019.  CCCA.  2020.  Graz.  In  2015,  it  rained  43%  less  than  the 
previous average, with damages estimated to be around €100 million.  

48   In 2019, June was one of the three Junes with the least rain since measurement (see endnote 47). 
49   Bodensee-Stiftung,  Estonian  University  of  Life  Sciences,  Fundación  Global  Nature  and  Solagro. 

AgriADAPT. LIFE project. https://agriadapt.eu/documents/  

50   Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management.  Austrian Strategy for 

Adaptation to Climate Change. Vienna. 2012 

51   For  1995  data:  European  Commission.  CAP  impact  indicator  I.11  (water  quality)  based  on 
indicators,  Pressure  and  Risks.  For  2009  and  2015  data: 

EUROSTAT,  Agri-environmental 
EUROSTAT. [aei_pr_gnb] 

52   European Environment Agency (EEA). Nutrients in freshwater 
53   This is a  breach of the Nitrate  Directive (Council Directive  91/676/EEC concerning the protection of 
waters  against  pollution  caused  by  nitrates  from  agricultural  sources)  which  is  the  basis  for  the 
Statutory Management Requirement 1 under cross-compliance. 

54   According  to  the  Austrian  authorities  the  decrease  in  permanent  grassland  and  pasture  cannot  be 
attributed  to  a  change  in  agricultural  production;  it  was  rather  due  to  a  change  in  the  area  survey 
methodology,  in  particular  as  regards  extensive  alpine  pastures.  The  proportion  of  grasses  and  herbs 
became a more important factor in the categorisation of areas, which led to a “reduction” in particular 
of structurally rich alpine pastures.  However, the number of animals grazing on these alpine pastures 
fell only slightly over the same time span. 

55   WFD stands for the so-called “Water Framework Directive” i.e. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in 
the field of water policy.   

56   European  Environment  Agency  (EEA).  Eionet  Central  Data  Repository.  https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu. 
Status  second  river  basement  management  plan.  All  data  for  Water  exploitation  Index+.  Refers  to 
autumn of 2015. 

57   Statistik Austria,  Farm Structure Survey 2010 Farm Structure Survey 2018 
58   To  note  that  the  underlying  study  to  the  “Austrian  soil  map”,  pointed  to  by  the  Austrian  authorities, 
indicates that the soil carbon content and the interlinked carbon storage might be higher than the results 
obtained  from  calculations  made  based  on  historical  land  data  such  as  LPIS.  Haslmayr1,H.  P.  et  al. 
ASOC – Österreichische Karte des organischen Bodenkohlenstoffs. Endbericht zum Forschungsprojekt 
Nr. 
Wien.2018.  
https://www.dafne.at/dafne_plus_homepage/index.php?section=dafneplus&content=result&come_from
=homep%20age&&project_id=3578&page=2&limit=100         

101255. 

59   Austrian soil organic carbon map (ASOC)  
60   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.42  Soil  erosion  by  water.  Original  source:  Joint 

Research Centre   

61   To note that a national study, pointed to by the Austrian authorities, provides for parcel-related criteria 
for the evaluation of erosion. Strauss, P. et al. Bodenerosion in Österreich – Eine nationale Berechnung 
mit regionalen Daten und lokaler Aussagekraft für ÖPUL. Endbericht. 2020 
https://www.bmlrt.gv.at/land/laendl_entwicklung/evaluierung/Evaluierungsstudien/Biodiversität-
Boden-Wasser-Klima.html  

62   European  Commission.  Agri-environmental  indicator  -  tillage  practices.  EUROSTAT  statistics 
explained.  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-
_tillage_practices  

63   European  Commission.  Agri-environmental  indicator  -  soil  cover.  EUROSTAT  statistics  explained. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_soil_cover  

64   Austrian air pollutant inventory 
65   Pöllinger,  A.  et  al.  Erhebung  zum  Wirtschaftsdüngermanagement  aus  der  landwirtschaftlichen 
Tierhaltung  in  Österreich.  Abschlussbericht  TIHALO  II.  Projekt  Nr./Wissenschaftliche  Tätigkeit  Nr. 
3662.  HBLFA  Raumberg-Gumpenstein.  Bundesministerium  für  Nachhaltigkeit  und  Tourismus.  2018. 
https://www.dafne.at/prod/dafne_plus_common/attachment_download/52ae0e0c03b61b0bd263ae020f1
d6f38/TIHALOII_Abschlussbericht_2018.pdf   

66   2019 information provided by Austrian authorities. European Commission. CAP context indicator C.35 
Farmland birds index (FBI).  As in EUROSTAT [env_bio2], original  source: EBCC, BirdLife, RSPB 
and CSO  

67   Only the Eurasian tree sparrow and the European goldfinch were recovering over this period. 
68   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.36  Conservation  status  of  agricultural  habitats. 

Original source: European Environmental Agency   

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
69   European  Commission.  Directorate-General  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development    analysis  based  on 

Member States’ notifications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 

70   See endnote 68  
71   Suske W., Huber J, Glaser M., Schütz C. Ecological evaluation of the management of grassland areas 
with regard to Intensification of use and abandonment of use. Federal Ministry for Sustainability and 
Tourism. Vienna. 2019  

72   The  following  habitat  types  are  managed  in  a  way  that  negatively  impacts  their  quality:  alpine  and 
subalpine  silicate  grasslands  and  mountain  hay  meadows  (approx.  40%  of  their  area  managed 
unsuitably),  wet  eutrophic  and  mesotrophic  grassland  and  wet  oligotrophic  grassland  (almost  50%  of 
the total area managed unsuitably), calcareous dry grasslands (57% of their area managed unsuitably). 
73   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.34  Natura  2000  areas.  Based  on  NATURA  2000 

Barometer and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018  

74   See endnote 73 
75   Alliance Enviroment. Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity 

Evaluation for the European Commission. 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/key_policies/documents/ext-eval-biodiversity-final-report_2020_en.pdf 

76   FOREST 

State 
https://www.foresteurope.org/docs/fullsoef2015.pdf 

EUROPE, 

2015. 

of 

Europe’s 

Forests 

2015.  

77   Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of the Rural Development Programme of Austria. 2019 
78   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.23 Age structure of farm managers. Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

79   See endnote 788  
80   Larcher, M. and Vogel, S. Geschlechterspezifische Unterschiede im Hofübergabeprozess in Österreich. 
2009. https://oega.boku.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Tagung/2008/Band_18/18_2__Larcher_Vogel.pdf  

81   See endnote 19 
82   Fi-compass, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Austria, Study report, 77 pages. 
2020. https://www.fi-compass.eu/publication/publications/financial-needs-agriculture-and-agri-food-
sectors-austria   

83   Statistics Austria. Farm Structure Survey 2016. 

https://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistics/Economy/agriculture_and_forestry/index.html  

84   See endnote 82  
85   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.03 Territory. Based on EUROSTAT [reg_area3] and 

[urt_d3area]. Reference year:  2016 

86   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.03 Territory. Based on EUROSTAT [demo_r_d3area] 
as  in  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicators  2014-2020.  3.  Territory.  2018  update. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-indicators-doc-
c3_2018_en.pdf Reference year: 2015 

87   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.01  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [urt_gind3]. 

Reference year: 2019 

88   See endnote 87. Reference year: 2015-2019 
89   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – Additional figures, maps and tables on 
the  key  aspects  of  demographic  change  and  its  impact.  Accompanying  the  report  on  the  impact  of 
demographic  change.  SWD(2020)  241  final.  Map  2:  Old-age  dependency  ratio  by  region.  2019. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-staff-working-document-impact-demographic-
change-17june2020_en.pdf. 

90   Copus, A. et al., ESCAPE European Shrinking Rural Areas: Challenges, Actions and Perspectives for 
Territorial  Governance.  Interim  Report.  Espon  Escape  project.  Map  5:  Future  demographic  trends 
2017-2032 
regions. 
https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/ESPON%20ESCAPE%20Interim%20Report.pdf 
91   See  endnote  89.  Figures  40  and  41:  Proportion  of  population  born  in  another  EU  Member  State  and 
proportion of population born outside the EU as share of population aged 15 years or over by degree of 
urbanisation. 2019. In 2019, Austria was the Member State with the second highest share of EU-born 
(14%)  and  the  highest  share  of  non-EU  born  migrants  (over  20%)  in  urban  areas  which  explains  the 
huge territorial differences. 

intermediate 

shrinking 

rural 

and 

92   15-64 years old 
93   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.05  Employment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

in 

[lfst_r_ergau]. Reference year: 2005-2019  

94   20-64 years 
95   EUROSTAT. [lfst_r_erednu]. Reference year: 2018 

29 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
96   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.13  Employment  by  economic  activity.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfe2en2]. Reference year: 2010-2017 

97   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.11  Structure  of  the  employment.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3empers]. Reference year: 2016 

98   Franić, R. and Kovačićek, T. The professional status of rural women in the EU. Study for the European 
Parliament.  2019.  Figure  17:  Proportion  of  farm  managers  who  are  women.  2016.  Based  on 
EUROSTAT. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608868/IPOL_STU(2019)608868_EN.pdf 
99   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.22  Farm  labour  force.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[ef_lf_main]. Reference year: 2013 and 2016. In annual working units 

100  Defined  in  terms  of  economic  output  (“standard  output”  or  “SO”).  The  two  classes  are  respectively 

farms with “< 2000 EUR of SO” and “< 8000 EUR of SO” 
101  EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmleg]. Reference year: 2007 and 2016 
102  20-64 years old 
103  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.07  Unemployment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_urgau]. Reference year: 2013-2019 

104  See  endnote  103.  Reference  years:  2013-2019  for  young  men  and  women;  2019  for  total,  men  and 
women aged 50-64 years; and 2019 for urban areas. To note that for young women there are no data for 
2017 and 2019 and for young men for 2018 and 2019.  

105  EUROSTAT. [edat_lfse_29]. Reference  year: 2019 and  EUROSTAT. [edat_lfse_30]. Reference  year: 

2019  

106  EUROSTAT. [edat_lfs_9913]. Reference year: 2009-2018  
107  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[urt_10r_3gdp]. Purchasing power standard (PPS, EU27 from 2020), per inhabitant in percentage of the 
EU27 (from 2020) average. Reference year: 2005-2016 

108  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.10 Structure of the economy.  Based on EUROSTAT 
[urt_10r_3gva]. Reference year: 2010-2016 for rural areas and 2010-2019 for sectoral breakdown  
109  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.30  Tourism  infrastructure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[tour_cap_natd]. Reference year: 2012-2017/8 (for share of beds in rural areas there are no  EU-27 data 
for 2013)  

110  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.09  Poverty  rate  (People  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social 

exclusion). Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps13]. Reference year: 2005-2018  

111  Natale, F., Kalantaryan, S., Scipioni, M., Alessandrini, A. and Pasa, A.  Migration in EU Rural Areas, 
EUR  29779  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  2019,  ISBN  978-92-76-
08600-0  (online),  doi:10.2760/544298  (online),  JRC116919.  Figure  1.9  Comparison  of  the  risk  of 
poverty 
in  rural  areas,  by  country  (2017) 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC116919/migration_in_eu_rural_areas.pdf  

indicators  between  and  natives  and  migrants 

112  EUROSTAT. [ilc_di17]. Reference year: 2012-2018 in Euro  
113  See endnote 89. Figure 37: Median equivalised net income, 2018 (Purchasing power standard (PPS), by 

degree of urbanisation) 

114  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  (FAO).  FAO    2020  Global  Forest  Resources  Assessment. 

https://fra-platform.herokuapp.com/AUT/assessment/fra2020/extentOfForest/   

115  The indicator C.13 Employment by economic activity shows a constant share of forestry in employment 

of 0.2-0.3%. See endnote 96  

116  The indicator C.15 Labour productivity in forestry shows a decrease between 2012 and 2018 of -3% in 
Austria (+11% for EU-27). European Commission. CAP context indicator C.15 Labour productivity in 
forestry. Based on EUROSTAT [for_eco_cp] and [for_awu] 

117  European  Commission.  Forests,  forestry  and  logging.  EUROSTAT  statistics  explained.  Table  3: 
Economic indicators for forestry and logging, 2005 and 2017 (current basic prices), Figure 1: Output of 
forestry and logging by type, 2017 (million EUR, current basic prices) and Table 4: Employment and 
apparent 
2017. 
forestry 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Forests,_forestry_and_logging#Economic_indicators_for_forestry_and_logg
ing  

productivity 

logging, 

labour 

2005 

and 

and 

118  Roughly 1 100 000 000 m3 over bark  of growing stock in forests available for wood supply 
119  Roughly 25 100 000 m3 over bark in forests available for wood supply. The net annual increment is the 
average growth in volume of the stock of living trees available at the start of the year minus the average 
natural mortality of this stock. 

in 

120  See endnote 117. Table 2: Timber resources 

30 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
121  European Commission. Jobs and Wealth in the European Union Bioeconomy. Knowledge centres and 
the  nova-Institute. 
that  data  on 

from  a  collaboration  between 
data  portals.  Results 
https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html  To  note 
turnover are no longer available.  

JRC  and 

the 

122  European Commission. Audit carried out in Austria from 26 February 2019 to 07 March 2019 in order 
to  evaluate  the  implementation  of  measures  to  achieve  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides.  2019-6721. 
https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=4181  
123  Letter of Commissioner Kyriakides to Austria of 20/05/2020. Ares(2020)2643693  
124  See endnote 4  
125  European Commission.  Audit carried out in Austria from 14 April 2016 to 22 April 2016 in order to 
evaluate the monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and commensal bacteria 
in  certain  food-producing  animal  populations  and  food.  2016-8918.  https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-
analysis/audit_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=3687  

126  Defined as beef, lamb and pork, 124.34g/per capita/d,  net of waste in the EU 2010,  GBD study 2017 

and M. Springmann 

127  EUROSTAT [SDG_02_10]  
128  In  a  ‘strong’  AKIS,  1)  influential  actors  or  organisations  at  national  level  support  the  knowledge 
system,  2)  dedicated  resources  are  allocated  to  the  AKIS,  for  example,  to  enhance  advisory  services, 
knowledge  production  and  exchange,  and  3)  evidence  exists  that  farmers  are  being  reached  by  and 
benefit from advisory services. A weak AKIS would be lacking of these features. An ‘integrated’ AKIS 
features a coordinating structure, often a public body, and the system is supported by national policies 
on  AKIS  and  advisory  services  that  frame  the  (inter)actions  of  AKIS  actors.  In  addition,  in  an 
integrated  AKIS  there  is  evidence  of  linkages  between  various  actors.  A  fragmented  AKIS  is 
characterised  by  several  independent  knowledge  networks  that  operate  in  parallel.  They  are  typically 
not  well  coordinated,  rarely  cooperate  and  even  might  compete.  See  Knierim,  A.  and  Prager,  K.  
Agricultural  Knowledge  and    Information  Systems  in  Europe:    Weak  or  strong,  fragmented  or 
integrated?.  PRO  AKIS  European  Commission  7th  Framework  Programme  project.  2015. 
https://430a.uni-
hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/430a/PRO_AKIS/About/OVERVIEW.OF.AKIS.IN.EUROPE.
AKIS_characterisation_briefing_final.pdf  

129  EU  SCAR  AKIS,  Preparing  For  Future  AKIS  in  Europe.  European  Commission.  Brussels.  2019. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/report-
preparing-for-future-akis-in-europe_en.pdf  

130  See endnote 22. % of rural development budget programmed for cooperation-EIP, knowledge transfer 

and advisory services, period 2014-2020 (based on adopted programmes up to July 2019).  

131  European  Commission.  Factsheet  on  2014-2020  Rural  Development  Programme  for  Austria.  August 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/rpd-

2020. 
factsheet-austria_en.pdf  

132  European Commission. Productivity. Agri Dashboard 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Productivity.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 

133  Based on information provided by the Austrian authorities 
134  EIP-AGRI. Projects – Operational Groups.  

https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/eip-agri-projects/projects/operational-
groups?search_api_views_fulltext_op=OR&search_api_views_fulltext=&field_proj_geographical_area
%5B%5D=87 
135  See endnote 134  
136  European 

Development. 

Network 

Austrian 

Rural 

Rural 

for 

Network.  

https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/networking/nrn-profiles/austrian-rural-network_en  

137  Austrian 

Rural 

Network. 

Annual 

Work 

Programme 

2020. 

https://www.zukunftsraumland.at/index.php?inc=page&id=23  

138  European Network for Rural Development. Y5 RDP Screening on NRN programming and action plans. 

Working Document. Final version 24 January 2020 
https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/y5_rdp_screening_nrns_summary_report.pdf 

139  European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  -  Data  explorer.  CAP  Output  indicator  O.OIR_13  Number  of 
beneficiaries 
advised.  
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

Commission. 

Smart 

specialisation 

platform.  Digital 

innovation 

hubs. 

140  See endnote 19  
141  See endnote 19  
142  European 

https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/digital-innovation-hubs-

31 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
tool?p_p_id=digitalinnovationhub_WAR_digitalinnovationhubportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=no
rmal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-
1&p_p_col_count=1&formDate=1599036953363&freeSearch=&countries=19&evolStages=3&market
Sectors=1&h2020=false  

143  European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  -  Data  explorer.  CAP  Output  indicator  O.OIR_15  population 

benefitting from improved ITC services. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
144  European  Commission.  DESI  by  components.  DESI.  https://digital-agenda-data.eu/charts/desi-
components#chart={"indicator":"desi","breakdown-group":"desi","unit-measure":"egov_score","time-
period":"2020"} 

145  European Commission. DESI by components. 1 Connectivity. https://digital-agenda-data.eu/charts/desi-

components#chart={"indicator":"desi_1_conn","breakdown-group":"desi_1_conn","unit-
measure":"egov_score","time-period":"2020"} 

146  European  Commission.  DESI  by  components.  3  Use  of  Internet  Services.  https://digital-agenda-
data.eu/charts/desi-components#chart={"indicator":"desi_3_ui","breakdown-group":"desi_3_ui","unit-
measure":"egov_score","time-period":"2020"} 

147  European  Commission.  DESI  by  components.  4  Integration  of  Digital  Technology.  https://digital-

agenda-data.eu/charts/desi-components#chart={"indicator":"desi_4_idt","breakdown-
group":"desi_4_idt","unit-measure":"egov_score","time-period":"2020"} 

148  EUROSTAT [isoc_sk_dskl_i] % of people aged 16-74; during the 12 months preceding the survey; by 

degree of urbanisation 

149  Based on information provided by the Austrian authorities  
150  European Commission. EU Member States join forces on digitalisation for European agriculture and 
rural areas. Digibyte. April 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/eu-member-states-
join-forces-digitalisation-european-agriculture-and-rural-areas   

151  Such as NIVA (www.niva4cap.eu), Sen4CAP (esa-sen4cap.org), OpenIACS  

(https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-telecom/2018-eu-ia-0086). 

152  Based on information provided by the Austrian authorities 

32