COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Croatia’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: Croatia, EU strategy, agricultural policy, climate change policy, common agricultural policy, cooperation on agriculture, digitisation, food security, innovation, rural development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2020  SWD(2020) 384 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Croatia’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) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CROATIA’S CAP 

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

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

security ............................................................................................................ 2 

1.2  Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the 

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

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

concerns .......................................................................................................... 4 

1.4  Modernising the sector by fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation 
and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake ....................................... 5 

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

2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 

CROATIA .................................................................................................................. 8 

2.1 

2.2 

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

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 ....................................................... 14 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas
 ....................................................................................................................... 16 

2.8 

2.9 

Promote employment, growth, social inclusion and local development in 
rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry ................. 18 

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 

CROATIA’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 Croatia. The recommendations are based on analysis of the 
state of play, the needs and the priorities for agriculture and rural areas in Croatia. 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 Croatia, in its CAP Strategic Plan, to 
set explicit national values for the Green Deal targets1, taking into account its specific 
situation and these recommendations. 

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

security 

The Croatian agricultural sector is undergoing structural changes: The number of farms is 
decreasing and the average farm size is increasing, pointing to a process of consolidation. 
Farm  structures  are  highly  polarised  with  a  ‘missing  middle’:  the  average  size  is  10 
hectares, but almost 70% of farms cover less than 5 hectares and 1% of farms have 100 
hectares  or  more.  Production  is  focused  on  crops  (roughly  two  thirds  of  agricultural 
output), mostly low-value cultivation (maize, cereals). The livestock sector accounts for a 
third of agricultural output.  

Productivity is lower than the EU average, although overall factor productivity has been 
increasing  since  2007.  Labour  productivity  stands  at  only  29%  of  the  EU  average 
productivity. Low productivity may also be due to the need to make Croatian agriculture 
‘smarter’ by investing in technology and digitalisation and to strengthen the agricultural 
knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS)  by  better  connecting  practice  and  research. 
The average technical efficiency of Croatian farmers amounts to 0.3, i.e. using available 
technology  the  same  production  could  be  achieved  with  70%  less  input.  The  level  of 
capital  investments  is  low:  investment  gaps  in  capital,  technology  and  R&D  persist, 
further inhibiting productivity. The financing gap in the agricultural sector is significant. 
On  trade,  Croatia  is  competitive  mainly  in  low  value,  primary  agricultural  products. 
Trade imbalances in the agri-food sector are growing, mainly due to a negative intra-EU 
trade balance.  In terms  of trade with  non-EU  countries,  Croatia is  doing comparatively 
better and the trade balance is positive. 

The analysis of farm income in Croatia shows that despite positive developments since 
2015 agricultural income remains well below the average wage at national level. Income 
support  is  quite  homogenous  across  different  sectors,  although  20%  of  beneficiaries 
receive 77% of direct payments. The amount per hectare of direct payments is on average 
higher for famers below the average size (10 hectares), while their income is significantly 
lower. With the complementary income support for sustainability, the future CAP has an 
effective instrument to ensure fairness and better targeting of income support by reducing 
income gaps between different farm sizes (in particular in favour of smaller-sized farms) 
and territories of the country. Most professional farms use risk management tools, which 

1  It concerns the targets related to use and risk of pesticides, sale of antimicrobials, nutrient loss, area under 

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

2 

 
 
                                                           
can  also  play  an  important  role  in  fostering  the  resilience  of  agriculture  (e.g.  against 
extreme weather events), exist and are used by a majority of professional farms. 

In terms of farmers’ position in the value chain, both the share and the absolute amounts 
of the value added by primary producers show a downward trend. Farmers’ position in 
the value chain seems to be affected by the very low level of cooperation and association 
between  farmers:  only  17  recognised  producer  organisations  exist,  covering  only  700 
members  and  around  EUR  300  000  of  the  total  value  of  marketed  production.  The  EU 
quality schemes are attractive and the number of products with a PDO/PGI is increasing. 
Finally, short supply chains seem to bring more value added than longer ones, with the 
difference standing at more than EUR 8 000. The recent Covid-19 crisis led to a surge in 
direct sales.  

Competitiveness  and  the  position  of  farmers  in  the  value  chain  could  be  further 
strengthened  by  increasing  the  currently  low  vertical  integration  of  agricultural 
producers, processors, distributors and the market. Similarly, given the low investment in 
digital technologies and precision farming, further investment in these areas represents a 
real opportunity. 

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

The environmental objectives are particularly relevant to Croatian agriculture. While the 
overall status and protection of natural resources in Croatia is good, climate change poses 
a  major  threat  to  agricultural  areas  and  forests.  These  risks  are  likely  to  be  further 
exacerbated if the trend of intensification of agricultural production continues and by the 
low level of conservation/zero tillage and the large share of agricultural area left without 
winter cover. Soil fertility and health are a particular concern: the risk of erosion due to 
water and winds is already high (and will increase due to climate change), while organic 
matter in the soil is low in the most productive areas of the country (eastern Croatia).  

The  use  of  conventional  fertilisers  is  an  additional  issue:  emissions  linked  to  soil 
management are the main source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in agriculture. In 
addition,  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  is  the  most  significant  pressure  on  water 
bodies, especially in the continental part of the country lying in the Danube River Basin.  

Air pollution emissions linked to livestock management still constitute a significant share 
of total emissions. Furthermore, two aspects of the implementation of Natura 2000 are of 
concern:  according  to  Croatia’s  prioritised  action  framework  (PAF),  more  than  half  of 
grassland  habitats  have  an  unfavourable  conservation  status.  Moreover,  delays  in  the 
preparation  of  management  plans1  for  certain  sites  are  limiting  the  access  of  Croatian 
farmers and land managers to CAP support. Finally, the share of utilised agricultural area 
(UAA)  covered  by  landscape  features  appears  modest.  On  the  positive  side,  the  area 
farmed  organically  is  increasing,  with  the  current  CAP  is  contributing  significantly  to 
this trend.  

While  Croatia  is  among  the  countries  with  the  richest  biodiversity  in  Europe, 
agroecosystems  that  are  essential  to  biodiversity,  such  as  extensive  cropland  and 
agricultural  mosaics  are  threatened  by  processes  of  land  consolidation  and  agricultural 
production intensification.  

3 

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

concerns  

In Croatia, rural areas are significant in terms of both surface area and population (almost 
two thirds of the territory and more than 40% of the population). Demographic trends in 
the country are not favourable: the population is shrinking and getting older. Emigration 
and unemployment remain an issue, with rural areas particularly affected by these trends. 
The  urban-rural  divide  is  quite  pronounced  in  a  number  of  respects:  firstly,  gross 
domestic product (GDP) per capita is significantly lower than the total GDP per capita. 
Secondly, the employment rate in rural areas, one of the lowest in EU, is lower than the 
total employment rate. Thirdly, youth unemployment is higher than the national average 
and  the  poverty  rate  is  higher  than  the  total  poverty  rate.  In  spite  of  significant 
investments financed by European Structural and Investment Funds, basic infrastructure 
(e.g. childcare, sewage, water supply) is still not available across all rural areas. All these 
elements  contribute  to  the  depopulation  of  rural  areas  and  exacerbate  the  rural  -  urban 
divide. 

Generational renewal remains a challenge: young farmers still account only for 5.1% of 
total farmers. This issue also has a significant gender component, as the share of female 
young farmers is especially low. Closing the gender gaps in employment, pay, pensions, 
care  and  decision-making  will  be  an  important  building  block  of  a  fair,  strong  and 
sustainable  food  system  as  envisaged  by  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy,  together  with 
appropriate  protection  of  agricultural  workers,  especially  precarious,  seasonal  and 
undeclared  workers.  Young  managers  in  Croatia  have  bigger  and  economically  more 
viable  farms,  are  comparatively  better  educated,  more  likely  to  invest  in  production  of 
high  quality  products,  and  more  likely  to  respond  to  societal  demands  by  delivering 
public goods than older farmers. However, they struggle with economic self-sufficiency, 
access to land, finance and satisfactory advisory services. There is a need for their further 
growth,  and  for  them  to  become  involved  in  alternative  and  value  added  farming 
activities,  and  to  specialise  and  innovate  to  remain  competitive  on  local,  European  and 
world markets.  

As regards its contributions to a sustainable food system, the agricultural sector appears 
to  be  responding  reasonably  well  to  societal  expectations  on  food  and  health:  the  risk 
from pesticide use shows a downward trend higher than at EU level, much like the trend 
in the sale of antimicrobial agents. Organic products (see Section 1.4) are also increasing. 
There  is,  however,  room  for  improvement  in  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides,  animal 
welfare  and  biosecurity.  Croatia  should  also  make  an  effort  to  shift  towards  healthier 
more sustainable diets as it has very high burden from non-communicable diseases due to 
dietary  risk  factors.  While  this  is  predominantly  within  the  competence  of  national 
policies  and  public/private  initiatives,  the  CAP  can  complement  this  action  through 
appropriate instruments that Member States may choose in their strategic plans. One such 
example  could  be  the  targeting  of  support  for  producer  organisations  to  promote  the 
consumption of fruit and vegetables. Croatia faces significant challenges in encouraging 
consumption that would be more in line with national dietary recommendations, moving 
towards  more  plant-based  diets  with  higher  intake  of  fruit  and  vegetables,  and  in 
reducing food waste. 

Croatia also has one of the greatest potentials in the EU for developing its bio-economy, 
due to its rich biomass resources. However, this potential is currently untapped and has 
even shown some signs of decline in recent years. 

4 

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

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

Accelerating the transition towards sustainable food production will require an effort to 
collect  and  bring  to  the  field  the  latest  scientific  findings  and  innovations.  A  well-
functioning agricultural knowledge and innovation System (AKIS), covering not only the 
agricultural sector but also any farming and rural activity that relates to it, will be key to 
structuring knowledge flows to respond to the growing information needs of farmers. It 
will  also  lead  to  quicker  innovation  and  better  valorisation  of  existing  knowledge  to 
achieve all CAP objectives. 

The  AKIS  in  Croatia  is  highly  fragmented  and  strongly  influenced  by  publicly  funded 
bodies where available. The low number of advisors raises doubts about the capacity of 
advisory  services  to  meet  the  challenges  ahead,  particularly  on  the  environment  and 
climate,  and  at  the  same  time  increase  competitiveness  and  productivity.  This  situation 
may  hamper  Croatia’s  transition  toward  a  greener  and  more  digital  agriculture  as 
envisaged by the Farm to Fork strategy. Information flows and cooperation between the 
various  AKIS  actors  are  limited.  Cooperation  between  science  and  practice  appears 
particularly  critical  and  very  few  European  Innovation  Partnership  (EIP)  operational 
groups have started to submit their innovative project proposals.  

In the digital domain, connectivity and digital public services are the two areas with the 
weakest performance. Digitalisation of the agricultural sector is limited; this provides an 
opportunity  for  improving  Croatian  agriculture’s  economic  sustainability  and  resilience 
while  preserving  its  environmental  sustainability.  For  rural  areas  in  general,  improving 
access  to  fast  broadband  can  contribute  to  making  them  more  attractive  to  live  in  and 
bridging the rural-urban divide. 

1.5  Recommendations 

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

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

  Strengthen  the  competitiveness  of  the  Croatian  agricultural  sector  by 
improving  productivity  (for  both  land  and  labour,  e.g.  through  training)  and  by 
improving  the  viability  of  smaller  and  medium-sized  farms  with  higher 
development  potential.  Measures  should  include  a  more  effective  targeting  of 
income  support  to  better  address  the  income  gaps  among  different  professional 
farm  sizes,  the  promotion  of  producer  co-operation  and  recognition  of  producer 
organisations,  including  an  increased  support  for  practices  and  technological 
modernisation, digitalisation and innovation in an environmentally sustainable 
manner in line with Green Deal orientations. 

  Strengthen  the  competitiveness  of  the  Croatian  agricultural  sector  by 
improving  productivity  (for  both  land  and  labour,  e.g.  through  training)  and  by 
improving  the  viability  of  smaller  and  medium-sized  farms  with  higher 
development  potential.  A  more  effective  targeting  of  income  support  should 
address  the  income  gaps  among  different  professional  farm  sizes  (through,  for 
example,  complementary  redistributive  income  support  and  a  reduction  of 

5 

 
 
payments)  and  advance  in  the  internal  convergence  process.  Furthermore,  the 
promotion  of  producer  co-operation  and  recognition  of  producer  organisations, 
including  an  increased  support  for  practices  and  technological  modernisation, 
digitalisation and innovation in an environmentally sustainable manner in line 
with Green Deal orientations. 

  Support the primary sector in strengthening its position in the value chain by 
financing investments to diversify product portfolios, develop quality policy with 
higher value  added, such as organic products,  and develop  and  enhance vertical 
integration between agricultural producers, processors and distributors as well as 
strengthening the role of short supply chains through relevant support. 

  Strengthen  the  capacity  to  invest  in  the  sustainable  modernisation  of 
agriculture by significantly improving access to finance and capital, particularly 
for  young  farm  managers,  through  offering  an  appropriate  mix,  as  well  as  a 
combination, of grant-based support and financial instruments, such as guarantees 
and loans.  

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

  Increase  resilience  to  climate  change  by  stepping  up  climate  adaptation 
measures,  particularly  to  address  the  risks  stemming  from  extreme  weather 
events, droughts and soil erosion, while preserving the status of water resources. 
Measures should include awareness raising, promotion of practices enhancing soil 
health  and  its  carbon  content  (e.g.  low  tillage  farming,  regenerative  agriculture) 
and hedges and other landscape features that have climate mitigation co-benefits, 
as  well  as  support  for  investments  in  drought-resilient  crops,  efficient  and 
sustainable  irrigation  infrastructure,  and  flood  prevention  and  protection  (e.g. 
natural water retention). 

  Contribute  to  the  objective  of  achieving  a  climate-neutral  EU  by  2050 
through  reducing  air  pollution  emissions  and  increasing  removals  of  CO2. 
Measures  should  include  support  for  management  practices  that  increase  the 
carbon  uptake  of  forests  and  grasslands  (carbon  farming)  and  reduce  emissions 
from  enteric  fermentation  in  line  with  the  Methane  Strategy,  as  well  as 
investments  in  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  production,  including 
solar and wind energy, and the promotion of carbon assessment tools.  

  Contribute to the EU Green Deal  target on nutrient losses  by improving the 
application of fertilisers to  avoid  undesired losses in  the environment.  Measures 
should  include  the  promotion  of  precision  farming  technologies  and  integrated 
nutrient  management  strategies  (including,  e.g.,  the  use  of  organic-based 
fertilisers,  better  manure  and  livestock  management,  as  well  as  agro-ecological 
practices), taking into account the whole nitrogen cycle and the risks to air, water 
and soil. 

  Contribute to the EU Green Deal target on organic farming by sustaining the 
growth  of  the  area  under  organic  farming.  Measures  should  include  appropriate 
conversion  and  maintenance  schemes  as  well  as  support  for  research  and 
innovation activities for organic farming and other low-impact forms of farming. 
Lessons  learnt  in  the  implementation  of  the  2014-2020  rural  development 
programme  (e.g.  as  regards  the  potential  for  organic  food  production,  the 

6 

 
 
optimization  of  subsidies  and  development  of  food  supply  chain  structures) 
should be taken into account.  

  Contribute  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  commitments  on  biodiversity  by  ensuring 
sufficient  coverage  of  agricultural  areas  with  high  diversity  landscape  features, 
especially  on  intensively  farmed  arable  land,  and  increased  connectivity  among 
habitats, and maintaining or restoring favourable conservation status of protected 
farmland  and  forest  habitats  and  species,  including  farmland  birds  and  wild 
pollinators.  Measures  should  include  the  promotion  of  relevant  environment-
friendly  and  sustainable  farming,  forestry  (including  afforestation)  and  habitat 
management  practices,  the  definition  of  ambitious  GAEC  requirements  on 
biodiversity  that  are  consistent  with  the  Nature  legislation  and  fully  apply  the 
SMR  requirement  from  the  Nature  directives,  and  the  prompt  completion  of 
Natura 2000 management plans. 

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

  Contribute to making rural areas more attractive, by promoting investments 
in  infrastructures  and  services  (water  sewage,  childcare  infrastructure  and 
services),  people,  and  economic  development,  in  and  outside  the  agricultural 
sector, with a specific focus on women and young farmers, e.g. through relevant 
investment  support  and  financial  instruments,  and,  where  applicable,  in  synergy 
with other EU and national funds active in rural areas.  

  Harness the opportunities of the Croatian bio-economy by aiming to increase 
the value added especially by the primary sector (e.g. agriculture and forestry) to 
bio-economy  products  and  their  circularity  in  a  sustainable  manner  through 
offering relevant investment support and financial instruments. 

  Contribute  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  of  reducing  the  sale  of 
antimicrobials, although Croatia’s sales are below the EU average, by sustained 
efforts  to  further  reduce  the  use  of  antimicrobials  in  farming,    for  example  by 
integrating targets into concrete and more ambitious CAP actions.  

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

  Strengthen  the  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Innovation  System  (AKIS)  to 
enhance  the  sustainability,  performance,  and  competitiveness  of  the  agricultural 
sector. This should be done by tackling the overall low uptake of planned funding 
in  knowledge  and  innovation  and  enhancing  information  flows  and  cooperation 
between  the  various  AKIS  actors,  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  overall 
availability  and  performance  of  advisory  services,  a  better  integration  of 
independent  private  advisors,  and  enhanced  innovation  support,  including  for 
young farmers. 

  Reap the benefits of digital technology for the development of the agricultural 
sector  and  rural  areas.  This  should  be  done  by  encouraging  the  uptake  and 
effective  deployment  of  advanced  and  innovative  technologies  as  well  as  the 
development  of  rural  businesses  by  making  the  necessary  investments  in 
infrastructure to ensure full coverage of rural areas with fast broadband by 2025 
in line with the Green Deal target and preparing for 5G rollout. 

7 

 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

CROATIA 

Compared  to  the  EU  average,  the  Croatian  agricultural  sector  lags  behind  in  terms  of 
competitiveness  and  productivity  but  scores  better  in  terms  of  environmental/climate 
issues linked to agriculture (e.g. biodiversity, GHG emissions). Like many EU countries, 
generational renewal remains an issue and rural areas suffer from negative demographic 
trends, depopulation and lack of basic infrastructure. 

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

enhance food security 

In  Croatia,  the  agricultural  income  per  worker  is  on  average  about  37%  of  the  average 
wage  in  the  whole  economy  between  2005  and  20192.  This  has  improved  since  the 
implementation of the current CAP in 2015, reaching 45% in 2019, but remains slightly 
lower  than  the  EU  average  (47%).  The  average  agricultural  factor  income  per  worker 
fluctuates around EUR 5 000 between 2005 and 20183, with a positive trend.  

Direct payments formed about 24% of the agricultural factor income in Croatia in 2018, 
while  payments  under  rural  development  (except  investment  subsidies)  account  for 
nearly 10% of the factor income4. Support for areas facing natural or specific constraints 
(ANC)  is  particularly  important  in  the  sheep  and  goat  sector.  In  total  the  share  of 
operating subsidies in Croatia represent some 55% of the entrepreneurial income. 

The agricultural factor income per worker tends to be above average for wine, milk, and 
field crops, and lower for permanent crops and orchards. 

The amount of direct payments per hectare is quite homogeneous across different sectors, 
but tends to be higher for milk (EUR 518 per hectare, representing 50% of the income) 
and  for  olive  oil  (EUR  475  per  hectare  i.e.  61%  of  the  income),  also  highly  supported 
under rural development. The share of direct payments in income ranges from 23% for 
orchards  to  61%  for  olive  oil,  with  low  figures  in  wine  and  horticulture  (5%)  and 
permanent crops (11%)5. 

In  2017,  20%  of  the  beneficiaries  owned  75%  of  the  land  and  received  77%  of  direct 
payments6. 

The average farm size is about 11.6 hectares7, below the EU average of 15 hectares. In 
the  Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network  (which  provides  information  for  farms  above  a 
threshold of EUR 4 000, i.e. professional farms), farms below 5 hectares consist of a mix 
of  very  different  sectors:  mixed  crops  and  livestock  (26%),  mixed  crops  (9%),  wine 
(9%),  olives  (8%).  They  represent  36%  of  the  total  number  of  farms.  The  amount  per 
hectare  of  direct  payments  is  on  average  higher  for  farms  below  average  size  (11.6 
hectares), even though their income remains significantly lower4.  

Risk management instruments and strategies are available in Croatia in the form of crop 
insurance covering climatic risks such as storms, hail and fires. Insurance in the livestock 
sector  covers  only  illnesses.  Uptake  in  Croatia  is  low  (7-8%  of  farms)  but  covers 
approximately  50%  of  the  production.8  Products  insuring  farms  against  drought  do  not 
exist  as  considered  highly  risky  (drought  is  frequent  while  irrigation  systems  are 
limited).9 

8 

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

Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms  

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy  

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

Source: DG AGRI based on EUROSTAT10 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

The  Croatian  farming  sector  is  going  through  structural  changes.  Between  2007  and 
2016,  the  total  number  of  farms  decreased  by  more  than  25%  (from  about  181 250  to 
134 460  farms),  whereas  the  average  farm  size  increased  from  seven  to  11.6  hectares. 
Farm structures in Croatia are highly polarised with a ‘missing middle’. Out of 134 460 
farms, more than 69% of farms cover less than 5 hectares, while 1% of farms have access 
to more than 100 ha of agricultural land. In 2018, crop production accounted for 60.3% 
of the total agricultural output, livestock production for 35.1%.11  

Between  2008  and  2015,  the  agricultural  sector  in  Croatia  recorded  negative  growth  in 
terms of gross output, with an average decrease of 5.6% per year. However, since 2016, 
agricultural GDP has been growing 2.8% per year on average. In 2018, there was also a 
noticeable increase in agricultural output of 5.9%, mostly related to cereals and industrial 
plants, but the livestock sub-sector decreased further by 3%.12 The positive turnaround of 
agricultural GDP can largely be attributed to the end of the economic crisis and the start 
of CAP support as well as easier access to the EU agricultural market. 

Overall factor productivity has been increasing in Croatia since 2007 but the productivity 
gap  with  the  EU  average  remains.  Croatia’s  land  productivity  was  higher  than  EU 
average before entering the EU but it has decreased since, reflected in the developments 
in yields and rents. According to a World Bank study13, land productivity is limited due 
to  the  production  structure  of  low  value  cultures,  mainly  maize  and  cereals.  Labour 
productivity  in  Croatia  increased  mainly  due  to  the  outflow  of  labour  from  the  sector 
(-17%  as  of  2007)  and  stands  currently  at  29%  of  the  EU  average  productivity.  Low 
labour  productivity  has  not  allowed  translating  low  labour  costs  into  a  comparative 
advantage, particularly for agricultural trade. It is worth noting that the average technical 
efficiency  of  Croatian  farmers  amounts  to  0.3  meaning  that  using  available  technology 
they could achieve the same production with 70% less input.14 

Low  agricultural  factor  productivity  (returns  on  investments)  has  led  to  low  level  of 
capital investments in Croatia. Investment gaps in capital, technology, and R&D persist 
in  Croatia’s  agricultural  sector,  further  inhibiting  productivity.  The  capital  intensity  of 
Croatia’s  agri-food  sector  remains  low  compared  to  EU  countries.  Between  2009  and 
9 

 
 
2016, investment levels in physical assets, such as machinery and buildings, dropped by 
70% and 61%, respectively. The unmet demand for finance from Croatian agriculture has 
been estimated to EUR 2.1 billion.15  

Croatia  is  currently  a  net  importer  of  agri-food  products  and  faces  growing  agri-food 
trade  imbalances,  mainly  caused  by  the  negative  intra-EU  trade  balance.  However, 
Croatia  has  a  positive  trade  balance  with  countries  outside  the  EU  (EXTRA  EU-28) 
which  is  increasing  over  time.16  Croatia  is  currently  competitive  in  mainly  low  value, 
primary  agricultural  products,  including  cereals  and  oilseeds  (sunflower,  soybean).17 
Nevertheless,  the  main  export  product  of  Croatia  to  non-EU  countries  are  live  animals 
(21.4% in value in 2018). 

Croatian agriculture suffers from a lack of vertical integration of agricultural producers, 
distributors  and  the  market:  storage  and  refrigeration  capacities  as  well  as  distribution 
centres are lacking and are unequally distributed at regional level.18 Research spending in 
Croatia is at the very bottom of the EU with only 0.97% of GDP (2.19% of GDP at EU 
level  in  2018).19  While  statistical  data  on  uptake  of  precision  farming  and  digital 
technologies  is  not  available,  implementation  of  the  rural  development  programme 
(RDP) 2014-2020 indicates a low level of investment in digital technologies: only 1.25% 
of the budget of all investment projects was invested in digital tools.20 

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

Total factor productivity 

Land productivity 

Labour productivity 
Intermediate costs productivity 

Capital productivity 

TFP EU-27 

Source: EUROSTAT for TFP and DG AGRI for partial productivity21 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

The share of the value added by primary producers in the food chain is decreasing over 
time in Croatia (from 35% in 2008 to 31% in 2016) in favour of the food and beverage 
consumer  services.22  The  share  of  the  value  added  that  goes  to  the  primary  sector  is 
above  the  EU-average.  Also,  the  value  added  by  primary  producers  in  absolute  terms 
decreased  between  2008  and  2014,  but  increased  again  after  2015.  The  same  trend  is 
visible in the value added for the whole food chain in Croatia. Production in Croatia is 
very  diverse,  as  the  largest  number  of  sectors  accounts  for  8%  to  18%  of  agricultural 
products. However, the production structure is dominated by low-value crops and about 
two-thirds of arable land produces low-value cereals. The primary agricultural sector is 
fragmented and farms are generally rather small (cf. section 2.2). 

At the end of 2019, there were  a total  of 17 recognised  producer organisations (PO) in 
Croatia  operating  in  8  different  sectors23.  The  recognised  PO  penetration  level  is  still 
very low, covering in total just over 700 members and ca. EUR 300 000 as the total value 
of marketed production which is only a fraction of the total number of POs (for example, 
according to a May 2019 PO Study24, there were 613 cooperatives in Croatia and only 2 

10 

 
 
of these were recognised as PO). In the 2014-2020 programming period, Croatia supports 
producers’  cooperation  from  the  RDP  budget.  The  originally  planned  budgetary 
allocation of EUR 8 million has been decreased to EUR 5 million due to lack of interest 
for the measure, out of which only 12% is currently paid out (far below the EU average 
of 35%). So far, there is no recognised Interbranch Organisation (IBO) in Croatia: such 
organisations  could  also  contribute  to  better  vertical  cooperation  in  the  Croatian  food 
supply chain.  

Croatia has 25 agricultural and food products, 16 wines, 6 spirits and 1 aromatised wine 
listed  in  an  EU  database  for  protected  designations  of  origin  or  protected  geographical 
indications25. 121 manufacturers are included in the EU quality label system. Under the 
current RDP, Croatia stimulates agricultural producers to participate in quality schemes. 
However, the original budgetary allocation of EUR 6 million has been decreased to EUR 
2.5 million due to low uptake, out of which only 1% is currently paid out (far below the 
EU  average  of  36%).  In  addition,  Croatia  has  various  food  product  names  protected  at 
national level and is currently establishing a national labelling scheme of agricultural and 
food products called “Proven Quality.” This scheme would capture value-added Croatian 
products  based  on  the  improved  quality  resulting  from  various  factors  related  to  the 
method  of  production,  processing,  specific  characteristic  of  raw  materials  or  a  final 
product.  

Since  December  2017,  Croatia  applies  the  national  Law  on  Prohibition  of  Unfair 
Commercial Practices in the Food Supply Chain.  

Croatian  farmers  who  use  short  supply  chains  achieve  an  average  of  EUR  8 138  more 
value added on the farm than farmers who rely on longer supply chains26. Various private 
and public initiatives have been launched in Croatia to support the establishment of short 
supply  chains.  Examples  include  an  e-commerce  platform  (Tržnica.hr)  aiming  at 
providing  a  digital  marketplace  for  Croatian  agricultural  and  food  products,  which  the 
authorities  recently  launched,  and  a  local  food  project  Međimurski  štacun,  based  on  a 
partnership model. Direct sales also boomed in the Croatian agriculture and food sector 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

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

Primary producers 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 

% for primary producers (right axis) 
Source: EUROSTAT27 

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

11 

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

sustainable energy 

In  2018,  agricultural  emissions  of  greenhouse  gases  (without  LULUCF)  in  Croatia 
amounted to 2.72 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, a decrease of 39% compared to GHG 
emissions  in  1990  and  18%  compared  to  2005  but  comparable  to  emissions  in  2013. 
Agriculture accounts for 14.8% of total GHG emissions in Croatia, slightly above the EU 
average, and 0.65% of the total GHG emissions from agriculture in the EU.28 Emissions 
remained  lower  than  the  annual  targets  of  all  sectors  under  the  Effort  Sharing 
Regulation.29  Emissions  in  agriculture  stem  mainly  from  agricultural  soil  management 
(41%),  followed  by  enteric  fermentation  (36%)  and  manure  management  (20%).30 
Among the main sources of non-CO2 GHG, emissions from soil management increased 
by 13.3% between 2013 and 2018.  

On  land  use,  land  use  change  and  forestry  (LULUCF),  in  2018,  forests  act  as  main 
carbon  sinks  followed  by  grasslands  (-0.222  million  tonnes  of  CO2  equivalent)  while 
croplands  are  a  source  of  emissions  (0.47  million  tonnes  of  CO2  equivalent).  Data  for 
1990–2018  show  a  worrying  trend  of  decrease  in  net  removals  from  LULUCF.  Trends 
for  2013–2018  show  an  increase  in  cropland  emissions  of  19%  while  grasslands  sinks 
increased by more than 230% in the same period.31 Finally, according to the Greifswald 
Mire Centre, up to 2% of the total area of Croatia consist of peatlands, but detailed data 
on carbon rich soils are not available.32  

The  share  of  agriculture  in  the  production  of  total  renewable  energy  in  Croatia  is  very 
low  (2.7%),  significantly  below  the  EU-27  average  (12.1%).  Conversely,  almost  two 
thirds of renewable energy production comes from the forestry sector (62.6%) which is 
significantly  above  the  EU-27  average  (41.4%).33  Energy  consumption  in  Croatian 
agriculture and forestry accounts for 3.2% of the total final energy consumption, which is 
the  same  as  the  EU-27  average  (3.2%).  Between  2009  and  2015  there  was  an  overall 
decline in the number of kg of oil equivalent use per ha of the utilised agricultural area 
and forest area in the EU-28 (-2.5 kg of oil equivalent per hectare). In the same period, 
Croatia registered a decrease of 9.1 of kg of oil equivalent per hectare and a 3% reduction 
of the direct use of energy in food industry.34 

The National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change by 2040 acknowledges the high 
vulnerability of agriculture and forests to climate change. As for the rest of the Southern 
climate region, there is an increased risk of drought and soil erosion and a related risk of 
decrease in water availability and crop yields. The Strategy outlines 8 specific adaptation 
measures for the agricultural sector and 12 for the forestry sector. The measures of very 
high  importance  in  the  agricultural  sector  include,  for  instance,  increasing  the  water 
absorption  capacity  of  agricultural  land,  appropriate  land  management  techniques 
(conservation and other reduced tillage techniques), cultivating crops and breeds that are 
more  resilient  to  climate  change,  integrating  risks  stemming  from  climate  change  in 
developing  irrigation  systems.35  However,  according  to  the  assessment  of  the  Second 
River Basin  Management  Plan, Croatia has  yet  to report a drought  management  plan.36 
The Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan for 2021-2030 puts strong emphasis on 
decarbonisation and outlines a comprehensive set of 15 measures in agriculture and 7 for 
the LULUCF sector.37 However, the Plan does not indicate priority actions as no budget 
data are provided.  

The current Rural Development Programme promotes climate adaptation and mitigation 
primarily  through  agri-environment-climate  measures  (e.g.  preservation  of  HNV 
investments  and 
input  management)  but  also  non-productive 
grasslands,  better 

12 

 
 
investments  in  better  manure  management.38  Uptake  of  these  measures  has  been 
generally  low  (although  it  shows  an  increasing  trend  since  2019).  0.5  million  ha  of 
agricultural  land  in  Croatia  have  very  high  and  high  irrigation  benefit  and  a  national 
irrigation  target  has  been  set  at  65  000 ha  to  be  irrigated  by  2020.  However,  the  2009 
economic  crisis  has  undermined  this  objective  and  17  currently  implemented  irrigation 
projects  under  HR  RDP  2014-2020  will  only  cover  7  000  ha  of  agricultural  land  with 
additional 11 projects covering 9 300 ha being in the pipeline.39 

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

After  a  substantial  decrease  in  the  previous  years,  which  can  largely  be  attributed  to  a 
decrease  in  livestock  numbers40,  ammonia  emissions  in  HR  have  increased  since  2013, 
broadly  in  line  with  the  EU  trend.41  This  is  also  the  case  for  NH3  emissions  from 
agriculture42, the share of which in total ammonia emissions is below the EU average. In 
2018, ammonia emissions from agriculture made up 81% of total ammonia emissions in 
HR  (EU28:  93%).43  Linked  to  this  is  the  fact  that,  due  to  a  relatively  low  livestock 
density44,  the  relative  contribution  of  the  livestock  sector  to  ammonia  emissions  from 
agriculture  in  Croatia  is  considerably  lower  than  the  EU  average.45  However,  NH3 
emissions from agriculture per hectare in Croatia are close to the EU-average.46 Current 
NH3  emissions  in  Croatia  are  below  its  NECD  (National  Emission  Ceiling  Directive) 
ammonia  emission  reduction  commitment  for  2020-29  and,  according  to  its  own 
projections,  Croatia  will  be  able  to  meet  the  2030  reduction  commitment47.  However, 
reviews  of  the  National  Air  Pollution  Control  Programme  (NAPCP)  and  air  pollutant 
emission projection commissioned by the European Commission have found a medium 
risk of non-compliance with Croatia’s ammonia (NH3) emission reduction commitments 
for the period 2020-2029 as well as for 2030 and beyond.48 

Due to its location in the centre of the Mediterranean region, Croatia has a high risk of 
soil erosion. Certain land uses and types of agricultural practices further exacerbate soil 
erosion pressures.49 Conventional tillage practices are very widespread50 and soil is often 
left bare during winter51. The share of the estimated agricultural area affected by severe 
erosion due to water (>11t/ha/yr) in Croatia is similar to the EU average.52 The estimated 

13 

 
 
rate of soil loss by water erosion is higher than the EU average53, with higher rates in the 
south  of  the  country.  Research  conducted  in  Eastern  Croatia  (Osijek-Baranja  County) 
indicates  low  levels  of  soil  organic  matter.54  In  2018,  over  6%  of  agricultural  land  in 
Croatia  was  under  contracts  to  improve  soil  management.  55  In  the  future,  these  soil 
management issues can be addressed in synergy with activities under the Horizon Europe 
mission on Soil Health. 

Croatia  is  rich  in  renewable  water  sources,  although  they  are  spatially  and  temporary 
unequally  distributed.  The  quality  of  groundwater  is  generally  considered  good 
throughout  the  country,  but  Croatia  has  a  relatively  high  proportion  of  eutrophic  or 
hypertrophic rivers and lakes56. Diffuse pollution from agriculture is the most significant 
pressure  on  surface-  and  groundwater  bodies,  especially  in  the  continental  part  of  the 
country belonging to the Danube River Basin. Nutrient pollution is the most significant 
impact  on  surface  water  bodies  (43%  of  surface  water  bodies  affected)  and  on 
groundwater (6%).57 With 1.9% (~29 700 ha), the share of irrigable58 agricultural area in 
HR is relatively small59, and irrigation accounts only for 1.2% of all water abstractions60. 
Croatia  has  reduced  its  total  consumption  of  nitrogen-  and  phosphorus  based  fertilisers 
significantly since 2008.61 Likewise, there is a positive long-term trend in the reduction 
of its gross nutrient balance.62 However, it should be emphasised that those developments 
occurred simultaneously with a severe decrease of agricultural production (in particular 
livestock63). Moreover, nitrogen usage efficiency is still quite low, although there is also 
a  positive  trend64  and  Croatia  still  has  one  of  the  highest  phosphorus  surpluses  (>  5 
kg/ha) in the EU (together with Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, and Malta)65. In 2018, over 
6% of agricultural land was under contracts to improve water management. 66 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Croatia 

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: EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb]67 

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

On  biodiversity,  data  on  the  Farm  Bird  Index  and  the  Forest  Bird  Index  are  collected 
since 2016 only and cannot be considered reliable indicators of trends  yet.68 Generally, 
however,  Croatia  is  among  the  countries  with  the  richest  biodiversity  in  Europe  as 
shown, for instance, by the high diversity of animal and plant species present in different 
habitats and the number of endemic plant species and subspecies.69  

14 

 
 
 
 
The  share  of  agricultural  area  in  Natura  2000  (26%)  is  the  highest  in  EU-27  and 
significantly  above  the  EU  average  (11%).70  However,  the  preparation  of  Natura  2000 
management  plans  is  lagging  behind,  limiting  access  of  Croatian  farmers  and  other 
potential applicants to several CAP support schemes. In addition, forests account for 45% 
of the Natura 2000 area in Croatia (EU average 23%).71 On top of areas covered by the 
Natura 2000 network, 12% of the land territory benefits from other forms of protection in 
line with national legislation (national parks, parks of nature).72 The share of high nature 
value areas in UAA is high with some territorial variability (61-80% in Eastern Croatia, 
81-100% in Adriatic and North-West Croatia).73 

Data  on  the  conservation  status  of  grassland  habitats  in  2012  are  not  available,  but, 
according  to  Croatia’s  Prioritised  Action  Framework  (PAF)  under  the  EU  Habitats 
Directive  (2013-2018),  only  27.59%  of  grassland  habitat  types  present  in  Croatia  are 
currently in favourable conservation status; status for 13.79% is unknown, while the rest 
is  in  unfavourable  conservation  status  (58.62%).74  Grasslands  in  the  Natura  2000 
network  are  threatened  primarily  by  abandonment  of  traditional  agricultural  activities 
such as extensive grazing and mowing, inter alia due to the depopulation of rural areas, 
while  other  agroecosystems,  including  cropland  and  extensive  agricultural  mosaics,  are 
threatened  by  land  consolidation  and  the  intensification  of  agricultural  production.75 
Indeed, according to data on farming intensity for 2013-2016,76 the percentage of UAA 
farmed with high input intensity is increasing while the percentage of UAA farmed with 
low  input  is  decreasing.  The  threat  to  grasslands  is  particularly  high  in  areas  where 
climatic and vegetation/ soil conditions make extensive grazing the only feasible farming 
system (e.g., karst pastures, coastal areas).77  

Approximately  1.6%  of  UAA  is  covered  by  landscape  features  (0.7%)  or  land  laying 
fallow (1%) (the target set in the Farm to Fork Strategy is 10%).78  

Croatia recognises forests as an important element of nature and biodiversity protection, 
placing emphasis on their sustainable management and protection: as mentioned above, 
45% of Natura 2000 areas are comprised of forests, 14% of total forest area is considered 
High  Conservation  Value  Forest  and  forest  owners  are  obliged  to  elaborate  forest 
management  plans  that  define  all  conditions  related  to  maintenance,  protection  and 
allowed exploitation.79 In forest Natura 2000 sites, those forest management plans (since 
2019)  will  serve  as  Natura  2000  management  plans.  However,  27%  of  forest  area  is 
degraded due to overgrown vegetation (mainly underbrush/coppice) and 300km2 are still 
mined (or mine-suspect) and consequently not maintained nor used.80 

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 6.5%,81 very 
close to the EU average of 8% but well below the Farm to Fork target of 25%. The share 
of UAA under conversion to organic farming decreased in recent years82. More than 90% 
of  organic  area  receives  CAP  support.  However,  farmers’  choices  of  converting  to 
organic  farming  seem  to  be  strongly  driven  by  the  level  of  support  (and  less  by  the 
market demand) for certain types of crops (e.g. hazelnuts, walnuts, pastures).83  

The  current  RDP  includes  measures  supporting  biodiversity  and/  or  landscape  features 
but uptake has been generally low and only 6% of land is under contracts for protecting 
biodiversity  and/or  landscape  features,  well  below  the  EU  average  of  15%.84  The  RDP 
offered  also  financing  opportunities  for  the  restoration  of  damaged  forests,  but  budgets 
remain unspent mainly due to property-legal relations regarding the ownership of private 
forests,  slow-paced  association  of  private  forest  owners,  as  well  as  insufficient  activity 
and promotion from the competent authorities.85 

15 

 
 
Area under organic farming in Croatia 

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

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

Source: EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar]86 

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

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. 
* Linear elements considered here: Grass margins, shrub margins, single trees bushes, lines of trees, 
hedges and ditches. This estimation is to be taken with caution because of methodological caveats. 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

In 2016, the share of  young farmers (YFs) in Croatia was 5.1% (equal the EU average) 
which  represents  6  890  farms  (+17%  as  compared  to  2007)87.  For  every  Croatian  farm 
manager younger than 35 years, there were nearly seven between 35-54 years old and 12 
older  than  5588.  In  2016,  15%  of  YF  holders  in  Croatia  were  women,  while  the 
proportion of women holding farms in total in Croatia was 26%, almost at the level of the 
EU average  (28%)89. The  ratio of  young managers < 35 to  elderly  > = 55  has shown a 
constant increase over the period 2010-2016 (from 7.0% to 8.47%)90.  

YFs in Croatia have bigger (number of ha) and more viable (in terms of Standard Output 
(SO)) farms than older categories91. In 2016 one YF in Croatia used on average 19.6 ha 
of agricultural land (+18.1% compared to 2010), had 13.5 livestock units (+15.2%) and 
generated  an  average  economic  output  of  EUR  33  422  (+25.4%)  for  which  1.6  annual 
work  units  applied  (+2.2%)92.  Nevertheless,  between  2010-2016  the  number  of 
economically  self-sufficient  farms  managed  by  YFs  dropped  from  3 030  to  1 980 
(-34.7%)93 which points to the need for their further growth, involvement in alternative 
and  value  added  farming  activities,  specialization  and  innovativeness  so  as  to  remain 

16 

 
 
 
 
competitive  on  local,  European  and  world  markets.  While  only  1.2%  of  Croatian  YFs 
produce a SO of more than EUR 250 000, 47% of them have SO of up to EUR 8 00094, 
which points at low value farming cultures, limited market connectivity and the part-time 
character of their farming activity.  

The  share  of  farm  managers  below  35  years  of  age  with  at  least  a  basic  level  of 
agricultural  training  (27%)  is  higher  than  that  share  among  total  farm  managers  in 
Croatia (10%) in 201695. Simultaneously, the share of Croatian YFs with high vocational 
education (BSc, MSc, PhD) remains 52% below the EU-average.96 YFs are more likely 
than  older  ones  to  invest  in  and  produce  high  quality,  safe  and  non-traditional  food,  to 
create  alternative  agri-food  networks  (e.g.  local  certification  schemes)  and  innovative 
business models (e.g. environment friendly schemes) as well as deliver the large range of 
public goods that society demands. To increase their participation in the above initiatives, 
the Croatian YFs need to be properly accompanied by a sufficient number of trainers and 
advisors from both public and private sectors. It is doubtful if the current system of 230 
public advisors working in 117 county offices97 will be sufficient to cover all sectors and 
initiatives (see also 2.10). In particular, the Croatian YFs underline a need for support in 
the  application  of  practical  knowledge  with  clear  visual  training  and  aids  on 
technological processes98. 

33%  of  agricultural  land  is  state-owned99,  and  its  disposal  under  the  responsibility  of 
local  self-governments  remains  slow  and  could  be  further  improved100,  despite  certain 
preferences provided to YF during the tendering process. Other challenges pointed out by 
Croatian YFs are: availability of subsidies, difficult access to credit, advice of extension 
services101  as  well  as  the  improvement  of  the  business  environment  for  producers  and 
agribusiness SMEs.102 

The above-mentioned shortages of financing to Croatian YF are confirmed by the current 
implementation  of  the  RDP  2014-2020  where  the  financial  uptake  under  FA2B 
‘Generational renewal’ remains second highest in the HR Programme (76% vs. 56% of 
the HR RDP average) and compared to other MS (76% vs. 56% of the EU average for 
FA 2B).  As for the young farmer payment under Pillar I, Croatia in 2018 granted EUR 
5.49 million, nearly the  total  2% of direct  payments  available for this schemes; 10 299 
farmers  benefit  from  this  scheme,  which  represent  10.3%  of  the  total  number  of 
beneficiaries in 2018 (vs 7.5% at EU level).    

The  financing  gap  for  YFs  is  estimated  between  EUR  413  and  514  million103. 
Commercial  banks  still  perceive  the  agricultural  sector  as  too  risky  thus  YF  running 
smaller,  part-time  farms  do  not  have  sufficient  access  to  capital  for  lack  of  ownership, 
proper cadaster titles and insufficient collateral or guarantees. Croatian farms, including 
those  managed  by  YFs,  lack  inclusion  into  higher-level  organizational  forms  and  other 
types  of  cooperation.  Only  17  producer  organizations  are  currently  registered  in 
Croatia104 and their linkages to markets are limited. 

17 

 
 
Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Croatia 

Share of male farm managers below 35 
years 
Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

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 

Predominantly  rural  areas  represent  63%  of  total  HR  territory,  a  higher  share  than  the 
EU27  average  (45%).105  With  43%,  the  share  of  the  population  living  in  rural  areas  is 
also  higher  than  the  EU27  average  (21%).106  Croatia’s  population  has  been  shrinking 
since  1991,  due  to  a  negative  natural  rate  and  emigration  flows;  rural  areas  are 
particularly affected by this trend (between 2005 and 2019, the population in rural areas 
decreased  from  1.9 million  to  1.74 million).107 Following the  general  EU development, 
Croatia’s population is also getting older, in general as well as in rural areas. 

Despite a positive trend, with 59%, Croatia still has one of the lowest employment rates 
for rural areas in the EU (EU27: 68%). It is also lower than the total employment rate for 
Croatia  (62%).108  The  gender  gap  in  total  employment  rate  corresponds  to  the  gap  at 
EU27  level.109  Although  Croatia  still  has  one  of  the  highest  shares  of  precarious 
employment  in  the  EU,  this  share  has  been  gradually  decreasing  since  2016,  reaching 
5.8%  in  2019.110  There  has  also  been  a  positive  trend  in  youth  unemployment  rates, 
which  have  decreased  significantly  in  recent  years  and  are  now  close  to  the  EU27 
average,  but  it  remains  an  issue,  especially  in  rural  areas,  where  it  is  generally  more 
pronounced.111  

Total  GDP  per  capita  as  well  as  the  GDP  per  capita  in  rural  areas  are  below  the  EU 
average and per capita GDP in rural areas is significantly smaller than the total GDP per 
capita.112 Since 2015, GDP growth  rates have been above the EU average.  However, in 
2018, Croatia’s GDP per capita relative to the EU average was still at the same level as 
ten years before due to  high negative growth  rates in earlier  years.113 While the relative 
economic  importance  of  agriculture  has  been  decreasing  in  recent  years,  tourism  is 
gaining  importance  as  a  key  sector  of  the  economy  accounting  for  almost  20%  of  the 
GDP  –  the  Adriatic  coast  is  the  third  most  popular  tourism  destination  among  EU 
regions.114  Between  2010  and  2018,  bed  places  in  Croatia  have  increased  by  40%,  and 
68% of bed places are located in rural areas (EU27: 45%).115  

The contribution of the primary sector to the gross value added in Croatian rural regions 
(7.9%) is higher than the EU average (4.2%) and higher than in intermediate (4.3%) and 
urban regions (0.3%).116 The primary sector’s share in the employment of rural areas was 
at 13.26% in 2016, above the EU average of 12.68%.117  

18 

 
 
The share of population at risk of poverty or social exclusion (poverty rate) in rural areas 
in Croatia decreased from 38.8% in 2010 to 30.9% in 2018, but it is still above the EU27 
average  (23.6%).118  The  situation  is  particularly  serious  in  the  east  and  the  southeast 
regions  of  the  country  –  mainly  along  the  border  with  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  and 
Serbia.119  The total poverty rate in HR (24.8%) is below the poverty rate in rural areas.120    

Croatian  rural  areas  are  characterised  by  underdeveloped 
technical  and  social 
infrastructure, which has contributed to  depopulation  and a lack of interest  from  young 
families to live and work there. Despite substantial investments from European Structural 
and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  amounting  to  approximately  EUR  2  billion  in  the  2014-
2020  period,  the  investment  gap  remains  big  as  Croatia  is  still  substantially  below  EU 
average  in  terms  of  waste  recycling,  sewage  systems,  water  supply  networks  and 
kindergartens.  

There  are  currently  68  Local  Action  Groups  (LAGs)  implementing  Community  Led 
Local Development (CLLD/LEADER) strategies in Croatia.121 In the 2014-2020 period, 
LEADER  was  used  to  deliver  standard  measures  of  Croatia’s  Rural  Development 
Programme  under  the  control  of  the  Paying  Agency,  leaving  little  scope  for  LAGs  to 
design their own bottom-up and place-based responses to local problems. The financial 
situation of LAGs remains vulnerable as obtaining banking guarantees from commercial 
banks,  required  for  payment  of  advances  for  the  running  costs  and  animation,  is 
challenging. 

Croatia  has  approximately  2.5  million  ha  of  forests  and  other  wooded  land, 
corresponding  to  45.7%  of  its  land  area  (EU27:  45.1%).122  76%  of  forest  area  is  state 
owned.123 13 800 persons worked in the forestry and logging sector in 2017. With EUR 
14 100 gross value added per person employed, the apparent labour productivity of the 
sector  is  below  the  EU27  average  (EUR  54  200).  The  same  applies  for  the  economic 
productivity of forestry activities in HR.124 At the same time, and somewhat surprisingly, 
Croatia has one of the highest ratios of gross fixed capital formation to value added in the 
EU (15.4%), indicating a relatively high level of investment.125  

In 2017, the bio-economy in Croatia had a total turnover of EUR 11 000 million, with a 
turnover  per  person  of  EUR  52  000  (EU27:  EUR  127  000),  and  employed  216  800 
people.  Agriculture  and  the  manufacturing  of  food,  beverage  and  tobacco  are  the 
dominant sectors of the Croatian bio-economy, despite negative growth rates in terms of 
employment  and  turnover  between  2008  and  2017  in  the  agricultural  sector  in 
particular.126 Due to its endowments of biomass resources, Croatia has one of the greatest 
potentials for development of the bio-economy in the EU representing an opportunity for 
green development of rural areas and new economic opportunities for farmers. However, 
between 2010 and 2013, the agricultural value added in Croatia (as well as in Bulgaria, 
Slovenia  and  Ireland)  went  down  along  with  increasing  production-based  land 
footprint.127 

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. 

Pesticide  sales  in  Croatia  increased  between  2013  and  2015,  but  dropped  below  2013-
level  in  2016  and 2017  mainly due to  a decrease in  sales of  fungicide  and bactericides 
(Figure 2)128. A slight increase was recorded again in 2018 compared to 2017129, but the 
use of plant protection products per hectare in Croatia remained below the EU average. 
The total quantity sold annually is about 2 000 000 kg130. The Harmonized risk indicator 

19 

 
 
(HRI)  1  shows  a  38%  decline  from  2011  to  2018  compared  to  a  20%  decrease  at  EU 
level, and a significant increase in sales of low risk active substances (Group 1, category 
B) placed on market  in  2016.131 HRI 2 shows an increase in  the authorizations granted 
especially in  year 2017132 although in the period 2011-2018 there is a decrease of 14%, 
compared to a 50% increase at EU level. 

The  use  of  pesticides  in  Croatia  in  the  period  between  2012  and  2017  was  on  average 
about 2 million kg/ year of active substances, with the exception of 2016 and 2017 when 
the use was lower by 20-30%. On average, 2 kg of various active substances of pesticides 
were applied per ha (herbicides 46.8%; fungicides 50.2%; zoocides 3.0%) in 2012 while, 
in 2017 it was reduced to 1.43 kg133. 

The  letter  of  the  Commissioner  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  addressed  to  Croatia’s 
Minister  of  Agriculture  on  the  occasion  of  the  adoption  of  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy 
highlights  that  Croatia  has  not  reported  to  the  Commission  any  substantial  changes  to 
their first National action plan under the Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of 
pesticides, and has not provided a revised National action plan. All pesticide application 
equipment  in  use,  including  sprayers  and  other  specific  items,  need  to  be  inspected. 
Additional measures are needed to promote low pesticide-input pest management and the 
implementation of Integrated Pest Management general principles is an obligation for all 
professional  pesticide  users;  the  control  authorities  need  to  verify  this  during  official 
controls at farm level.134 

The  sale  of  veterinary  antimicrobial  agents  shows  a  steady  decrease  between  2014  and 
2018  (see  figure  below)135.  With  66.8  mg/PCU,  Croatia  is  well  below  the  EU  average 
(118 mg/PCU). The Member States should maintain this downward trend in line with the 
Green Deal target for a 50% reduction in the sales of antimicrobials for farmed animals 
and in aquaculture by 2030 at EU level. 

Croatia  has  indicated  that  as  of  2022  they  intend  to  establish  an  extensive  educational 
program on the problem of antimicrobial resistance and alternative solutions.136  

For  the  period,  2014-2020  Croatia  has  included  in  the  Rural  Development  Program  an 
”Animal  welfare”  measure  (Measure  14),  the  implementation  of  which  began  in  May 
2018.137 

In  relation  to  animal  welfare,  the  main  issue  in  Croatia,  as  presented  in  the  above-
mentioned  letter  from  the  Commissioner  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  is  the  routine 
practice of tail docking of pigs even though it is prohibited as a routine measure by EU 
rules.  The  percentage  of  pigs  reared  with  intact  tails  has  barely  changed  since  2016. 
Secondly, in a recent DG SANTE audit report, the approval and inspection of livestock 
vessels  does  not  guarantee  the  compliance  of  the  ship  with  the  requirements  in 
Regulation 1/2005 and therefore does not adequately minimise the risks for the welfare 
of the animals as reported in details in 2018 audit report.138 

In terms of farm biosecurity, African swine fever is not present in Croatia but there is an 
increased risk, hence the need for the prevention of further spread from across the border. 
Croatia is also among the countries that need to  upgrade farm biosecurity and to revise 
and upgrade registration of certain farms, animal identification and animal movements. 

There  is  no  official  data  on  the  amount  of  food  waste  but  estimates  only.139  In  the 
Croatian Waste Prevention Plan140 not enough attention is given to food loss and waste at 
early stages of the supply chain (including lack of data). According to the data of the Tax 

20 

 
 
Authority,  the  amount  of  the  purchase  value  of  donated  food  during  2019  amounts  to 
approximately  EUR  1.7  million,  which  is  an  increase  of 30%  compared to the data  for 
the previous year. Quantities of donated food have generally been on the rise since 2016, 
when data monitoring began. There is an incentive for public use donation by assuring a 
tax relief for such donations.  

The challenge of stimulating the shift to healthy  and sustainable food consumption is a 
common EU challenge, considering its health and environmental impacts. The estimated 
average prevalence of overweight adults in the EU is around 52%. In addition, more than 
one-third (36.9%) of the EU population  is pre-obese with  a further 14.9% being obese. 
For Croatia, the overweight  rates reported currently stand at  57.4%. Regarding obesity, 
the number stands at 18.7%. Men are significantly more affected than women, 20.8% of 
them are overweight compared to 16.8% of women141. Furthermore, the same tendency 
can  be  seen  in  children  too,  a  total  of  31%  of  girls  and  38.7%  of  boys  in  Croatia  are 
overweight  and  obese142.  According  to  the  European  Strategy  for  the  Control  and 
Prevention  of  Chronic  Non-Communicable  Diseases,  overweight  and  obesity  are  risk 
factors  for  the  development  of  chronic  non-communicable  diseases.  Croatia  has  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 diet143. . 
Therefore, efforts should focus on shifting towards healthy sustainable diets, in line with 
national recommendations, in order to contribute to reducing rates of overweight, obesity 
and  the  incidence  of  non-communicable  diseases  while  simultaneously  improving  the 
overall environmental impact of the food system. This would include moving to a more 
plant  based  diet  with  less  red  meat  and  more  fruits  and  vegetables,  whole  grains, 
legumes, nuts and seeds. 

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

HRI 1 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

Source: DG AGRI after ESVAC, Tenth ESVAC Report (2020)144  Source: EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51] 

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

The  Croatian  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS)  is  moderately 
diverse  and  strongly  influenced  by  publicly  funded  bodies.  The  Croatian  Advisory 
Service in Agriculture and Forestry, the central element of the AKIS integrated into the 
Ministry of Agriculture, is composed of 230 public advisors working in the 117 county 
offices145, i.e. on average one advisor per 585 farms.146 Such a ratio raises doubts on the 
capacity  of  public  advisors  to  provide  an  effective  service,  particularly  in  light  of  the 
increased  responsibilities  envisaged  under  the  future  CAP.  Despite  the  existence  of 
numerous public and private bodies that are very experienced in educational, research or 
advisory  services,  their  cooperation  is  very  limited  or  non-existent.147  The  least 
developed elements of the AKIS are NGOs and farming organisations. 148 The Croatian 
21 

 
 
  
AKIS  suffers  from  a  lack  of  public  support  to  innovation,  limited  dissemination  of 
knowledge among elements of the AKIS, limited cooperation of key stakeholders with 
industry (producers), and a lack of diversification of funding for advisory services. 

Between  2005  and  2013,  the  share  of  Croatian  farmers  with  basic  or  full  agricultural 
training increased by a few percentage points, but in 2013 a vast majority of farmers still 
only have practical experience (61.6% of farmers below 35 years of age and 76.2% of 
farmers above 55 years of age). 149 

Under  the  2014-2020  RDP,  the  initial  financial  allocation  for  knowledge  transfer, 
advisory services and cooperation-European Innovation Partnerships (EIP) was 1.8% of 
the total envelope, well below the EU average of 3.6%. This ratio dropped to 1.05% due 
to successive budgetary cuts. Cuts were particularly steep (57%) for advisory services, 
pointing  to  a  likely  under-staffing  of  the  public  advisory  service  and  limitations 
stemming  from  restricting  access  of  private  advisors  to  RD  funding  for  advisory 
services. Nonetheless, 2 945 training sessions for 51 945 participants and 100 categories 
of advice for 7 355 farmers were organized150. In the opinion of Croatian young farmers 
participating in  numerous exchange  schemes, the level  of  practical  knowledge  and aid 
on  technological  processes  was  insufficient151.  However,  recent  online  surveys  among 
beneficiaries  of  advisory  services  indicate  a  more  positive  impact.152  In  2019,  Croatia 
submitted  a  proposal  for  an  amendment  of  their  RDP  2014-2020  to  invite  external 
experts  to  bring  their  professional  knowledge  under  knowledge  transfer/  advisory 
schemes  measures.153  In  addition,  41  various  training  sessions  aimed  at  advisors  were 
organised  under  the  RDP  for  1  187  participants  (all  of  them  employees  of  the  public 
advisory service).154 

Cooperation  between  universities  and  research  institutes  and  public  advisory  services 
has  not  yet  started  or  there  is  no  information  on  whether  their  research  findings  have 
been shared with other stakeholders or have been disseminated in a systematic way155. 
For  example,  since  2016  the  Faculty  of  Zagreb  has  been  involved  in  applied  research 
projects,  however, no information  on dissemination of results exist.  There is  also  little 
information about networking activities organised at the national level or the existence 
of  tools  such  as  knowledge  platforms  to  connect  research  actors  (such  as  universities 
and  partners  of  Horizon  2020  consortia)  with  farmers,  advisors,  and  rural  businesses, 
and facilitate the implementation of up-to-date research findings and innovations. 

The  implementation  of  innovative  projects  is  now  being  transferred  to  the  EIP 
Operational  Groups  (OGs)  financed  under  the  RDP.  However,  the  originally  planned 
number  of  33  EIP  OGs  has  decreased  to  20  and  at  the  end  of  2019,  only  21  project 
proposals from EIP OGs were approved for a total amount of EUR 105 000 (i.e. 1% of 
allocated budget).   

On digitalisation, Croatia ranks 20th amongst EU Member States in the Digital Economy 
and Society  Index (DESI) 2020156. Connectivity and digital  public services  are the two 
DESI areas with the weakest performance.157 Take-up of ultrafast broadband is very low 
(6%,  compared  to  an  EU  average  of  26%)  and  Croatia  has  not  yet  assigned  any  5G 
spectrum. About 70% of households have fixed broadband take-up.158 While high-speed 
internet  access  for  households  is  not  widespread  in  Croatia  in  general,  the  situation  in 
rural  areas  is  worse:  34.5%  of  rural  households  in  HR  had  access  to  fast  broadband  in 
2019,  compared  to  85.6%  of  total  households.  25.5%  of  all  rural  households  have  no 
broadband access.159 This urban - rural digital divide remains a challenge, which, if not 
mitigated,  may  lead  to  digital  and  social  exclusion  as  well  as  present  an  obstacle  in 
developing  rural  businesses.  While  taking  up  broadband  in  rural  areas,  it  will  be 

22 

 
 
important  to  ensure  synergies  with  other  EU  and  national  funds.  Access  to  digital 
platforms is becoming increasingly important in counteracting the depopulation of rural 
and remote areas. The expansion of e-commerce in rural areas supports the promotion of 
short  supply  chains  and  local  agricultural  products,  and  may  help  to  increase  farmers’ 
income. A good example is the recently set up digital marketplace platform (trznica.hr) 
that  enables  consumers  to  find  products  produced  locally;  currently  around  900 
agricultural  producers  across  11  product  categories  are  benefiting  from  this  free-of-
charge platform.  

Nevertheless,  numerous  challenges  still  need  to  be  addressed  to  reap  the  benefits  of 
digital  technology  and  exploit  at  national  level  the  EU’s  technological  lead  in  satellite 
technology such as wider use of precision farming or better monitoring and optimisation 
of agricultural production processes (see also section 2.2). 

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

Managers with 
full agricultural 
training 

Managers with 
basic agricultural 
training 

Full training EU 
average 

Basic training 
EU average 

Source: EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]160 

Broadband coverage in Croatia 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

Source: DESI report161 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1   Management  plans  are  not  an  automatic  requirement  under  the  Habitats  Directive  (cf.  Art.  6(1)  of 
Council Directive 92/43/EEC), although they seem to be a preferred option for most Member States and 
are  considered  obligatory  in  many  of  them.  See  also  Commission  Note  on  Establishing  Conservation 
Measures 
here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/commission_note/comNote%20
conservation%20measures_EN.pdf  

accessible 

Natura 

online 

Sites, 

2000 

for 

2   European  Commission.  Common  Agriculture  Policy  context 

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

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

[aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06] 

4   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data  
5   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network  (FADN).  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.TF14  and 

own calculations  

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

to 2018) and CATS data (up to 2018). 

7   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang]  
8   Ecorys  and  Wageningen  Economic  Research,  Study  on  risk  management  in  EU  agriculture,  2017,  p. 
141,  available  online  here:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5a935010-af78-
11e8-99ee-01aa75ed71a1  

9   World Bank, Strateška transformacija poljoprivrede i ruralnog prostora  (STARS RAS), 2020, available 
https://poljoprivreda2020.hr/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Financiranje-i-upravljanje-

here: 

online 
rizikom-u-hrvatskoj-poljoprivredi.pdf  

10   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. 

11   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01]  
12   fi-compass,  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in  Croatia,  Study  report  2020, 
available 
https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Croatia.pdf     
13   World Bank, Sector Diagnostic and Analysis of Public Spending in Agriculture and Rural development, 
here: 
available 

May 
http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/365111565777164028/pdf/Sector-Diagnostic-and-
Analysis-of-Public-Spending-in-Agriculture-and-Rural-Development.pdf  

online 

online 

2019, 

here: 

14   World Bank, Sector Diagnostic and Analysis of Public Spending in Agriculture and Rural development, 

May 2019 

15   fi-compass,  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in  Croatia,  Study  report  2020, 
available 
https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Croatia.pdf     
16   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Impact indicator I.06, Agricultural trade 

online 

here: 

balance, based on EUROSTAT Comext data. 

17   World Bank, Sector Diagnostic and Analysis of Public Spending in Agriculture and Rural development, 

May 2019 

18   World Bank, Sector Diagnostic and Analysis of Public Spending in Agriculture and Rural development, 

May 2019 

19   EUROSTAT. [TSC00001] 
20   Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia (2020) 
21   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 

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

primary producers in the food chain. 

23   Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia (2020) 
24   Arcadia  International  E.E.I.G.,  EY  and  independent  experts,  Study  of  the  best  ways  for  producer 
organisations  to  be  formed,  carry  out  their  activities  and  be  supported.  Final  Report.  May  2019, 

24 

 
 
                                                           
 
available  online  here:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2c31a562-eef5-11e9-
a32c-01aa75ed71a1  

25   Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia (2020) 
26   Cesaro,  L.,  Dries,  L.,  Ihle,  R.,  Marongiu,  S.,  Peerlings,  J.,  Poetschki,  K.,  Schioppa,  A.  Impact  of 
Farmers’ Engagement on Food Quality Schemes and Short Food Supply Chains on Farm Performance, 
Wagening  University  and  Centre  for  Agro-Food  Economy  &  Development,  February  2020,  available 
online 
https://www.strength2food.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/D4.2-Impact-of-farmers-
engagement-in-FQS-and-SFSC-on-farm-performance.pdf  

here: 

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

primary producers in the food chain. 

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

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

29  European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  The  Environmental  Implementation 
final,  available  online  here: 

Review  2019.  Country  Report  Croatia.  SWD(2019)  114 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_hr_en.pdf  

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

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

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

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

32   Greifswald  Mire  Centre,  National  University  of  Ireland,  Galway,  Wetlands  International  European 
Association,  Peatlands  in  the  EU.  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  After  2020,  Position  Paper  - 
(Version  4.8),  available  online  here:  https://www.eurosite.org/wp-content/uploads/CAP-Policy-Brief-
Peatlands-in-the-new-European-Union-Version-4.8.pdf  

33   CAP context indicators, update 2019 (data 2018) 
34   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

35   Strategija  prilagodbe  klimatskim  promjenama  u  Republici  Hrvatskoj  za  razdoblje  do  2040.  godine  s 
https://narodne-

available 

online 

here: 

2070. 
pogledom 
novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2020_04_46_921.html  

Godinu, 

na 

36   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document Second River Basin Management Plans - 

Member State: Croatia. SWD(2019) 43 final 

37   Ministry  of  Environment  and  Energy,  Republic  of  Croatia,  Integrated  National  Energy  and  Climate 
Plan  for  the  Republic  of  Croatia  for  the  period  2021-2030,  December  2019,  pp.  96-109,  available 
online here: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/hr_final_necp_main_en.pdf 

38   Rural Development Programme of the Republic of Croatia for the Period 2014-2020 (measures 10 and 

measure 4 in particular), available online here: https://ruralnirazvoj.hr/mjere/  

39   Nacionalni  projekt  navodnjavanja  i  gospodarenja  poljoprivrednim  zemljištem  (NAPNAV)  adopted  in 

2005 

40   Livestock in HR decreased from 1,020,180 in 2010 to 754,710 in 2016 (European Commission.  CAP 
context  indicator  C.21  Livestock  units.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [ef_lsk_main],  [ef_lsk_poultry], 
[ef_lsk_bovine] and [ef_lus_main].) 

41   In 2018, total annual NH3 emissions in HR have dropped by 34% compared to 1990. They increased 
from 32,260t in 2013 to 35,660t in 2018, whereas in the EU28, they rose from 3,808,000t to 3,852,600t. 
(European 
viewer. 
data 
(EEA). 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-pollutant-emissions-data-viewer-3) 

Environment  Agency 

emissions 

pollutant 

Air 

42   Total annual NH3 emissions from agriculture in HR increased from 26,010t in 2013 to 29,050t in 2018, 
whereas in the EU28, they rose from 3,524,000t to 3,584,000t. (European Environment Agency (EEA). 
Air  pollutant  emissions  data  viewer.  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-
pollutant-emissions-data-viewer-3) 

43   (European  Environment  Agency  (EEA).  National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive  emissions  data  viewer 

1990-2018. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-directive-data-viewer-3  

44   HR  has  0.46  livestock  units  (LSU)  per  hectare  of  utilised  agricultural  area  [2016]  (European 
Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.21  Livestock  units.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [ef_lsk_main], 
[ef_lsk_poultry], [ef_lsk_bovine] and [ef_lus_main]).  

45   In 2018, 55% of the ammonia emissions from agriculture in HR came from the livestock sector (EU28: 
73%), whereas the crops sector emitted 45% (EU28: 27%). (European Environment Agency (EEA). Air 
pollutant  emissions  data  viewer.  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-pollutant-
emissions-data-viewer-3) 

46   EU27:  0,021015t/ha  –  total  annual  NH3  emissions  from  agriculture=3390924t  [2017]  divided  by 

UAA=161350170ha [2017] 

25 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
For  HR:  0,021265t/ha  -  total  annual  NH3  emissions  from  agriculture=31827t  [2017]  (EUROSTAT. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/e00797cd-aa80-4ecb-9d7d-
[sdg_02_60]. 
580efd0f1ef1?lang=en)  divided  by  UAA=1496660ha  [2017] 
  (EUROSTAT.  [TAG00025]. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/7811a4d8-e8a1-4f42-b8b4-
b9650e0a37e3?lang=en) 

  ] 

47   -1% by 2020 and  -25% by 2030 (base year: 2005), cf. Annex II of Directive  (EU) 2016/2284 on the 

reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants. 

48   Anderson,  N.,  Menadue,  H.,  Grebot,  B.,  Dore,  C.,  Review  of  National  Air  Pollutant  Projections  and 
Assessment of National Air Pollution Control Programmes, 10 June 2020, p. 117, available online here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/reduction_napcp/Horizontal%20review_final%2010Jun20.pdf 
49   E.g. intense tillage and use of herbicides, low vegetation cover - cf.  Bogunovic, I, Telak, L.J., Pereira, 
P., ‘Agriculture Management Impacts on Soil Properties and Hydrological Response in Istria (Croatia)’, 
Agronomy , Vol. 10, Iss. 2, 220, 282. 

50   EUROSTAT. 

[ef_mp_prac] 

and 

[ef_lus_main], 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_tillage_practices  

51   EUROSTAT.  [ef_mp_soil]  for  soil  cover  and  [ef_lus_main],  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_soil_cover  

52   6.4% in HR compared to 7% in the EU27 [2016]. (European Commission. CAP context indicator C.42 
Center. 

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

Research 

erosion 

source: 

water. 

Joint 

by 

53   3.16t/ha/yr in HR compared to 2.46t/ha/yr in the EU27 [2016]. (European Commission.  CAP context 
Joint  Research  Center. 
by  water.  Original 

indicator  C.42 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf) 

erosion 

source: 

Soil 

54   Durdevic,  B.  et  al...,  Jug,  I.,  Jug,  D.,  Bogunovic,  I.,  Vukadinovic,  V.,  Stipesevic,  B.,  Brozovic,  B., 
‘Spatial  variability  of  soil  organic  matter  content  in  Eastern  Croatia  assessed  using  different 
interpolation methods’, International Agrophysics, Vol. 33, Iss. 1, pp. 31–39. 

55   Rural Development target indicators (24/06/2020) 
56   Approximately 60% of surface waters are in less than good ecological status and 8% of surface water 
are  in  less  than  good  chemical  status.  The  situation  for  groundwater  is  better  with  3%  failing  good 
quantitative status and 9% failing good chemical status. Cf. p. 6 of European Commission. Report from 
the Commission on the implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of 
waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member State reports 
for  the  period  2012–2015.  COM(2018)  257  final;  p.  18  of  European  Commission.  Commission  Staff 
Working Document. The EU Environmental Implementation Review 2019 Country Report – CROATIA. 
SWD(2019) 114 final. 

57   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. The EU Environmental Implementation 
Review  2019  Country  Report  –  CROATIA.  SWD(2019)  114  final,  p.  19;  Tadić,  L.,  Šperac,  M., 
Karleuša, B., Rubinić, J., ‘Water Quality Status of Croatian Surface Water Resources,’ in: Negm, A., 
Romanescu,  G.,  Zelenakova,  M.  (eds),  Water  Resources  Management  in  Balkan  Countries.  Springer 
Water. Springer, Cham. 2020, p. 133. 

58   EUROSTAT. 

[ef_poirrig] 

and 

[aei_ef_ir], 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_irrigation  

[ef_m_farmleg], 

59   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.20 Irrigated land. Based on EUROSTAT [ef_poirrig] 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

and 
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf.  
Most of the agricultural area under irrigation is in the eastern part of Croatia, i.e. Slavonija and Baranja 
given  that  it  is  the  lowland  area  with  rich  soils  and  lack  of  precipitation.  Čanjevac,  I.,  Orešić,  D., 
‘Surface  Water  Resources  and  Their  Management  in  Croatia,’  in:  Negm,  A.,  Romanescu,  G., 
Zelenakova,  M.  (eds).  Water  Resources  Management  in  Balkan  Countries.  Springer  Water.  Springer, 
Cham. 2020, p. 169. 

60   EUROSTAT. [TEN00006]  
61   With 42%, HR reported the largest decrease in nitrogen consumption in the EU between 2008 and 2018 
(followed by Germany -17%, Finland -15%, France -12%, Greece -11% and Italy -10%) (EUROSTAT. 
[aei_fm_usefert], 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/0a4b1484-7fdb-433d-9bd1-
3f1c115aa2e8?lang=en) 

62   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 
and European Environment Agency as in Waterbase – Water Quality, CSI020, based on data reported 

26 

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

63   European  Commission.  Report  from  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Directive 
91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural 
sources based on Member State reports for the period 2012–2015. COM(2018) 257 final 

64   EUROSTAT  [aei_pr_gnb],  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/62344177-1fe3-4d29-

9aca-0703bec129eb?lang=en  

65   European  Commission.  Report  from  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Directive 
91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural 
sources based on Member State reports for the period 2012–2015. COM(2018) 257 final 

66   Rural Development target indicators (24/06/2020) 
67   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 
68   AGRI analytical factsheets and dashboards do not include any data on the Farmland Bird Index and the 

Forest Bird Index. 

69   IUCN. Country Focus - Croatia. https://www.iucn.org/regions/europe/resources/country-focus/croatia. 
70   AGRI dashboard, indicators on biodiversity. 
71   Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO6, 2020 (Strength 2) 
72   Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO6, 2020 (Strength 2) 
73   Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO6, 2020 (Strength 3) 
74   DG ENV analysis 
75   DG ENV analysis  
76   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.33  Farming  intensity.  Based  on  FADN  –Agri-
environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification” and Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of 
Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO6, 2020 (Weakness 2) 

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

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification” 

78   Source: DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey.  
79   Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO6, 2020 (Strength 7) 
80   Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO6, 2020 (Weakness 3 and 4) 
81   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.19 Agricultural area under organic farming. Based on 

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

82   EUROSTAT. 

[ORG_CROPAR.] 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/org_cropar/default/table?lang=en  

83   Expert opinion of DG AGRI (qualitative evidence). 
84   European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  -  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  R.07  Percentage 
agricultural 
landscapes. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 

land  under  management  contracts 

supporting  biodiversity  and/or 

85   Expert opinion of DG AGRI (qualitative evidence). 
86   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.19 Agricultural area under organic farming. Based on 

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

88   Own  calculation  based  on  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm 

managers. Based on EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang]  

89   Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO7, 2020  
90   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang]  

91   Ibid.  
92   European Commission. Farm structure survey 2010-2016 
93   World Bank, Sector Diagnostic and Analysis of Public Spending in Agriculture and Rural development, 

May 2019 

94   European Commission. Farm structure survey 2010-2016 
95   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

96   Ecorys, ‘Young farmers’ needs in Croatia’, a case study for the European Commission, Rotterdam, 25 

September 2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

97   Ministry of Agriculture, Draft SWOT from HR  
98   Ecorys, ‘Young farmers’ needs in Croatia’, a case study for the European Commission, Rotterdam, 25 

September 2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

99   Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO7, 2020  

27 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
100  Expert opinion of DG AGRI (qualitative evidence). Cf. also an interview with the Croatian Minister of 
Agriculture  Marija  Vučković  for  Globus  -  21.06.2020  by  Zdravko  Milinović  in  which  Ms  Vučković 
informs, inter alia, about harmful practices on State-owned karst areas, linking the number of livestock 
units with the rented land, and the slow pace of the state-owned land disposal process – out of 24.000 
hectares,  of  only  7.000  have  been  contracted  by  now.  In  said  interview,  Minister  Vučković  also 
recognizes certain unfair practices such as ‘allocating land to livestock farmers without a tender’. 

101  Ecorys, ‘Young farmers’ needs in Croatia’, a case study for the European Commission, Rotterdam, 25 

September 2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

102  World Bank, Sector Diagnostic and Analysis of Public Spending in Agriculture and Rural development, 

May 2019  

103  fi-compass, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Croatia, Study report 2020 
104  Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO7, 2020  
105  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.03 Territory. Based on EUROSTAT [reg_area3] and 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-

[urt_d3area], 
context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  
106  European  Commission.  CAP  context 

[demo_r_gind3], 
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

indicator  C.01  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

107  European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.01  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[demo_r_gind3], 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  and  “European  Commission 
Report  on 
available  online  here:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/demography_report_2020.pdf 

  Demographic  Change” 

Impact  of 

(2020), 

the 

108  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.05  Employment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[lfst_r_ergau],  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-
context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

109  European  Commission.  Analytical  factsheet  for  Croatia:  Nine  objectives  for  a  future  CAP  (2019), 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

available 
fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_hr.pdf  

online 

here: 

[lfsa_qoe_4ax1r2.],  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-

110  EUROSTAT. 
20200511-1 

111  In 2019, total youth unemployment rate (age group 15-24) in HR was at 16.6% and at 17.7% in rural 
areas. Figures  for the EU27  were 14.4% and 13%,  respectively.  European Commission.  CAP context 
indicator C.07 Unemployment rate. Based on EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfu3rt]  

112  In 2018, total GDP per capita and GDP per capita in rural areas were at EUR 19,120.30 (EU27: EUR 
30,157.7)  and  EUR  13,415.67  (EU27:  EUR  20,066.95),  respectively.  (European  Commission.  CAP 
[nama_10r_3gdp]  and 
context 
[nama_10r_3popgdp])  

indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT. 

113  EUROSTAT. 

[naida_10_gdp], 
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=naida_10_gdp&lang=en,  cf.  also  European 
Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Country  Report  Croatia  2020.  SWD(2020)  510 
final, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0510&from=EN  
(2020), 

available 

available 

“Croatia 

online 

online 

here: 

here: 

EU” 

the 

in 

114  EUROSTAT. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/10186/10362446/Croatia+in+the+EU-EN+.pdf 

115  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.30  Tourism  infrastructure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[tour_cap_nuts2d]  

116  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.10 Structure of the economy. Based on EUROSTAT 

[nama_10r_3gva] 

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

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3empers]  

118  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.09 Poverty rate. Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps11] 
119  OECD.  OECD 

Investment  Policy  Reviews:  Croatia  2019,  p.  18,  available  online  here: 

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/2bf079ba-
en.pdf?expires=1598448551&id=id&accname=oid031827&checksum=A022283FD8F4E3FB6196DC
C631987CB5 

120  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.09 Poverty rate. Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps11]  
121  54 of those LAGs are funded by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), 14 
by  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF).  Cf.  ENRD  LAG  database,  available  online 

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
here: 
database/_en?f%5B0%5D=im_field_enrd_lag_country%3A19211  

https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/leader-clld/lag-

122  FAO.  Global 

Forest 

Resources 

Assessment, 

available 

online 

here: 

https://fra-

platform.herokuapp.com/HRV/assessment/fra2020/extentOfForest/   

123  Lovric, M..., Lovric, N., Schraml, U., WInkel, G., ‘Implementing Natura 2000 in Croatian forests: An 
interplay of science, values and interests’, Journal for Nature Conservation, Vol. 43, p.June 2018, pp. 
46-66. 

124  For  HR,  the  ratio  of  value  added  generated  within  the  forestry  and  logging  sector  to  forest  area 
available for wood supply, an indicator of economic productivity of forestry activities, was 112 in 2017 
(EU27:  200).  All  figures:  EUROSTAT.  [nama_10_a64_e],  [for_awu],  [for_area],  [for_remov]  and 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
also 
, 
[for_eco_cp] 
explained/index.php/Forests,_forestry_and_logging 

cf. 

125  Only  SE  (29.9%)  and  LT  (18.0%)  recorded  higher  proportions.  EUROSTAT.  [nama_10_a64], 

[for_eco_cp] and [for_area], 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Forests,_forestry_and_logging  

126  Ronzon,  T.,  Piotrowski,  S.,  M'barek,  R.,  Carus,  M.,  Tamošiūnas,  S.,  Jobs  and  wealth  in  the  EU 
bioeconomy  /  JRC  -  Bioeconomics.  (2020).  European  Commission,  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC) 
[Dataset] PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/7d7d5481-2d02-4b36-8e79-697b04fa4278  

127  Cf.  Liobikiene  et  al.  (2020)  Cf.  Liobikiene  et  al.  (2020)  Cf.  Liobikiene  et  al.  (2020)  Liobikiene,  G., 
Chen,  X.,  Streimikiene,  D.,  Balezentis,  T.,  ‘The  trends  in  bioeconomy  development  in  the  European 
Union: Exploiting capacity and productivity measures based on the land footprint approach’,Land Use 
Policy, Volume 91, February 2020,  

128  European Commission, Sales of plant protection products in kilogrammes As in EUROSTAT  
129  Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO9, 2020 
130  Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO9, 2020 
131  European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for pesticides (HRI 1), by group of active substance. 

As in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51]. 

132  European  Commission.  Harmonised  Risk  Indicator  for  pesticides  (HRI  2),  based  on  the  number  of 

authorisations granted. As in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51]. 

133  Ministry  of  Agriculture  of  the  Republic  of  Croatia,  Phytosanitary  Information  System,    based  on 

SAGRA 2 project for the period 2013-2017 (Ondrašek et al., 2019) 

134  DG SANTE analysis 
135  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. 

136  Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO9, 2020 
137  Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO9, 2020 
138  European Commission, Audit report No. 2018-6447 
139  Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO7, 2020 
140  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Croatia,  Waste  Management  Plan  of  the  Republic  of  Croatia  for  the 
here: 

period 
(https://mzoe.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/NASLOVNE%20FOTOGRAFIJE%20I%20KORI%C5%A0TE
NI%20LOGOTIPOVI/doc/waste_management_plan_og_85-207.pdf) 

2017-2022, 

available 

online 

141  World  Health  Organisation,  Obesity  and  overweight,  1  April  2020,  available  online  here: 

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight 

142  Research  conducted  in  Croatia  in  2015/2016  by  the  Croatian  Institute  of  Public  Health  in  the 

framework of the "European Initiative for Monitoring Childhood Obesity (CroCOSI)” 

143  EU  Science  Hub,  EU  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  and  key  risk  factors,  available  online 

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

144  European  Medicines  Agency,  European  Surveillance  of  Veterinary  Antimicrobial  Consumption 
(ESVAC). Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 countries in 2017 – trends from 2010 to 2017 
Ninth ESVAC Report. EMA/294674/2019. 

145  Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO7, 2020 
146  Own  calculation  based  on  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.17  Agricultural  holdings 

(farms). Based on EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg] 

147  World Bank, Strategic Transformation in Agriculture and Rural Space STARS RAS AKIS in Croatia – 

Background document by the World Bank group, available online here:  
https://poljoprivreda2020.hr/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Sustav-znanja-i-inovacija-u-poljoprivredi-
AKIS.pdf  

29 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
148  World Bank, Strategic Transformation in Agriculture and Rural Space STARS RAS AKIS in Croatia – 

Background document by the World Bank group  

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

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

150  2019 Annual Implementation Report under the HR RDP 2014-2020, Ares(2020)4878167 of 17/09/2020 
151  Ecorys, ‘Young farmers’ needs in Croatia’, a case study for the European Commission, Rotterdam, 25 

September 2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

152  According to surveys conducted for the evaluation for the 2018 Annual Implementation Report, a large 
majority of respondents  said,  among other  things, that they  were  satisfied or extremely satisfied  with 
the  expertise  of  the  consultant,  and  the  services  provided  helped  them  to  better  understand  modern 
practices  in  agriculture  and  encouraged  them  to  make  concrete  changes  in  agricultural  activity  to 
become  more  economically  viable  and  innovative  and  environmentally  friendly  (cf.  Ministry  of 
Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, https://ruralnirazvoj.hr/program/evaluacijska-izvjesca/). 

153  Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia, Draft SWOT for SO7, 2020 
154  2019 Annual Implementation Report under the HR RDP 2014-2020, Ares(2020)4878167 of 17/09/2020 
155  World Bank, Strategic Transformation in Agriculture and Rural Space STARS RAS AKIS in Croatia – 

Background document by the World Bank group 

156  European  Commission,  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  2020  –  Croatia,  available  online  here: 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/digital-economy-and-society-index-desi-2020  

157  ibid. 
158  European  Commission,  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  Report  2020  –  Connectivity,  available 

online here: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=67079  

159  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. DESI individual indicators – 1b1 Fast BB 
(NGA)  coverage  [desi_1b1_fbbc],  see  also  European  Commission,  Recommendation  for  a  Council 
Recommendation on the 2020 National Reform Programme of Croatia and delivering a Council opinion 
on  the  2020  Convergence  Programme  of  Croatia,  COM(2020)  511  final,  available  online  here: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0511&from=EN 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

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

(NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc] 

30