COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Hungary’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, Hungary, 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) 397 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Hungary’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) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HUNGARY’ CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN ................................................................................................. 2 

1.1 

Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food 
security ............................................................................................................ 2 

1.2  Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union ..................... 3 

1.3 

Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal 
concerns ........................................................................................................... 4 

1.4  Modernising the sector by fostering and sharing of knowledge, 
innovation and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake ............................... 4 

1.5  Recommendations .......................................................................................... 5 

2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 

HUNGARY ................................................................................................................ 8 

2.1 

Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU territory to 
enhance food security ..................................................................................... 8 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including 

greater focus on research, technology and digitalisation ......................... 10 

2.3 

Improve farmers' position in the value chain ............................................ 11 

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

sustainable energy ........................................................................................ 13 

2.5 

Foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural 
resources such as water, soil and air .......................................................... 14 

2.6  Contribute to the protection of biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes ........................................................ 16 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas

18 

2.8 

2.9 

Promote employment, growth, social inclusion and local development in 
rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry .................. 19 

Improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and 
health, including safe, nutritious and sustainable food, as well as animal 
welfare. .......................................................................................................... 20 

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation ..... 22 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  HUNGARY’  CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN 

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

The shift to a sustainable food system presents significant economic opportunities as well 
as challenges for Hungarian farmers.  

The  economic  performance  of  Hungary’s  agricultural  sector  (both  farmers  and  food 
businesses)  has  been  positive  overall  in  recent  years.  The  gradual  growth  of 
entrepreneurial income and the fact that it is closing the gap with the rest of economy are 
significant  indicators  of  economic  progress.  Hungarian  farmers  have  improved  on  their 
relatively good position in the value chain, and this has allowed them to benefit from the 
expansion  and  capture  an  increasing  share  of  the  added-value.  Farm  products  have 
remained  competitive  and  the  agricultural  trade  balance  positive,  this  indicates  that,  on 
balance,  Hungary  has  managed  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunities  offered  by  the 
single market. However, besides efficiency gains and the general expansion of consumer 
demand,  public  support  (inter  alia  income  support)  has  also  been  key  in  the  sector’s 
development, which indicates a degree of dependency.  

The  consolidation  in  the  number  of  farms  and  farm  sizes  continued,  increasing  the 
economic efficiency of agriculture. However, productivity (inter alia labour productivity) 
is  still  lagging  behind.  Structurally,  although  Hungary  is  characterised  by  highly 
concentrated access to  land, it also  has a large number of small farms (including many 
subsistence/semi-subsistence farms). Bigger operators, who enjoy a better position in the 
value  chain  and  easier  access  to  financing,  seem  to  have  less  of  a  need  for  income 
support, partially thanks to increasingly available self-help tools. For instance, although 
risk-management  tools  (e.g.  livestock  insurances,  on-farm  strategies,  better  exploitation 
of forward/futures markets) are generally well established with broad coverage of various 
risks,  their  actual  use  by  farmers  still  leaves  room  for  improvement.  The  emerging 
challenges stemming from climate change and the ensuing uncertainty call for efforts to 
explore further options to help farmers to manage risks. 

While  maintaining  competitiveness  and  the  capacity  to  create  jobs  in  farming  and  the 
wider  agri-food  economy  in  order  to  ensure  continued  growth,  the  agricultural  sector 
should  gradually  change  its  growth  pattern  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunities  of  a 
greener,  more  modern  and  more  sustainable  agriculture  as  well  as  those  arising  from 
cooperation, innovation and increased focus on consumer demand. 

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 

 
 
                                                           
1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

The  economic  growth  that  Hungary  has  experienced  (and  should  pursue  in  order  to 
ensure  economic  viability  for  businesses  and  contribute  to  social  sustainability  in  rural 
areas) does not appear sustainable from an environmental and climate point of view.  

The state of natural resources, in particular as regards biodiversity, has got significantly 
worse owing to a number of factors, including the intensification of agricultural practices 
on arable land and a deterioration in the state of grasslands. This calls for efforts to halt 
biodiversity loss and restore non-productive features and natural areas such as wetlands 
in  line  with  the  target  set  in  the  biodiversity  strategy.  Biodiversity  also  needs  to  be 
improved in forested areas in order to access their full potential. It is essential to ensure 
sustainable  forest  management  and  afforestation,  thus  enhancing  multi-functionality, 
forest  protection  and  the  restoration  of  forest  ecosystems  in  order  to  ensure  the  good 
condition  of  habitats  and  species,  enhance  ecological  services  and  build  resilience  to 
threats. 

After  sharp  initial  falls  in  the  1990s,  other  factors  such  as  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  and 
ammonia emissions have stabilised or even increased since 2012 and today Hungary is at 
high  risk  of  non-compliance  with  the  ammonia  emission  reduction  commitments  for 
2020-2029 and for 2030 and beyond.  

As  regarding  nutrients,  the  presence  of  some  issues  relating  to  nitrate  concentration,  in 
particular  rising  concentrations  in  groundwaters  and  surface  waters  since  2004  (and 
probably before) point to the potential presence of hotspots that should be addressed to 
contribute to the relevant Green Deal target.  

Besides restoring natural features and switching to a more sustainable production model, 
the sector should also prepare for upcoming challenges linked to climate change that will 
make  the  management  of  resources  (especially  water)  very  critical  to  ensuring  its 
production potential. Apart from adaptation, it has great potential to mitigate the adverse 
impacts of climate events and to contribute to the circular economy. For instance, studies 
indicate  that  rewetting  agricultural  land  in  Hungary  has  significant  potential  to  reduce 
GHG emissions: rewetting 1% of its agricultural area could reduce its agricultural GHG 
emissions  by  24%,  while  contributing  to  biodiversity1.  Finally,  despite  remarkable 
growth  in  recent  years,  organic  farming  has  seen  a  drop  in  the  share  of  utilized 
agricultural area (UAA) under conversion to organic and is still far short of Green Deal 
target. Obstacles to further growth should therefore be addressed.  

For all of the above processes to produce the desired outcomes, it is vital to secure the 
understanding  and  participation  of  the  farming  community.  On  the  one  hand,  this  will 
require new business models that generate income, to make it more attractive for farmers 
to  adapt  their  farming  practices.  On  the  other,  solid  obligations  (good  agricultural  and 
environmental conditions (GAECs) and statutory management requirements (SMRs)) are 
also needed, to ensure level-playing field and enforcement to prevent farmers producing 
below the necessary standards from gaining a cost advantage. Besides subsidies to guide 
farm practices, advice for farmers on more technically complicated production methods 
will be essential for success. Finally, to contribute to the Green Deal, there is also a need 
for  a  more  integrated  policy  combining  soil  management  and  nutrient  policy,  manure 
management, climate mitigation, biodiversity and landscapes.  

3 

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

concerns 

Despite  progress  in  several  domains,  thanks  to  public  investment  and  robust  economic 
growth in Hungary, rural areas still suffer from several disadvantages, including a lack of 
basic  infrastructures  and  services,  investment  and  innovation.  They  also  display  a  high 
poverty  rate,  especially  as  compared  with  urban  areas.  They  are  characterized  by  high 
unemployment  among  vulnerable  groups,  an  ageing  population  and  lower  educational 
and training levels (in farming and other sectors). The rate of economic activity among 
women  is  especially  low.  These  weaknesses  have  resulted  in  outmigration,  especially 
among  young people  and women. The  employment  rate  can be enhanced with  targeted 
investment in human skills, basic services and infrastructures and by boosting economic 
development in rural areas (e.g. via the bioeconomy). Agriculture still plays an important 
role  in  the  rural  economy,  but  faces  difficulties  in  attracting  newcomers.  Besides 
structural problems in rural areas, young farmers face additional obstacles in the form of 
a lack of financing and access to land. Moreover, efforts should be made to close gender 
gaps in employment, pay, pensions, and decision-making. 

As  regards  the  transition  to  safe,  nutritious  and  sustainable  food  and  better  animal 
welfare, the situation is mixed in Hungary. The sale of plant protection products is slowly 
decreasing and the trend needs to be further encouraged in view of the Green Deal target, 
by  prioritising  the  reduction  of  more  hazardous  pesticides  and  through  integrated  pest 
management.  As  regards  the  use  of  antimicrobials,  there  is  room  for  improvement  if 
Hungary  is  to  contribute  to  the  Green  Deal  target  of  cutting  sales  by  50%.  Challenges 
associated  with  animal  welfare  and  biosecurity  in  view  of  the  risk  of  African  Swine 
Fever  (ASF)  persist,  calling  for  continued  awareness.  Hungary  should  also  promote 
healthier  diets,  as  it  has  a  very  high  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  due  to 
dietary  risk  factors.  New  consumer  expectations  of  a  more  nature-friendly,  traditional, 
local and quality agriculture producing healthier and more sustainable food with the use 
of  innovation  and  new  technologies  also  have  the  potential  to  drive  a  change  in 
production methods, increase the attractiveness  of the sector and hence to  contribute to 
the revival of rural areas. They should therefore be addressed in a more focused way.  

The high standards of EU agriculture will obviously need to be preserved in the process. 
For  instance,  ensuring  the  protection  of  agricultural  workers,  especially  those  in 
precarious, seasonal and undeclared employment, will play a major role in delivering on 
the respect of rights enshrined in legislation. Such rules are also an essential element of 
the fair food system envisaged in the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

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

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

The overall educational and knowledge level of farmers and others living in rural areas is 
still  below  the  EU  average,  hindering  their  capacity  to  improve  their  skills  or  be  more 
active  in  the  labour  market.  There  is  a  rather  low  uptake  of  the  planned  rural 
development  budget  for  knowledge  exchange,  training,  information,  advice  and 
interactive  innovation  projects.  To  bring  about  large-scale  change,  besides  enhancing 
training and innovation, it is crucial that the results of innovation and technical advance 
be made more broadly available to farmers and the rural population, so that they can be 
put to good use. In this context, Hungary should link existing resources and make full use 
of a well-functioning, widened, agricultural  knowledge and information  system (AKIS) 
and  the  agricultural  European  innovation  partnership  (EIP  AGRI).  Including  more 
downstream  food  system-related  businesses,  operational  groups,  living  labs  and 

4 

 
 
accelerators,  and  better  integrating  information,  knowledge,  advice,  innovation  and 
digital  skills  (which  farmers  will  need  more  and  more),  should  also  help  Hungary’s 
farming  sector  to  become  smarter,  more  sustainable  and  more  productive.  To  enable 
changes and meet the ambition of the Green Deal, broadband connectivity should also be 
further expanded. 

1.5  Recommendations 

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

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

  Improving  the  viability  of  farms  by  better  addressing  the  income  gaps  among 
different  (professional)  farm  sizes,  sectors  and  territories.  Recommended 
approaches  include:  strengthened  redistribution  by  applying,  for  example,  the 
round  sum  payment  for  small  farmers,  the  reduction  of  payments  and  the 
complementary  redistributive  income  support  for  sustainability,  which  reflect 
actual support needs in light of the economic, social and territorial objectives and 
further encouraging the use of risk management instruments. 

  Promote  market  orientation  and  competitiveness  of  the  farming  and  agri-

food sector by further supporting investments in logistics and processing.  

  Strengthen  the  position  of  farmers  by  supporting:  farmer  cooperation  -  in 
particular  through  producer  organisations  which  integrate  their  economic 
activities;  farmers’  engagement  in  more  downstream  activities;  innovation;  and 
the development of new markets. 

  Increase  the  resilience  of  the  farm  sector  by  supporting  it  to  add  value  to 
products – e.g. via EU quality schemes (including organic farming), processing or 
specialisation in products for which Hungary has a competitive advantage. 

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

  Halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity and improve the conservation status of 
farm and forest habitats in line with the priorities defined in the Prioritised Action 
Framework,  i.e.  by  offering  support  to  maintain  and  re-establish  landscape 
features  beneficial  for  biodiversity  on  agricultural  land  via  investments  or  area-
based  payments,  thereby  contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  high 
diversity landscape features. 

  Prepare  agriculture  for  challenges  on  water  management  by:  limiting  the 
conversion  of  areas  with  high  soil  water  retention  (SWR)  capacity  and  organic 
matter (grasslands, peatlands, wetlands, etc.); supporting the reconversion to such 
areas  (especially  the  deep-lying,  regularly  inland-watered,  soil-defective  areas); 
promoting  practices  improving  soil  organic  matter  such  as  conservation/zero 
tilling  and  arable  land  cover  during  winter;  and  investing  in  irrigation  systems 
taking account of the issue of SWR and the potential for water reuse. 

5 

 
 
  Improve  the  efficiency  of  nutrient  management  to  reduce  losses  and 
pollution to soil, air and water, by applying reduction measures ranging from 
low-emission  animal  housing  to  manure  storage  and  fertilisation  application 
techniques,  thereby  helping  to  achieve  the  Green  Deal  target  on  reducing 
nutrient losses. Ensure action via a mix of obligations and funded interventions 
to improve the situation in particular in hotspots and to promote a wider transition 
to precision farming through funded schemes.  

  Contribute  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  organic  farming  by  supporting 
sustainable  (re)conversion  and  maintenance  of  organic  farming,  by  using  all 
possible  incentives  from  investments  in  processing  and  local  markets  -  to 
participation in quality schemes and promotion activities (with a particular focus 
on sectors where progress is slower). 

  Promote  climate  mitigation  practices  and  adaptation  instruments,  for 
instance  by  designing  carbon  farming  approaches  to  remunerate  carbon 
sequestration,  afforestation,  incentivising  soil  carbon  sequestration  and  the 
reduction of soil erosion (e.g. catch and cover crops), improving feed and manure 
management to decrease methane emissions (in line with the Methane Strategy), 
encouraging  the  use  of  site-adapted  mix  of  species  that  are  more  resistant  to 
climate change. 

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

  Reversing  depopulation  and  ageing  trends  in  rural  Hungary,  by  supporting 
investments  in  access  to  basic  services  and  infrastructures,  boosting  the  local 
economic  activity  also  by  supporting  local  initiatives  and  new  sectors  (i.e.  bio-
economy) with particular attention to the most vulnerable groups.  In doing so it 
will be important to ensure synergies with other EU and national funds. 

  Making  the  agricultural  sector  more  attractive  for  newcomers  -  with 
particular attention to territories lagging behind - by supporting the use of smart, 
innovative and local solutions that address (where necessary) issues of access to 
land, credit and training. 

  Contributing  to  the  achievement  of  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on 
antimicrobials by putting in place sizeable efforts to significantly reduce the use 
of  antimicrobials  in  farming,  considering  that  the  figures  indicate  sales  of 
antimicrobials above the EU average. Hungary is encouraged to use all available 
tools,  including  instruments  under  the  CAP  to  support  the  farmers  e.g.  by 
promoting best  practices on reduced  and prudent  use of antimicrobials,  together 
with  improved  livestock  management,  biosecurity,  infection  prevention  and 
control.  

  Improving animal welfare, especially for pigs,  and farm biosecurity, through 

support for improved livestock practices.  

  Contributing  to  the  Green  Deal  target  on  pesticides  by  strengthening  the 
efforts to decrease the quantities and risks of most hazardous used pesticides and 
promoting the sustainable use of pesticides, in particular by ensuring the uptake 
of integrated pest management practices 

6 

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

  Contribute  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  broadband  connectivity  by 
completing  investments  in  a  timely  manner  for  fast  broadband  connection 
coverage in rural areas. In doing so it will be important to ensure synergies with 
other EU and national funds.  

  Empower farmers, agri-food businesses and people living in rural areas, by 
fostering  knowledge,  skills  and  technological  development,  exchange, 
research,  advice,  digitalization  and  innovation  projects  by  strengthening  the 
existing  connections  among  research,  education,  and  farming  advice,  and  by 
providing innovation support across the farming and the rural community. 

7 

 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

HUNGARY 

Agriculture in Hungary has always been an important part of the country's economy and 
is an important contributor to the export performance. Agricultural output is varied and 
balanced  between  arable  crops  and  the  animal  sector.  The  sector  continues  to  have  a 
fragmented structure, with an important share of small and medium-sized farms. State of 
environment  and  ongoing  climate  change  however  put  production  potential  at  risk  and 
force adaptation and a transition to more sustainable practices. 

Rural  areas  in  different  parts  of  Hungary  are  diverse  and  face  quite  different  socio-
economic  conditions,  but  many  areas  are  lagging  behind.  They  host  about  19%  of  the 
national population. 

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

enhance food security 

The average entrepreneurial income in agriculture almost tripled between 2005 and 2018, 
ultimately reaching 9 100 EUR per annual work unit (AWU).2 This reduced the gap with 
the EU average (from -60% to -43%). Besides, it reached 74% of the average wages in 
the Hungarian economy, a ratio much more favorable than the EU average  (i.e. 46%).3 
Agricultural factor income also improved spectacularly between 2005 and 2018: from 4 
400 to 9 000 EUR/AWU4, although still remaining well below the EU average. 

EU subsidies play a key role in farm revenues and thus in their economic viability. On 
average,  almost  half  (47%  in  2018)  of  the  factor  income  comes  from  subsidies:  34% 
from direct payments (DP), 9% from rural development programme (RDP) payments and 
further  5%  from  other  subsidies.5  These  shares  are  quite  balanced  over  the  various 
economic farm sizes, with slightly lower values only in case of the smallest and largest 
farms. The unit amount of direct payments (255 EUR/ha on average in 2018) show only 
moderate differentiation per hectare6, arising from coupled support payments, capping of 
payments to larger farms and the young farmer and small farmer schemes in particular. 
The  Single  Area  Payment  Scheme,  representing  55%  of  the  direct  payments  envelope, 
covers 93% of the utilised agricultural area and provides a uniform rate (148 EUR/ha in 
2018).7  

A number of the previously mentioned measures aim to strengthen the redistribution to 
smaller than average farms, but these have very limited impact based upon the indicator 
measuring redistribution to smaller farms.8 The distribution of direct payments (20% of 
farms receive 84% of direct payments) thus mirrors the relatively high concentration of 
land (also 20% / 84%).9  

An  analysis  of  the  factor  income  development  highlights  various  needs  for  income 
support, depending on the following factors: 

  Farm  size:  ¾  of  the  Hungarian  farms  are  below  4  000  EUR  of  economic  size, 
many  of  these  actually  semi-subsistence  farms  often  below  the  minimum 
requirements  for  DP  (only  40%  of  all  holdings  benefit  from  DP).  Farms  below 
10 ha  (or  EUR  15  000  of  economic  size10)  show  characteristically  low  factor 
income  (around,  or  even  below  10  000  EUR/AWU);  but  this  value  gradually 
grows with the farm size, reaching a distinctive peak (between 30 000 and 40 000 
EUR/AWU)  in  the  100  to  500  ha  size  class  (or  EUR  100  000  to  500  000  of 
economic size). The 500+ ha farms, representing around 30% of the UAA, show 

8 

 
 
somewhat lower factor income partly due to their lower subsidies (capping above 
EUR  176  000)  and  to  very  high  employment  on  these  farm  (lower  labor 
productivity  in  those  classes).  Cooperatives  are  strongly  represented  in  this  size 
class.11 

  Agricultural  sector:  Fruits,  wine  and  sheep  &  goat  generate  the  lowest  FNVA, 
whereas COP, cattle and other field crops the highest. VCS, which takes up 15% 
of  the  direct  payments  envelope,  aims  to  accommodate  the  additional  support 
need in 7 sectors facing difficulties (highest amounts earmarked in the dairy, beef, 
sheep & goat, fruit & vegetables and protein crop sectors). Some of these sectors, 
cattle in particular, already show signs of recovery, whereas in others (e.g. sheep 
& goat, fruits) the factor income remains still low.12 

  Region: Regional differences exist, but they are relatively limited. ANC payments 
were provided until 2019 (phasing out), but only a  smaller share (20.7%) of the 
UAA was designated as ANC (no mountain ANC), whose increased CAP support 
(Pillar  2)  seemed  to  compensate  fully  their  moderate  efficiency  gap  (and  some 
years even further). There is no definition of ANC under RDP since 2020.13  

Risk  management  possibilities  are  generally  well-established.  It  is  a  combination  of 
national  and  EU  instruments,  combining  insurances  and  investments.  Under  the  rural 
development programme, Hungary supported risk prevention investments against natural 
disasters. In terms of climatic risks, centrally coordinated indemnity based multiple-peril 
crop  insurance  is  compulsory  above  a  certain  area  threshold  (90+%  uptake).  Besides, 
subsidized crop insurance contracts (implemented under the 2nd pillar of the CAP) also 
show  development.  However,  the  non-subsidized  livestock  insurances  have  low  uptake 
(only  4%  share  from  all  agricultural  insurances)  due  to  the  high  fees.  The  income 
stabilisation tool, programmed in the 2014-2020 RDP, is to be implemented from 2021. 
Forward contracts have exceptionally high uptake (50+% for crop farms, dairy, pig and 
poultry);  but  futures  contracts  have  low  penetration  (below  5%  for  cereals  and  protein 
crops, none for livestock) due to the lack of liquidity and knowledge. On-farm strategies 
exist, but there is still room for improvement.14  

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

Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms  

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy  

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

Source: DG AGRI, based on EUROSTAT15 

9 

 
 
 
2.2  Enhance  market  orientation  and  increase  competitiveness  including  greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

The  agri-food  trade  balance  in  Hungary  is  positive16  (both  for  EU  and  non-EU  trade). 
The Hungarian agri-food sector is dominated by micro and small-sized enterprises (92%) 
in terms of numbers, though it may be assumed that the bulk of the output in most sectors 
comes from medium and large enterprises (the actual figures differ by sector). The agri-
food industry is  labour-intensive.  In terms of production value, the five  main agri-food 
sub-sectors  are:  milk  processing  and  dairy  products  (9.6%),  meat  processing  and 
preserving  (9.4%),  poultry  meat  processing  and  preserving  (9.3%),  other  fruit  and 
vegetable processing and preserving (7.2%), and beverages and mineral water production 
(7.1%)17. Over the last five years, turnover and sales have increased significantly, driven 
mainly  by  exports.  However,  between  2014  and  2017  the  number  of  enterprises 
decreased by almost 10%. In general, export-oriented agri-food companies perform better 
than those focused on the local market. 

Hungarian crop outputs, of which cereals (27%), industrial crops (12%) and vegetable & 
horticultural  products  (9%),  represents  58%  of  agricultural  goods  outputs  whereas 
Hungarian animal outputs counts for 37%, with poultry and pigs counting for 11% and 
10% respectively18. 

The  total  number  of  farms  declined  steeply  between  2005  and  2016  from  715 000  to 
430 000 (which represents 4% of EU-27 holdings). A vast majority of them has less than 
5 ha UAA (81%) and an economic size of less than 4000 EUR (80%). Almost ¾ of the 
holdings  (72%)  belong  to  male  holders.  Fixed  capital  consumption  is  slightly 
decreasing19. The average farm size increased from 8 to 12 ha in the same time period20. 
The agricultural area decreased in the same time period from 5.8 million hectares in 2005 
to  5.3  million  hectares  in  2016.  The  decline  in  agricultural  area  appears  both  in  arable 
land and in permanent grassland21. 

The  number  of  livestock  units  has  decreased  from  2.5  million  to  2.44  million  LU.  The 
livestock  density  over  the  total  period  remained  stable  around  0.43  LU/ha,  though  the 
proportion of UAA extensively grazed increased from 10% in 2005 to 19% in 201322. 

Employment  in  the  agricultural  sector  accounts  for  4%  of  the  total  Hungarian 
employment  while  forestry  accounts  for  0.3%.  Labour  productivity  in  agriculture  in 
Hungary is the sixth lowest among EU-2723.  

The  total  factor  productivity  (TFP)  has  increased  in  Hungary.  The  decreasing  capital 
productivity  in  the  period  2007-2012  suggest  investments  that  did  not  immediately 
resulted  in  improved  output.  The  increased  labour  productivity  is  mainly  a  result  of  an 
outflow of labour (-19% between 2005 and 2017). The capital productivity presents the 
returns on investments. Land productivity reflect the developments in yields and rents. 

There has been a steep increase in investments amongst individual agricultural producers 
between  2015  and  2019,  triggered  by  the  inflow  of  CAP  payments  and  other  public 
support.  Yet,  the  main  constraint  faced  by  farmers  in  accessing  finance  is  a  lack  of 
business data as well as farmer’s lack of an adequate business plan24.The major problem 
for  the  sector  is  a  lack  of  financial  resources  for  technological  development  and 
innovation,  due  to  the  sector’s  low  profitability.  There  is  a  need  to  create  innovative 
financing  approaches  to  allow  agri-food  companies  to  modernise  their  technologies, 
equipment  and  buildings,  catering  at  the  same  time  for  their  current  indebtedness  and 
rather low level of profits25. 

10 

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

Total factor productivity 

Land productivity 

Labour productivity 

Intermediate costs productivity 

Capital productivity 

TFP EU-27 

Source: EUROSTAT for TFP and DG AGRI for partial productivities 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

Between 2008 and 2017, the share of agriculture in the total value added along the food 
supply chain (FSC) in Hungary oscillated around 40-52%, well above the EU average of 
23-26%, which indicates that Hungary’s food supply chain is perhaps not as complex and 
developed as the chain in other Member States. In absolute terms, the gross value added 
by producers in Hungary rose from an average of € 3.3 billion in 2008/09 to an average 
of € 4.8 billion in 2016/1726.  

This increase of 45 % has to be seen in the context of an increase of only 34% of the total 
value added along the FSC, which rose from an average of € 7.7 billion in 2008/09 to an 
average of € 10.3 billion in 2016/1727. This means farmers in Hungary capture more of 
the value added along the FSC than the average EU farmer, and they also capture more of 
the growth of the value added in the FSC in Hungary compared to food manufacturers, 
distributors  and  consumer  services.  Exports  of  primary  products  to  other  EU  countries 
for processing appear to play a determining role in potential added-value both for farmers 
and domestic food manufacturers. 

On  the  other  hand,  farmers  do  not  manage  to  keep  the  development  of  agricultural 
incomes  in  line  with  the  evolution  of  salaries  in  other  sectors  of  the  economy  (that  in 
particular the last years (2017-19) increased much faster28). While having caught up with 
the  average  national  wage  for  many  years,  over  the  last  years  (2014-18),  agricultural 
incomes  stabilised  at  barely  80 %  of  the  average  national  wage,  even  if  this  is  much 
higher than the EU average29.  

In terms of sectors where farmers in Hungary create most value, the crop sector generates 
62% of the agricultural output, in particular through cereals (25%), industrial crops and 
vegetables & horticulture. In the animal sector, poultry production (11 %) is the biggest 
contributor to Hungary’s agricultural output30. The share of agricultural products in total 
retail sales of packaged food is above the EU average (47% vs 40%)31.  

Along  the  FSC,  the  importance  of  discounters  is  relatively  high  in  Hungary32  and 
compared  to  other  Member  States  (MSs)  the  concentration  in  the  food  retail  sector  is 
fairly average (in 2012 the five largest retailers in the grocery sector had a market share 
of 67%, whereas in other MSs the ratio ranges from 19-76%)33. The concentration of the 
Hungarian food retail sector is high but does not exceed the EU average34.  

11 

 
 
Within the agricultural sector itself, there has been an ongoing concentration of holdings; 
the number and area of the smallest farms have decreased, while those of the larger farms 
increased.  Already  in  2005,  1.3%  of  the  largest  farms  (i.e.  those  having  at  least  50 
hectares)  cultivated  43%  of  Hungary’s  total  farm  area,  while  the  bulk  of  farms  (73%) 
cultivated only 5% of the total area35.  

One  way  for  farmers  to  improve  their  position  in  the  FSC  is  to  cooperate  in  producer 
organisations (POs). In 2017 there were 69 recognised POs in two agricultural sectors in 
Hungary, which makes 104 recognised POs per million holdings – versus an EU average 
of  254  recognised  POs  per  million  holdings.  Almost  half  of  the  POs  (30)  have  been 
recognised  since  2010,  and  almost  all  (64)  were  recognised  in  the  fruit  &  vegetables 
(F&V) sector. In the latter, no PO has an annual turnover over € 50 million, which means 
none is bigger than a small and medium-sized enterprise, and overall these POs add only 
19%  of  the  value  generated  in  the  F&V  sector  –  versus  an  EU  average  of  38%.  In 
Hungary there are also estimated to be at least 1 000 agricultural cooperatives, mostly not 
recognised as POs, with market shares in their respective sectors of around 20%, which is 
less  than  in  most  other  MSs36.    Hungary  has  also  recognised  9  IBOs  contributing  to  a 
higher degree of vertical cooperation in the chain.  

Hungary  has  specific  national  legislation  in  place  (that  is  only  applicable  towards 
retailers, though), to tackle UTPs through a general clause, empowers POs to participate 
in  the proceedings, and  has already led to  investigations.37  In Hungary,  food prices are 
15% below the EU average38, but producer prices increase in line with consumer prices 
and faster than the EU average39.  

By September 2020 in Hungary, 64 product names had been granted a GI under the EU 
quality schemes 40(1.8% of all GIs in the EU), of which 39 a PDO (2.1% of all PDOs in 
the EU – Italy and France together have 58%), mostly for wine and fruit, vegetables & 
cereals, followed by 8 spirits GIs,41. Hungary has notified its first national quality scheme 
in 2020. 

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

Primary production 

Food and beverage manufacturing 

Food and beverage distribution 

Food and beverage consumer services 

% for primary producers (right axis) 
Source: EUROSTAT 

% for primary producers – EU-27 

12 

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

sustainable energy 

Agriculture  is  one  of  the  major  sources  of  emissions  in  Hungary.  The  share  of 
agricultural  greenhouse  gases  (GHG)  is  12%  (2017),  close  to  the  EU  average42,and 
representing almost 2% of the EU total emission of non-CO2 GHG from agriculture. The 
total emissions of GHG from agriculture have been stagnating for the last two decades43, 
but  are  still  below  1990  level  by  28.4%.  There  is  an  upwards  trend  since  2010  that  is 
expected to continue increasing. This trend is partly due to an increase in fertiliser use. In 
terms of emissions of methane (CH4) and Nitrous oxide (N2O) expressed per hectare of 
utilised  agricultural  area  (UAA),  Hungary  is  ranked  27th  out  of  28  in  201844,  which 
reflects a low level of intensification of agricultural activities as well as a low density of 
livestock.  

In 2018, agricultural soils accounted for the majority of the agricultural GHG emissions 
with 52%, enteric fermentation accounted for 29%, and manure management for 15%45. 
Removals linked to land use, land use change and forestry have been stagnating the past 
10 years. 

Hungary showed an upward trend in the production of renewable energies (RE), which 
picked in 2013; since then production has decreased. In 2018the share of  production of 
RE is 17% for agriculture and 71% for forestry (that plays an important role in domestic 
climate regulation), well above the EU average for each sector (respectively 12.1% and 
41.4%)46.  In  contrast  7%  of  the  energy  used  in  agriculture/forestry  comes  from  RE47. 
Between 2009 and 2015, Hungary increased by more than 6% annually its consumption 
of energy use in the food industry. By 2030, Hungary intends to rely more on renewable 
energy  sources.  Still,  the  share  of  energy  consumption  by  agriculture  in  final  energy 
consumption48  has  slightly  increased  between  2007  and  201749.  In  2018,  the  respective 
share in total final energy consumption of Hungarian agriculture and forestry and of the 
direct use of energy in food processing is respectively 3.6% and 3.7% just above the EU-
27 average of 2.9% for both categories50. 

The  increasing  temperature  caused  by  climate  change  also  constitute  a  threat  for  the 
sector.  Around  400  thousand  hectares  of  agricultural  land  were  affected  by  damage 
caused by extreme weather conditions. The health status of the Hungarian forest stands is 
deteriorating,  their  age  and  species  composition  is  unfavourable,  forest  renewals  are 
protracted and their carbon sequestration capacity is reduced. Despite a recent increase, 
the  share  of  forest  in  the  country’s  total  surface  area  is  only  at  22%51.  Furthermore, 
peatland covers 3% of the Hungarian soil52. 

Under  the  Rural  Development  Programme,  Hungary  supported  resource  efficiency  and 
renewable  energy investments in  the agricultural and food sectors, invested in  resource 
efficient  water  use;  programmed  afforestation  of  25  000  hectares  and  invested  in 
greenhouse gas emission reduction. 

To  achieve  the  energy  efficiency  targets  set  by  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the  2030 
EU  Energy  and  Climate  Strategy,  the  Hungarian  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plan 
(NECP) aims to reduce GHG emissions by at least 40% by 2030 over the year 199053. In 
the  agricultural  sector,  this  translates  into  the  reduction  of  agricultural  emissions  with 
appropriate  practices  and  various  aid  schemes  and  the  rise  of  CO2  sink  capacities  that 
will  significantly  increase  the  share  of  areas  covered  by  forest  and  other  tree  stock 
consistently  with  the  National  Forest  Strategy.  Also,  Hungary’s  Renewable  Energy 

13 

 
 
Action  Plan  aims  at  enabling  the  country  to  reduce  its  current  energy  dependency  and 
increase the share of RE sources. 

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

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

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

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

2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air 

92% of the total reported ammonia emissions in Hungary in 2018 came from agricultural 
sources54. The level of ammonia emissions, after a strong decrease at the beginning of the 
90’s,  have  been  stagnating  and  even  increasing  since  201255  (71.5  kT  in  2018 
representing  more  than  90%  of  total),  while  other  pollutants  have  been  steadily 
decreasing. For both 2020-29 and for 2030 and beyond, Hungary is at high-risk of non-
compliance  with  the  emission  reduction  commitment  for  ammonia  under  the  NEC 
Directive56.  Regarding  sectors  involved,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  while  livestock  is 
responsible for an overwhelming share of agricultural emissions, the share of emissions 
from crop production is steadily increasing. In addition to the ammonia pollution, almost 
26%  of  the  total  reported  emissions  of  nitrogen  oxides  and  25%  of  the  total  reported 
emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds are from agriculture. 

In  general  the  level  of  soil  organic  carbon  of  Hungarian  soils,  that  is  of  strategic 
importance in Hungary because of the importance to climate change, water management 
and SWD, is quite low, with Hungary having a mean soil organic carbon content of 20.5 
g  kg-1  versus  an  EU  average  of  43.157.  Soil  organic  content  varies  across  the  regions, 
necessitating a differentiated approach per area to tackle the issue. 

Due to its geographical characteristics, Hungary is less prone to erosion, with agricultural 
areas  subject  to  moderate  to  severe  water  erosion  below  EU  average  (2.8%  of  areas 
versus 6.6% for the EU in 201658). Almost 42% of arable land is left bare during winter59 
and 89% of tillable area is  tilled conventionally60. Moving to  more sustainable farming 
practices  should  better  protect  soil  and  water  resources.  These  efforts  will  also  benefit 
from research under the forthcoming Horizon Europe mission on soil health and food. 

Regarding  the  nutrient  balance,  in  general  Hungarian  soils  are  subject  to  a  Nitrogen 
surplus  and  a  Phosphorus  deficit.  For  Nitrogen,  between  2010  and  2013  the  average 
surplus for Hungary stood at 34.8 kg nitrogen per hectare (kg N/ha). This rate, below the 
14 

 
 
 
EU  average  exceeding  50  kg,  is  subject  to  annual  variations  and  shows  an  increasing 
trend61. The nitrates concentration of both surface waters and groundwater is stagnating 
or slowly increasing62. For phosphorus the average deficit is steadily established at 1.5 kg 
P/ha, and is stable over time. In relation to the Water Framework Directive around 78% 
of surface waters are failing to achieve good status and around 8% of surface waters are 
failing to achieve good chemical status while 46% are in unknown chemical status. For 
groundwater around 20% are failing to achieve good quantitative status and around 21% 
are  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status.  The  most  significant  pressures  included 
physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  due  to  agriculture  and  diffuse 
agricultural  pollution  for  surface  waters  and  the  4th  most  significant  pressure  for 
groundwater is abstraction or flow diversion from agriculture. Better integration of water 
objectives in other policy areas such as agriculture, is needed to achieve the requirements 
of the WFD and synergies should be optimised with polices including the CAP. 

According to  the last  available data, 7% of the  monitoring stations in  groundwater and 
1.5%  of  the  monitoring  stations  in  surface  water  had  average  values  equal  to  or 
exceeding  50  mg  nitrate  per  L  during  the  reporting  period  (2012-2015).  The  share  of 
monitoring  stations  exceeding  this  limit  increased  since  2004  and  the  nitrates 
concentration  is  increasing  in  15%  of  groundwater  stations  and  24%  of  surface  water 
stations.  

Almost  half  of  Hungary’s  arable  land  is  to  various  degrees  inland-watered.  With  the 
projected  increase  of  extreme  precipitation  events,  in  line  with  the  Second  Climate 
Change  Strategy,  in  deep-lying,  regularly  inland-watered,  soil-defective  areas  arable 
cultivation practices should be adapted to cope with excess water. 

Water abstraction has been varying between 100 and 150 million m³, a figure that is low 
compared  to  Southern  countries  and  average  in  the  region.  Accordingly,  the  Water 
Exploitation Index is low and stands between 0 and 10 over the years63. According to last 
available data, the share of irrigation  in  water abstraction was low  at  2.6% [in  2012]64. 
The  share  of  irrigated  land  is  relatively  low  and  represents  2.6%  of  total  utilised 
agricultural area (below EU average), but shows a 6% increase over the 2010-16 period65 
(above EU average). The availability of water varies very much during the year.  

Overall, while the current situation with irrigation may be seen as satisfactory from the 
point  of  view  of  the  management  of  the  resource,  challenges  stemming  from  climate 
change and the high risk of further salinization of Hungarian soils will require adaptation.  

15 

 
 
 
 
Kg P/ha/year 
Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Hungary 

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

Source: EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services  and 

preserve habitats and landscapes 

The  situation  of  biodiversity  is  not  favourable  in  Hungary.  On  the  quantitative  side,  a 
slightly  above  EU  average  share  of  Hungarian  land  (21.4%  vs  19.8%),  and  farmland 
(14.8%  vs.  11.2%)  is  protected  by  Natura  200066,  most  of  which  are  covered  by 
management plans67, that set the framework for farming activity in the area.  

The  state  of  biodiversity,  however,  appears  to  be  continuously  worsening.  High-nature 
value farmland is continuously decreasing68. Similarly, the latest 2013-2018 reporting on 
the  status  and  trends  of  bird  populations  while  indicating  some  improvements  in  long 
term  trends,  also  showed  an  equal  proportion  of  decreasing  short  term  trends  (14% 
compared to 19% in the previous 2008-2012 report). For arable land, the Farmland Bird 
Index  shows  a  continuous,  albeit  slowing  decline69  from  100  to  76.06  between  2000-
2018  (e.g.  skylarks  and  grey  partridge  with  50%  decline,  and  turtle  doves  with  25% 
drop),  particularly  pronounced  for  migratory  birds  subject  to  multiple  threats  some  of 
which can be partly addressed via the CAP (e.g. climate change) and some are out of its 
scope  (hunting  during  migration  route).  According  to  the  reporting  on  the  conservation 
status  and  trends  of  species  and  habitats  under  the  EU  Habitats  Directive  (2013-2018), 
none  of  the  grassland  habitat  types  present  in  Hungary  are  currently  in  favourable 
conservation status  and only about 13% of the habitats and 35% of the species were in 
favourable  status  in  2013-2018,  based  on  their  assessments70.  Landscape  features  in 
Hungary  have  been  actively  removed  to  facilitate  agriculture  and  today  the  share  of 
fallow land (3%) and landscape features (0,4%) in agricultural area is below EU average 
(respectively  4.1  and  0.5%)71.  The  decreasing  trend  should  be  reversed  to  achieve  the 
biodiversity  strategy  objective  of  at  least  10%  of  agricultural  area  under  high-diversity 
landscape  features  by  2030.  Similarly,  due  to  the  continuously  shrinking  wetland  area, 
wetlands conservation and restoration measures should also have more focus. 

For forests, the picture is slightly more positive. In 2020 22.7% of Hungary’s area was 
covered  by  forests,  which  is  below  the  EU  average.  A  large  share  of  forest  areas  are 
protected by Natura 2000 (43.2% vs. 31% for EU)72. Hungary belongs to those countries 
where  all forests are  covered by management plans and actions such  as close to  nature 
forestry  are  actively  promoted.  Hungary  is  also  using  rural  development  measures  to 
expand  forest  area  and  improve  quality.  Despite  these  positive  elements,  the  state  of  a 

16 

 
 
number  of  forest  habitats  which  are  covered  by  Annex  1  of  the  Habitats  Directive 
92/43/EEC and species is not satisfactory73, with only 8% of habitats in good condition.  

As  regards  pressures  leading  to  this  status,  over  40%  of  habitats  assessments  and  over 
47% of species assessment are affected by agriculture (improper land use practices, over- 
or undergrazing or not timely mowing, land use change, invasive species and change of 
water  regime  and fragmentation), and  respectively over 44%  and over 41% by forestry 
activities  (unsustainable  forest  practices).  These  highlight  the  impact  of  agricultural 
intensification74,  (though  Hungary  still  remains  below  EU  average75),  combined  with 
other factors such as climate change. 

Whereas the area under organic farming was rather stagnating in Hungary between 2005 
and  2015,  it  displayed  a  very  significant  increase  of  44%  between  2015  and  2016 
(Figure 3) and is almost 6% of UAA in 201976. The share of UAA under conversion was 
high  in  2016  and  2017  but  declined  in  2018  and  should  be  increased  again  in  order  to 
maintain  growth.  The  number  of  organic  farmers  registered  in  Hungary  also  increased 
during that period, doubling between 2016 and 2018 (from 1672 farmers in 2016 to 3414 
in 2018). The Rural development supported the conversion and maintenance of 110 000 
ha  of  organic  land  during  the  programming  periods  2014-2020.  Organic  livestock 
production  is  still  very  low  and  less  pronounced.  There  was  no  significant  increase  in 
organic livestock, but rather a decrease between 2014 and 2018 with exception of poultry 
that increased by 80 per cent.  

The underdeveloped domestic market and demand for organic fruits and vegetables and 
the  lack  of  processing  capacity  have  favoured  the  predominance  of  arable  crops 
production, mainly cereals, oleaginous crops and forage crops. The products are mainly 
intended  for  export  in  bulk  without  processing  and  it  can  be  stored  for  a  long  time 
without  degradation  and  transported  in  large  quantities,  easily,  and  many  integrator 
organisations  are active in  their production and wholesale. The production of cereals  is 
also facilitated by a higher level of know-how among farmers.  

The  infrastructure  dedicated  exclusively  to  organic  farming  lacks  integration  (producer 
organisations, processors’ cooperation, etc.), the cooperation of farms is still inadequate. 
However,  a  vocational  education  of  organic  farming  at  university  and  secondary  level 
education  has  been  developed,  and  teaching  materials  have  been  produced  that  are 
suitable for the transfer of basic knowledge. 

Area under organic farming in Hungary 

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

% of agricultural area under organic farming in Hungary 

Source: EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

17 

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

Fallow land as % of agricultural area 

Landscape features as % of agricultural area 

Source: DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey. 
* 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 

The agricultural sector in Hungary is characterised by an ageing farming population. 
In  2016,  more  than  half  (58.1%)  of  all  farm  managers  are  older  than  55  years  in 
Hungary, while only 6% of farmers are younger than 35 years (the ratio  of young to 
elderly farmers is 0.10)77. The share of young farm managers is decreasing since 2005, 
therefore there is  an urgent  need for generational  renewal.  The percentage of female 
young farmers is increasing over the years. In 2019 27% of the farmers were women, 
which is slightly below the EU average (29%)  

Access  to  agricultural  land  is  one  of  the  main  barriers  faced  by  young  farmers  in 
Hungary, given the limited availability and high prices of the land for sale or rent. The 
average economic and physical farm size for young farmers in Hungary has doubled 
size since 2005, reaching an average of 12 ha; but is still far from other EU countries 
where young farmers tend to have bigger and more specialized farms. Young farmers 
also encounter administrative barriers stemming from national legislation that creates 
difficulties in the access to land, especially on the handovers.78  

Young  farmers  and  new  entrants  face  serious  difficulties  when  trying  to  access  to 
capital. The main reason is their lack of business data and credit history in addition to 
the limited assets that could be used as collateral and no land that can be mortgaged. 
Young  farmers  taking  over  existing  farms  have  better  chances  to  obtain  loans  since 
credit institutions are financed on a cash flow basis rather than collaterals. The main 
problem remains in long term financing needed for the initial investments for setting-
up the business79. Low attractiveness and low level of income of the farming sector (at 
76.7% of the average wage) also acts as an obstacle for young farmers in Hungary. 

Access  to  knowledge  is  another  of  the  main  challenges  faced  by  the  young  farmers. 
Hungary  is  among  the  countries  in  which  the  agricultural  training  of  young  farm 
managers is the lowest. The share is increasing over the years but is much below the 
EU average, especially when referring to full agricultural training (8% in Hungary vs 
21% in EU)80. 

Hungary  is  already  implementing  different  instruments  under  the  CAP  to  encourage 
generational  renewal  in  the  agricultural  sector.  Under  the  first  pillar,  Hungary  has 

18 

 
 
 
earmarked 0.4% of the national ceiling for direct payments to the payment for young 
farmers  in  each  year  since  2016,  though  the  actual  expenditure  was  higher  (0.9%  in 
2018). This financed 68 EUR/ha in annual support for 9-11 000 young farmers, each 
with  19-21  ha  on  average81.  Furthermore,  the  Rural  Development  Programme  is 
supporting the start-up of 3 000 young farmers. 

Economic  activity  is  low  in  rural  areas:  GDP  per  capita  (PPS/inhabitant)  stands  at 
EUR  12  331  in  rural  regions  (vs.  EUR 20  067  in  the  EU  and  EUR  38  677  in  urban 
areas). Agriculture still plays a significant role in the economy with 4,2 % of GDP, but 
its impact in rural  economy and employment is slowly declining. Basic services and 
infrastructures are often  missing or of poor quality in  rural Hungary, conditions that 
are important for ensuring generational renewal and local development82 and to attract 
young people in rural areas and in  farming.  In 2016, 9 891 business were created in 
rural areas following a growing trend in the latest years83. 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Hungary 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

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

Source: EUROSTAT  

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

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

According to Eurostat definitions, 28%84 of the Hungarian territory is rural. 18.7 % of the 
population lives in rural areas; and a high share 63.4% in intermediate regions85. 

The agricultural sector, that concentrates an overwhelming share of CAP payments, still 
plays a significant economic role in Hungary with a GDP contribution of 4.2%86 (much 
above the EU average of 1.8%), but its labour contribution is rather limited at 4% (EU 
average).  The  employment  rate  is  increasing  in  rural  areas,  the  primary  sector  still 
represents  11.2%  of  the  employment  in  rural  areas  (slightly  below  the  EU  average  at 
12.7%).  The  proportion  of  women  farmers  is  at  27%,  slightly  below  the  EU  average 
(28%)87. 

Most  farms  are  of  very  low  economic  size,  with  more  than  80%  of  them  below  EUR 
8000  of  standard  output.  60%  of  Hungarian  agricultural  holdings  do  not  receive  direct 
payments (well above the EU average at 40%)88.  

Hungary  programmed  about  7%  of  the  RDP  budget  on  basic  services  development  in 
rural  areas  and the minimum  spending was programmed on  LEADER  (5%). Currently, 
LEADER covers 66% of the rural territory with around 100 Local action groups. Local 
action groups have at their disposal a rather low budget therefore can contribute only to a 
limited extent to rural areas’ development.  

19 

 
 
In  rural  areas,  the  poverty  rate  shows  good  trends,  however  is  much  higher  at  23.3%89 
than  in  cities  at  14.9%  and  especially  high  in  some  rural  counties.  The  GDP  per 
inhabitant  in  purchasing  power  standard  compared  to  EU27  average  in  rural  areas  is 
especially  low  and  has  been  no  real  improvement  since  2006,  while  in  cities  it  is  well 
above  the  EU27  average.  The  rural  population  has  decreased  by  2.7%  since  2015, 
population  density  has  slightly  decreased  since  2013  (at  74/km²  in  2016)  and 
outmigration is especially high among active women (their share in the rural population 
has  reduced  by  6%  between  2015-2019  for  the  age  group  15-64  years).  Ageing  is  an 
issue as the share of elderly people in rural population increased by 10% for men and by 
6%  for  women.90  Youth  unemployment  in  rural  areas  is  around  10%.  The  female 
employment rate in rural areas has increased to 60% (a positive trends), but is still well 
below the male employment rate (75%)91. The female unemployment rate is around 6%, 
meaning that still a large share of women in active age, is neither in employment nor in 
unemployment. It could indicate an important share of non-recognised labour of women 
(for  example  on  farm,  caring  about  elderly,  disabled  and  children  at  home  etc.)  that 
increases  their  risk  of  vulnerability.  According  to  estimations,  the  Roma  population 
represents  between  300  000  and  900  000  persons  with  half  of  them  living  in  rural 
villages, often in the poorest part of the country. 1/3 are below 15 years old and only 1/5 
are  above  60  years  old.  Combined  with  the  high  poverty  rate,  children  and  young  are 
under  specific  vulnerability  risk  among  the  Roma.  The  educational  level  of  Roma  is 
lower than in the rest of the population (80% has only primary educational level.). Their 
unemployment rate is especially high, however trends are positive mainly due to public 
work schemes. The Roma represent an important vulnerable group in rural areas, but also 
an  opportunity  in  response  to  demands  in  terms  of  workforce,  also  in  the  agricultural, 
food and forestry sectors. 

In  view  of  the  geographical  composition  of  the  country,  remoteness  of  rural  areas,  in 
principle  should  not  be  a  major  challenge.  However  connectivity  is  an  issue  for 
homesteads and villages located in poorer rural territories, even when those villages are 
located  in  well  performing  regions.  In  several  counties,  rural  areas  are  facing  lack  of 
access  to  basic  infrastructures  and  services  creating  a  feeling  of  remoteness  and  letting 
aside. 

The bio–economy employs 390 000 people in Hungary, mainly in the agricultural sector, 
followed by the food sector. From an economic point of view, the food sector is by far 
the  most  important  sector  in  the  bio-economy  with  46%  of  the  turnover,  followed  by 
agriculture (28%). The economic and employment trends are positive but remain at low 
levels. In 2015, the labour productivity of the bio-economy was much lower in Hungary 
(EUR 67 300 per person) than in the EU-27 (EUR 119 000 per person) and, unlike it, had 
decreased since 200892. 

The  productivity  of  the  forestry  sector  is  rather  low  and  decreasing.  The  number  of 
person employed in forestry is low at 0.56% and has slightly decreased since 2013 (from 
0.6%). Hungary is now investing a lot in new afforestation with the support of the current 
RDP and there is a clear political national objective to improve the forestry sector. 

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. 

Ensuring the safety of pesticides and controls  on their use is  paramount for sustainable 
food  production.  In  this  regard,  the  evolution  of  the  overall  weighted  index  for  both 

20 

 
 
Harmonised  Risk  Indicators  provide  important  information:  HR193  has  remained  stable 
over the last number of years and has shown a marked decrease for 2018; the evolution 
of HRI2 has also exhibited a downward trend. Despite this the sales of more hazardous 
pesticides is high and a stable percentage of total sales over this period 

An  audit  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  on  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides, 
carried out in 2018 by DG SANTE94, identified a number of weaknesses. Like in many 
other MS, the National Action Plan (NAP) covering the period 2013-2017 lacked overall 
quantitative  objectives  and  quantifiable  targets  making  it  impossible  to  demonstrate 
progress  towards meeting the objectives  of the  Directive.  In addition,  the NAP had not 
been reviewed within a five-year period, as required by the Directive. 

There were important areas, where further action is needed to meet the requirements of 
the Directive95. In particular, this concerns aerial spraying (verification of the conditions 
for  granting  derogations  for  aerial  spraying),  inspection  of  pesticide  application 
equipment  (the  control  system  was  established  but  there  is  no  legal  obligation  for 
implementation  of  Integrated  Pest 
inspection 
Management.  The  overall  challenge  for  Hungary  now  will  be  to  maintain  the  positive 
trend in order to meet the targets from the Farm to Fork strategy. 

in  Hungary)  and 

to  control 

the 

Antimicrobial  resistance  (AMR)  linked  to  the  excessive  and  inappropriate  use  of 
antimicrobials  in  animal  and  human  healthcare  should  be  especially  prioritised  as 
Hungary  is  amongst  the  EU  Member  States  that  have  higher  sales  of  veterinary 
antimicrobial agents at 180,6 mg/PCU in 201896. 

Hungary, with 150.2 tonnes of sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 2018, is above 
the EU average 118.3 mg/PCU and the fifth highest of the EU-27. Hungarian livestock 
keepers  use  high  levels  of  polymyxin  (10.1  mg/PCU,  third  highest  in  EU)  and 
fluoroquinolone antimicrobials (10.8 mg/PCU, second highest). The use of generation 3-
4 cephalosporins is subdued in Hungary as in other Member States although Hungary is 
among  the  highest  specific  consumers  in  the  EU  with  0.5  mg/PCU.  During  the  survey 
conducted  by  NAIK  AKI  on  the  use  of  antibiotics  in  2019,  farmers  indicated  in  the 
questionnaire  that  antibiotics  are  routinely  used  prophylactically  for  the  purpose  of 
prevention irrespectively of the animal species. The high proportion of preventive stock 
management is also confirmed by the fact that the Hungarian data transmitted to ESVAC 
show a high use of tetracycline and penicillin with extended spectrum. 

Hungary  currently  has  4  animal  welfare  programs  (Animal  welfare  aid  for  poultry,  for 
pigs, for breeding sows and for breeding poultry). 

Based  on  the  audit  carried  out  in  2019  by  DG  SANTE97  it  was  concluded  that  the 
Hungarian  authorities  and  the  pig  sector  have  taken  no  tangible  actions  to  reduce  tail 
biting  and  avoid  routine  tail  docking  of  pigs,  which  is  still  regularly  carried  out 
throughout the country. Hungary was not in a position to justify the ongoing routine tail-
docking  of  95%  of  pigs.  Therefore,  further  incentives  are  needed  to  improve  the 
conditions on-farm in order to decrease the number of tail docked pigs.  

Biosecurity  is  equally  a  challenge,  considering  that  Hungary  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. 

Hungary  has  a  very  high  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  due  to  dietary  risk 
factors  expressed  as  disability-adjusted  life  years  (DALYs)  per  100,000  population98. 

21 

 
 
The  value  of  DALYs  is  influenced  by  a  number  of  risk  factors,  which  include  besides 
diet,  tobacco  and  alcohol  consumption, insufficient  physical  activity  and  corpulence.  A 
very high part of Hungary’s population is overweight or obese99. Efforts should focus on 
shifting  towards  healthy  sustainable  diets,  in  line  with  national  recommendations,  in 
order  to  contribute  to  reducing  overweight  and  obesity  rates  and  the  incidence  of  non-
communicable  diseases  while  simultaneously  improving  the  overall  environmental 
impact of the food system. This would include moving to  a more plant based diet with 
less  red  and  processed  meat  (the  estimated  consumption  of  which  is  very  high  in 
Hungary100)  and  more  fruits  and  vegetables,  whole  grains,  legumes,  nuts  and  seeds,  as 
this could contribute to healthy and more sustainable diets. 

Although estimates exist for Hungary, there is no officially measured or collected data on 
the  magnitude  of  food  waste,  except  for  households101.  It  could  be  expected  that 
appropriate  coverage  of  food  loss  and  waste  in  agriculture  will  be  included  in  the  new 
national  food  waste  prevention  programme  as  required  by  Article  29(2a)  of  the  Waste 
Framework  Directive  2008/98/EC.  The  current  programme  covers  2014-2020  and  does 
not adequately address food waste from primary production of food. 

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU in Hungary 

EU-27 

HRI 1 in Hungary 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

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

Source: EUROSTAT [aei_hri] 

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

Some parts of the Hungarian agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) are 
well  organised  and  coordinated.  The  Hungarian  Chamber  of  Agriculture  operates  farm 
advisory,  information  and  education  services  with  a  strong  network  of  Interbranch 
Organisations  (IBOs),  representing  the  most  important  agri-food  supply  chains  of 
Hungary  (e.g.  milk,  poultry,  pig,  cereals,  fruit  &  vegetable).  The  education  sector 
includes  six,  mainly  agricultural,  horticultural  and  veterinary  universities  and  forty-six 
vocational schools. The agricultural applied research sector is mainly concentrated in the 
National  Agricultural  and  Innovation  Center,  operating  through  a  network  of  diverse 
institutions located across the country. To ensure dissemination, several initiatives were 
taken.  A  European  Innovation  Partnership  (EIP-AGRI)  website  was  launched  in  2016, 
offering  potential  Operational  Groups  possibilities  to  present  ideas  and  results  on 
progress  of  projects.  There  is  an  informal  AKIS  working  group  in  place  since  2017  to 
discuss knowledge and innovation challenges, share experiences, and strengthen the links 
between actors. There are a few agri-food related clusters in Hungary. 

The number of people employed in Network Support Units (both at national level and in 
regional  antennas)  is  low  as  compared  to  other  Member  States102.  There  is  no  data 
22 

 
 
 
available  on  the  budget  of  the  National  Rural  Network.  EIP-AGRI  Operational  Groups 
have been selected and started to implement innovative projects, but concrete results are 
not  reported  yet.  Hungary  could  improve  the  accessibility  of  agricultural  data  for 
researchers and policy makers. 

Overall,  while  the  structures  appear  to  be  solid,  the  Hungarian  AKIS  is  still  relatively 
weak and somewhat fragmented. Hence, the cooperation between different parts could be 
further improved103, and also the synergies between the CAP and the European Research 
Area could be strengthened.  

Hungary  has  not  yet  opted  for  the  use  of  satellite-based  means  to  monitor  CAP 
implementation and is currently not part of EU projects dealing with the uptake of new 
technologies for the modernisation of CAP. 

Under  the  current  rural  development  programme,  Hungary  planned  slightly  higher 
amounts  on  knowledge  transfer  (1.4%)  and  advisory  services  (1.1%)  than  EU  average. 
However,  the  budget  is  rather  limited  and  mainly  targets  the  rural  development 
implementation. Moreover, actual expenditure has been limited, with 45% for knowledge 
transfer (second quarter of 2020) and no expenditure at all for advisory services and EIP 
Operational Groups. The total budget planned for all knowledge and innovation measures 
under the RDP was around the EU average. 

Training of farm managers- split by age category and type of 
training for 2013 and 2016 

160.000

140.000

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0

From 25 to
65 years or
   25 - 34         35 - 44         45 - 54        55 - 64            65+ 
over
34 years

From 35 to
44 years

From 45 to
54 years

From 55 to
64 years

From 25 to
65 years or
From 45 to
   25 - 34         35 - 44         45 - 54         55 - 64           65+ 
over
54 years
34 years

From 55 to
64 years

From 35 to
44 years

2013

2016

Basic training
Basic training 

Practical experience only
Pratical experience only 

Full agricultural training
Full agricultural training 

Source: EUROSTAT. [ef_mp_training]. 

Hungarian farmers level of education and knowledge is lower that the EU average. 79% 
of the farmers have only practical experience (EU 68%), 17% have basic training skills 
(EU 23%) and only 4% have full agricultural training (EU 9%)104. The share of women is 
especially  high  in  the  category  “only  practical  experience”.  Rural  areas  are  generally 
characterised by lower levels of education. The Young NEET rate (Young people neither 
in employment, nor in education or training aged 15-24) is higher in rural areas (at 15%), 
and is especially high for young women (19%). The ratio of early leavers form education 
and  training  between  18  and  24  years  old  is  much  higher  in  rural  areas  (18%)  than  in 

23 

 
 
cities  (6%).  26,9%  of  the  rural  population  has  less  than  primary,  primary  and  lower 
secondary education (8.9% in cities), and only 11.7% has tertiary education (compared to 
39% in cities).  

Innovation is also a challenge, as research and development (R&D) intensity in Hungary 
is rather low at 1.53% of GDP (compared to 2.12% in the EU) and especially low in the 
agricultural sector (only 1.3% of the total expenditure and from this amount only 21.5% 
is dedicated to applied research). 

R&D is concentrated in Budapest (61.2%). Resources for R&D are in majority from the 
private sector (52%) and 53% in companies with more than 500 employees105. Under the 
current rural development programme, Hungary programmed slightly lower amounts for 
cooperation  projects  (1.3%)  than  EU  average  (1.7%).  Such  expenditure  on  cooperation 
can  specifically  aid  the  planned  70  EIP-AGRI  groups  and  400  cooperation  projects, 
however, as mentioned before, implementation is limited.  

Fast  broadband  internet  access  is  key  to  rural  innovation.  Next  generation  broadband 
coverage in rural areas is at 80%. This is the result of a positive trend, but 20% of rural 
households do not yet have access to high speed internet. When it comes to digital skills, 
Hungary is among the worst performers as only 20% of the population has internet user 
skills. According to DESI 2020 report, the socio–demographic aspects are essential: the 
elderly, inactive, less educated are digitally more vulnerable. 

Broadband coverage in Hungary 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

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

24 

 
 
 
 
1   Greifswald Mire Centre: Peatlands in the  EU Common  Agriculture Policy (CAP) after 2020 Position 

Paper (2020) 
https://www.greifswaldmoor.de/files/dokumente/Infopapiere_Briefings/202003_CAP%20Policy%20Br
ief%20Peatlands%20in%20the%20new%20EU%20Version%204.8.pdf  

2   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Common  Agriculture  Policy  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. 

3   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Common  Agriculture  Policy  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. 

4    Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development.  CAP context indicator C.25 Agricultural 

factor income. Based on EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06]. 

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

to 2018). 

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

to 2018). 

7   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on Member State 

notifications via ISAMM. 

8   CAP indicator dashboard:  CAP indicator dashboard:  CAP indicator dashboard:  Directorate General 
for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on  CATS  (Clearance  of  Accounts 
trailing System) data (2015-2017). CAP result indicator R6 Redistribution to smaller farms. 

9   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on  CATS 

(Clearance of Accounts Trailing System) data (up to 2017). 

10   According to the FADN definition, the  “economic  size” of an agricultural holding is  measured based 
upon its total Standard Output (expressed in euro), i.e. the standard value of its agricultural output. 
11   Data  with  regard  to  physical  size:  Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own 
calculations based on FADN data (up to 2018); data with regard to economic size: Farm Accountancy 
Data Network. FADN Standard reports. YEAR.COUNTRY.SIZ6 and own calculations (up to 2018). 
12   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.TF14  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018). 

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

calculations (up to 2018). 

14   European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  ECORYS, 

Wageningen Economic Research; 24/08/2018, Study on risk management in EU agriculture 

15   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Common  Agriculture  Policy  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. 
Statistical 

16   European 

Commission. 

September 

Factsheet 

Hungary. 

2019, 

– 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agri-statistical-
factsheet-hu_en.pdf 

17   Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Hungary, Fi-Compass, June 2020, p.55 

https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Hungary.pdf 

18   Hungary statistical factsheet, June 2020, p.2 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agri-statistical-
factsheet-hu_en.pdf  

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg] 

20   It should be noted that this average value is based on land ownership data. Many farms are much larger 

than this, but rent most of their land. 

25 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg] 
European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.18  Agricultural  area.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[apro_cpsh1] 
European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.21  Livestock  units.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[ef_lsk_main], [ef_lsk_poultry], [ef_lsk_bovine] and [ef_lus_main]. 
European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 
EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg] 
European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.18  Agricultural  area.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[apro_cpsh1] 
European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.21  Livestock  units.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[ef_lsk_main], [ef_lsk_poultry], [ef_lsk_bovine] and [ef_lus_main]. 
European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 
EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

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

EUROSTAT [aact_eaa01] and [aact_ali01] 

24   Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Hungary, Fi-Compass, June 2020, p.13 

https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Hungary.pdf 

25   Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Hungary, Fi-Compass, June 2020, p.11 

https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Hungary.pdf  

26   European Commission.https://europa.eu/!Pj64rj  
27   European Commission. https://europa.eu/!Pj64rj  
28   European 
Commission. 

Statistical 

Factsheet 

– 

Hungary. 

June 

2020, 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agri-statistical-
factsheet-hu_en.pdf  

29   European 

Commission. 

Statistical 

Factsheet 

– 

Hungary. 

June 

2020, 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agri-statistical-
factsheet-hu_en.pdf 

30   European 

Commission. 

Statistical 

Factsheet 

– 

Hungary. 

June 

2020, 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agri-statistical-
factsheet-hu_en.pdf  

31   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Impact  assessment.  Initiative  to 

improve the food supply chain (unfair trading practices) https://europa.eu/!rX64CX 

32   OCDE. Competition Issues in the Food Chain Industry 2013https://oe.cd/39q  
33   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Market  transparency  in  the  EU's  food 

supply chain Accompanying the document https://europa.eu/!NY67fH  

34   Potori,  Norbert  and  Chmieliński,  Paweł  and  Fieldsend,  Andrew  F.  (eds);  Potori,  Norbert  and 
Chmieliński, Paweł and Karwat-Woźniak, Bożena and Biró, Szabolcs and Wasilewski, Adam and Tóth, 
Orsolya  and  Fogarasi,  József  and  Wieliczko,  Barbara  and  Wigier,  Marek  and  Tóth,  Kristóf  and 
Lámfalusi, Ibolya and Pawłowska-Tyszko, Joanna and Floriańczyk, Zbigniew and Székely, Erika and 
Fieldsend,  Andrew  F.  and  Kemény,  Gábor  and  Klimkowski,  Cezary  and  Varga,  Tibor  and  Jankuné 
Kürthy, Gyöngyi and Hamulczuk, Mariusz and Dudás, Gyula and Felkai, Beáta Olga and Juhász, Anikó 
and  Szabó,  Dorottya  and  Nagy,  László  and  Hryszko,  Krzysztof  and  Rycombel,  Danuta  and  Szajner, 
Piotr and Vőneki, Éva and Ehretné Berczi, Ildikó and Bugała, Anna and Nosecka, Bożena and Németh, 
Szilvia and Garay,  Róbert and Szczepaniak, Iwona  and Mroczek, Robert and Vágó, Szabolcs (2014): 
Structural  changes  in  Polish  and  Hungarian  agriculture  since  EU  accession:  lessons  learned  and 
implications  for  the  design  of  future  agricultural  policies.  Agrárgazdasági  Kutató  Intézet,  Budapest. 
ISBN 978-963-491-588-1 http://repo.aki.gov.hu/id/eprint/283  

35   Burger, A. The Situation of Hungarian Agriculture. 2019 https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.90651  
36   Arcadia International E.E.I.G , Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (European 
Commission)  ,  EZ  Study  of  the  best  ways  for  producer  organisations  to  be  formed,  carry  out  their 
activities and be supported, 2019 http://doi.org/10.2762/034412  

37   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Impact  assessment.  Initiative  to 

improve the food supply chain (unfair trading practices) https://europa.eu/!rX64CX  

38   Eurostat. https://europa.eu/!Ht94Cf  
39   Food price monitoring tool https://europa.eu/!BX43Dw  

26 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
40   eAmbrosia  – 

the  EU  geographical 

indications  register:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-

fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-labels/geographical-indications-register/#  

41   European Commission. https://europa.eu/!Pj64rj  
42   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.45 Emissions from agriculture. Based on EUROSTAT 

[env_air_emis], original source European Environmental Agency (UNFCC_v22)  
43   https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_air_gge&lang=en 
44   EUROSTAT https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/16817.pdf  
45   https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer  
46   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 

47   European 

Commission. 

Statistical 

Factsheet 

– 

Hungary. 

June 

2020, 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agri-statistical-
factsheet-hu_en.pdf 

48   Eurostat 

(nrg_bal_s) 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-

environmental_indicator_-_energy_use#Analysis_at_EU_and_country_level  

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

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

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

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

51   https://fra-platform.herokuapp.com/HUN/assessment/fra2020/extentOfForest/  
52   European 

Joint 
https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/octop/Resources/Peatland_Per_Country.pdf    

Commission. 

Research 

Centre 

53   National 

Energy 

and 

Climate 

(JRC) 

Plan 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/hu_final_necp_main_en.pdf  

54   European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA)  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-

directive-data-viewer-3 

55   European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA)  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-

pollutant-emissions-data-viewer-3  

56   Report form the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the progress made on the 
implementation  of  Directive  (EU)  2016/2284  on  the  reduction  of  national  emissions  of  certain 
atmospheric 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1596794534116&uri=CELEX:52020DC0266  

COM(2020) 

pollutants, 

final: 

266 

57   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.39  Water  abstraction  in  agriculture.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [env_wat_abs] 

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

Research Center 

59   EUROSTAT 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-

environmental_indicator_-_soil_cover  

60   EUROSTAT 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-

environmental_indicator_-_tillage_practices  

61   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 

62   SWD accompanying the report on the implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the 

protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources 

63   European Environmental Agency (EEA) https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/explore-interactive-

maps/water-exploitation-index-for-river-2  

64   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.39  Water  abstraction  in  agriculture.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [env_wat_abs]  

65   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.18  Agricultural  area.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[apro_cpsh1] 

66   European Commission. Prioritised Action Frameworkd (PAF) for Natura 20000 in Hungary  
67   European Commission. Prioritised Action Frameworkd (PAF) for Natura 20000 in Hungary  
68   European Environmental Agency (EEA) https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/loss-of-hnv-

farmland-due  

69   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.35  Farmland  birds  index  (FBI).  As  in  EUROSTAT 

[env_bio2], original source: EBCC, BirdLife, RSPB and CSO 

70   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.36  Conservation  status  of  agricultural  habitats. 

Original source: European Environmental Agency 

27 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
71   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  Eurostat  and  JRC  based  on 

LUCAS survey 

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

Barometer and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018 

73   National Biodiversity Strategy  
74   National Biodiversity Strategy  
75   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.33  Farming  intensity.  Based  on  FADN  –Agri-

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification” 

76   Eurostat [ORG_CROPAR] 
77   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

78   Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Hungary, Fi-Compass, June 2020, p.55 

https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Hungary.pdf 

79   Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Hungary, Fi-Compass, June 2020, p.55 

https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Hungary.pdf 
80   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

81   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on Member State 

notifications via ISAMM. 

82   https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cmef/rural-
areas/impact-common-agricultural-policy-generational-renewal-local-development-and-jobs-rural-
areas_en  
83   EUROSTAT 
84   Hungarian Rural Development Plan (HU RDP) 2014-2020. According to the HU definition used in the 
programming period 2014-2020: 91% of the territory is rural and 45% of the population lives in rural 
territories.  

85   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.01  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[demo_r_gind3] 

86   European 

Commission. 

Statistical 

Factsheet 

– 

Hungary. 

June 

2020, 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agri-statistical-
factsheet-hu_en.pdf  

87   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 
88   European 

Commission. 

Statistical 

Factsheet 

– 

Hungary. 

June 

2020, 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agri-statistical-
factsheet-hu_en.pdf 

89   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.09 Poverty rate. Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps11] 
90   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.02  Age  structure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[demo_r_pjanaggr3] 

91   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.07  Unemployment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_lfu3rt] 

92   European Commission. Turnover per person employed in the bio-economy in 2008 and 2015- HU rural 
factsheet  based  on  https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html  Joint 
Research Center (JRC) 

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

As in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51] 
report 

SANTE 

94   DG 

No. 

2018-6363: 

https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-

analysis/country_profiles/details.cfm?co_id=HU 

95   DG 

SANTE 

report 

No. 

2018-6363: 

https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-

analysis/country_profiles/details.cfm?co_id=HU 

96   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. 

97   DG 

SANTE 

report 

No. 

2019-6604: 

https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-

analysis/country_profiles/details.cfm?co_id=HU 

98   https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden 
99   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_02_10/default/table?lang=en  
100  Defined as beef, lamb and pork, 234,18g/per capita/d, net of waste in the EU 2010. GBD study 2017 

and M. Springmann. 

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
101  Dedicated 

organized 
website 
https://www.eljmaradektalanul.hu/  

by 

the 

National 

Food 

Chain 

Safety  Office, 

102  ENRD. Working Document – final version - Y5 RDP Screening on NRN programming and action plans 
2020, page 6, https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/y5_rdp_screening_nrns_summary_report.pdf  
103  Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR). 4th Report of the Strategic Working Group on 

Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Innovation  Systems  (AKIS)  –  Preparing  for  future  AKIS  in  Europe, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/report-
preparing-for-future-akis-in-europe_en.pdf)  

104  EUROSTAT. [ef_mp_training].  
105  Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH) [6.3.4.1. Kutató-fejlesztő helyek] 

29