COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Romania’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: EU strategy, Romania, 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) 391 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Romania’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) 367 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) 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}  
 
 
1. 

2. 

CONTENTS 

2.2 

1.3 

1.4 

1.2 

OF 

AND 

RURAL 

AGRICULTURE 

COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  ROMANIA’S 
CAP STRATEGIC PLAN .............................................................................. 2 
Foster  a  smart,  resilient  and  diversified  agricultural 
1.1 
sector ensuring food security ............................................................ 2 
Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and 
contribute  to  the  environmental-  and  climate-related 
objectives of the Union ...................................................................... 3 
Strengthen  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  and 
address societal concerns .................................................................. 4 
Modernising  the  sector  by  fostering  and  sharing  of 
knowledge, innovation and digitalisation, and encouraging 
their uptake ........................................................................................ 5 
Recommendations .............................................................................. 6 

1.5 
ANALYSIS 
DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA ................................................................. 9 
Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU 
2.1 
territory to enhance food security .................................................... 9 
Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness 
including  greater  focus  on  research,  technology  and 
digitalisation ..................................................................................... 11 
Improve farmers' position in the value chain ............................... 12 
Contribute  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation, 
as well as sustainable energy........................................................... 13 
Foster sustainable development and efficient management 
of natural resources such as water, soil and air ............................ 15 
Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance 
ecosystem services and preserve habitats and landscapes ........... 17 
Attract 
and 
development in rural areas ............................................................. 19 
Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local 
development  in  rural  areas,  including  bio-economy  and 
sustainable forestry ......................................................................... 21 
Improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal 
demands  on  food  and  health,  including  safe,  nutritious 
and sustainable food, as well as animal welfare. ........................... 22 
Cross-cutting  objective  on  knowledge,  innovation  and 
digitalisation ..................................................................................... 24 

facilitate 

business 

farmers 

2.3 
2.4 

young 

2.10 

2.7 

2.8 

2.6 

2.5 

2.9 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR  ROMANIA’S  CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN 

In the framework of the structured dialogue for the preparation of the CAP strategic plan, 
this document contains the recommendations for the CAP strategic plan of Romania. The 
recommendations are based on analysis of the state of play, the needs and the priorities 
for  agriculture  and  rural  areas  in  Romania.  The  recommendations  address  the  specific 
economic, environmental and social objectives of the future common agricultural policy 
and in particular the ambition and specific targets of the Farm to Fork Strategy  and the 
Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. As stated in the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission 
invites Romania, 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  

Promoting a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector with the aim of improving 
food  security  is  a  challenge  for  Romania  due  to  its  highly  polarised  farm  structure. 
Despite the reduction by one-third of the number of farms in the last 10 years, Romania 
continues to be the country with the highest number of farms in the EU. However, only a 
quarter of the farms receive direct payments. The vast majority are subsistence and semi-
subsistence  farms  producing  mainly  for  their  own  consumption.  They  are  poorly 
equipped and not market oriented. At the other end of the scale, only a small proportion 
of farms are large, competitive and market oriented.  

Romanian farmers on average earn a relatively low factor income (about one-third of the 
EU  average)  with  significant  differences  between  farms  of  different  sizes,  sectors, 
weather conditions,  type of areas  and between different  regions.  Income increases with 
the size of the farms. The unit amount of public support per hectare (direct payments and 
national aids), including payments to areas facing natural constraints (ANC) is higher in 
the ANC areas and in livestock farms.  

While  Romania’s  geographical  position  and  climate  favour  diverse  agricultural 
production, it is the country’s crop production that it is more competitive, accounting for 
three  quarters  of  agricultural  output.  In  contrast,  animal  breeding  has  been  on  a 
downward trend in  recent  years. Romania has a favourable climate for growing protein 
crops, e.g. soya, for which it is already the third largest producer in the EU in terms of 
area.  Incorporating  further  protein  crops  into  the  crop  rotation  will  create  market 
opportunities as this will improve soil quality and reduce fertiliser use. 

Both total factor productivity and labour productivity increased in the most recent period 
but are still below the EU average. Investments in new innovative technologies including 
precision farming, should improve the competitiveness of Romanian farms.  

Romania’s trade balance is  negative.  It  exports mainly raw materials  (cereals,  oilseeds, 
live  animals)  outside  the  EU  and  imports  higher  added-value  products,  including  pork, 
processed food and beverages, mainly from the other EU Member States. 

1   It concerns the targets related to 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 

 
                                                 
The  organisation  of  producers  in  cooperatives  is  lagging  behind.  The  number  of 
recognised producer organisations or producer groups is the lowest in EU, with the result 
that farmers’ access to markets and negotiation power are low. 

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

The environmental objectives are particularly relevant but also challenging for Romanian 
agriculture. This is because Romania has a very low share of organic farming in the total 
agricultural area and because of its intention to develop the animal breeding sector. 

Total  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  and  ammonia  (NH3)  emissions  in  agriculture  are  at  a 
relatively  low  level,  with  enteric  fermentations  contributing  more  than  50%  to  GHG 
emissions,  followed  by  agricultural  soils  and  manure  management.  Land  use,  land  use 
change and forestry (LULUCF) is a net carbon sink, with the largest contribution coming 
from forestland, harvested wood products and croplands. Romania should better promote 
agricultural  practices  and  investments  that  have  minimising  emissions  as  their  final 
purpose, such as precision farming or on-farm GHG tools to identify emission hotspots 
and  implement  effective  measures.  With  Romania  planning  to  develop  its  livestock 
sector,  it  should  invest  in  sustainable  livestock  and  manure  management  (e.g.  health 
management,  feed  additives,  biogas  from  manure)  to  alleviate  the  expected  increase  in 
emissions  that  would  result  from  increased  animal  numbers.  Training  activities  and 
advisory services should play an important role in promoting those practices. 

The  energy  production  and  consumption  in  agriculture  show  a  relatively  stable  trend 
below  the  EU  average.  Romania’s  capacity  to  produce  energy  from  agriculture  is  not 
being used to its full potential, leaving room for development.   

The  quality  of  soil  is  below  the  EU  average,  mainly  due  to  the  intensification  of 
agriculture, reduced crop diversification and low interest farmers’ interest in measures to 
improve soil. Measures to be prioritised in this context should include longer and more 
diverse  crop  rotations,  catch  and  cover  crops,  and  carbon  farming  approaches  to 
remunerate carbon sequestration in agriculture.  

As  yet  not  all  water  bodies  have  good  status  as  defined  in  the  Water  Framework 
Directive (WFD) and agriculture is  identified as the second biggest pressure. There are 
still  intensive  agriculture  areas  where  nitrate  pollution  is  high  and  therefore  special 
attention should be paid to those areas. Better integration of water objectives into other 
policy  areas  such  as  agriculture  is  needed  to  achieve  the  requirements  of  the  WFD. 
Synergies  should  be  optimised  with  polices,  including  the  CAP.  In  terms  of  water 
availability,  Romania  is  among  the  countries  with  medium  water  resources,  their 
availability  being  influenced  by  weather  conditions.  The  quantity  of  water  used  in 
agriculture has fluctuated in recent years and is also dependent on weather conditions.  

The  frequency  of  adverse  climatic  events  (droughts,  floods,  storms)  has  increased  in 
recent  years.  This  has  affected  the  agricultural  productivity  and  income  of  Romanian 
farmers, and has also affected soil quality, with some areas experiencing increasing soil 
degradation and aridity.  

Despite the good status of biodiversity in Romania, (95% of the grassland habitat types 
present  in  Romania  have  favourable  conservation  status),  pressures  and  threats  for 
biodiversity persist in the Natura 2000 grassland, cropland and forests. The farmland bird 

3 

 
index is in some cases increasing, while in others it is declining. The plains of Romania, 
where  intensive  agriculture  is  predominant,  lack  linear  landscape  elements  (such  as 
hedges)  and  fallow  elements.  More  efforts  should  be  made  to  introduce  and  conserve 
landscape features in Romania’s plain areas. 

Implementing the Nature Directives remains a considerable challenge in Romania. There 
are problems due to a lack of knowledge and data. Romania has made some progress on 
preparing  Natura  2000  site  management  plans.  Providing  adequate  resources  for  their 
implementation will be important in order to maintain species and habitats of community 
interest and/or restore them to favourable conservation status across their natural range. 
Romania should avoid funding investments and farming practices with a negative impact 
on Natura 2000 sites and beyond; it should also set ambitious GAEC (good agricultural 
and  environmental  conditions)  requirements  on  biodiversity  and  applying  fully  the 
statutory management requirements (SMRs) from the Nature Directives 

The  productivity  of  Romanian  forests  is  threatened  by  the  increased  frequency  of 
devastating  events,  and  of  infestations  caused  by  various  pathogens.  Therefore, 
developing  forest  protection  systems  is  a  necessity  from  an  adaptation  perspective. 
Result-based  incentives  for  carbon  sequestration  via  afforestation  (‘carbon  farming’) 
would  contribute  to  the  maintenance  of  forest  ecosystems  for  conservation,  river  basin 
protection and timber production purposes, while providing other common benefits such 
as reduced soil erosion, landslide prevention and flood prevention.  

The  statistics  show  that  the  current  area  under  organic  farming  is  well  below  the  EU 
average.  Given  the  benefits  of  organic  farming  in  areas  such  as  soil  quality  and  its 
positive  effect  on  reducing  the  use  of  chemical  pesticides  and  the  use  of  inorganic 
fertilisers, increasing the organic area in Romania would contribute to a more sustainable 
food production system. To ensure effective growth in the supply of organic farming and 
maintain  its  profitability,  efforts  should  be  made  to  stimulate  local  demand  for  organic 
products to balance the increase in supply, while also supplying to export markets. 

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

concerns 

Building  a  resilient  and  robust  food  system  requires  also  special  attention  to  the  new 
societal  demands,  including  reduced  use  of  antimicrobials  and  pesticides  and  improved 
quality of life in rural areas.  

Rural areas and the rural population account for a very high percentage in Romania. The 
specific needs of Romanian rural areas are manifold. The employment rate in rural areas 
is  lower  than  the  national  average  and  EU  levels,  especially  among  women.  The  rural 
population  is  ageing,  the  poverty  rate  is  among  the  highest  in  the  EU,  the  living 
conditions are poorer than in urban areas, while income per capita is below the average 
EU  and  national  levels.  The  poor  living  conditions  and  lack  of  economic  opportunities 
have  led  to  a  massive  exodus,  especially  of  the  active  population.  Making  rural  areas 
more attractive and reducing outmigration require investments in basic services and rural 
infrastructure in rural areas, and support for the creation of new economic opportunities 
for  the  rural  population  (including  for  the  disadvantaged).  There  must  also  be  careful 
consideration  of  the  specific  needs  of  women  in  agriculture  and  rural  areas  in  order  to 
deliver on gender equality and close the gender gaps in employment, pay, pensions, care 
and decision-making. At the same time, ensuring the protection of agricultural workers, 
especially  the  precarious,  seasonal  and  undeclared  ones,  will  play  a  major  role  in 

4 

 
delivering on the respect of rights enshrined in legislation which is an essential element 
of the fair EU food system envisaged by the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

Romania  has  one  of  the  lowest  share  of  young  farmers  in  the  total  number  of  farm 
managers.  And  the  share  has  been  decreasing  since  2010.  The  lack  of  access  to  land 
finance  and  education  are  the  main  challenges  young  farmers  are  faced  with.  Farms 
managed by young farmers, who are more open to new and innovative technologies, are 
more efficient and competitive. Addressing the generational renewal problem is needed 
for the transition towards a green and modern agriculture.  

Sales  of  veterinary  antimicrobial  agents  remain  low  in  Romania,  but  special  attention 
should  be  paid  to  inappropriate  use  of  antimicrobial  agents  in  animal  husbandry  and 
human healthcare. This is particularly important because Romania is one of the countries 
with the highest human mortality rates due to antimicrobial resistance. 

Although sales of  plant  protection products remain  low in  Romania  compared with  the 
EU  average,  farmers  should  be  reoriented  towards  more  sustainable  agricultural 
practices.  It  is  especially  necessary  to  find  alternatives  to  the  current  dependency  on 
emergency  authorisation  of  plant  protection  products.  Possible  solutions  in  this  field 
include  ensuring  the  implementation  of  integrated  pest  management,  securing  the 
involvement of research institutes, improving cooperation between farmers and research 
institutes and agricultural universities, and better use of farm advisory services.   

Critical issues have been identified in relation to farm biosecurity, farm registration and 
animal identification, in view of the presence of the African Swine Fever. 

Romania  should  make  an  effort 
towards  balanced,  healthier,  more 
to  shift 
environmentally sustainable diets as it has a very high burden from  non-communicable 
diseases due to dietary risk factors, such as overweight and obesity. Despite the fact that 
Romania  is  one  of  the  poorest  countries  in  the  EU,  the  quantity  of  food  waste  is 
estimated one of the highest.  

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

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

The  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS1)  in  Romania  is  considered 
weak  and  fragmented,  resulting  in  insufficient  linkages  among  its  various  actors.  The 
shortcomings of the AKIS may limit the ability to transition towards a greener and more 
digital agriculture, as intended in the Farm to Fork Strategy.  

A well-functioning AKIS should deliver knowledge flows between its actors to respond 
to farmers’ growing information needs, speed up innovation and increase valorisation of 
the  existing  knowledge.  There  is  the  potential  to  improve  farmers’  participation  in  all 
AKIS  actions,  in  particular  in  training  and  the  European  Innovation  Partnership  (EIP-
AGRI) operational groups and foster the disintegrated advisory services. Links between 
public  and  private  advisors  should  be  improved,  as  well  as  their  training  and  skills. 
Advisors should be supported to help capture individual grass roots innovative ideas and 
to develop them by setting up and implementing EIP-AGRI Operational Group projects 
(‘innovation  support  services’2).  A  well-functioning  AKIS  would  also  help  to  improve 
the  level  of  education  of  managers  of  agricultural  holdings  as  well  as  basic  digital  and 
software skills, which are well below the EU average.  

5 

 
Cooperation  between  agricultural  research  centres,  farmers  and  advisors  should  be 
strengthened. This would ensure synergies of research and broader implementation of its 
results,  for  instance  through  networking  activities  organised  by  the  national  CAP 
network.  

The uptake of the planned funding for training, knowledge transfer and advisory services 
under the rural development programme (RDP) remains limited and the implementation 
of these measures faces delays. It would be important to open this type of interventions 
early  in  the  programming  period  to  avoid  current  shortcomings  and  increase  overall 
investment  in  knowledge  and  innovation.  In  addition,  the  setting-up  of  the  EIP-AGRI 
operational groups promoting innovation in agriculture is at an early stage.  

There is a need to step up the competence of all advisory services3 and broaden the offer 
in terms of advisors and themes. This would serve to upgrade farmers’ skills and improve 
the  implementation  of  innovative  solutions.  Advisory  services  would  then  be  better 
placed  to  organise  innovation  support  and  co-creation  of  innovative  solutions,  which 
address farmers’ needs in EIP-AGRI operational groups. 

Even  though  Romania  has  the  highest  internet  connection  speed,  coverage  and 
connectivity in rural areas are much lower than in urban ones and in other EU countries. 

1.5  Recommendations 

To  address  the  above  interconnected  economic,  environmental/climate  and  social 
challenges  the  Commission  considers  that  the  Romanian  CAP  strategic  plan  needs  to 
focus  its  priorities  and  concentrate  its  interventions  on  the  following  points,  while 
adequately  taking  into  account  the  high  territorial  diversity  and  the  generally  good 
biodiversity status of the Romanian agriculture and rural areas: 

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

  Improving  the  viability  of  farms  with  lower  incomes,  especially  smaller 
farms  with  higher  development  potential,  through  the  promotion  of  structural 
adjustment  of  these  farms  by  a  more  targeted,  fairer  and  more  effective 
distribution  of  direct  payments,  in  particular,  via  the  application  of  the 
complementary  redistributive  income  support  for  sustainability  and  round  sum 
payment for small farmers. The improved distribution of direct payments should 
take into account the contribution of income support to the development of rural 
areas. 

  Making  farmers’  income  less  vulnerable  to  external  factors,  including 
climate  change,  by  supporting:  sustainable  agricultural  management  practices 
(no-till,  strip-till  especially  on  slopes,  crop  rotation  with  forage-legume  crops); 
the  use  of  risk  management  tools;  investments  in  new  technologies;  planting  of 
forest and woodland (including agro-forest belts and woody landscape features), 
especially  in  plains,  as  well  as  information,  training  and  advisory  activities, 
according to the specific demands, on best agricultural practices, varieties used or 
water savings. 

  Assisting the diversification of agricultural production, by supporting farmers 
to  move  into  high-value-added  product  markets,  and  raise  production  of  protein 
crops, with a view to create new value chains and to optimize trade opportunities. 

6 

 
  Improving  farmers’  position  in  the  value  chain,  in  particular  by  supporting 

the set-up of producer organisations under the CAP measures. 

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

  Improving  nutrient  management,  as  well  as  soil  protection  and  water 
management,  by  supporting  appropriate 
fertilisation 
techniques (including precision farming), longer and more diverse crop rotations, 
agro-ecological practices, investments in animal housing and water management 
systems,  that  will  secure  the  sustainable  water  use  and  reduce  the  agricultural 
water footprint, as well as training and advisory services.  

farming  practices, 

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  farm  landscape  features  by 
maintaining  the  presence  and  conservation  of  landscape  features  and  promoting 
the  introduction  of  those  elements  in  the  areas  where  they  are  lacking,  and 
improving the conservation status of farm and forest habitats,  by supporting 
sustainable  management  practices, 
respecting  ecological  principles 
favourable  to  biodiversity  (including  wild  pollinators)  and  contributing  to  the 
achievement  of the specific objectives of nature-related legislation, especially in 
the Natura 2000 areas. This should be consistent with the needs identified in the 
Prioritized  Action  Framework  (PAF)  and  the  EU  and  national  Species  and 
Habitats Action Plans. 

fully 

  Fostering sustainable forest management and afforestation, enhancing multi-
functionality  and  the  role  of  forests  as  carbon  sink,  protecting  forests  and 
restoring forests ecosystems to reach good condition of habitats and species and 
build resilience to threats such as the impact of the climate change on forests by 
designing appropriate measures such as result-based payments. 

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  organic  farming  through 
appropriate incentives for the maintenance and conversion to organic farming.  

  Keeping  low  levels  of  greenhouse  gas  and  ammonia  emissions  from 
agriculture  by  supporting  appropriate  farming  practices  and  systems  –  e.g. 
precision farming, as well as investments needed to apply them. Such actions are 
required  particularly  on  livestock  farms  to  decrease  emissions  from  manure  and 
enteric  fermentation,  in  line  with  the  Methane  Strategy,  through  an  appropriate 
blend of interventions (e.g. improving manure management).  

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

  Contributing to the Green Deal target on pesticide risk and use by supporting 
reduced use of pesticides and ensuring the full implementation of the Integrated 
Pest Management by all professional users of pesticides.  

  Contributing to the EU Green Deal target on antimicrobials: whilst the sales 
of  antimicrobials  are  below  the  EU  average,  Romania  should  continue  to 
implement  measures  to  reduce  their  use  in  farming,  for  example  by  integrating 
targets into concrete and more ambitious CAP actions.  

7 

 
  Substantially  improving  the  welfare  conditions  of  animals  and  improving 
farm  biosecurity,  especially  in  pig  farms,  by  supporting  improvements  to 
livestock management practices, investments, training and advisory services. 

  Reducing  the  economic  and  social  gap  between  urban  and  rural  areas, 
reducing  poverty  in  rural  areas,  with  a  specific  attention  to  vulnerable 
groups,  and  slowing  down  rural  depopulation  by  supporting  investments  in 
rural  infrastructure,  services,  human  capital  and  non-agricultural  activities, 
primary  and  secondary  processing  of  agricultural  products  and  social 
entrepreneurship,  which  have  the  potential  to  create  jobs,  including  within  the 
bio-economy. In doing so, it will be important to ensure synergies with other EU 
and national funds. 

  Facilitating the setting-up of young farmers and assisting the development of 

their businesses by supporting access to finance and land. 

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

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  broadband  by  supporting 
connectivity  in  ways,  which  complement  other  sources  of  funding  accompanied 
by accelerating digital skills in rural areas and agriculture solutions. 

  Investing in a well-functioning AKIS to upgrade professional skills and support 
the  co-creation  of  innovative  solutions  in  agriculture  by  developing  life-long 
vocational learning and training system for farmers, stepping-up the competence 
of  all  advisory  services  and  broadening  their  offer  in  terms  of  advisors  and 
themes,  structuring  inter-linkages  among  the  AKIS  components,  in  particular 
research,  advice,  farmers  and  the  CAP  network,  to  enable  smooth  knowledge 
exchange and flows. A more integrated AKIS would facilitate the structuring of 
knowledge  exchange  processes  to  strengthen  the  impact  of  EU  and  national 
research and innovation funding.  

8 

 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

ROMANIA 

Romania’s  agriculture  maintains  a  big  share  of  Gross  Domestic  Production  (GDP), 
although it has declined significantly in recent years (due to the development of the non-
agricultural sectors). The structure of the farms continues to remain polarised, with a very 
large  number  of  small  individual  holdings  (many  of  which  are  subsistence)  and 
thousands of large companies, which have had increased technical performance in recent 
years. A big share of revenues was registered by  the large farms specialised in  cereals, 
oilseed  and  protein  crop  (COP)  of  which  labour  productivity  increased  due  to  their 
endowment  with  modern  machinery  (supported  by  rural  development  funds).  A  large 
proportion  of  cereal  and  oilseeds  production  are  exported  outside  the  EU.  Meat, 
vegetables and processed products are imported, mainly from the EU leading to a further 
increase  of  the  trade  deficit  in  agri-food  products.  The  combination  of  agriculture  on 
large  and  intensive  farms  and  subsistence  agriculture  on  small  farms  results  in  a 
relatively  good  overall  situation  in  terms  of  GHG  emissions,  nitrate  levels  in 
groundwater and the state of biodiversity.  

Although the rural areas in Romania have evolved much in the last two decades in terms 
of living condition, they are still affected by a high level of poverty and lack of economic 
opportunities. This influenced the rural population leaving the country for shorter periods 
(often  working  in  farming  in  other  EU  countries)  and  longer  ones.  Availability  and 
access  to  essential  services  (health,  transport,  and  education)  and  related  infrastructure 
(roads, water supply, sewerage, and internet) are problematic in many places. 

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

enhance food security 

Farm  income  per  worker  represents  around  55%  of  the  average  wage  in  the  whole 
economy (above the EU average). In spite of significant fluctuations (from 40% in 2007 
to 76% in 2011), the gap between farm income and the average wage in the economy has 
been narrowing over time4. The share of direct payments and transitional national aids in 
farm income stood around the EU average in the 2014-2018 period (at about 35% over 
the  period).  Support  under  Pillar  II  (excluding  investment  support)  only  covers  an 
additional 1% of entrepreneurial income (average for the same period)5.  

Romanian farmers on average  earn a relatively low  factor income67 (about  one-third of 
the EU average) with large differences among farms of different sizes, sectors or type of 
areas and regions.  

Agricultural  factor  income  strongly  increases  with  farm  size:  it  remains  very  low  for 
small  farms  (up  to  20  hectares8),  but  it  is  very  high  (above  the  EU  average)  for  the 
biggest farms (above 500 hectares). Income distribution according to the economic farm 
size  follows  principally  the  same  pattern.  Whereas  the  unit  amount  of  support  (direct 
payments and transitional national aids) per hectare increases for farms up to 30 hectares 
(linked  with  the  redistributive  payment  and  coupled  support),  it  decreases  beyond  this 
farm size. Similarly, the unit amount of support increases for farms up to EUR 50 000 of 
standard output and decreases above this size9. The crop sectors, i.e. cereal, oilseed and 
protein  crops,  wine,  orchard-fruit  farms,  receive  unit  amounts  of  public  support  per 
hectare (direct payments and national aids) which are lower than the national average. By 
contrast,  the  animal  sectors  (milk,  sheep  and  goats,  cattle)  benefit  from  higher  unit 
amounts of public support (mostly linked to coupled direct support per animal)10. 

9 

 
The unit amount of public support per hectare, including payments to areas facing natural 
constraints  (ANC),  was  higher  in  ANC  areas,  despite  the  fact  that  farm  income  was 
higher in  these  areas over the period of 2014-2018. This  is  linked to  the delineation of 
ANCs  (e.g.  from  2015  it  includes  Sud-Est  region  with  farms  of  bigger  size  and  higher 
income)11.  Significant  differences  in  income  exists  between  regions  (e.g.  between 
Bucuresti-Ilfov, dominated by farms of  a bigger  size and higher income  and Sud-Vest-
Oltenia,  dominated  by  smaller  farms),  but  there  is  no  clear  trend  in  terms  of  unit 
amounts12. 

Overall smaller farms receive less support (farms below the national average size receive 
93-96%  of  direct  payment  per  hectare  in  2015-2017)13.  Moreover,  20%  of  the  largest 
farms  receive  in  proportion  to  their  land  area  more  direct  payments,  (84%  of  direct 
payments and 82% of land)14. 

Cereals, oilseed and protein crop farms have the highest dependency on income support 
(direct  payments,  rural  development  area-related  measures  and  some  national  aids) 
compared to the less dependent wine, horticulture and orchard-fruit farms15. 

Romania is dominated by very small farms and only about a quarter of all farms in the 
country benefits from direct payments. Farms with direct payments occupy around 80% 
of  Romania’s  utilized  agricultural  area16.  However,  even  among  direct  payment 
beneficiaries, a significant share of farms has a very low economic size and the majority 
of them are semi-subsistence farms17. 

Farm  incomes  fluctuate  strongly,  inter  alia  due  to  climatic  risks.  These  fluctuations 
concern in particular COP and granivore farms18. Romania planned EUR 43 million for 
the risk management measure (support for insurance premia) under the 2014-2020 RDP.  
However,  the  measure  has  been  underused  due  to  problems  such  as  lack  of  insurance 
packages,  especially  for  the  drought,  the  heterogeneity  of  farms,  insufficient  awareness 
of insurance possibilities and bureaucracy. 

Income and direct payments by worker by physical size in Romania (hectares of UAA) 

Income other direct payments per AWU 
Greening per AWU 
Coupled payments per AWU 

Share of direct payments in income 

Redistributive payments per AWU 
Other decouples direct payments per AWU 
Average income per worker 

U
W
A
/
R
U
E

Source: DG AGRI19 

10 

 
 
2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation  

The Romanian agricultural sector is undergoing structural changes. The total number of 
farms  declined  between  2005  and  2016  by  31%,  from  about  4.3  to  3.4  million  farms. 
Although Romania accounted for about one third of the EU's farms, they only generate 
3.3%  of  the  EU's  standard  output20.  The  average  farm  size  increased  from  3.3  to  4 
hectares in  the same period,  which is  well below the EU average of 15 hectares. More 
than 3 million farms have less than 5 hectares. At the other end of the spectrum, 12 310 
farms  have  more  than  100  hectares,  with  an  average  size  of  485  hectares.  These  large 
farms occupy almost  50% of the agricultural  land  in  Romania.  This makes the farming 
structure in Romania highly polarised21. 

Between 2005 and 2016, the number of livestock units (LU) decreased by 27% from 6.6 
million  LU  to  4.8  million  LU,  and  the  turnover  of  animal  production  decreased  even 
more  (38%)  in  the  same  period.  These  trends  were  particularly  noticeable  in  the  dairy 
cows  and  pigs  sectors.  In  contrast,  the  number  of  sheep  and  goats  increased  over  the 
same period. This explains the stronger decrease in turnover of animal production. Meat 
consumption is increasing22, especially of pork, while the Romanian pork production is 
declining. As a result, Romania is importing more pork. 

Romania  is  predominantly  an  arable  country,  with  75%  of  the  output  coming  from  the 
crop  sector.  It  is  the  fourth  largest  arable  crop  producer  in  the  EU.  It  is  together  with 
France the main producer of maize, the largest producer of sunflower seed and among the 
top three producers of soya in terms of area.  

Romania has a favourable climate for growing protein crops, and can play an important 
role  in  reducing  the  EU’s  dependency  on  imported  soya.  Besides  the  market 
opportunities, incorporating protein crops in the crop rotation will improve soil quality, 
due to the long roots and reduce the fertiliser use, as protein crops are nitrogen-fixing. 

Romania’s  trade  balance  turned  from  a  EUR  0.5  billion  surplus  in  2015  to  a  deficit  of 
EUR  1.1  million  in  2018.  On  the  export  side,  Romania  relies  on  commodities  (maize, 
oilseeds) which are exported at world prices. Romania is a net importer of higher value- 
added products, including pork, processed food and beverages, mainly from the other EU 
Member States. Agri-food exports account for about 10% of Romanian exports23.  

The  total  factor  productivity  (TFP)  has  been  increasing  in  Romania,  relying  on  all  its 
components.  Labour  productivity  has  increased  mainly  due  to  the  outflow  of  labour 
(-42% between 2005 and 2017)24. The low productivity is influenced by the small size of 
the farms but also by the low integration of digital technologies. 

Romania has a quite high number of organic producers. However, the number of organic 
operators  has  been  declining,  while  the  EU  market  for  organic  products  has  been 
growing. As organic consumption is still limited in Romania, the organic sector is mainly 
export driven. The value of the organic market  in  Romania is  still small.  It  is  expected 
that  the  demand  for  organics  will  grow  over  time.  Therefore,  local  production  and  the 
development  of  an  internal  market  of  organic  products  should  play  a  more  significant 
role in the next 10 years. 

11 

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

Total factor productivity 

Land productivity 

Labour productivity 

Capital productivity 

Intermediate costs productivity 

TFP EU-27 

Source: EUROSTAT and DG AGRI25  

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

The  agricultural  sector  in  Romania  is  very  important  for  the  country’s  economy  and 
employment.  The  share  of  the  value  added  of  the  food  chain  captured  by  the  primary 
producers  was  relatively  steady  between  2008  and  2017,  ranging  from  60%  in  2008  to 
61% in 2017, with peaks in 2011 and 2013 of 66% (a much higher level than the average 
of  27%  in  the  EU  in  2017)26.  The  value  of  the  output  of  the  agricultural  industry  rose 
strongly in Romania in 2018 (+8.0%) to a new high of EUR 18.6 billion, with more than 
two thirds of this total value coming from the crop sector). The most important sectors in 
terms  of  production  value  in  Romania  in  2018  were:  cereals,  vegetables,  horticultural 
plants,  and  industrial  crops,  generating  26.3%,  13.1%  and  9.1%  of  agricultural  output 
respectively27.  As  a  result,  the  income  per  worker  is  above  average  in  the  case  of 
specialist cereals-oilseeds-protein crops farms and other field crops and granivores, while 
the income per worker in mixed and horticulture farms is on average lower. In general, 
the income per worker increases with farm size, but is on average lower and less stable 
than wages in other sectors.  

Most of the Romanian farms are family farms, where the vast majority of regular labour 
consists of family members (99.3%). Additionally, the majority of farms in Romania are 
very small, producing less than EUR 8 000 of standard output (94.6%)28. These holdings 
are  typically  subsistence  and  semi-subsistence  farms.  They  manage  30%  of  the 
agricultural  area.  However,  they  are  poorly  technically  equipped  and  are  not  market 
oriented.  They  are  not  involved  in  cooperative  activities,  which  could  assist  them  in 
integrating  better  to  markets’  demands.  The  remaining  70%  of  the  agricultural  area  is 
managed  by  medium  and  large  farms,  which  have  a  clear  competitive  potential. 
However, they only account for 7% of the agricultural holdings29. It is also difficult for 
farmers to access credit and insurance, particularly for the small ones.  

In  Romania,  there  are  24  recognised  associations  of  or  producer  organisations 
(APOs/POs)30, all of which are in the fruit and vegetable sector. Additionally, there are 
17 producer groups (PGs) in Romania, meaning temporary organisational structures that 
work towards the establishment of a PO31. The majority of recognised POs are not under 
the status of a cooperative and they have less members than in most other EU countries32. 
Compared  to  the  rest  of  the  EU,  the  number  of  cooperatives  in  the  country  is  low  and 
only  one  of  the  total  68  cooperatives  in  Romania  is  recognised  as  a  PO.  This  is  also 

12 

 
 
reflected  in  the  relative  economic  importance  of  the  recognised  POs/APOs,  which 
represents  only  1%,  versus  the  EU  average  of  38%33.  Eight  inter-branch  organisations 
have  been  recognised  and  contribute  to  the  vertical  cooperation  in  the  chain.  Potential 
also  lies in  the development of EU quality schemes as a tool to  strengthen cooperation 
among  producers,  increase  their  bargaining  position  in  the  value  chain  and  therefore 
obtain a bigger share from the added value. 

The  Commission’s  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  calls  for  a  more  plant-based  diet  and  better 
animal  welfare.  Farmers  in  Romania  can  further  expand  fruit  &  vegetables  production, 
and  focus  on  quality  including  livestock  production,  with  a  lower  environmental  and 
climate footprint and much greater animal welfare than the EU average. 

The  increase  in  the  value  added  of  the  agricultural  production  is  high  in  the  vegetable, 
wine and meat processing sectors, where exports are growing, while only average in the 
other sectors. The RDP further increased the participation of primary producers in short 
supply  chains,  as  well  as  their  competitiveness  resulting  from  reduced  costs  and 
increased  revenues.34  In  terms  of  unfair  trading  practices  (UTPs),  Romania  has  put 
efforts  to  tackle  these  through  its  national  UTPs  legislation  in  order  to  strengthen  the 
position of farmers in the food supply chain.  

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

Primary production 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 
% for primary producers (right axis) 
Source: EUROSTAT35 

Food and beverage distribution 

% for primary producers – EU-27 

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

sustainable energy 

In  2018,  agricultural  GHG  emissions  (including  cropland  and  grassland)  amounted  to 
17.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, representing 3.9% of the total EU average GHG 
emissions  from  agriculture.  The  total  emissions  of  GHG  from  agriculture  decreased 
between 1990 and 2018 by 44.3% (-29.3% in EU-27), whereas the ammonia emissions 
decreased by 4%36 over the same period mostly due to the reduction of livestock, but also 
thanks to the investments in new technologies. Nevertheless, the share of agriculture in 
the total net emissions increased from 17% in 2009 to 19% in 2017, compared with 10% 
of  the  total  GHG  emissions  at  the  EU  level  (reflecting  the  relative  importance  of  the 
agricultural  sector  for  the  economy  and  the  efforts  undertaken  in  the  other  parts  of  the 
economy). In 2016, the emission of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) per hectare 
of utilised agricultural area stood at 1.29 kilotons CO2 equivalent /1000 ha, being among 
the lowest in the EU-2737.  

13 

 
In  2018,  the  main  source  of  agricultural  GHG  emissions  was  the  enteric  fermentation 
accounting  for  54.6%,  compared  to  an  EU  average  of  43.8%,  followed  by  agricultural 
soils  (with  32.7,  lower  than  the  EU  average  of  38.4%)  and  by  manure  management 
(13.7%) which is close to the EU average38 (14.2%).  

Between  1990  and  2018,  the  sink  of  CO2  from  LULUCF  increased  by  29.3%.  The 
forestland, harvested wood products and croplands were the main contributors. The sink 
role of the forestland decreased between 1990 and 2018 by 14%, showing a big drop in 
201839.  Grassland,  wetlands  and  settlements  are  the  main  sources  of  emissions  due  to 
their intensive cultivation. The priority should be given to preserve stocks, the increase of 
the  carbon  sinks  in  forests,  their  soils  and  harvested  wood  products  and  a  more 
appropriate management of agricultural  peatland  for the protection of the carbon stock. 
Rewetting the agricultural land in Romania has a significant potential for reducing GHG 
emissions. 

Romania shows a relatively stable trend in the production of renewable energy (RE) from 
agriculture  and  forestry  per  hectare  in  the  last  years  (below  EU  average).  The  total 
production  of  renewable  energy  from  agriculture  and  forestry  reached  3  63240  kToe  in 
2018, representing 61% of the total Romanian RE production (a higher proportion than in 
the  EU),  forestry  being  the  sector  which  contributes  with  more  than  50%  of  the 
Romanian  RE  production.  However,  the  Romanian  contribution  to  the  EU-27  RE 
production is relatively low (3%). Romania is 0.1 percentage point away from its national 
2020 objective41 regarding the share of RE in gross energy final consumption. 

As regards the direct use of energy in agriculture, forestry and food, it has been relatively 
constant in the last years (at around 1000 kToe). In 2018, the total energy directly used in 
agriculture, forestry and food was 1098 kToe, representing 4.7% of the total Romanian 
final  energy  consumption.  Romania  has  a  very  low  share  in  total  EU-27  energy 
consumption (2% in 2018). The direct energy use per ha in agriculture and forestry was 
27.9 kg of oil equivalent, one of the lowest in EU-2742. 

In Romania, the average air temperature increased in the last 10 years by around +1˚C. 
As of 1991, each decade was warmer than the previous one43. The frequency of adverse 
climatic  events  (droughts,  floods,  storms)  has  also  increased  in  the  last  years,  affecting 
the agricultural productivity and income of the Romanian farmers. In particular, frequent 
and prolonged drought affected about 25% of the arable land in 2019. With an increasing 
trend  towards  more  frequent  and  intense  drought,  there  is  likely  to  be  increasing  soil 
aridity, which when combined with hot winds, will increase the risk of wind erosion and 
soil degradation, particularly in the south, south-east and east of Romania.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (including and excluding LULUCF) in Romania     
(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 Agency44 

2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air 

As  regards  air  quality,  the  total  ammonia  emissions  in  Romania  are  rather  stable  since 
2010 (at  around 150 000 tonnes)45, whereas  there is a downward trend in  the EU as of 
2013.  Romania  is  considered  at  high  risk  of  non-compliance  with  their  National 
Emission Reduction Commitments Directive (NECD) emission reductions for ammonia: 
-13% by 2020 and -25% by 2030 and beyond46, as compared with the 2005 levels. The 
vast  majority  (89%)  of  the  total  reported  ammonia  emissions  in  Romania  come  from 
agricultural  sources  (201847),  and  they  have  slightly  decreased  over  time.  According  to 
2018  data,  the  livestock  sector  (68.8%)  contributes  more  than  crops  (31.2%)  to  the 
agricultural NH3 emissions. In addition, 13% of the total reported emissions of nitrogen 
oxides, 14% of the total reported emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds 
and  1%  of  the  total  fine  particulate  matter  emissions  in  Romania  come  from  the 
agricultural sources48. 

Concerning soil, the total agricultural area affected by severe water erosion in Romania 
stands at 9.1%, as indicated by data of 2016, which is above the EU average of 6.6%49. A 
similar  pattern  can  be  found  when  looking  at  specific  types  of  land  cover;  2016  data 
indicate that 10.1% of arable and permanent crop areas are at a moderate and severe risk 
of soil erosion by water, whereas this risk is lower for permanent meadows and pasture 
(5.6%).  The  rates  of  wind  erosion  are  among  the  highest  in  the  Eastern  part  of  the 
country. The level of total organic matter in arable land (865 Megatonnes in 2015) is also 
below  the  EU  average  (11 845  Megatonnes  in  2015)50.  The  mean  soil  organic  carbon 
(SOC) content in arable soils in Romania is much lower than the EU mean (20.1 g/kg vs. 
43.1 g/kg). As regards the type of cultivated crops and other management practices that 
can contribute to soil protection, 60% of arable land was subject to crop diversification 
requirements in 2018 (vs. 77% in the EU), a stable pattern since 2015, while only 2% of 
the agricultural land was under Rural Development contracts to improve soil51. In 2016, 
86%  of  tillable  area52  was  tilled  conventionally,  and  33%  of  arable  land53  was  left 
without soil cover during the winter months. The impact of soil improving measures may 

15 

 
be  increased  by  research,  innovation  and  demonstration  activities  available  under  the 
forthcoming Horizon Europe Mission on soil health. 

In terms of water quality under the WFD all surface water bodies are in good or moderate 
ecological  status  and  2%  of  surface  water  bodies  are  of  poor  chemical  status.  All 
groundwater  bodies  are  in  good  quantitative  status  and  10.5%  fail  to  achieve  good 
chemical  status.  Diffuse  agricultural  pollution was the second most significant  pressure 
on water bodies. Nutrient and organic pollution has the highest impacts on surface water 
and  chemical  pollution  has  the  highest  impact  on  groundwater.  Nitrate  was  the  top 
pollutant causing failure of good chemical status. The evolution of the potential surplus 
of nitrogen  and phosphorus on agricultural  land  in  Romania follows a downward trend 
(2017:  -12  kg  N/ha  and  -5  kg  P/ha)  despite  some  annual  fluctuations  and  in  general 
remains  below  the  EU  average  (4  years  average:  46.5  kg  N/ha  and  0.5  kg  P/ha)54.  In 
2012, 83% of the water from ground water stations in Romania was of high quality and 
7%  of  poor  quality,  even  though  there  is  an  increasing  trend  in  the  number  of  stations 
under poor quality. Under the 2014-2020 RDP, 11.9% of agricultural land in the country 
was  under  contracts  to  improve  water  management  in  201655.  Information  concerning 
water  abstraction  from  agriculture  in  Romania  shows  a  fluctuating  trend,  stabilising  in 
recent years around lower values than in the past. 

The share of irrigable areas in  Romania has increased since 2010 reaching 1.9% of the 
total  utilised  agricultural  area  in  2016.  Similarly,  there  is  an  increase  in  the  volume  of 
water  used  for  agriculture  for  irrigation  purposes  (2012:  371  million  m3,  2017:  440 
million  m3)56.  However,  reliable  data  for  water  use  in  agriculture  is  very  difficult  to 
obtain  since  many  farmers  use  water  from  streams,  wells  and  ponds.  In  spite  of  the 
beneficial  effects  on  water  quantity  and  quality  of  some  of  Romania’s  implementation 
choices  (e.g.  choice  of  Ecological  Focus  Areas,  Voluntary  Coupled  Support-protein 
crops, Environmentally Sensitive Permanent Grassland), the lack of appropriate training 
and  advisory  services  to  farmers  seems  to  have  hampered  a  better  management  and 
efficiency of water use.  

Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Romania  

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: EUROSTAT57 

16 

 
 
 
2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

Romania is one of the richest EU Member State regarding biological diversity (5 out of 9 
bio-geographical areas at EU-28 level being in Romania)58. 

In  2018,  23%  of  the  Romanian  territory  was  under  Natura  2000,  (higher  than  EU 
average),  16%  out  of  which  under  Natura  2000's  Special  Protection  Areas  (SPAs)  and 
17% under Natura 2000's Sites of Community Importance (SCIs). 39% of forest area and 
12% of utilised agricultural area are under Natura 200059. Romania has not finalised the 
elaboration  and  approval  of  the  Natura  2000  Management  Plans,  but  made  progress  in 
this  direction,  as  slightly  less  than  50%  of  the  plans  were  approved  as  of  2019.  The 
Natura 2000 measure was not programmed under the 2014-2020 RDP but support for the 
protection  of  some  species  and  habitats  was  available  under  other  measures  (agri-
environment,  ANC,  forestry  climate  and  organic  farming).  Some  packages  target 
exclusively  Natura  2000  areas.  Further  work  is  needed  to  complete  the  Natura  2000 
designation process and to put in place clearly defined conservation objectives, necessary 
conservation measures for the sites, provide adequate resources for their implementation 
in  order  to  maintain  and  restore  species  and  habitats  of  community  interest  to  a 
favourable conservation status across their natural range.  

Apart  from  an  important  area  of  the  Romanian  territory  being  under  Natura  2000,  an 
important  part  of  its  territory  (3.1  million  ha)  is  under  a  System  of  natural  areas 
functionally  protected.  Two  objectives  are  included  in  the  list  of  the  UNESCO  World 
Heritage (Danube Delta and several locations of Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests)60. 

The farmland bird index for Romania decreased between 2010 and 2015, from 100 to 97. 
Out of 20 monitored species, eight declined, nine had an uncertain trend, two could not 
be assessed and one increased61. 

In Romania, 32% of the utilised agricultural area is a permanent grassland. According to 
the reporting on the conservation status and trends of species and habitats under the EU 
Habitats  Directive  (2013-2018),  94.6%  of  the  Romanian  grassland  habitat  types  have  a 
favourable conservation status, while the remaining 5.4% have a declining conservation 
status. 

In 2012, 36% of the agricultural land is classified as High Nature Value (HNV) farmland 
areas62.  After  an  initial  drop  in  2015,  the  percentage  of  agricultural  land  under 
management  contracts  supporting  biodiversity  and/or  landscapes  has  increased  ever 
since,  reaching  5%  of  total  utilised  agricultural  area  in  201863.  All  area  under 
commitments is located in mountain and hilly areas.  

The  pressures  and  threats  for  habitats  in  Romania  are  related  to  land  use  change, 
agricultural  intensification,  excessive  use  of  pesticides  and  fertilisation,  grassland 
conversion  to  arable  land,  intensive  grazing,  continuous  urbanisation,  industrial  or 
commercial  areas,  disposal  of  household/recreational  facility  waste,  erosion  or  species 
composition. 

Between  2010  and  2017,  utilised  agricultural  area  managed  by  farms  with  high  input 
intensity per hectare increased constantly, reaching 52.3% of the utilised agricultural area 
(higher  than  the  EU  average  -36.3%).  In  the  same  time,  the  utilised  agricultural  area 

17 

 
managed by farms with low input intensity per hectare decreased from 33.3% to 16.1%. 
In 2016, 37.9% of the utilised agricultural area was used for extensive grazing64.  

In  Romania,  only  3.4%  of  the  utilised  agricultural  area  is  covered  by  fallow  land  and 
linear elements, below the EU average (4.6%)65. The southern regions, where large crop 
farms  are  located  and  where  intensive  agriculture  is  practiced  are  very  poor  in  linear 
elements, being one of the poorest areas in linear elements in the EU. 

In July 2019, the European Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Romania for its 
failure  to  ensure  adequate  protection  for  habitats  and  species  of  EU  interest  by 
designating nature protection areas. In July 2020, the Commission sent another letter of 
formal  notice  for  not  designating  Special  Areas  of  Conservation  and  for  persistently 
failing  to  set  site-specific  detailed  conservation  objectives  and  measures.  The  measures 
for  improving  the  conservation  status  of  habitats  are  insufficiently  promoted,  the 
agricultural policies and areas management plans can be improved through collaboration 
with farmers. The management structures for management conservation have insufficient 
capacity,  while  the  incentives  for  farmers  do  not  ensure  their  engagement  in  managing 
their agricultural lands in a biodiversity-friendly manner.  

there  are  no 

The Prioritized Action Framework (PAF) indicates that measures are needed to promote 
agricultural  policies  targeted  at  biodiversity  conservation,  to  implement  effective  agri-
environment  packages,  where 
incompatibilities  between  proposed 
conservation  measures  and  existing  agri-environment  packages  and  through  the 
implementation  of  Natura  2000  payments  within  protected  areas  in  which  conservation 
measures imposed by management plans become compulsory, to preserve the category of 
use  for  grasslands  and  meadows,  to  reduce  pesticide  use,  to  promote  extensive 
agriculture and to control invasive species and problematic native species. Measures are 
listed for grassland, cropland and forests and for governance, administrative capacity and 
training. 

In 2020, the forest  area  covered 30% of the Romanian territory, below the EU average 
(39.8%)66 and it is concentrated in the mountain and hilly area (only 7% of the forest is in 
plain  area)67.  In  2020,  the  European  Commission  opened  infringement  proceedings 
against  the  Romanian  government  calling  on  it  to  combat  illegal  logging  and  better 
protect forests in its Natura 2000 sites. 

The area under organic  farming in  Romania has started to  increase after some  years of 
declining  trend.  It  increased  from  1.7%  of  utilised  agricultural  area  in  2016  to  2.4%  in 
2018,  mostly  due  to  EARDF  support  under  the  2014-2020  RDP68.  The  area  under 
conversion  as  share  of  utilised  agricultural  area  is  also  showing  a  positive  trend69. 
Romania  is  still  far  below  the  EU  average  of  8%  of  utilised  agricultural  area  under 
organic  farming,  and  can  contribute  substantially  to  the  Commission’s  Farm  to  Fork 
target since the country has the fifth largest utilised agricultural area in EU-2770.  

18 

 
 
 
Area under organic farming in Romania 

Hectares under organic farming in Romania 
% of area under organic farming in the EU-27 

% of agricultural area under organic farming in Romania 

Source: EUROSTAT71 

Share of agricultural area covered by  
high-diversity landscape features  

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

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

fallow land as % of agricultural area

landscape elements as % of agricultural area*

Source: DG AGRI72 
* 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 

Romania has one of the lowest share of young farmers (below 35 years old) in the total 
number of farm managers (3.1% versus the EU average of 5.1% in 2016). Moreover, this 
share  has  been  decreasing  (both  at  Romanian  and  EU  level)  since  2010.  The  ratio  of 
young managers to elderly has also been decreasing. The ratio of young female managers 
to young male managers is about one to three in 201673. Among the farmers with over 50 
hectares of land, the share of young farmers is 5.1%. 

Young farmers in Romania are better educated compared to the other farmer age groups. 
However, the share of young farm managers with basic or full agricultural training (only 
a few percent) was much lower in Romania, compared to the EU average (over 40%) in 
2016.  About  90%  of  Romanian  young  farmers  have  only  practical  agricultural 
experience74.  This  may  be  linked  to  the  decreasing  number  of  agricultural  upper 
secondary education facilities in the country75. 

19 

 
 
 
Young farmers manage  farms of bigger size (mostly in  economic,  but  not  necessary in 
physical terms), generate higher standard output per farm (which is growing at a higher 
rate  than  in  other  age  groups  of  farmers)  and  have  on  average  higher  factor  income 
compared to the other age groups of farmers76. However, the majority of young farmers 
(below  35  years  old)  still  manage  very  small  farm  holdings:  more  than  80%  of  their 
farms are semi-subsistence farms77. 

The  main  challenges  that  the  young  farmers  face  in  Romania  seem  to  be  the  access  to 
land  (recently,  land  prices  have  been  rapidly  increasing),  access  to  finance  (young 
farmers have a high rate of bank loan rejection due to the too high investment risks, the 
lack of mutual trust, farmers’ financial literacy and collateral78) and access to education 
(limited  supply)79.  Significant  depopulation  of  rural  areas  (especially  in  mountainous 
areas) is yet another general concern in view of future vitality of rural areas80. It is often 
linked to  the less favourable working  and living  conditions  (lack of  access  to  the basic 
business needs) and lower farm incomes in these regions. 

The  share  of  farmers  benefiting  from  the  supplementary  Young  farmer  payment  (YFP) 
scheme under Pillar I strongly increased between 2015-2018 (second highest increase in 
the  EU)  and  stood  at  around  6%  in  2018  (against  the  EU  average  of  7.5%).  However, 
Romania spent less than 1% of the direct payments envelope on YFP in 2018 (maximum 
allowed was 2%), which was still significantly below the EU average (1.3%)81. This low 
spending was mainly linked to the decrease in the average size of YFP beneficiaries and 
the YFP design (payment calculation, hectare limit). 

Young  farmers  in  Romania  are  actively  participating  in  investment  support  under  the 
2014-2020  RDP.  However,  funds  allocated  for  this  support  are  insufficient  to  cover 
young farmers’ investment needs.  

In  2016,  some  35 000  businesses  were  created  in  rural  areas82.  Despite  the  increase  of 
small  and  medium  enterprises  (SMEs)  in  rural  areas,  their  number  is  still  very  low 
compared to urban areas (reasons being low quality of life, high inequality, lack of basic 
infrastructures: roads, fast broadband connection, etc.). 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Romania 

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: EUROSTAT83 

20 

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

areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

More  than  two-thirds  of  the  Romanian  territory  is  considered  rural84  and  53%  of  the 
population  lived  in  rural  areas  in  2019.  While  decreasing,  rural  territories  and  rural 
population  in  Romania  are  among  the  highest  in  the  EU.  In  2019,  the  rural  population 
decreased  by  more  than  12%  compared  to  201085.  Rural  areas  are  characterised  by 
depopulation,  poverty  and  an  ageing  population.  In  the  period  2010-2019,  only  the 
category  of  rural  population  over  64  years  grew  (by  9.4%)  whereas  the  other  two 
categories  (<15  years  and  15-64  years)  decreased  by  13%  and  18%  respectively86 
(slightly higher for women for the category 15-64 years87). While in 2010, the net rural 
migration  was  around  -10 000  inhabitants,  this  figure  reached  more  than  -60 000 
inhabitants88 in 2018, thus reflecting the depopulation trend of rural areas. 

The unemployment rate in Romania has decreased by 44% since 2010, to reach 3.9% in 
2019 (well below EU average of 6.7%). The unemployment rate in rural areas followed 
the  same  trend  but  the  decrease  was  not  so  pronounced  (-24%)  reaching  4.6%  in  2019 
due to economic development and the massive migration process, especially among the 
active people. The unemployment rate in rural areas for the  youth (15-24 years) is of a 
great concern: it is three times higher than the overall unemployment rate in rural areas. 
It is also higher than the EU average (13.4%)89.  

The employment rate in Romania was 70.9% in 2019, below EU average at 73.9%. The 
employment rate in rural areas in Romania (69.4%) is slightly lower than the average rate 
in Romania and below the EU average (73.8%). From the gender perspective, the male 
employment  rate  is  higher  by  more  than  20  percentage  points  than  the  women 
employment  rate,  making  women  more  vulnerable90.  Agriculture,  forestry  and  fishery 
remain the main activities in rural areas in terms of labour force  (43% of the employed 
rural population) followed by processing industry (17%) and commerce (10%)91.  

The increase in productivity of the agricultural sector and the migration process led to a 
reduction of the population working in agriculture from 30.4% in 2010 to 22.2% in 2017. 
In  2016,  44.9%  of  the  agricultural  labour  force  was  women,  and  34%  of  the  farm 
managers were women, which was above the EU average of 28%92. Apart the full time 
workers, day–labourers are used in agriculture. Between 2011 and 2016, the number of 
day-labourers increased  from  170.5 thousand to  803.6 thousand persons. Their share in 
the total labour force expanded from 1.2% in 2011 to 6.7% in 2016. 80% of day-labour is 
performed  in  agriculture  (including  vineries,  orchards  and  animal  husbandry),  forestry 
and fisheries. This sector typically employs persons with lower levels of education, who 
at times combine seasonal work abroad with casual work in Romania.93  

Even if the national poverty rate, as well as the poverty rate in rural areas decreased since 
2010  by  7%  and  22%  respectively,  their  values  remain  higher  than  the  EU  average.  In 
2018, the rural  poverty rate in  Romania was around 46%, much above the EU average 
poverty rate in rural areas (24%). Rural areas in Romania have also a higher poverty rate 
than the average of the country (33%)94. The most vulnerable persons in rural areas are 
the elderly, single parents, disabled and minorities (especially Roma)95.  

The  GDP  per  capita  in  Romania  has  been  constantly  increasing  in  the  last  years  but  is 
still below the EU average (66.8% in 2018). As regards rural regions, the GDP per capita 
is  even  lower  (57.2%  of  the  EU  average  GDP  per  capita  in  2018).  Even  if  the  gap 

21 

 
between  the  GDP  per  capita  in  rural  regions  in  Romania  versus  the  national  average 
decreased between 2012 and 2018 by 11 percentage points, there is still a high gap96.  

The Gross Value Added (GVA) almost doubled between 2010 and 2019 reaching EUR 
202  billion  in  2019.  The  GVA  in  rural  areas  followed  the  same  trend,  but  the  increase 
was limited to 24% over the period 2010–2016, reaching EUR 56 billion97.  

In terms of tourism, the total number of bed places in Romania increased between 2012 
and  2018  by  22%  in  all  types  of  areas.  The  biggest  relative  increase  was  registered  in 
rural  areas  (+41%  between  2012  and  2018).  The  majority  of  bed  places  are  located  in 
intermediate areas98. 

The quality of life in rural areas is much lower than in urban areas.: Road infrastructure is 
poor  (with  only  19%  of  rural  roads  being  modernised99);  housing  conditions  are  bad 
(with  50%  of  rural  households  having  bathrooms  inside  and  47%  of  rural  households 
having toilets inside100) and basic services level is low (only 7% of nurseries and kinder 
gardens are located in rural areas101. The area covered by Local Development Strategies 
(LDSs)  has  increased  under  the  current  programming  period  compared  to  the  previous 
one,  covering  92%  of  the  eligible  area  and  86%  of  the  eligible  population.  The  total 
budget  allocated  for  Leader  is  around  EUR  636  million.  31%  of  the  projects  financed 
under  Leader  are  investments  in  improvement  and  development  of  rural  infrastructure 
and services, followed by investments in non-agricultural activities. 

The  forest  area  has  increased  since  2010  by  1%,  reaching  6.9  million  ha  in  2020, 
covering 30% of the total area102. Over the same time, the volume of growing stock has 
increased  from  1377  million  m3  over  bark  to  2354  million  m3  over  bark103  and  the 
harvested timber has increased by 15% reaching 19.46 million m3.104 In 2017, 400 000 ha 
of  broadleaves  forests  were  affected  by  defoliating  insects  and  2%  of  the  forests  were 
affected by phenomenon of early drying due to adverse climatic events such as: increase 
of  the  temperature,  successive  and  long-term  droughts,  early  frosts,  acid  and  short  and 
heavy  rains105.  In  2018,  0.6%  of  the  total  employment  was  in  the  forestry  sector  (the 
number  of  persons  employed  in  the  sector  has  increased  by  22%  since  2010).  Even  if 
labour productivity in the forestry sector has increased by 11% since 2012 reaching EUR 
23 806 /AWU in 2018, it remains much below than the EU average (44%)106. 

After  a big drop  (22%) in 2009, turn-over in  the  bio-economy  increased  between 2010 
and 2015 by 26% reaching EUR 37 billion. Agriculture and food contributes with more 
than 70%107. In 2017, 2.4 million people were employed in the bio-economy sector. The 
value added per person employed in the bio-economy sector is very low at EUR 5 000 
compared with the EU average of EUR 35 000108. 

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. 

With increasing  wealth,  consumer  demand  in  Romania  has  been  evolving.  Demand  for 
meat (animal protein) and fruit and vegetables increased substantially in 2018 compared 
to 2014 (by 30.6 kg/inhabitant for fruit and fruit products, by 16 kg/inhabitant for meat 
and  meat  products109)  and  decreased  for  cereals  (4.6  kg/capita  for  cereals  in  the  last  4 
years)  and  potatoes  (5.3  kg/capita  over  the  period  considered).  The  share  of  food 
consumption  in  household  expenditure  has  decreased  in  recent  years,  from  43.4%  in 

22 

 
2014 to 37.0% in 2018, but remains very high, compared to the other EU countries and is 
marked by large differences between urban and rural areas. 

Romania  has  a  very  high  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  due  to  dietary  risk 
factors  expressed  as  Disability  Adjusted  Life  Year  (DALYs)  per  100  000  population 
attributable to diet110. This DALY’s value is influenced by a number of dietary factors. 
Romania  has  been  the  Member  State  with  the  poorest  record  regarding  fruit  and 
vegetable consumption111. While the estimated average prevalence of overweight among 
adults  in  the  EU  is  around  52%,  including  14.9%  being  obese112,  the  equivalent  rates 
reported in Romania currently stand at 62.9% for overweight, and 10.4%113 for obesity. 
Efforts  should  focus  on  shifting  towards  healthy  sustainable  diets,  in  line  with  the 
national  recommendations,  in  order  to  contribute  to  reducing  the  very  high  rates  of 
incidence  of  non-communicable  diseases,  while 
overweight,  obesity  and 
simultaneously  improving  the  overall  environmental  impact  of  the  food  system.  This 
would include more plant-based diets, with less red meat and more fruits and vegetables, 
whole  grains,  legumes,  nuts  and  seeds.  Romanian  consumers  appear  to  attach  a  lot  of 
importance to quality114 and labels, and relatively less importance to the origin. 

the 

Sales of antimicrobial agents expressed as mg per population correction unit (PCU) have 
decreased since 2015, reaching 82.7 mg/PCU in 2018, and remain below the EU average 
of  118.3  mg/PCU.  Further  efforts  are  needed  to  maintain  this  downward  trend  and 
contribute  to  the  overall  EU  target  of  50%  reduction  in  the  sales  of  antimicrobials  for 
farmed  animals  and  in  aquaculture  by  2030.  The  most  widely  used  highest  priority 
critically  important  antimicrobials  in  animals  in  Romania  are  polymyxins  and 
fluoroquinolones. Most antimicrobials in Romania are used in the sheep/goat and cattle 
industry, followed by poultry and pigs115. 

In 2018, the sale of plant protection products (PPPs) totalled 11 107 tonnes116, a decrease 
in relation to 2017. While there are obvious variations in the use of PPPs, pesticide sales 
have  remained  largely  stable  since  2011  and  are  largely  below  the  EU  average117. 
Herbicides and fungicides are the most important category of PPPs sales, but insecticide 
sales have been expanding most rapidly in recent years. 

Considering the withdrawal of PPPs from the EU market is one of the sources of a lower 
use  of  plant  protection  products  in  the  Member  States,  the  fact  that  Romania  tends  to 
grant  emergency  authorizations,  may  be  seen  as  an  obstacle  for  a  more  pronounced 
decrease of PPP use. These decisions and the lack of  control on the implementation  of 
Integrated  Pest  Management  have  slowed  down  the  reorientation  of  farmers  towards 
better agricultural and phytosanitary practices.  

The  Commission’s  assessment  of  the  Romanian  National  Action  Plan  (NAP)  and  DG 
SANTE  audit  findings  show  that  the  overall  situation  regarding  the  sustainable  use  of 
pesticides  is  negative  and  raises  concerns  as  to  the  compliance  of  national  legislation 
with EU rules and its implementation. The identified issues are of particular significance, 
given the scale of the arable farming in Romania. 

Food  waste  in  Romania  is  a  major  problem.  The  main  sources  are:  consumers  (50%), 
producers/processors  (44%)  and  the  retail  sector  (6%)118.  Statistics  indicate  5  million 
tonnes  of  food  waste  each  year,  accounting  for  between  a  third  and  half  of  the  total 
quantity of food intended for human  consumption produced in  one  year,  i.e. about  250 
kg/inhabitant119 (above the EU average of 179 kg/ inhabitant). While food waste after the 
farm  gate  is  well  addressed  in  the  recently  adopted  waste  legislation,  not  enough 

23 

 
attention is given to food loss and waste occurring at the primary production level and the 
early stages of the supply chain. The issue could be tackled through the implementation 
of the national food waste prevention programme required by Article 29(2a) of the Waste 
Framework Directive 2008/98/EC. 

Romania has a number of issues regarding the respect of the legal framework for animal 
welfare. For instance, the tail docking of pigs is a routine practice and the percentage of 
pigs  reared  with  intact  tails  has  barely  changed  since  2016.  Conditions  on  farm  must 
improve if the number of tail-docked pigs is to start to decrease. Romania programmed 
almost  EUR 1 billion for animal  welfare measure for pigs and poultry  under the 2014-
2020 RDP.  

Biosecurity  is  a  major  challenge,  considering  that  Romania  is  among  the  countries 
affected  by  African  Swine  Fever  (ASF)  where  farms  with  low  biosecurity  and  poor 
controls  pose  higher  risk  for  animal  disease  infections  and  spread.  Therefore,  strong 
action  is  needed  to  establish,  revise  and  upgrade  biosecurity,  registration  of  farms, 
identification and movements of animals, especially on pig farms. 

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

HRI 1 in Romania 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

Source: DG AGRI after ESVAC, Tenth ESVAC Report (2020)

120

            Source: EUROSTAT [aei_hri]121 

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

The AKIS in Romania is weak and fragmented. There is no coherent policy targeting the 
development and functioning of the AKIS, which results in its subsystems being largely 
under  the  influence  of  sectoral  policies  and  linkages  among  the  various  actors  being 
rather weak. For instance, agricultural higher education institutions remain separate from 
the  agricultural  research  institutes.  Furthermore,  there  is  little  co-operation  with 
agricultural consultancies providing direct training to farmers. Some limited investments 
have  been  undertaken  in  recent  years  to  improve  the  effective  functioning  of  the 
agricultural knowledge system. 

Consultancy and vocational training to farmers is predominantly provided by the public 
consultancy  network  operating  at  the  county  level  and  by  the  agricultural  consultancy 
centres  operating  at  the  level  of  rural  municipalities.  These  bodies  provide  vocational 
training,  as  well  as  support  and  technical  assistance  for  accessing  EU  funding, 
managerial  consultancy,  information  and  refresher  courses.  However,  access  to  these 
services  is  fragmented  and  participation  in  training  is  low122.  Private  agricultural 
consultancy mainly deals with drawing up financial applications for EU funding. In the 

24 

 
 
 
case  of  large-scale  projects,  private  consultants  can  help  rural  entrepreneur/farmer  with 
their expertise throughout the project period. 

Agricultural  education  consists  of  agricultural  higher  education,  high-school  level  and 
vocational  training.  Over  recent  years,  the  number  of  graduates  of  agricultural  schools 
has  declined,  which  results  in  the  overall  low  level  of  education  of  the  managers  of 
agricultural  holdings,  e.g.  only  0.4%  of  farm  managers  have  full  agricultural  training, 
while the overwhelming majority has only practical experience123. The development of a 
life-long vocational training system is at an early stage. 

Agricultural  research  is  mostly  carried  out  by  the  public  research  institutes  under  the 
umbrella of the Academy for Agricultural and Forestry Science. If the number of public 
research  institutions  remained  relatively  constant  in  the  last  10  years,  the  number  of 
private  companies  active  in  agricultural  research  declined  by  more  than  50%124.  The 
budget allocated by Romania for research and development (R&D) decreased in the last 
10 years by 35%125. The budget for agricultural research followed the same trend, but the 
decrease was by only 6%. The Romanian R& D sector as a whole lacks investments and 
the  country  spends  one  of  the  lowest  scientific  budgets  in  EU  on  agricultural  research 
(EUR  1.1  /inhabitant,  compared  with  EUR  6.4  EU-27126).  Research  focuses  on  the 
development  and  evaluation  of  agricultural  technologies,  provision  of  instruments  and 
methods,  which  would  improve  a  proper  management  of  the  agricultural  sector  and 
evaluation of the effectiveness of agricultural practices and agricultural policy. However, 
there  is  a  lack  of  co-operation  between  agricultural  research  centres  and  agricultural 
stakeholders to implement research results.  

Romania  ranks  26th  out  of  27  EU  Member  States  in  the  2020  Digital  Economy  and 
Society  Index  (DESI)127.  Despite  the  fact  that  Romania  has  the  highest  speed  internet 
connection,  the  coverage  is  lower  than  the  EU  average.  70%  of  rural  households  had 
access to internet in 2019, an increase by 275%, compared with 2010, but still under the 
EU average (80%). 78% of connected household use fixed broadband  connectivity  and 
64%  use  mobile  broadband  connectivity128.  Only  52%  of  rural  households  have  a 
computer compared with 76% in urban area129. 49% of the Romanian households have an 
ultrafast  (> 100 Mbps) broadband connection, while on the other hand, one-fifth  of the 
Romanians  have  never  used  the  internet.  Within  the  EU,  Romania  has  the  least  public 
internet services and use of internet services. For example,  only 11% of the Romanians 
use  internet  banking.  The  connectivity  in  rural  areas  is  lagging  behind  the  national 
average as only 39% of the rural households are connected to the fixed internet. The 4G 
coverage in Romania is 85%, below the EU average of 95%. The preparation for 5G is in 
line with the other EU countries. Basic digital and software skills in Romania are among 
the lowest in the EU130. 

There  is  no  official  data,  but  according  to  an  expert  in  digital  farming,  50%  of  the 
farmers  use  GPS  direction  systems  and  yields  measurement,  whilst  only  10%  use 
equipment  for  precision  farming131.  Productivity  gains  could  be  realised  by  a  higher 
uptake of digital solutions and investing in digital skills. It would create opportunities for 
crop farming and animal farming.  

Romania  has  not  yet  opted  for  the  use  of  satellite-based  means  to  monitor  CAP 
implementation  but  is  currently  part  of  EU  projects  dealing  with  the  uptake  of  new 
technologies  for  the  modernisation  of  CAP  administrations,  CAP  controls  and 
interactions with farmers. 

25 

 
Spending  for  training,  knowledge  transfer  and  advisory  services  under  the  2014-2020 
RDP is low. In the 2014-2020 programming period, Romania programmed 1.2% of the 
rural  development  funding  for  knowledge  transfer  and  information  actions,  advisory 
services,  farm  management,  farm  relief  services  and  cooperation-EIP,  which  is 
significantly  below  the  EU  average  of  3.6%.  It  aims  to  support  training  activities  for 
96 000 persons, advisory services for over 48 000 farmers and owners of micro and small 
enterprises  in  rural  areas  and  stimulation  of  innovation  and  co-operation.  The 
implementation of these measures are running late, mostly due to the delays in selection 
of the providers and changes of the implementation mechanisms.  

The set-up of the EIP-AGRI Operational Groups promoting innovation in agriculture is 
at an early stage. The first Operational Groups (OG) in Romania were established only in 
2019132. 24 OG submitted an eligible project to be financed under the 2014-2020 RDP. 
The value of the projects proposed is EUR 8.5 million. However, the implementation of 
the projects has not yet started. 

The  National  Rural  Network  has  organised  some  activities  connecting  research  actors 
such  as  universities  and  partners  of  Horizon  2020  projects  with  farmers,  advisors  and 
rural businesses. This experience can be the basis for the future national CAP network to 
intensify such actions and play a key role in promoting synergies between the CAP and 
European Research Area (ERA). The best way to do so is to stay in close touch with the 
Horizon Europe National Contact Point and to intensify the spreading of the information 
on  the  EIP-AGRI  website.  Moreover,  by  collecting  and  disseminating  information,  the 
CAP can finance interventions that help to make use of up-to-date scientific information 
for agricultural practices, for instance through the CAP network, its knowledge platforms 
and knowledge reservoirs, as well as by setting up advisory back-offices where the latest 
knowledge and innovation is collected and shared with the field advisors and the farmers. 

NGA and VHCN coverage (% of households) in Romania, 2015-2019 

Total NGA 

Total VHCN 

Rural NGA 

Total VHCN 

Source: DESI Report133 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
in 

1   European  Commission.  Building  stronger  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  systems  (AKIS)  to 
foster 
area. 
innovation 
2019https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/building-
stronger-akis_en.pdf 

agriculture 

knowledge 

advice, 

rural 

and 

and 

2   Innovation support services are a new obligation in Art 13(4) 
3   Art  13(2)  (new  obligation)  requests  that  advisors  are  integrated  within  the  AKIS  system  (not  in  a 
separate  advisory  system,  but  serving  or  making  use  of  all  other  knowledge  and  innovation 
interventions too). Their advice should cover economic, environmental and social dimensions and that 
should  deliver  up-to-date  technological  and  scientific  information  developed  by  research  and 
innovation.  All  this  will  need  to  be  organised  with  dedicated  AKIS  interventions  in  the  CAP  plans 
(training  of  advisors,  knowledge  exchange  with  researchers,  innovation  support  for  EIP  Operational 
Group projects, organising or involvement in on-farm demonstration, making use of advisory mobility 
budgets  to  go  and  learn  abroad  and  spread  new  knowledge  in  the  country/region,  etc.  Therefore, 
training and new skills will be essential for the future advisor. 

4   European Commission. 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. DG AGRI, based on ESTAT data 

5   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 

to 2018). 

6   Farm  factor  income  is  calculated  as  a  value  of  agricultural  production  minus  variable  input  costs 
(fertilisers,  pesticides,  feed,  etc.)  minus  depreciation  minus  total  taxes  (on  products  and  production) 
plus total subsidies (on products and production) 

7   Farm  factor  income  per  worker  in  FADN  is  Farm  Net  Value  Added  per  Annual  Working  Units 

(FNVA/AWU)  

8   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 
to  2018).  Figures  may  not  be  fully  accurate  due  FADN  encompassing  farms  above  certain  economic 
size only (in case of Romania it includes farms from EUR 2000 in economic size, which is only about 
15% of all farms) 

9   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.SIZ6  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018) DG AGRI, based on FADN data 

10   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.TF14  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018) 

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

calculations (up to 2018) 

12   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.REGION  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018) 

13   Update  on  80/20  based  on  claim  year  2018:  note  on  the  distribution  of  direct  payments:  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) 
14   Background analysis by MS  on income and targeting of DP: Directorate  General for  Agriculture and 
Rural Development own calculations based on FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Network) data (2015) 
and CATS (Clearance of Accounts Trailing System) data (up to 2017)  

15   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 

to 2018) 

16   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on ESTAT data (up 

to 2016) and CATS (Clearance of Accounts Trailing System) data (up to 2018) 

17   Farms whose household consumes more than 50% of the final production. Based on ESTAT, 2016.  
18   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 

to 2018).  

19   European Commission.  Income  support breakdown.  Distribution of direct aid to farmers  – indicative 

figures 2018 financial year.  

20   EUROSTAT. [EF_M_FARMLEG] 
21   European Commission. Factsheet on 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme for Romania 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/rdp-factsheet-
romania_en.pdf  

22   FAO, New Food Balances, http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS  
23   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on COMEXT  

27 

 
 
                                                 
24   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.14  Labour  productivity  in  agriculture.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [aact_eaa03]  

25   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  

26   European Commission. CAP Indicator - Data explorer. CAP result indicator RPI_03 Value for primary 

producers in the value chain. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/AddingValue.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

27   EUROSTAT. Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics, 2019 edition 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/10317767/KS-FK-19-001-EN-N.pdf/742d3fd2-961e-
68c1-47d0-11cf30b11489  

28   EUROSTAT. Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics, 2019 edition 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/10317767/KS-FK-19-001-EN-N.pdf/742d3fd2-961e-
68c1-47d0-11cf30b11489  

29   European Commission. Factsheet on 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme for Romania 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/rdp-factsheet-
romania_en.pdf  

30   European Commission. Study of the best ways for producer organisations to be formed, carry out their 

activities and be supported, 2019, page 27, graph 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2c31a562-eef5-11e9-a32c-01aa75ed71a1  

31   Ibid, page 17 
32   Ibid, page 47 
33   Ibid, page 44 
34   Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Annual Implementation Report of the Romanian Rural 

Development Programme for 2018 
https://www.madr.ro/pndr-2014-2020/implementare-pndr-2014-2020/raport-anual-pndr-2014-
2020.html 

35   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_03  Value  for 

primary producers in the food chain.  
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  
from  agriculture.  European 

36   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.45  Emissions 

Environmental Agency greenhouse gas - data viewer 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

37   European Environmental Agency (EEA). Greenhouse gas - data viewer 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  
from  agriculture.  European 

38   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.45  Emissions 

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

39   European Environmental Agency (EEA). Greenhouse gas - data viewer 

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

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 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

41   EUROSTAT. 

News 

release. 

Renewable 

energy 

in 

the 

EU 

in 

2018. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/10335438/8-23012020-AP-EN.pdf/292cf2e5-8870-
4525-7ad7-188864ba0c29  

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

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

43   Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Romanian  SWOT  analysis  National  Strategic  Plan 

2021-2027 - second version 
https://www.madr.ro/planul-national-strategic-pac-post-2020/documente-de-programare.html draft 

44   European Environmental Agency (EEA). As in EUROSTAT [env_air_gge]  
45   European Environmental Agency (EEA). Air pollutant emissions data viewer.  

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/national-emission-ceilings-nec-directive-inventory-17  

46   European Environmental Agency (EEA). National Air Pollution Projection Review Report, 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/reduction_napcp/Romania_Projections%20review%20report_
FINAL.pdf 

47   European Environmental Agency (EEA), NECD Directive data viewer. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-directive-data-viewer-3  

28 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
48   European Environmental Agency (EEA). NECD Directive data viewer.  

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-directive-data-viewer-3 

49   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.42:  Soil  erosion  by  water.  Original  source:  Joint 

Research Center 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

50   European Commission. CAP context. C.41 Level of soil organic matter in arable land.  Joint Research 

Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

51   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.41 Soil organic matter in arable land. Joint Research 

Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015  
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Soil.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 

52   EUROSTAT. Agri-environmental indicator – tillage practices 
   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-

_tillage_practices  

53   EUROSTAT. Agri-environmental indicator – soil cover. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_soil_cover  
54   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 
and European Environmental Agency as in Waterbase – Water Quality, CSI020, based on data reported 
to EIONET. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

55   European Commission. CAP Result indicator R.08 Percentage of agricultural land under management 

contracts to improve water management (focus area 4B). 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/WaterQuality.html?select=EU27_FLAG,
1   

56   European  Commission.  CAP  context  C.39  Water  abstraction  in  agriculture.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[env_wat_abs] 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

57   EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb]  
58   Doniță,  N.,  Popescu,  A.,  Paucă-Comănescu,M.,  Mihăilescu,  S.,  Biriș,  I.,  –  Habitatele  din  România, 

Editura Tehnicã Silvicã, Bucureşti, 2005. Page 22.  
http://www.editurasilvica.ro/carti/donita1/integral.pdf 

59   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.34  Natura  2000  areas.  Based  on  NATURA  2000 

Barometer and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018 

   https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  
60   UNESCO, World Heritage List https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/  
61   Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  On-going  evaluation  of  the  Rural  Development 

Programme 2014-2020, 2019, Page 161.  
https://www.madr.ro/pndr-2014-2020/implementare-pndr-2014-2020/evaluare-pndr-2014-
2020/rapoarte-de-evaluare.html  

62   European Commission. CAP context indicator. C.37 HNV farming 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  
63   Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Annual  Implementation  Report  for  the  Romanian 
Rural  Development  Programme  for  the  year  2018,  R.07  Percentage  agricultural  land  under 
management contracts supporting biodiversity and/or landscapes (focus area 4A) 
https://www.madr.ro/pndr-2014-2020/implementare-pndr-2014-2020/raport-anual-pndr-2014-
2020.html  

64   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.33  Farming  intensity.  Based  on  FADN  –Agri-

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification”  
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

65   European Commission based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey 
66   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.29 Forest and other wooded land (FOWL).  Based on 

EUROSTAT [for_area], original source FAO, Forest Europe and Unece. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

67   National Forest Inventory. http://roifn.ro/site/rezultate-ifn-2/  
68   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.19 Agricultural area under organic farming. Based on 

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar]. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/OrganicProduction.html  

29 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
69   EUROSTAT. Organic crop area by agricultural production methods and crops. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/org_cropar/default/table?lang=en  

70   EUROSTAT. [apro_cpsh1] 
71   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.19 Agricultural area under organic farming. Based on 

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar]  

72   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.  

73   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] Analytical factsheet for Romania 

74   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

75   National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE  

http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  

76   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations, based on FADN data (up 

to 2018) 

77   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on  ESTAT  data 

(2016) 

78   fi-compass, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Romania, Study report, 2020 
https://www.fi-compass.eu/publication/publications/financial-needs-agriculture-and-agri-food-sectors-
romania  

79   Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Romanian  SWOT  analysis  National  Strategic  Plan 

2021-2027 - second version 
https://www.madr.ro/planul-national-strategic-pac-post-2020/documente-de-programare.htmldraft  
80   ADE s.a , CCRI , Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development , OIR. Evaluation of the 
impact  of  the  CAP  on  generational  renewal,  local  development  and  jobs  in  rural  areas.  Study  2019. 
256 pages 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4bd0b0a2-0503-11ea-8c1f-
01aa75ed71a1Evaluation on generational renewal  

81   European  Commission.  Summary  report  on  the  implementation  of  direct  payments [except  greening]. 

Claim year 2018. June 2020  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/summary-
report-implementation-direct-payements-claim-2018.pdf 

82   EUROSTAT. [urt_bd_hgn2] 
83   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang]  
84   Please note that there are different ways to define “rural areas”. The text above is based on the so-called 
“urban-rural  typology”  in  line  with  the  CAP  common  context  indicators.  However,  according  to  the 
national definition, rural area is the totality of communes at the level of administrative-territorial unit, a 
commune  being  the  smallest  administrative-territorial  unit,  NUTS  5  level.  According  to  national 
definition 46% of the total population live in rural area. 

85   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.01  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[demo_r_gind3] 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
indicator  C.02  Age  structure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

86   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

[demo_r_pjanaggr3] 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
indicator  C.02  Age  structure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

87   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

[demo_r_pjanaggr3] 
88   EUROSTAT. [urt_gind3]  
89   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.07  Unemployment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_lfu3rt]  
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
90  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.05  Employment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_ergau] 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

91   National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE (Values for 2019) 
http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  

92   Franic,  R.  and  Kovacicek,  T.  (2019).  The  professional  status  of  rural  women  in  the  EU.  European 

Parliament study. Graph based on EUROSTAT data. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608868/IPOL_STU(2019)608868_EN.pd
f  

30 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
93   C,  Rat.  (2018).  Case  study  -  gaps  in  access  to  social  protection  for  casual  workers  in  Romania. 

European Commission study.  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2c897cc0-4445-11e8-a9f4-01aa75ed71a1 
94   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.09 Poverty rate. Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps11] 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  
95   Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. SWOT analysis National Strategic Plan 2021-2027 - 

second version 
https://www.madr.ro/planul-national-strategic-pac-post-2020/documente-de-programare.html  

96   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp] 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
97   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.28  Gross  fixed  capital  formation.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3gva] and [nama_10r_2gfcf] 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
98   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.30  Tourism  infrastructure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[tour_cap_nuts2d] 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

99   National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE (Values for 2019)  
http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  
100  National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE (Values for 2018) 
http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  
101  National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE (Values for 2018) 
http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  

102  FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 

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

103  FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Growing stock. Indicator 

https://fra-platform.herokuapp.com/ROU/assessment/fra2020/growingStock/  

104  National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE 

http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  

105  Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests, Report on the state of Romanian’s Forests, 2017, 
http://apepaduri.gov.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Starea-p%C4%83durilor-%C3%AEn-anul-
2017.pdf  

106  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.15  Labour  productivity  in  forestry.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [for_eco_cp] and [for_awu] 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

107  Joint Research Centre, DATAM bio economy,  
   https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html  
108  European Commission. The bio-economy in different countries. 
   https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/visualisation/bioeconomy-different-countries_en  
109  National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE 

http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  

110  Joint Research Center. Health Promotion and Disease Prevention.  

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden  

111  EUROSTAT. Statistics explained. Distribution of persons aged 15 and over according to the number of 

portions of fruit and vegetables consumed per day, 2014 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/images/3/34/Distribution_of_persons_aged_15_and_over_according_to_the_number_of_port
ions_of_fruit_and_vegetables_consumed_per_day%2C_2014_or_nearest_year_%28%25%29.png 

112  Body Mass Index (BMI) above 30 
113  EUROSTAT. Statistics on income and living conditions. EU-SILC, 2017 
114  Eurobarometer, 2012 https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_389_en.pdf  
115  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. 

116  European  Commission  based  on  EUROSTAT:  Sales  of  Pesticides 

[aei_fm_salpest09]: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/AEI_FM_SALPEST09/bookmark/table?lang=en&book
markId=53792fd3-191d-4201-aab5-c01c67fd927c v 

117  Ibid 
118  NGO Mai mult verde. Study “Romania against food waste”, 2018 

https://www.premiilepentrumediucurat.ro/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/147886440316015.pdf  

119  Food waste Romania. Project financed by Swiss Embassy in Romania. http://foodwaste.ro/  

31 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
120  European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for pesticides (HRI 1), by group of active substance. 

As in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51]  

121  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. 
European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for pesticides (HRI 1), by group of active substance. 
As in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51]  

122  Around 0.5% of the rural population took part in vocation training. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 

Development. SWOT analysis National Strategic Plan 2021-2027 - second version 
https://www.madr.ro/planul-national-strategic-pac-post-2020/documente-de-programare.html  

123  EUROSTAT. Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics, 2018 edition 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/9455154/KS-FK-18-001-EN-N.pdf/a9ddd7db-c40c-
48c9-8ed5-a8a90f4faa3f  

124  National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE 

http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  

125  National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE 

http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  
126  Eurostat. Government support to agricultural research and development. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=sdg_02_30&lang
uage=en  

127  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), 2020, Country Report –- Romania 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi  
128  National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE 

http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  
129  National Institute for Statistic. TEMPO-ONLINE (Values for 2017) 
http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  

130  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), 2020, Country Report –- Romania 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi  

131  Interview  with  Cornelia  Weltzien  – 

expert 

in  digital 

farming.  https://www.revista-

ferma.ro/articole/agricultura-viitorului/digitalizarea-agriculturii-in-5-fraze  

132  European Commission. EIP-AGRI. Agri-Innovation Where Research and Practice Meet, 2019.  

http://agrimax-project.eu/files/2019/06/EPI-AGRI-Magazine.pdf  

133  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. DESI individual indicators – 1b1 Fast BB 

(NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc] 

32