COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Lithuania'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, Lithuania, 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) 395 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Lithuania'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) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LITHUANIA’S CAP 

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

1.1  Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring 

food security ................................................................................................. 2 

1.2  Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the 

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

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

societal concerns .......................................................................................... 4 

1.4  Fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation and digitalisation in 

agriculture and rural areas, and encouraging their uptake .................... 5 

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

2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 

LITHUANIA ......................................................................................................... 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 ........................ 9 

2.3 

Improve farmers' position in the value chain ......................................... 10 

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

sustainable energy ..................................................................................... 12 

2.5  Foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural 

resources such as water, soil and air ....................................................... 13 

2.6  Contribute to the protection of biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services 
and preserve habitats and landscapes ..................................................... 15 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural 

areas ............................................................................................................ 17 

2.8  Promote employment, growth, social inclusion and local development 

in rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry........... 18 

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 ........................................................................................... 19 

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation .. 21 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  LITHUANIA’S  CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN 

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

Lithuanian’s transition towards more resilient and sustainable food systems in line with 
the  Green  Deal  and  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  targets  will  require  certain  socioeconomic 
changes.  In  Lithuania,  the  share  in  gross  value  added  and  the  employment  rate  in  the 
agricultural  sector  are  higher  than  the  EU  average,  but  this  situation  is  offset  by  the 
trends  in  factor  income,  which  for  Lithuanian  farmers  stands  at  only  a  third  of  the  EU 
average, with significant differences between farms of different sizes. While productivity 
and  income  in  2005-2018  were  increasing,  convergence  with  the  EU  average  has  been 
slow  and  there  are  signs  of  over-reliance  on  area-based  public  aid.  While  investments 
have been increasing, land productivity did not follow as expected. This might indicate 
the need for further improvement of the production systems.  

Lithuania is one of the EU Member States where CAP and national support schemes play 
a  key  role  and  have  a  high  share  (above  the  EU  average)  in  entrepreneurial  income. 
Redistributive payments have a positive effect on smaller farms, but could be further improved. 

Lithuanian  agriculture  depends  on  a  rather  limited  number  of  crops  and  the 
livestock/dairy  sector.  It  has  a  highly  concentrated  processing  industry  (dairy  products) 
and displays dependency on certain export markets. This being the case, Lithuania could 
explore further diversification of agricultural markets to gain value. 

In addition to a certain volatility in the factor income, Lithuanian agriculture is prone to 
climatic  risks  and  risks  from  animal  diseases.  These  factors  combined  result  in  a  high 
level of uncertainty for farmers and a low level of farm resilience. Despite this, the level 
of  participation  in  risk  management  schemes  is  rather  low  and  could  be  improved  in 
order to enhance farm resilience. 

There is a considerable need for investment support in the agri-food sector, where there 
seems  to  be  insufficient  availability  of  long-term  loans  and  appropriate  financing 
instruments. Lithuania could consider further developing financial instruments and their 
application in conjunction with other CAP financing. 

The  total  value  added  in  the  food  chain  and  the  contribution  by  primary  producers  are 
increasing,  but  the  gains  offered  by  cooperation  in  agriculture  are  not  being  fully 
exploited. Despite large share of small farms in the country, the number and average size 

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 

 
 
                                                           
of  cooperatives  are  among  the  lowest  in  the  EU  and  there  are  no  recognised  producer 
organisations. Further consideration could be given to quality schemes (mainly EU and 
national schemes) as a means to generate more value added. 

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Lithuania  should  devote  more  attention  to  meeting  the  environmental  and  climatic 
objectives. Agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represent a significant share of 
total  non-CO2  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  while  the  carbon  sink  capacity  of  grasslands 
and forests is decreasing. ‘Carbon farming’ approaches could be designed to incentivise, 
for  instance,  appropriate  grassland  management,  and  the  rewetting  and  restoration  of 
drained  peatlands.  The  overall  production  of  renewable  energy  in  Lithuania,  and  in 
particular from agriculture, can be improved as it is below the EU average. On the other 
hand, Lithuania is one of the leaders in using forestry production for renewable energy, 
giving it an opportunity to contribute to the transition to a low - carbon economy in the 
EU.  

Over the coming decades, expected climatic changes will bring significant changes in the 
conditions  for  Lithuanian  agricultural  production.  The  sector  will  be  increasingly 
vulnerable  to  expected  decreases  in  summer  rainfall  and  increased  winter  storms  and 
floods, as well as increased risk of pest and disease outbreaks. The CAP plan can play a 
key role in advising farmers and strengthening agriculture’s resilience so that it can cope 
with increasing uncertainty. A wider application of risk management tools can also play 
an  important  role  in  fostering  the  resilience  of  agriculture  and  adapting  agriculture  to 
climate change. 

Ammonia emissions from agriculture in Lithuania remain a challenge as part of efforts to 
reduce  air  pollution  and the  downward  trend  may  not  be  sufficient  to  meet  Lithuania’s 
emission reduction commitments. Lithuania should take a clear and effective strategy for 
reducing these emissions. Low organic carbon content is of particular concern, affecting 
both  arable  soils  and  grazing  land.  These  key  issues  can  be  addressed  in  synergy  with 
activities under the Horizon Europe mission on soil health.  

While there are no major issues with water quality and quantity in the country, a recent report 
highlights signs of eutrophication of surface freshwater and of the national Baltic Sea waters. 
Actions  to  prevent  nutrient  leakage  and  protect  water  quality  must  be  underpinned  by 
improvements to monitoring systems. 

Although overall Lithuania’s nature is in a good general state, there are areas of concern 
linked  to  biodiversity.  Notably,  the  farmland  bird  index  is  declining  sharply  and  the 
conservation  status  of  grassland,  wetland  and  forest  habitats  is  mostly  unfavourable.  In 
addition, the share of landscape features and land laying fallow in the utilised agricultural 
area (UAA) is low and the country’s Natura 2000 network not yet complete. The priority 
measures within the CAP strategic plan should take into account the needs identified in 
the prioritised action framework for 2021-2027 of Lithuania as well as in national species 
and  habitats  action  plans.  The  multifunctional  role  of  Lithuanian  forests  should  be 
enhanced  by  supporting  sustainable  and  resilient  forest  management  including  forest 
protection and restoration of forests ecosystems. 

Areas  under  organic  farming  have  been  constantly  increasing  since  2012  and  have 
reached the average EU level. However, the share of area under organic conversion out 
of  the  total  UAA  has  dropped  in  recent  years.  The  future  CAP  Strategic  Plan  should 

3 

 
 
provide adequate incentives for the uptake of organic farming practices to address a wide 
range  of  environmental  issues  and  to  reach  the  ambition  set  out  in  the  Farm  to  Fork 
Strategy. 

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

concerns 

Lithuania is one of the EU Member States with the highest share of population living in 
rural  areas.  At  the  same  time,  Lithuania  has  been  the  hardest  hit  by  depopulation  and 
emigration,  with  population  in  rural  areas  shrinking  by  8.8%  in  2015-2019  the  highest 
rate  in  the  EU.  Achieving  a  good  employment  rate  in  rural  areas  is  more  challenging 
compared  to  urban  areas  in  Lithuania  and  to  the  EU  average.  Levels  of  poverty  and 
inequality in Lithuanian rural areas are among the highest in the EU, and Lithuania is one 
of the most sparsely populated EU Member States. All  these elements  calls  for  actions 
and further consideration. There must be careful consideration of the work-life balance in 
order to deliver on gender equality in parental leave policies; in caring for children and 
childcare services; in informal care for older persons and persons with disabilities and in 
long-term care services. 

While the gap between the total gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in purchasing 
power  standard  (PPS)  in  Lithuania  and  the  EU  average  is  closing,  the  benefits  of 
convergence  are  unevenly  distributed  and  mainly  concentrated  in  the  capital  region.  In 
2017,  production  in  rural  areas  accounted  for  only  half  of  the  EU  average  of  the  total 
gross value added (GVA). Forestry plays an important role in Lithuanian rural areas and, 
together  with  agriculture,  provides  opportunities  for  the  development  of  the  bio-
economy. 

Despite the challenging demographical conditions, young farmers, young female farmers 
and  young  farm  managers  in  Lithuania  as  a  percentage  of  all  agricultural  operators  are 
above  the  EU  average  and  the  trend  is  upward.  This  can  be  seen  as  a  positive 
achievement in the transition towards a green and modern agricultural sector. Regardless 
their higher level of skills, about half of young farmers run their activities on small farms 
(less than 10 ha). In addition to significant depopulation, which raises concerns about the 
future vitality of rural areas, the main challenges for Lithuanian young farmers are access 
to land (including legal restrictions on buying it) and access to finance.  

Lithuania  should  consider  strengthening  the  support  for  SMEs  both  in  the  agricultural 
sector and outside it it should do the same for the overall support to generational renewal 
in  rural  areas.  Ensuring  the  protection  of  agricultural  workers,  especially  precarious, 
seasonal  and  undeclared  workers,  will  play  a  major  role  in  delivering  on  rights  of 
agricultural workers, as enshrined in legislation which is an essential element of the fair 
EU food system envisaged by the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

The impact on human health from the use of inputs for crop and livestock production has 
become an important  concern. The way farm animals are raised and transported is  also 
increasingly at the heart of social debate. Lithuania has reported sales of antimicrobials in 
the lowest range of data provided by Member States and is below the EU average. On the 
other hand, further  efforts  are needed on animal  welfare in  general,  as well as on  farm 
biosecurity given the presence of African swine fever (ASF).  

On the use of plant protection products, Lithuania has put significant efforts into making 
the use of pesticides more sustainable. However the challenge is to ensure the uptake of 

4 

 
 
integrated pest management practices by farmers in line with the ambition in the Farm to 
Fork  Strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. 

Lithuania  should  make  an  effort  to  shift  towards  healthy  sustainable  diets,  in  line  with 
national  recommendations,  as  it  has  high  rates  of  overweight  people  and  obesity  and  a 
very  high  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  due  to  dietary  risk  factors.  This 
would simultaneously improve the overall environmental impact of the food system. 

1.4  Fostering  and  sharing  of  knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation  in 

agriculture and rural areas, and encouraging their uptake 

The transition towards a sustainable food system cannot be achieved without sharing of 
knowledge, innovation and digitalisation. A well-functioning agricultural knowledge and 
innovation  system  (AKIS)  serving  all  the  CAP  objectives,  should  deliver  ample 
knowledge  flows  between  its  actors.  Lithuania  has  established  an  agricultural  research, 
education  and  advisory  system  in  the  public  sector.  However,  mainly  due  to 
underinvestment  and  insufficient  interaction  among  those  involved,  Lithuania’s  AKIS 
appears fragmented and has a weak focus on farmers’ needs. Private advisors seem to be 
little or not connected with the knowledge produced.  

Despite  the  high  share  of  farmers  who  have  received  full  agricultural  training, 
participation  in  adult  learning  in  agriculture  is  low  and  there  is  an  overall  need  to 
improve  the  skills  development  system.  This  is  reflected  in  the  fact  that  the  share  of 
funds  allocated  in  Lithuania  to  measures  linked  to  information,  knowledge  and 
innovation  is  below  the  EU  average.  Acting  upon  these  weaknesses  would  support 
competitiveness and boost productivity, which, despite a recent pick-up, remains below 
the EU level. 

Rural standard fixed and fast broadband coverages are below the EU average. There are 
significant  gaps  in  urban  /  rural  digital  skills.  The  lack  of  basic  services  such  as 
broadband  access  has  a  very  high  impact  on  population  movements  and  reduces  the 
attractiveness of the agriculture sector and rural areas.  

1.5  Recommendations 

To  address  the  above  interconnected  economic,  environmental/climate  and  social 
challenges  the  Commission  considers  that  the  Lithuanian  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 Lithuanian agriculture and 
rural areas: 

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

  Improving the viability of farms with lower incomes, especially smaller farms 
with  higher  development  potential,  through  a  more  targeted  and  effective 
distribution  of  direct  payments,  by  applying,  for  example,  the  complementary 
redistributive  income  support  for  sustainability  and  the  reduction  of  payments. 
The  improved  distribution  should  take  into  account  the  contribution  of  income 
support to the development of rural areas. 

  Strengthening  the  competitiveness  of  the  agricultural  sector  by  ensuring 
sustainable productivity growth and by addressing the food markets of the future, 
where demand for more sustainable and high quality food will increase. Support, 

5 

 
 
including  through  the  financial  instruments,  should  be  targeted  at  investments, 
practices  and  knowledge-building  which  can  achieve  a  transition  to  more 
sustainable  production  and  processing  and  widespread  productivity  growth. 
Lithuania  should  also  focus  on  stimulating  diversification  to  produce  higher 
value-added products. 

  Capturing  a  higher  share  of  value  added  for  farmers  in  the  food  supply 
chain  by  stimulating  all  forms  of  producer  cooperation,  notably  in  sectors  with 
small  producer  size  –  in  particular,  and  by  encouraging  cooperatives  to  seek 
recognition as producer organisations. 

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

  Reducing  agricultural  emissions  of  greenhouse  gases  by  fostering  climate-
friendly farming methods, with a particular focus on the livestock sector, nutrient 
management,  peatlands  and  carbon-rich  soils,  and  promoting  the  production  of 
on-farm renewable energy. 

  Assisting  the  adaptation  of  agriculture  to  climate  change  by  promoting 
adaptive  and  draught  resilient  farming  practices,  such  as  promotion  of  practices 
enhancing  soil  health  and  its  carbon  content,  soil’s  ability  to  retain  water  and 
application  of  longer  and  more  diverse  crop  rotation.  Relevant  investments  and 
landscape-level solutions involving multiple farmers will also be necessary. 

  Reducing  pressure  from  the  agricultural  sector  on  natural  resources  by 
cutting ammonia emissions, increasing soil organic carbon content, better nutrient 
management and increasing nutrient use efficiency (in line with the related EU 
Green Deal target). 

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  high-diversity  landscape 
features on agricultural  land, while more generally improving conservation 
of  biodiversity  on  farmland  in  line  with  the  Prioritized  Action  Framework  for 
CAP  funding.  This  will  involve  stepping  up  conservation  measures,  habitat 
management  measures  and  habitat  restoration  for  farmland  birds  by  using  the 
possibilities offered by the Green architecture. 

  Ensuring  resilient  and  sustainable  forest  management  and  promote  the 
efficient use of biomass to contribute to a low carbon economy. Multifunctional 
forest  management  should  furthermore  encompass  forest  protection  and 
restoration  of  forests  ecosystems  in  order  to  enhance  ecological  services  and 
biodiversity. 

  Contributing to the achievement of the EU Green Deal target on organic farming 

by re-establishing support for conversion to and maintenance of organic farming. 

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

  Raising  entrepreneurship  in  rural  areas  and  improving/diversifying  rural 
incomes  -  including  from  forestry,  rural  tourism  and  untapped  potential  offered 
by the bio-economy.  

6 

 
 
  Improving  the  socio-economic  development  of  rural  areas  by  facilitating 
access  to  good  quality  public  services,  such  as  childcare,  education,  healthcare 
and  other, 
job  creation  and 
fostering  economic  development, 
diversification in rural areas. In doing so it will be important to ensure synergies 
and complementarities between the EU and national funds. 

thereby 

  Improving animal welfare and farm biosecurity,  including through ambitious 
measures  to  promote  best  livestock  management  practices,  especially  for  pigs, 
laying hens and male dairy calves.  

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

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  broadband  while  addressing 
rural/urban gaps in broadband coverage and in basic digital skills – through 
appropriate  CAP  support  which  complements  funding  available  from  other 
sources. 

  Enhance  AKIS  integration  and  its  overall  performance  by  better  integrating 
information,  knowledge,  advice,  innovation  and  research  and  stepping  up 
investment  to  foster  knowledge  development  and  flows  among  its  actors 
(particularly  farmers,  researchers  and  advisors).  This  would  involve  increasing 
efforts in knowledge exchange, training and cooperation with an enhanced focus 
on farmers’ needs, improving links between public and private advisors, investing 
in  advisors’  training  and  skills  and  promoting  their  integration  in  interactive 
innovation projects. 

7 

 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

LITHUANIA 

The agricultural sector in Lithuania is characterised by  relatively favourable production 
environment,  but  due  to  structural  constraints  low  and  considerably  varying  income  as 
well as low levels of farming sector concentration. Agricultural sector plays an important 
role in terms of the economy and jobs, and it still attracts young managers and occupies 
an  important  place  in  country’s  export  structure.  Rural  areas  in  Lithuania  are  lagging 
behind  in  terms  of  economic  development  and  jobs  and  are  heavily  hit  by  poverty  and 
depopulation, and still very much depend on primary agriculture. 

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

enhance food security 

Average  farm  income  amounts  to  54%  of  the  average  salary  in  the  whole  economy, 
which  is  slightly  lower  than  the  EU  average  (47%).  However,  from  2012  this  gap  has 
been  increasing,  which  is  linked  both  to  increasing  earnings  in  other  sectors  and  a 
decrease  in  farm  incomes1.  The  share  of  direct  payments  amounts  to  on  average  44%, 
while  total  subsidies  (Pillar  I  and  Pillar  II)  –  amounts  to  on  average  71%  in  the  farm 
factor income in 2014-20182.  

Lithuanian farmers earn on average relatively low factor income3 4, which is about a third 
of the EU average income. However, there are significant income disparities depending 
on farm size, agricultural sector, or type of area.  

The agricultural factor income increases with physical farm size: while small farms (5 to 
20 hectares5) earn very low income, farms of 200 hectares and above earn close to  the 
EU average income. Income distribution according to the economic farm size follows the 
same pattern6, whereas  the unit amount (direct  payments  and transitional  national  aids) 
per hectare follows the opposite trend – decreases with both physical and economic farm 
size (thanks in particular to the redistributive payment) (see graph below where the share 
of  direct  payments  for  the  smallest  farm  sizes  is  higher  than  the  share  of  area).  As  a 
result,  farms  below  the  national  average  size  (around  20  hectares)  receive  about  20% 
higher  direct  payments  per  hectare7.  However,  the  income  of  these  farms  remains 
significantly  lower  than  the  national  average.  Higher  than  the  national  average  unit 
amounts per hectare (direct payments and national aids) are paid to farms in areas facing 
natural  or  specific  constrains  (ANC)  and  to  cattle  and  dairy  farms,  with  lower  income 
than  average,  whilst  cereal,  oilseed  and  protein  crop  farms  and  granivores  farms  (with 
generally  higher  income  than  average)  receive  lower  than  the  average  unit  amounts8. 
Regarding  the  type  of  area,  the  current  ANC  payment  utilized  by  Lithuania,  makes  a 
partial compensation for the difference in income as compared to non-ANC areas. This is 
mainly due to the fact that milk and cattle farms, which on average are smaller and have 
lower  income  (low  raw  milk  price  plays  a  role  here,  see  analysis  under  2.2),  are  more 
prominent  in  ANC  areas.  In  fact,  farm  income  in  ANC  areas  is  on  average  about  40% 
lower than the income in non-ANC areas in 2014-20189.  

Furthermore,  it  should  be  noted  that  a  significant  share  of  direct  payment  beneficiaries 
have  a  lower  economic  size  than  EUR  4  00010  and  that  a  majority  of  them  are  semi-
subsistence farms11. 

Farm  income  strongly  fluctuates  in  sectors  highly  dependent  on  exports  and  particularly 
prone  to  climatic  risks  or  animal  diseases  (cereals,  crop  production  and  pig  farms  in 
particular).  Despite  the  progress  made  in  recent  years  in  deploying  risk  management 

8 

 
 
instruments, their uptake has not been at the desired levels in terms of land coverage nor in 
number of participating farms. By the end of 2019, only 0.4% of farms participated in risk 
management  and  by  the  end  of  2018  only  2.5%  of  the  total  arable  land  was  covered  by 
insurance12. Possible obstacles that result in a low uptake include a lack of insurance culture, 
products’ availability and over-reliance on off-farm income that persists among small farms, 
which on the other hand is also an income diversification strategy for these farms13.  

Beneficiaries, area and direct payments by physical farm size 

Share of beneficiaries 

Share of area 

Share of direct payments 

Source: European Commission. Income support breakdown. Distribution of direct aid to farmers – 
indicative figures 2018 financial year. 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

Lithuanian  agricultural  sector  is  undergoing  structural  changes  that  have  an  impact  on 
sector’s  competitiveness.  Lithuanian  farms  used  2.93  million  hectares  for  agricultural 
production in 2016, 3.5% more than in 2005. The total number of agricultural holdings 
has  declined  in  2005-2016  by  more  than  40%  whilst  the  average  farm  size  has  almost 
doubled and in 2016 stood at 20 ha14. However, despite the biggest majority of those who 
left the sector were small agricultural holdings, the farm structure remains dominated by 
farms below 20 ha (82% of total number of farms in 201815).  

Agriculture  plays  an  important  role  in  the  Lithuanian  economy.  The  gross  value  added 
(GVA) produced in the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sector accounted for 3.3% in 
2019 (compared to EU average of 1.8%). The employment in agriculture was also higher 
than  the  EU  average  (6.2%  and  4.1%  respectively).  The  total  agriculture  output  in  the 
country is dominated by crop sector (65%) followed by livestock sector output (33%)16.  

Among  the  Baltic  States,  Lithuania  is  the  most  important  producer  of  cereals.  Total 
production  of  cereals  is  at  least  at  5  million  tonnes  for  the  last  5  marketing  years 
(excluding  2018,  with  severe  draughts).  Soft  wheat  is  by  far  the  most  important  cereal 
produced, representing 75% of the total cereal production (DG AGRI).  

The number of livestock units decreased over time in Lithuania from around 1.3 million 
in 2005 to 850 000 in 2016. Number of dairy cows in 2011-2019 decreased by more than 
30%17.  However,  raw  milk  deliveries  have  generally  increased  in  the  last  decade. 

9 

 
 
 
Lithuanian dairy sector is characterised by very small farms (in terms of heads and milk 
output  FADN)  and  a  highly  concentrated  processing  industry.  Milk  prices  in  LT  are 
traditionally  the  lowest  in  the  EU  (together  with  Latvia),  and  among  the  most  volatile. 
Lithuania was one of the MS most affected by the introduction of the Russian import ban.  

Pig sector in Lithuania is affected by the reoccurring outbreaks of African Swine Fever18. 
This  virus  has  serious  economic  implications,  both  due  to  the  direct  consequences  for 
affected  holdings  and  indirect  consequences  for  other  pig  holdings  in  the  country, 
resulting from restricting biosecurity measures.  

Increasing  productivity  is  important  to  boost the  competitiveness  of  the  sector.  Despite 
the high average annual  growth rates in total factor productivity recorded in 2007-2017 
(+2.8%),  the  gross  agricultural  production  per  hectare  of  UAA  (at  EUR  880  in  2018) 
remained well below the EU-27 average of EUR 2 41019. High outflow of labour force 
was the main driver for the increase in labour productivity. The total factor productivity 
in 2018, measured as a 3-year moving average index where the EU value in 2005 equals 
100,  was  higher  in  Lithuania  (122)  than  the  EU  average  (110),  but  in  2014-2017  was 
stagnating20. 

Owing  to  a  positive  trade  balance  with  countries  outside  the  EU,  the  overall  agri-food 
trade  balance  (intra  and  outside  EU)  in  agricultural  and  food  products  since  2012  has 
been  positive  and  relatively  stable.  Commodities,  especially  wheat,  dominate  in  the 
export structure21.  

Despite the considerable growth in farm investment that in 2012-2018 increased 1.6-fold 
and  in  2018  the  total  value  of  investment  stood  at  EUR  640  million22,  there  is  a 
considerable  unmet  demand  for  investment  support  in  agri-food  sector.  The  financing 
gap is estimated between EUR 962 million and EUR 2.2 billion23. 

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

Total factor productivity 

Labour productivity 

Capital productivity 

Land productivity 

Intermediate costs productivity 

TFP EU-27 

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

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

The  share  of  the  value  added  in  the  food  chain  for  primary  producers  in  Lithuania  is 
above  the  EU  average  and  it  increased  in  2008-2012  from  34%  to  50%,  after  which  it 
declined  to  38%  in  201624.  The  total  value  added  in  the  food  chain  in  Lithuania  in 
absolute terms is increasing steadily after the crisis in 2008 up to 2015. The structures in 
the  food  chain  are  very  asymmetric.  Lithuanian  agriculture  is  characterised  by  small 

10 

 
 
farms  and  is  fragmented.  In  2016,  more  than  three  quarters  of  the  country’s  farms  had 
less than 10 ha of UAA used. Contrary to the primary sector, country’s food processing 
industry and retail sector is characterised by high levels of concentration. 

The gains offered by cooperation in agriculture are not fully exploited. The first producer 
organisation  in  dairy  sector  in  Lithuania  was  established  at  the  beginning  of  2019.  In 
2018,  around  200  agricultural  cooperatives  were  operating  in  Lithuania25,  mostly  not 
recognised as producer organisations. They bring together around 12% of all farmers in 
the country. Compared to the rest of the EU, the number of cooperatives in the country is 
low  and  the  number  of  cooperative  members  is  one  of  the  lowest  -  vast  majority  of 
cooperatives  (in  2016:  72%,  in  2018:  57%)  had  less  than  10  members26.  Most  of  the 
cooperatives  are  engaged  in  primary  production.  The  main  obstacles  hindering  the 
development  of  cooperation  are  multifold:  economic  (lack  of  significant  financial 
incentives to unite and gain greater economic benefits), managerial (lack of leaders and 
their inexperience, insufficient management funding, low remuneration of executives as 
compared  to  the  private  sector),  and  psychological  (mistrust  among  producers, 
insufficient experience in teamwork)27. No inter-branch organisation has been recognised 
in Lithuania so far. 

Lithuania has national legislation addressing unfair trading practices in place since 2009 
that needs to be brought in line with the EU law.  

Although the  Lithuanian agri-food market  is  still dominated by long supply chains,  the 
development  of  the  local  food  system  and  short  food  supply  chains  through  various 
forms of direct sales has accelerated in 2018. In 2016, 24.3% of farms participated in the 
survey  on  the  structure  of  agriculture  reported  direct  sales  of  more  than  50%28.  The 
turnover  of  food  sold  in  farmers’  market  in  2017  represented  only  around  3.2%  of  the 
total food sales. Almost half of these sales (47.6%) were meat products29. 

Lithuanian consumers remain very price sensitive, however demand for high quality food 
products  is  increasing.  Lithuania  leads  in  terms  of  making  use  of  Geographical 
indications  (GI)  among  the  three  Baltic  States.  The  main  sector  of  GI  is  spirit  drinks, 
which  in  2017  accounted  for  68%  of  the  total  GI  sales30.  Further  development  of  EU 
quality  schemes  would  allow  strengthening  farmers’  position  in  the  value  chain,  and 
therefore generating more value added. 

11 

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

Primary producers 

Food and beverage manufacturing 

Food and beverage distribution 

Food and beverage consumer services 

% for primary producers (right axis) 

% for primary producers – EU-27 

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

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

sustainable energy 

In  2018,  agricultural  emissions  of  non-CO2  greenhouse  gases  (GHG)  in  Lithuania 
amounted to 4.28 million31 tonnes of CO2 equivalents, up 1% compared to the year 2000. 
In terms of share, at national level agriculture represents a significant share (21%) of total 
non-CO2 GHG emissions (EU-27 average is 10%) and slightly more than 1% of the total 
EU-27  GHG  emissions  from  agriculture.32  Since  2009,  the  share  of  agriculture  in  total 
GHG emissions increased compared to the period 2001-2008.33 In 2013-2018, emission 
of  non-CO2  GHG  remained  stable.  Some  44%  of  agricultural  emissions  in  Lithuania 
relate to enteric fermentation of livestock, 38% to agricultural soils (fertiliser), and 14% 
to the management of manure. Emissions from soil management slightly increased in the 
last years (2013-2018). The enteric emission of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) 
per  livestock  unit  ruminants  is  slightly  above  the  EU-27  average  (2.71  and  2.67 
respectively).34  As  regards  emissions  from  land  use,  change  and  forestry  sector 
(LULUCF), grasslands in Lithuania acted as carbon sinks while croplands in 2018 had a 
net emission of 1.08 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent35. In the last years, the emissions 
from croplands decreased, while grassland removals decreased (below the EU average); 
the carbon sink in forests has more-than-halved in 2013-2018 (from -9.7 to -4.7 million 
tonnes of CO2 equivalent)36. According to the joint Research centre, peatlands cover around 
3.8% of the total area of Lithuania and emissions from peatlands are significant37. 

The  share  of  agriculture  in  the  production  of  total  renewable  energy  in  Lithuania  is 
10.3%, below the EU-27 average  (12.1%), and increased by 25% in  2018 compared to 
2013. A very significant percentage (82.2%) of renewable energy production came from 
the forestry sector, thus singling out Lithuania as one of the few EU countries where the 
share  of  renewable  energy  production  from  agriculture  and  forestry  in  total  primary 
energy  production  is  above  20%.38  Energy  consumption  in  Lithuanian  agriculture  and 
forestry  as  a  share  in  total  final  energy  consumption  is  2%,  slightly  below  the  EU-27 

12 

 
 
 
 
average of 2.9%.  In 2009-2015 there was an overall decline in  the number of kg of oil 
equivalent  use  per  hectare  of  UAA  and  forest  area  in  the  EU-28,  to  reach  2.5  kgoe/ha. 
Lithuania also registered a decrease (2.4 kgoe/ha), one very close to the EU average; in the 
same period, a 2.4% increase of the direct use of energy in food industry was registered.39 

The National Energy and Climate Action Plan 2021-203040 sets the target for decreasing 
emissions  in  agriculture  by  2030  at  9%  compared  to  2005  and  lists  actions  for  the 
agricultural sector until 2030. Planned actions focus on reduction and more effective use 
of  conventional  nitrogen  fertilisers,  better  manure  management  and  actions  raising 
awareness  and  providing  advice  to  farmers  on  sustainable  farming  methods,  including 
targeted  advice  on  GHG  reduction  potential  at  farm  level.  In  addition,  organic  farming 
and  insurance/  risk  management  tools  for  crops  and  livestock  will  be  promoted.  No 
specific measures are foreseen on peatlands and wetlands used for agriculture.41  

The Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 recognises reducing GHG emissions as a 
key challenge; support is available for afforestation and for the greater use of renewable 
energy  resources  (in  particular  for  production  of  biogas  from  agricultural  waste).42 
Overall,  2%  of  agricultural  land  is  under  contracts  targeting  climate  action  (EU-27 
average is 1%). However, their execution struggles. 

Like  other  Nordic  countries,  the  Lithuanian  agricultural  sector  is  vulnerable  to  risks 
stemming  from  climate  change  such  as  decreases  in  summer  rainfall  and  increased 
numbers of floods as well as increased risk of pests and diseases.43 

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

Concerning  air  quality,  ammonia  (NH3)  emissions  from  agriculture  in  Lithuania 
amounted  to  35.95  Gg  (1 000  tonnes)  in  2018.  Some  92.4%  of  NH3  emissions  in 
Lithuania  come  from  agriculture.  Animal  husbandry  and  manure  management  are 
responsible  for  55%  and  crop  production  (fertilisation)  for  45%  of  these  emissions44. 
Despite  the  emission  levels  are  below  the  current  emission  ceiling  of  84  Gg,  the 

13 

 
 
downward  trend  may  not  be  sufficient  to  meet  Lithuania’s  emission  reduction 
commitments  (compared  with  2005  levels)  set  by  the  National  Emissions  Ceilings 
Directive45 for 2020-2029 and for any year from 2030.  

The main threat to soil quality in Lithuania is the low soil organic carbon content. It has a 
negative  impact  on  agriculture  productivity  and  can  have  negative  and  transboundary 
impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem service. Lithuania has a low average soil loss rate 
by  water  of  0.5  t  ha-1  yr-1  (much  less  than  the  EU  mean).  Lithuanian  arable  land  is 
heavily  affected by loss of organic matter  caused by the natural  climate conditions  and 
long-term intensified tillage. In 2016, 88% of tillable area was tilled conventionally, only 
1% was  under zero  tillage46. Almost  half of the arable land  was left without soil cover 
during winter (47% in 201647). The mean soil organic carbon in arable lands is 25 g/kg48 
which  is  lower  than  the mean  EU  (43.1  g/kg).  Grazing  land  in  Lithuania  has  2.25%  of 
total  organic  carbon,  but  is  still  very  poor  and  amongst  the  lowest  values  in  the  EU49. 
Despite  these  challenges,  only  8%  of  arable  land  in  Lithuania  was  under  contracts  to 
improve soil management and/or prevent soil erosion in 201850.  

In  2015,  90%  of  surface  waters51  and  100%  of  groundwater52  were  in  good  chemical 
condition.  The nitrogen  surplus in  Lithuania was 25 kg N/ha in  201553, almost half the 
EU average (46.5 kg N/ha) and this indicator constantly decreased since 2010, reaching 
levels comparable to the early 1990-s. Phosphorus surplus has decreased from 13 kg P/ha 
in  2005  to  1  kg  P/ha  in  2015  and  remains  around  the  EU  average  of  0.5  kg  P/ha54. 
Nitrates  concentration  over  50  mg  nitrate/l  were  reported  in  1,6%  of  ground  water 
monitoring stations and concentration over 25 mg nitrate/l were reported in 0,6% of the 
fresh surface water monitoring stations during the period 2012-201555. However, nitrates 
pollution increased in  58.5% of  groundwater stations and 15.5% of fresh  surface water 
stations  during  the  period  2012-201556  and  the  average  value  of  nitrogen  pollution  at 
country level presents an increasing trend57. Around half of freshwater (52%) was of high 
quality in 2015 and 2017, eutrophication of surface freshwater raises concerns after the 
recent report of a slight deterioration in eutrophic and hypertrophic status (from 47% to 
49%)58.  However,  this  must  be  seen  in  the  regional  context.  Eutrophication  is  a  shared 
problem with other states around the Baltic Sea with extremely high levels of waters in 
the region  assessed to  be  below good eutrophication status  (97% for open sea area and 
86%  for  coastal  waters).  Based  on  the  integrated  assessment,  the  entire  national  Baltic 
Sea waters of Lithuania are considered below good status59.   

Seen in combination with farm intensity coverage, the area with low input intensity per 
hectare decreased in 2004-2016 from 79% to 66%, whereas the area with medium input 
intensity  increased  from  18%  to  30%  in  201660.  However,  these  are  intensity  levels 
significantly  below  most  of  the  EU  Member  States.  The  water  quality  also  could  have 
been hampered by the increase of plant protection products by 48% in 2015-2016, as a 
result  of  the  increase  in  sales  of  plant  growth  regulators.  However,  in  2018  pesticides 
sales had again fallen to 61% of the 2016 level61.  

Water quantity risks in Lithuania are low. Water abstraction levels are among the lowest for 
EU Member States (i.e. 493 000 m3 in 2017). Less than 0.1% of the total utilised agricultural 
area was  irrigated in 2016 (data  are missing for  water  use from  streams, wells  and ponds, 
which  are  very  common)62  and  the  Water  Exploitation  Index  plus  (WEI+)  for  river  basin 
districts is very low (2010-2015 data, the highest value 2.64%). In 2018, less than 0.3% of 
agricultural land in Lithuania was under contracts to improve water management63. 

14 

 
 
Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Lithuania 

Kg P/ha/year 

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

EU-27 GNB for Nitrogen 

Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year) 

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

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

While natural ecosystems in Lithuania show an overall good conservation state with no 
major ecological problems64, agricultural areas are affected by a decline in  biodiversity. 
Data on the farmland bird index show a declining trend that is particularly pronounced in 
the past five years (the Index was 74.5 in 2013 and 59 in 2018 whereas the value for EU-
27 in 2018 was 70) 65.  

In  early  2017,  13%  of  Lithuania’s  territory  was  covered  by  Natura  2000  sites  (EU 
average 18.1%)66. Similarly, the share of agricultural area in Natura 2000 is significantly 
lower  (5%  in  2018)  than  the  EU  average  (11%)67.  The  reporting  on  the  conservation 
status  and  trends  of  species  and  habitats  under  the  EU  Habitats  Directive  (2013-2018), 
shows that no grassland habitats were in favourable conservation status while 78% were 
in bad status (or unknown).68 There was no change compared to the previous period (in 
2012 the majority of  grassland habitats  was in  an unfavourable-bad  conservation status 
(56%),  the  rest  was  assessed  as  unfavourable-inadequate  (44%)69.  For  wetlands,  only 
12.5%  of  wetland  habitat  types  present  in  Lithuania  are  currently  in  favourable 
conservation status, 25% are in poor status, the remaining 62.5% are in bad status, 12.5% 
out of which further declining70.  

The prioritised action framework (PAF) indicates that the main pressures for grasslands 
are  conversion  to  other  land  uses  (forests,  arable  land),  land  use  intensification  and 
intensive  use  of  grasslands  (frequent  mowing,  overgrazing),  abandonment  of  meadows 
and  pastures,  use  of  pesticides,  drainage)  all  impacting  on  the  populations  of  species 
linked to grasslands. For cropland and permanent crops, the main pressures identified are 
monoculture  areas  without  natural  landscape  elements,  excessive  use  of  chemicals,  all 
impacting  on  the  populations  of  farmland  bird  species.  In  terms  of  capacity  building  of 
managing authorities, the main difficulty identified is the low involvement of Natura 2000 
managing authorities in the implementation of CAP measures.  

According to data on farming intensity in 2015 however71, the majority (58%) of UAA is 
farmed  with  low  input  intensity;  only  11%  of  the  total  UAA  is  farmed  with  high  input 
intensity, significantly below the EU average of 32%. Data on areas of extensive grazing 

15 

 
 
show  that  40%  of  the  UAA  is  devoted  to  extensive  grazing,  significantly  above  the  EU 
average of 29%72. One fifth of farmland is under high nature value systems of farming73.  

Data on the share of landscape features and land laying fallow in UAA show that 3.3% of 
UAA is covered by these elements (the target set in the Farm to Fork Strategy is 10% at EU 
level) 74. On landscape features, Lithuania opted to exclude them from the protection under 
GAEC7  in  the  CAP  2014-2020.  Similarly,  landscape  features  could  not  be  used  to  fulfil 
greening  obligations.  Farmers  could  choose  land  lying  fallow  (12%  of  the  EFA  area)75. 
Arable areas appear particularly affected by the lack of natural landscape elements and the 
PAF identifies precisely this factor as one of the main pressures on cropland76.  

The  Natura  2000  network  in  Lithuania  is  not  yet  complete.  The  currently  delimited 
network  is  dominated  by  forest  and  semi-natural  areas,  which  cover  67%  of  the 
network77.  Only  8%  of  forest  habitats  in  Natura  2000  are  in  favourable  conservation 
status,  46%  are  in  poor  status,  the  remaining  46%  are  in  bad  status  and  half  of  them 
further  declining.78  The  main  pressures  identified  in  the  PAF  are  the  cessation  of 
traditional farming (grazing in forests and/or litter raking in pine forests), conversion into 
arable land and meadow sowing to cultivate grass. 

The  area  under  organic  production  has  increased  steadily  since  2012  and  more  than 
doubled  in  absolute  terms.  The  current  share  of  UAA  farmed  organically  is  8.1%79,  in 
line with the EU average of 8% (the Farm to Fork target is 25% at EU level). 76.8% of 
organic  area receives CAP  support (above average at  EU level)80. However, area under 
conversion to organic is declining from almost 3% of total UAA in 2016 to less than 1% in 
201881 which indicates that a declining rate of growth of organic area is to be expected. 

The Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 of Lithuania includes measures supporting 
biodiversity  and/  or  landscape  features  but  only  10%  of  farmland  is  under  contracts  for 
protecting biodiversity and/or landscape features, below the EU average of 15%82.  

Area under organic farming in Lithuania 

Hectares under organic farming In Lithuania 

% of area under organic farming in the EU-27 

% of agricultural area under organic farming in Lithuania 

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

16 

 
 
Share of agricultural area covered by  
high-diversity landscape features  

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

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

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

Source: Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Based on EUROSTAT for land 
laying fallow and Joint Research Center based on LUCAS survey for estimation of landscape elements. 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

Contrary  to  the  overall  negative  trend  observed  in  the  EU,  Lithuania  exhibits  positive 
trend in the share of young farmers among all farmers in the period 2005-2016. In 2016, 
it  had  7.3%  of  farm  managers  below  35  years  of  age,  which  exceeds  the  EU  average. 
Also, the ratio of young managers to elderly in Lithuania increased to 0.13 in 2016 (EU 
average  is  0.09).  Moreover,  Lithuania  has  one  of  the  highest  share  of  female  young 
farmers in the EU (28%)83.  

Young  farmers in  Lithuania are  better educated.  The share of farm managers below 35 
years  of  age  with  at  least  a  basic  level  of  agricultural  training  (44%)  is  slightly  higher 
than the average in the country (38%). It is also higher compared to the EU average84.  

Young farmers (below 35) manage farms of bigger size, generate higher standard output 
per farm (which is growing at a higher rate than in other age groups of farmers), but have 
on  average  lower  factor  income  compared  to  other  age  groups  of  farmers  and 
considerably below the EU average85. The low factor income is heavily influenced by the 
increased competition for land and by the increased rental prices for arable land, which in 
2011-2016 rose two-fold86.  It  should also  be noted that despite the overall  farm size of 
young  farmers  being  larger  compared  to  other  age  group  farms,  about  half  of  young 
farmers (below 35) are small-scale farmers (up to 10 ha). This is why off-farm income is 
often essential for their farm business continuation. 

The  main  challenges  that  the  young  farmers  face  in  Lithuania  are  the  access  to  land 
(including legal restrictions aimed at limiting access to land by foreign entities, but also 
having negative effect on local young farmers) and access to finance (the worst situation 
is for dairy farmers). As a result, 30% of discouraged applications for bank loans comes 
from  young  farmers,  which  is  linked  to  the  lack  of  collateral,  business  records, 
experience, etc.87 Significant depopulation of rural areas (especially in the northern and 
southern parts of the country) is yet another general concern in view of future vitality of 
rural areas88. It is often linked to the poorer land quality and lower farm incomes in these regions. 

The  share  of  farmers  benefiting  from  the  supplementary  young  farmer  payment  (YFP) 
under Pillar 1 among all farmers was gradually increasing in 2015-2018 and is around the 
EU average, which is 7.5%. Lithuania spent almost the maximum allowed 2% of Direct 
payments envelope on YFP in 2018, which is among the highest results in the EU (EU 
average is 1.32%)89. Young farmers in Lithuania are actively participating in investment 
17 

 
 
aid  offered  by  RDP  2014-2020.  However,  funds  allocated  for  this  support,  which 
correspond  to  approximately  4%  of  the  total  envelope,  are  insufficient  to  cover  young 
farmers’  investment  needs90.  Additionally,  there  are  at  a  lower  scale  applied  national 
measures aiming at facilitating new businesses (e.g. INVEGA offers loans of up to EUR 
25 000 for newly established young businesses).  

The GDP per capita (PPS/inhab) in rural areas was amongst the lowest in the EU (12 362 
in 2016); the GVA share in rural areas is half of the EU average (5% compared to EU-27 
at 10.7%). The economic activity is unequally distributed between territories; rural areas 
are lagging behind.  In 2016, some 2900 businesses were created in rural areas.91 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Lithuania 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

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

Source: EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

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

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

14%92  of  the  total  Lithuanian  territory  is  classified  as  predominantly  rural  areas93 
compared to an EU average of 45%. Lithuania has the highest share of population in the 
EU  living  in  rural  area  (56.2%94  of  population;  this  share  has  declined  since  2010), 
having  also  one  of  the  lowest  average  population  density  (46  inhabitants  per  km2)  and 
one of the EU countries most hit by  depopulation and emigration95. Population in  rural 
areas in 2015-2019 in Lithuania shrank by 8.8% - the most in the EU96. The age classes 
affected the most by this trend were everyone except the elderly (beyond 64 years). 

The employment rate in rural areas was increasing since 2012 and although it reached the 
EU average of 68% in 201997, it remains below the total employment rate. In the 20-64 
age  group,  the  gap  in  employment  between  male  (74%)  and  female  (73%)  is 
insignificant.  The  employment  of  women in  this age  group was by 6 percentage points 
higher  than  the  EU  average98.  The  unemployment  rate  in  rural  areas  remained  slightly 
below  9.1%,  which  is  considerably  above  the  EU-27  average  of  6.3%.  Youth 
unemployment  rate  in  rural  area  in  2018  was  14.1%,  which  is  in  line  with  the  EU-27 
average99. 

The  share  of  primary  sector  in  employment  in  rural  areas  is  almost  double  the  EU 
average (24.7% and 12.7% respectively in 2016). Together with Latvia, Lithuania enjoys 
the highest share (45%) of women as farm managers in the EU. 

18 

 
 
There  is  a  significant  gap  between  rural  and  urban  economies  in  Lithuania  that  is  not 
closing  over  time.  The  GDP  per  inhabitant  in  rural  areas  in  Lithuania  represents  only 
44% of the EU average, compared to 110% in urban region100.  

As regards tourism, 89 813 bed-places were available in Lithuania in 2018, out of which 
41 565 (46.3%) in rural areas. The development of rural- and ecotourism are recognised 
as strategic priorities in the Lithuanian Strategy for Tourism Marketing for 2016-2020101.  

Levels of poverty and inequality in rural areas are among the highest in the EU102. The 
risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  in  rural  areas  (2018,  40%)  is  double  that  of  urban 
areas  (20%)103.  In  terms  of  education,  urban-rural  disparities  in  access  to  quality 
education and in student performance are large with male students performing at lower 
levels. The enrolment in early childhood education and care of 3-6 years olds is around 
two  times  lower  in  rural  areas  than  in  urban  areas  (46.2%  and  106.2%  respectively  in 
2017104).  In  2017,  the  median  incomes  of  rural  households  were  only  67%  of  those  of 
urban households (among lowest in the EU). At almost 10%, the rate of severe housing 
deprivation for the rural population, though decreasing, remained above the EU average 
in  2017.  Transport  and  health  services  infrastructure  could  not  be  analysed  due  to  the 
lack  of  data.  National  studies  show  that  health  services  in  rural  areas  need 
improvement105.  CAP  interventions  must  be  planned  in  synergy  with  other  EU  Funds  in 
order to ensure better services for rural residents that are indispensable for vibrant rural areas. 

There  are  more  than  1 310  rural  community  organisations  in  Lithuania106.  The  entire 
rural  population  is  covered  by  local  development  strategies.  The  majority  of  these 
strategies are focussed on job creation and solving social issues. 

The  forestry  sector  plays  an  important  role  in  Lithuanian  rural  areas.  Forests  and  other 
wooded land cover 35.1% of total area107. Forestry and forestry-based industry employed 
12 100  persons  in  2019108.  In  2017,  the  proportion  of  gross  fixed  capital  formation  in 
forestry  compared  with  value  added  was  one  of  the  highest  in  the  EU  (18%).  Large 
coverage  with  forests  and  arable  land  gives  opportunities  for  the  development  of  bio-
economy in Lithuania. Despite the dominance of agriculture in the bio-economy in terms 
of  employment  (48%109),  the  turnover  in  bio-economy  related  sectors  shows  no  strong 
orientation  and  remains  mixed.  Although  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the  turnover  in 
2009-2015,  the  labour  productivity  remains  very  much  below  the  EU  average.  A 
dedicated Bio-economy Strategy at national level in Lithuania is under development. 

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 

Antimicrobial  resistance  (AMR)  is  a  priority  area  for  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy.  In 
Lithuania,  sales  of  antimicrobial  agents  in  the  past  five  years  (2014-2018)  averaged 
35.2 mg/PCU, which is well below the 2018 EU average of 118.3 mg/PCU. In terms of 
species,  cattle  is  the  dominant  category.  All  veterinary  medical  products  that  contain 
antimicrobial  agents  are  prescription-only  medicines  and  must  be  dispensed  to 
veterinarians  or  farmers  through  wholesalers  or  pharmacies.  Medicated  feed  is  also 
subject to prescription by a veterinarian110.  

In terms of animal welfare, another priority area for the Farm to Fork strategy as essential 
for the sustainability of the food system, tail docking of pigs remains a routine practice in 
Lithuania despite being forbidden as a routine practice by EU rules111. The percentage of 
pigs with  intact  tails has barely changed compared to  2016. Lithuania is  an exporter of 

19 

 
 
male dairy calves. It is difficult to achieve the high standards required for the transport of 
live  animals,  especially  unweaned  male  dairy  calves,  when  the  animals  are  exposed  to 
multiple  animal  welfare  risks  during  long  distance  transportation.  Therefore,  efforts 
should  be  made  to  encourage  local  fattening.  Efforts  could  also  be  made  to  promote 
animal  welfare  in  the  production  of  eggs  under  non-cage  systems  for  laying  hens112.  
Biosecurity  is  equally  a  challenge  for  Lithuania  as  it  is  listed  among  the  countries 
affected by the African Swine Fever (ASF)  where farms with low biosecurity and poor 
controls pose higher risk for animal disease infections and spread.  

Ensuring the safety of pesticides and controls on their use is essential for sustainable food 
production.  Lithuania  has  adopted  its  National  Plant  Protection  Plan  in  2012113  and 
revised it in 2019114. The evolution of Harmonised Risk  Indicator 1 (HRI1)115 products 
shows a significant decrease (-14%) in the period 2011-2018, though slightly behind the 
EU average (-17%). HRI2 data (the most risky products) shows a sharp increase in  the 
number  of  emergency  approvals  compared  to  baseline  values.  The  2019  audit  on  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive  on  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides  acknowledges  that 
Lithuania has put significant efforts into implementing the Directive.116 Although actions 
have  been  taken  by  Lithuania  to  improve  the  exemption  of  pesticide  application 
equipment and the control of Integrated Pest Management implementation at farm level, 
further effort is needed to ensure their full implementation117.  

Lithuania carries a very high burden from non-communicable diseases due to dietary risk 
factors  expressed  as  Disability-Adjusted  Life  Years  (DALYs)  per  100 000  population 
attributable to diet118. This DALY’s value is influenced by a number of dietary factors. 
For  example,  more  than  40%  of  the  Lithuanian  population  does  not  eat  at  least  one 
portion of vegetables and fruits per day, which is higher than the EU average119. Efforts 
should  focus  on  shifting  towards  healthy  sustainable  diets,  in  line  with  national 
recommendations, in order to contribute to reducing rates of overweight people, obesity 
and  non-communicable  diseases,  while  seeking  to  simultaneously  improve  the  overall 
environmental impact of food systems. This would include moving to a more plant based 
diet with less red meat and more fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and 
seeds 

Although the levels of food waste are estimated to be below the EU average120, there is a 
margin for improvement in its reduction. In 2015, Lithuania produced 22.1 kg of waste 
per tonne of processed food, which is almost the double compared to Germany and more 
than  fourfold  compared  to  France121.  Food  losses  are  mainly  generated  in  cereals  and 
pulses commodity group122. Consumers in Lithuania are less informed on food shelf life 
marking and consumers’ role in food waste reduction (Eurobarometer 2015). No data are 
available  for  actual  food  waste  and  food  loss  nor  trends  in  consumption  of  organic 
products.  It  is  expected  that  more  data  will  be  available  after  adoption  and 
implementation  of  national  food  waste  prevention  programme  (as  required  by  Article 
29(2a) of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC). 

20 

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU in Lithuania 

EU-27 

HRI 1 in Lithuania 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

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

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

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

Lithuania  has  a  well-established  public  sector  agricultural  research,  education  and 
advisory  system.  The  advisory  system  is  composed  of  13  accredited  companies  and 
bodies (2020)123 and is complemented by private advisory companies.  

Lithuania’s  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS)  appears  fragmented 
(lack of coordination between actors and insufficient focus on farmers’ needs)124. Better 
structuring of knowledge exchange processes and sharing of research and innovation data 
would  avoid  duplication  of  efforts,  save  costs  and  strengthen  the  impact  of  EU  and 
national funding.  

Innovation  support  services  have  become  an  obligation  for  Member  States  (Art  13(4). 
Advisors should be supported to help capture individual innovative ideas and to develop 
them by setting up and implementing European Innovation Partnership (EIP) operational 
group projects.  

Despite  the  high  share  -  compared  to  the  EU  average  -  of  farmers  that  attained  full 
agricultural training (39% and 32% respectively) and the stable number of managers with 
at  least  a  basic  agricultural  training  in  the  period  2013-2016125,  participation  in  adult 
learning trainings in agriculture is low and there is an overall need to improve the skills 
development system126. In the period 2014-2019, the total number of people participating 
in  trainings  funded  under  RDP  2014-2020  stood  at  14.3  thousands127,  (ca  10%  of  the 
target for the whole programming period or ca 7% of the total farming population). This 
adds  to  the  reported  shortage  of  skills  in  rural  areas,  especially  in  digital  and  financial 
literacy128.  

implementation  of 

The  share  of  funds  allocated  by  Lithuania  in  the  programming  period  2014-2020  to 
measures  linked  to  information,  knowledge  and  innovation  (2.3%)  was  below  the  EU 
average  (3.6%).  The 
the  Agricultural  European  Innovation 
Partnerships  (EIP-AGRI)  still  lags  behind.  In  2014-2019,  there  have  been  only  5  EIP-
AGRI  (Operational  Groups)  projects  implemented  in  Lithuania  (out  of  25  expected 
projects). The implemented projects  include soil management (2), dairy production and 
farming  techniques  (2)  and  one  project  aimed  at  setting  up  an  Innovation  Support 
Service129.  

21 

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

Managers with 
full agricultural 
training 

Managers with 
full agricultural 
training 

Full training EU 
average 

Basic training 
EU average 

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

rural  network  organised  a 

In the period 2015-2017, in its effort to support knowledge exchange and innovation the 
relatively  high  number  of 
Lithuanian  national 
training/information sharing events. The network’s website also hosts a dedicated section 
on EIP-AGRI projects. However, due to the lack of data, the extent of its contribution to 
achieving  the  objective  of  fostering  innovation  could  not  be  established130.  The  future 
national CAP network can play a bigger role in promoting synergies with the European 
Research Area (ERA), for instance by keeping closer contacts with the Horizon Europe 
National Contact Point. 

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

Rural  standard  fixed  broadband  coverage  (77%,  while  increasing)  is  below  the  EU 
average  (90%).  The  next  generation  access  (NGA131)  broadband  coverage  (number  of 
rural households) in rural areas is also below the EU average (29%)132. In 2019, the gap 
in  digital  skills  between  city-dwellers  and  rural  residents  was  20 percentage  points 
(among the highest gaps in the EU133). The lack of digital skills hinders the development 
of a digital economy and society. 

Broadband coverage in Lithuania 

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] 

22 

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

average). 

2   European  Commission.  Share  of  direct  payments  and  total  subsidies  in  agricultural  factor  income 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
(2014-2018 
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-expenditure-graph5_en.pdf.  In  case  of  Lithuania,  ESTAT  population 
better represents DP beneficiaries than the FADN. Therefore, when data is available – ESTAT is to be 
used.  However,  ESTAT  takes  into  account  all  subsidies,  including  investment  support  and  excludes 
transitional  national  aids.  This  makes  the  data  more  limited  than  the  one  of  FADN,  which  allows  to 
calculate only operating subsidies (including national aids). 

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

4   Farm  factor  income  per  worker  in  FADN  is  Farm  Net  Value  Added  per  Annual  Working  Unit 

(FNVA/AWU) 

5   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 
to 2018). Figures for farms <5 ha are not fully representative due to FADN encompassing farms above 
certain econ. size only (in case of  Lithuania FADN  encompasses about 40% of all farms, which have 
the economic size of EUR 4 000 or higher). 

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

calculations (up to 2018) 

7   Background analysis by MS  on income  and targeting of  DP: Directorate  General for  Agriculture and 
Rural Development own calculations based on FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Network)  data (2015) 
and CATS (Clearance of Accounts Trailing System) data (up to 2017)  

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

calculations (up to 2018) 

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

calculations (up to 2018) 

10   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on  ESTAT  data 
(2016).  Farms  below  EUR  4 000  in  Lithuania  represent  about  half  of  all  farms,  but  they  cover  only 
about 10% of utilised agricultural area. 

11   Farms whose household consumes more than 50% of the final production.  
12   Rural  Development  Programme  2014-2020  of  Lithuania.  Annual  Implementation  Reports  2018  and 

2019, measure M17. 

13   Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (European  Commission),  ECORYS, 

Wageningen Economic Research. Study on risk management in EU agriculture. 2017.  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5a935010-af78-11e8-99ee-01aa75ed71a1   
14   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.17  Agricultural  holdings  (farms).  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg] 

15   Fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Lithuania, Study report 
16   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01] 
17   EUROSTAT. Bovine population [APRO_MT_LSCATL] 
18   European  Commission. ASF  regionalisation  as  per  Commission  implementing  Decision  2014/709/EU 
and  Commission  Implementing  Decisions  concerning  certain  interim  protective  measures  relating  to 
ASF  in  Germany  (Decision  (EU)  2020/1391  and  Decision  (EU)  2020/1513).  Last  update  21  October 
2020.  
https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/ad_control-measures_asf_pl-lt-
regionalisation.pdf   

19   EUROSTAT.  Crop  production  in  EU  standard  humidity  [apro_cpsh1]  and  Economic  accounts  for 

agriculture – values at current prices [aact_eaa01]. 

20   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.27  Total factor  productivity.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[aact_eaa05], [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01], [apro_cpsh1] and [ef_mptenure] and FADN 

21   European Commission. CAP impact indicator I.06 Agricultural trade balance. Based on EUROSTAT 

and COMEXT. 

22   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.28  Gross  fixed  capital  formation.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3gva] and [nama_10r_2gfcf] 

23 

 
 
 
                                                           
23   Fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-foodsectors in Lithuania, Study report. 
24   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_03  Value  for 

primary producers in the food chain. 

25   Lithuanian Chamber of Agriculture. Survey on cooperation in Lithuania, 2018. 
26   Melnikienė  R.,  Ribašauskienė,  E.,  Šumylė,  D.  Cooperative  Development  Modelling.  Lithuanian 

Institute of Agrarian Economics, 2018. 

27   Žukovskis  J.,  Ramanauskas  J.  Gamintojų  organizacijų  ir  perdirbėjų  bendradarbiavimas.  Mano  ūkis, 

2018/11. 

28   The Department of Statistics of Lithuania. Agricultural Structure Survey, 2016. 
29   Atkočiūnienė,  V.,  Vaznonienė,  G.,  Kiaušienė,  I.,  &  Pakeltienė,  R.  (2020).  Trumpųjų  maisto  tiekimo 
Supply  Chains 
Infrastructure 

Short 
for  Rural  Business  and 

grandinių 
Organisation. Management  Theory  and  Studies 
Development, 41(4), 547-560. 

prielaidos:  Assumptions 

organizavimo 

Food 

for 

30   AND  International and  Ecorys  Brussels.  Economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical 

indications (GIs) and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs). Study, 2019 

31   European  Environmental  Agency 

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

(EEA).  EEA 

greenhouse 

gas 

data 

viewer. 

32   European Commission. GHG emissions. CAP indicators dashboard, Agri-food Data Portal (July 2020). 
33   See note 32. 
34   European  Environmental  Agency 

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

(EEA).  EEA 

greenhouse 

data 

gas 

viewer. 

35   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.45 Emissions from agriculture. Based on EUROSTAT 

[env_air_emis], original source European Environmental Agency (UNFCC_v22). 

36   Lithuania’s national GHG inventory submission to the UNFCCC, 2020. 

https://unfccc.int/documents/226319  

37   JRC. 

Map 

of 

% 

of 

country 

area 

consisting 

of 

peatlands. 

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

38   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 

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

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

40   National  Energy  and  Climate  Action  Plan  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  for  2021-2030  (NECP), 

measures outlined on pp. 74-80 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/lt_final_necp_main_en.pdf  

41   The  NECP  foresees  restoration  of  wetlands  but  only  those  not  used  for  agriculture  and  not  having 

agricultural potential, see table on p. 99 

42   European Commission. Factsheet on 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme for Lithuania, March 

2020. 

43   European  AgriAdapt.  EU 
https://awa.agriadapt.eu/en/  

farmland 

and 

climate 

change 

risks 

for  Nordic 

countries. 

44   European  Environmental  Agency 

(EEA).  EEA  air  pollutant  emissions  –  data  viewer. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-pollutant-emissions-data-viewer-3  
45   Directive 2016/2284/EU on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants. 
46   EUROSTAT. Agri-environmental indicator – tillage practices.  

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

47   EUROSTAT.  Agri-environmental 

indicator  –  soil  cover.  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_soil_cover  

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

Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015 

49   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – the EU Environmental Implementation 

Review 2019. Country Report – Lithuania. SWD(2019) 125 final. 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_lt_en.pdf  

50   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  dashboard  –  Soil  quality  –  Share  of  agricultural  land  under 

contracts to improve soil.  
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Soil.html   

51   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA - Surface water bodies: Chemical status. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/european-waters/water-quality-and-water-assessment/water-
assessments/chemical-status-of-surface-water-bodies  

52   See note 51.  
53   Lithuania is not participating in the data collection of gross nutrient balances and is encouraged to send 

the necessary data to the Commission (Eurostat).  

24 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
54   European Commission. CAP Impact indicator I.11 Water quality.  

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_lt.pdf   

55   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  on  the  implementation  of  Council 
Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused from agricultural 
sources based on Member State reports for the period 2012-2015. SWD(2018) 246 final. 

56   See note 55. 
57   European  Environmental  Agency 

(EEA).  EEA 

–  Nitrate 

in 

rivers 

in  Europe. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/rivers-nitrate-3#tab-
chart_1_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%22%3A%7B%22pre_c
onfig_country%22%3A%5B%22Lithuania%22%5D%7D%7D  

58   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – the EU Environmental Implementation 

Review 2019. Country Report – Lithuania. SWD(2019) 125 final.  

59   HELCOM. Thematic assessment of eutrophication 2011–2016. 

http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/pressures-and-their-status/eutrophication/  

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

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification” 

61   EUROSTAT.  [aei_fm_salpest09]  
62   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.20 Irrigated land. Based on EUROSTAT [ef_poirrig] 

and [ef_m_farmleg] 

63   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  dashboard  –  Water  quality  &  Availability  –  Share  of 

agricultural land under contracts to improve water management. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/WaterQuality.html?select=EU27_FLAG,
1  

64   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – the EU Environmental Implementation 

Review 2019. Country Report – Lithuania. SWD(2019) 125 final.  

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

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

66   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – the EU Environmental Implementation 

Review 2019. Country Report – Lithuania. SWD(2019) 125 final. 

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

Barometer and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018. 

68   Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Lithuania. Natura 2000 Prioritized Action Framework 
(PAF)  for  the  implementation  in  Lithuania  under  Article  8  of  Council  Directive  92/43/EEC  on  the 
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive). For the 2021-2027 
Multiannual Financial Framework.  
http://am.lrv.lt/uploads/am/documents/files/saugom_teritorijos_kra%C5%A1tov/natura_2000/PAF-
2019-03-27.pdf  (Lithuanian version) 

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

Original source: European Environmental Agency 

70   Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Lithuania. Natura 2000 Prioritized Action Framework 
(PAF)  for  the  implementation  in  Lithuania  under  Article  8  of  Council  Directive  92/43/EEC  on  the 
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive). For the 2021-2027 
Multiannual Financial Framework.  
http://am.lrv.lt/uploads/am/documents/files/saugom_teritorijos_kra%C5%A1tov/natura_2000/PAF-
2019-03-27.pdf  (Lithuanian version) 

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

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification” 

72   See note 71. 
73   European Commission. Factsheet on 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme for Lithuania. 
74   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  for  land  laying 

fallow and Joint Research Centre based on LUCAS survey for estimation of landscape elements. 
75   European Commission. CAP indicators dashboard – Biodiversity – Share of EFA in total arable land. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Biodiversity.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  
76   Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Lithuania. Natura 2000 Prioritized Action Framework 
(PAF)  for  the  implementation  in  Lithuania  under  Article  8  of  Council  Directive  92/43/EEC  on  the 
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive). For the 2021-2027 
Multiannual Financial Framework.  
http://am.lrv.lt/uploads/am/documents/files/saugom_teritorijos_kra%C5%A1tov/natura_2000/PAF-
2019-03-27.pdf  (Lithuanian version) 

77   European Commission. The Natura 2000 Newsletter by DG Environment. Number 47, February 2020. 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000newsl/ENG%20Nat2k47%20WEB.pdf  

25 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
78   Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Lithuania. Natura 2000 Prioritized Action Framework 
(PAF)  for  the  implementation  in  Lithuania  under  Article  8  of  Council  Directive  92/43/EEC  on  the 
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive). For the 2021-2027 
Multiannual Financial Framework.  
http://am.lrv.lt/uploads/am/documents/files/saugom_teritorijos_kra%C5%A1tov/natura_2000/PAF-
2019-03-27.pdf  (Lithuanian version) 

79   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  for  land  laying 

fallow and Joint Research Center based on LUCAS survey for estimation of landscape elements. 

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

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

81   EUROSTAT [org_cropar] 
82   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  dashboard  –  Biodiversity  –  Share  of  land  under  contracts 

supporting biodiversity and/or landscapes and forest. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Biodiversity.html  

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

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

to 2018) 

86   EUROSTAT. Agricultural land prices and rents. 2018 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8756523/5-21032018-AP-EN.pdf/b1d0ffd3-f75b-
40cc-b53f-f22f68d541df  

87   Fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Lithuania, Study report. 
88   ADE s.a , CCRI , Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (European Commission), 
OIR. Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, local development and jobs in rural 
areas. Study 2019. 256 pages  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4bd0b0a2-0503-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1  
89   European Commission.  Summary report on the implementation of direct payments [except greening]. 

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

90   Fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Lithuania, Study report 
91   EUROSTAT [urt_bd_hgn2]  
92   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.03 Territory. Based on EUROSTAT [reg_area3] and 

[urt_d3area] 

93   Please note that there are different ways to define “rural areas”. The text above is based on the so-called 
“urban-rural  typology”  in  line  with  the  CAP  common  context  indicators.  However,  according  to  the 
definition based on the “degree of urbanisation typology”, in Lithuania 82.7% of the territory are rural 
areas and 42.7% of the population lives in rural areas. Source: Eurostat. 

94   EUROSTAT [ilc_lvho01] 
95   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Key  aspects  of  demographic  change 

and its impact. SWD(2020) 109 final. 

96   See note 95.  
97   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.05  Employment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_ergau] 

98   EUROSTAT [lfst_r_ergau] 
99   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.07  Unemployment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_lfu3rt] 

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

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp] 

101  Ministry of Economy of Lithuania. Strategy for Tourism Marketing 2016-2020. 

https://www.lithuania.travel/uploads/ckeditor/default/0001/02/948aa5f0871b4f82790319c2f7f6e88ff02
2b6db.pdf  

102  European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Key  aspects  of  demographic  change 

and its impact. SWD(2020) 109 final. 

103  See note 102. 
104  European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2018 – Lithuania.  

https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/document-library-docs/et-monitor-report-2018-
lithuania_en.pdf 

105  Valstybės kontrolė. Sveikatos priežiūros sistemos vertinimas, 2019 m. balandžio 15 d. Nr. YD-4 
106  Association of Local Communities Organizations of Lithuania.  

26 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
https://www.lvbos.lt/kaimo-bendruomenes/  
107  FAO. Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) 2020.  

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

108  EUROSTAT [for_emp_lfs] 
109  Joint  Research  Centre  of  European  Commission.  Bioeconomy  Report  2016.  Scientific  and  Policy 

Report. 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC103138/kjna28468enn.pdf 

110  European  Medicines  Agency.  Ninth  ESVAC  Report.  2019  (table  8,  table  6  and  overview  of  legal 
framework  per  country  in  annexes):  https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/sales-veterinary-
antimicrobial-agents-31-european-countries-2017_en.pdf 

111  Letter Commissioner Kyriakides to LT (Ref. Ares(2020)2643693 - 20/05/2020) 
112  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. 

113  Ministry of Agriculture of Lithuania. Plant Protection Plan. 

https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_sup_nap_ltu_en.pdf  

114  See note 113.  
115  EUROSTAT [aei_hri] 
116  Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. Audit LT 2019-6722 (https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-

analysis/country_profiles/details.cfm?co_id=LT) 

117  See note 116. 
118  EU Science Hub. Burden of disease studies.  
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden  
119  EUROSTAT [hlth_ehis_fv3e] 
120  European Parliament. Food waste: the problem in the EU in numbers.  

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20170505STO73528/food-waste-the-
problem-in-the-eu-in-numbers-infographic  

121  FUSIONS. Estimates of European food waste levels.  

https://www.eu-
fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20waste%20levels.p
df  

122  FAO. The state of food and agriculture, 2019. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf  
123  Rural 

Development 

Business 

Markets 

Agency 

and 

of 

Lithuania. 

https://www.litfood.lt/media/file/akreditavimas/AkredituotosIstaigos_20200602.pdf   

124  PRO  AKIS  study.  Prospects  for  Farmers’  Support:  Advisory  Services  in  European  AKIS.  

https://proakisinventory.eu/  

125  MS notification in SFC (based on adopted programmes up to July 2019) 
126  European Commission. Recommendation for a Council recommendation on the 2019 National Reform 
Programme  of  Lithuania  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2019  Stability  Programme  of 
Lithuania. COM/2019/515 final. CSR 2 

127  Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 of Lithuania. Annual Implementation Report 2019 
128  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index; Fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the 

agriculture and agri-food sectors in Lithuania, Study report. 

129  EIP-AGRI website 
130  Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 of Lithuania. Annual Implementation Report 2018 
131  The  technologies  considered  by  DESI  as  NGA  are  FTTH,  FTTB,  Cable  Docsis  3.0  and  VDS.  The 
coverage by 4G is not considered as it does not necessarily guarantee at least 30 Mbps of download. 
132  EU  digital  agenda,  2019,  Lithuania.  https://digital-agenda-data.eu/charts/see-the-evolution-of-an-

indicator-and-compare-countries#chart={"indicator-
group":"broadband","indicator":"bb_rngacov","breakdown":"total_pophh","unit-
measure":"pc_hh_all","ref-area":["EU","LT"]}  

133  EUROSTAT [isoc_sk_dskl_i]  

27