COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Estonia’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU strategy, Estonia, 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) 375 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Estonia’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) 376 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
 
 
Contents 
1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  ESTONIA’S  CAP  STRATEGIC 

PLAN  

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

security 

1.2  Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

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

concerns 

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

digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

1.5  Recommendations 

  2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

4 

2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND  RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN ESTONIA 

  7 

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

food security 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

2.3 

Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

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

energy 

2.5  Foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural resources 

such as water, soil and air 

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

preserve habitats and landscapes 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

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

areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

7 

9 

10 

11 

13 

15 

17 

18 

2.9 

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

19 

2.10   Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

21 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  ESTONIA’S  CAP  STRATEGIC 

PLAN 

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

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

Estonia  has  good  opportunities  for  achieving  sustainability  in  its  agricultural  production,  but 
the country also faces certain challenges. 

The  share  of  agriculture  in  total  value  added  is  higher  in  Estonia  than  the  EU  average. 
Furthermore, income per worker in agriculture is 83% of the average wage in Estonia, which is 
significantly higher than the EU average. On the other hand, agricultural factor income is below 
the EU average, and has been highly volatile over the last 15 years. This means a high level of 
uncertainty  for  farmers,  but  the  situation  could  be  improved  by  greater  use  of  and  further 
development of risk management instruments (including crop and livestock insurance). Climate 
change  adaptation  instruments  (such  as  drainage  management  for  handling  changing  rainfall 
patterns and farm resilience plans) play also an important role in making the agricultural sector 
more resilient. 

CAP  support  schemes  play  a  key  role  in  the  farms’  revenues,  particularly  for  certain  sectors 
(cattle, sheep and goat farms); in some years average income would even be negative without 
the support schemes. At the same time, the concentration of direct payments in Estonia is one 
of the highest in the EU. This mirrors the concentration of land, where over the last 17 years 
there  has  been  a  strong  decrease  in  the  number  of  farms  and  increases  concentration  of 
farmland management . To reduce the income gap with big farms, more targeted support from 
the CAP in favour of small and medium-sized farms should be considered.  

Increasing  the  competitiveness  of  farms  largely  depends  on  access  to  finance.  It  seems  to  be 
difficult  for  farmers  to  obtain  guarantees  and  long-term  loans,  and  some  producers  lack 
adequate financial planning skills. 

There are no recognised producer organisations in Estonia although a number of co-operatives 
are operating in the agricultural sector. However, the existing co-operatives are rather small and 
do not yet have strong enough bargaining power to improve the position of farmers in the value 
chain.  With  its  high  level  of  digital  and  technological  capital,  Estonian  farmers  could  benefit 
further from development of short-supply chains as well as on-line and other direct marketing 
channels. There is also potential for quality schemes to strengthen the position of farmers, thus 
contributing to the objectives of the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

*   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 

 
 
                                                                 
1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Estonia  presents  a  mixed  picture  in  terms  of  the  environmental  and  climate  objectives  of  the 
CAP  and  the  Green  Deal.  On  the  one  hand,  it  has  a  marked  enthusiasm  for  organic  farming 
(with uptake not far off the EU level target of 25%), it is not a heavy user of fertilisers, and its 
inland waters are fair in terms of quality (though pollution in the Baltic Sea affects its coastal 
waters). On the other hand, various problems and pressures are evident. Greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions (gross and net) are rising and expected to rise further. Estonia is expected to miss the 
targets on reducing ammonia emissions. Not all water bodies have yet achieved a good status 
and  nitrate  concentrations  are  increasing  in  some  of  them,  with  agriculture  identified  as  a 
significant  contributing  factor.  Various  habitats  and  species  are  also  under  pressure  (for 
example in grassland and forest areas).  

Against  this  backdrop,  ambitions  and  projections  for  further  growth  in  the  agricultural  sector 
may raise questions about long-term sustainability. At present, an above-average proportion of 
Estonia’s  farmland  is  considered  to  be  intensive  in  terms  of  input  use  (though  that  fact  also 
reflects strong regional differences). 

In response to this situation, steps to improve nutrient management have a major role to play. 
Besides  helping  to  meet  the  EU  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy’s  target  for  nutrient  losses,  better 
nutrient management would also help mitigate climate change (as could more efficient enteric 
fermentation  in  livestock),  cut  ammonia  emissions,  improve  water  quality,  address  nutrient 
deficiencies in some areas and reduce pressure on biodiversity. On the other side of the carbon 
balance  sheet,  replacing  harvested  forest  on  time  and  in  a  sustainable  manner  –  with 
appropriate species mixes and management – would enhance Estonia’s carbon sink, as would 
protecting  the  country’s  considerable  peatland  area.  Biodiversity  and  ecosystems  could  also 
benefit  from  improvements  to  overall  CAP  support  for  the  management  of  semi-natural 
grasslands, and from efforts to re-introduce landscape features in areas  where they have been 
lost – in line with the related target in the Biodiversity Strategy.  

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

Estonia has one of the highest  proportions  of rural  areas among EU Member States , and the 
share of population living in rural and urban areas is almost equal. Unlike the decreasing trend 
for the EU as a whole, the share of young farmers in Estonia is increasing. It also has one of the 
highest ratios of young to elderly farm managers to elderly in the EU, and the share of female 
farmers is relatively high compared to the EU average. These elements  present an advantage, 
but certain improvements are still possible. 

The key issue for new entrants to agriculture sector in Estonia is access to land. While Estonia 
is a front-runner in the use of financial instruments, new entrants find it difficult to obtain loans 
from banks, which seem to lack relevant knowledge and dedicated financial products. 

Estonia  has  followed  the  LEADER  approach  to  local  development,  which  continues  to  offer 
opportunities to strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas. Despite positive trends, a 
high poverty rate in rural areas and a gap between the employment rate in rural areas and the 
rest of the country remain an issue; GDP per capita in rural areas is still below the EU average 
and,  although  it  has  been  rising,  the  convergence  rate  is  slowing  down.  There  is  also  a  slow 
trend of depopulation and ageing in rural areas.  

3 

 
 
Estonia  must  take  account  of  the  specific  needs  of  women  in  agriculture  and  rural  areas  to 
deliver on gender equality and close the gender gaps in employment, pay, pensions, care and 
decision-making.  Also,  ensuring  the  protection  of  agricultural  workers,  especially  the 
precarious, seasonal and undeclared ones, will play a major role in delivering on the respect of 
rights  enshrined  in  legislation  which  is  an  essential  element  of  the  fair  EU  food  system 
envisaged by the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

Estonia is generally on the right track regarding the transition set out in the Green Deal and the 
Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  towards  safe,  nutritious  and  sustainable  food  and  animal  welfare,  but 
there  are  still  issues  that  need  addressing.  The  sale  of  plant  protection  products  in  Estonia  is 
decreasing, but implementation records are inconclusive. Risks linked to pesticides have, after 
a  period  of  increase,  started  decreasing  over  the  last  3  years.  However,  Estonia  remains  far 
beyond EU average with regard to the reduction of risk from pesticide use. 

Estonia applies animal welfare measures widely in rural development, but the standards are not 
always perceived to be sufficiently ambitious. While the sales of antimicrobials are below the 
EU  average,  they  could  be  further  reduced  to  contribute  to  the  Green  Deal  target  of  halving 
sales of antimicrobials in the EU by 2030. Continued awareness of an investment in biosecurity 
is also important, in view of the persistent risk of African Swine Fever (ASF) outbreaks.  

Estonia should make an effort to shift towards healthier sustainable diets as it has a very high 
rate of non-communicable diseases caused by dietary risk factors. 

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

digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

The agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) in Estonia  appears to be weak and 
fragmented.,  No  central  hub  exists  to  coordinate  innovation  and  knowledge  exchange  in 
agriculture  and  the  upstream  and  downstream  activities  that  relate  to  it  (e.g.  environment, 
climate, biodiversity, food and non-food systems including processing and distribution chains, 
consumers  and  citizens,  etc.).  Training  and  advisory  services  are  provided  in  Estonia  by 
publicly  funded  advisors  and  a  number  of  independent  organisations,  although  their  level  of 
specialisation  and  skills  varies.  Importantly,  cooperation  and  information  exchange  between 
public  and  private  advisors  is  not  working  as  well  as  in  some  other  Member  States. 
Furthermore,  Estonia  planned  to  implement  only  a  very  low  number  of  operational  groups 
under  the  European  Innovation  Partnership,  which  did  not  allow  it  to  benefit  fully  from  the 
opportunities offered by this European initiative. 

Estonia  performs  well  on  digital  public  services,  but  is  merely  level  with  the  EU  average  in 
terms  of  integrating  digital  technology  in  the  economy.Moreover,  while  both  broadband 
coverage in rural areas and the level of digital skills is higher than the EU average, gaps still 
exist between urban and rural areas. This gap needs to be addressed to contribute to the Green 
Deal target of completing fast broadband internet access in rural areas. 

1.5 

Recommendations 

To  address  the  above  interconnected  economic,  environmental/climate  and  social  challenges, 
the Commission considers that the Estonian CAP strategic plan needs to focus its priorities and 

4 

 
 
 
concentrate its interventions on the following points, while adequately taking into account the 
local conditions: 

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

  Ensure  fairness  and  better  targeting  of  income  support  by  reducing  income  gaps 
between  different  farm  sizes  (in  favour  of  smaller  and  medium-sized  farms),  by 
income  support  for 
applying,  for  example, 
sustainability and the reduction of payments. 

the  complementary  redistributive 

  Strengthen the competitive position of the agricultural sector by improving access 
to  finance,  in  particular  by  reviewing  financial  instruments  to  be  used  in  conjunction 
with  the  CAP.  The  latter  should  be  accompanied  by  adequate  advice  on  financing 
issues. 

  Make the agricultural sector more resilient by encouraging and facilitating the use of 
risk  management  instruments  and  by  supporting  investments  targeting  climate  change 
adaptation. 

  Improve farmers’ position in the food supply chain by ensuring further organisation 
of  agrifood  markets  by  encouraging  producer  co-operatives  to  seek  recognition  as 
Producer  Organizations  as  well  as  better  targeting  the  support  for  cooperation  of 
producers. 

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

  Ensure improvement in nutrient management, thereby helping to achieve the Green 
Deal target on reducing nutrient losses. A better nutrient balance should be sought in 
both intensively and extensively farmed areas, reflecting regional differences. Effective 
implementation  of  conditionality  will  be  important  in  achieving  this,  as  will  a 
widespread  transition  to  agro-ecological  practices  and  precision  farming  –  which 
Estonia should consider supporting through funded schemes. 

  Reduce  GHG  emissions  from  enteric  fermentation  in  farmed  livestock  in  line  with 
innovation  and 

through  support  for  advice, 

the  Methane  Strategy, 
management practices, as appropriate. 

including 

  Ensure  adequate  protection  of  Estonian  peatlands  –  including  through  effective 
design  of  related  conditionality  elements  and  support  for  carbon  farming.  Rewetting 
may  also  be  appropriate  in  some  cases.Encourage  the  timely  regeneration  of 
harvested forest, in such a way as to maximise long-term carbon capture (with species 
which  are  adapted  to  climate  change  and  favourable  to  biodiversity),  within  a  wider 
context  of  sustainable  forest  management.  Support  not  only  for  planting  but  also  for 
advice on species selection may be appropriate.  

  Encourage effective management of semi-natural grasslands, as highlighted also in 
the Prioritized Action Framework for CAP funding. Estonia should consider expanding 
the provision of dedicated support beyond the current area, as well as ensuring that the 
implementation  of  rules  concerning  direct  payments  (especially  definitions)  do  not 
exclude land from eligibility in ways which may encourage poor management practices. 

5 

 
 
This should be done in a wider context of efforts to improve biodiversity status in farm 
and forest areas more generally. 

  Seek to increase the density of high-diversity farm landscape features of benefit to 
biodiversity – thus helping to achieve the Green Deal target on landscape features 
–  especially  in  areas  with  low  landscape  diversity.  The  implementation  of  GAEC1 
standard 9 will be important in this respect, and voluntary support schemes for creating 
and maintaining features may also be appropriate. 

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

  Put in place more ambitious animal welfare measures, especially for pigs and laying 
hens, to improve animal and human health and food quality  in line with the Farm to 
Fork  Strategy,  and  improve  biosecurity  in  view  of  ASF  risk,  through  targeted 
investment support and knowledge transfer actions. 

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

  Tackle poverty reduction and reverse depopulation and ageing trends in rural areas 
by investing in basic infrastructures and services that will boost economic development 
and  quality  job  creations  in  rural  areas.  In  doing  so  it  will  be  important  to  ensure 
synergies with other EU and national funds. 

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

  Contribute to the Green Deal target of completing fast broadband internet access 
in rural areas by focusing on closing the gap between the fast broadband availability in 
rural  and urban areas through targeted investment  interventions.  In doing  so it will be 
important to ensure synergies with other EU and national funds. 

  Strengthen AKIS integration by implementing and interlinking dedicated information 
and  knowledge  exchange  interventions,  in  particular  focusing  on  coordination  and 
support  for  public  and  private  independent  advisors.  Advance  cooperation  for 
innovation through interactive European Innovation Partnership (EIP) projects and EIP 
networking activities. Invest in creating innovation support services to develop bottom-
up ideas. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND    RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

ESTONIA 

The  agricultural  sector  in  Estonia  is  characterised  by  a  decreasing  number  of  farms  and 
increasing farmland area. It is limited by specific Baltic conditions in terms of crop varieties. 
Estonian market is predominantly oriented to the Baltic and Nordic states. Agriculture plays a 
more  important  role  in  the  overall  economy  of  Estonia  than  is  the  case  in  other  EU  Member 
States, and seems to be more attractive to young farm managers than observed on the average 
in the EU Member States. However, the COVID crises revealed the importance of non-native 
workers in  the agricultural  sector and the difficulty of the sector attracting workers.  It is  still 
seen as a non-attractive sector, with a large decline in number of workers. High level of land 
concentration  and  relatively  limited  range  of  crop  production  result  in  a  limited  level  of 
diversity of Estonian agriculture. While overall status of nature and biodiversity protection and 
usage of natural resources seems rather satisfactory, certain issues remain. Rural areas have a 
predominant  role  in  Estonia,  with  82%  of  the  territory  and  44.5%  of  population  share.  Rural 
areas  face  depopulation,  poverty  and  ageing.  The  low  level  of  economic  activity,  the  limited 
quality  job  opportunities  and  missing  basic  infrastructures  and  services  make  rural  areas  less 
attractive. 

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

food security 

In  Estonia,  the  agricultural  income  is  about  82%  of  the  average  wage  in  the  whole  economy 
between  2015  and  2019.  The  share  varies  a  lot  over  the  period  2005-2019,  mainly  due  to 
fluctuations in agricultural income. The average share for the period 2005-2019 is 104%, which 
is much higher than the EU average (approx. 40%)2-4. See the graph below. 

For the period 2005-2019, the average agricultural factor income per worker (EUR/AWU3 12 
018)  is  volatile,  with  no  clear  upward  or  downward  trend.  In  the  vast  majority  of  years,  the 
income  is  below  the  EU  figures4.  EU  subsidies  play  a  key  role  in  the  farms’  revenues,  with 
direct  payments  forming  annually  on  average  46%  (one  of  the  highest  share  in  the  EU)5  and 
payments  under  rural  development  26%  (substantially  above  the  EU  average  at  7%)  of  the 
agricultural  factor  income6  (period  2015-2018).  The  concentration  of  direct  payments  in 
Estonia  is  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  EU,  with  the  20%  biggest  beneficiaries 
concentrating  86%  of  total  direct  payments,  which  reflects  exactly  the  concentration  of  land 
(20% of the largest beneficiaries farm 86% of land)5. It is also observed that a significant share 
of  direct  payment  beneficiaries  (34%)  have  a  lower  economic  size  than  EUR  20002.  This 
situation reflects as well the low degree of differentiation and targeting of the direct payment 
received per hectare (see below). Estonia did not implement the redistributive payment in the 
period 2015-2020. 

The  factor  income  tends  to  increase  with  physical  farm  size.  The  direct  payment  per  hectare 
does  not  vary  much  with  farm  physical  size4-5.  The  factor  income  trend  is  similar  for  the 
economic farm size. The direct payment per hectare also tends to increase very slightly with the 
economic  size7.  Some  of  the  small  (in  physical  and  economic  terms)  farms  may  actually  not 
apply  for  direct  payment  per  hectare,  which  would  explain  the  lower  value  of  the  decoupled 
direct payment per hectare that in theory should be similar in a Member State that implements 
the Single Area Payment Scheme.  

7 

 
 
 
 
For sectors, the factor income is the highest for granivores8, cereals, oilseeds and protein field 
crops  farms  and  the  lowest  in  sheep  and  goats  farms.  The  direct  payment  per  hectare  is 
comparable  whatever  the  sector  (coupled  support  compensates  for  lower  decoupled  direct 
payment per hectare in horticulture farms). The share of total income support (direct payments) 
in income is highest for cattle and sheep and goat farms, certain years factor income would (on 
average) even be negative without support for those sector5. 

The factor income was similar in less favoured areas (LFA) than for non-LFA areas over the 
period  2004-2010  and  became  slightly  lower  (on  average  96%  of  income  of  non-LFA  areas) 
until  20144.  From  2015  on,  the  whole  territory  is  designated  as  areas  facing  natural  or  other 
specific  constraints  (ANC)5,9.  However,  whereas  no  payments  for  ANC  are  granted  in  the 
current programming period, it is observed that a geographical distinction has been introduced 
under coupled support, with one ‘dairy measure’ for mainland and one for islands.  

The analysis of risk management instruments10 shows that the offer in Estonia (national support 
to cover the rest of veterinary losses not taken on board by the EU/national shared mechanism 
for  animal  diseases  losses  compensation;  support  for  crop  insurance  with  broad  coverage 
including  climatic  risks,  support  for  livestock  insurance  with  all  livestock  types  covered)  is 
quite broad. As of 2019, the support for insurance premium is available through the Estonian 
Rural Development Programme (RDP). However, by the end of the year, there was no uptake 
yet11, with one reason being the lack of suitable products on the insurance market.  

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

Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms 

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy  

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

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

8 

 
 
 
 
2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater focus 

on research, technology and digitalisation 

In  the  period  of  2003-2016  the  number  of  farms  in  Estonia  decreased  by  almost  55%,  from 
36 860 to 16 700. The opposite tendency is recorded for the utilised agricultural land (UAA), 
which has increased by 24.2%, from 795 640 hectares in 2003 to 988 41012 in 2019. As a result, 
the average farm size increased between 2005 and 2016 from 32 to 60 hectares. However, in 
2016 the majority of farms (almost 65%) were of size below 20 hectares, and those with 100 
hectares and over formed 11.4% of the total number.13 

Of  the  total  agricultural  area  reported  in  2018,  67.6%  was  arable  land,  31%  permanent 
grassland  and  a  modest  0.4%  was  used  for  permanent  crops.14  Between  2005  and  2013,  the 
number of livestock units was rather stable over time at around 310 thousand LU. This number 
decreased to 280 thousand in 2016, after the outburst of African swine fever and the Russian 
ban on EU products in 2014. After that drop, the number of livestock units has remained rather 
stable again. 

The  agricultural,  forestry  and  fisheries  sector  accounted  for  3.3%  of  the  gross  value  added 
(GVA) of Estonia in 2019 (for comparison, the EU average was 1.8%). Crops formed almost 
54% of agricultural output, and over 23% of crops were cereals. Animal output reached slightly 
over 46% with milk production as the main contributor (57% of total animal output).15 

High  outflow  of  labour  force  (over  -48%  during  2005-2019)  was  the  main  driver  for  steady 
increase  in  labour  productivity,  and  in  turn,  in  total  factor  productivity  (TFP)  in  2005-2015. 
The following years saw a drop – caused by harsh weather conditions of 2016 and 2018 – with 
TFP  falling  below  EU  average  by  2018.  In  2019,  after  an  exceptionally  good  year  in 
agriculture, the labour productivity increased again to almost 90% of the EU average; however, 
when calculated for 2017-2019 it accounts for more modest 71%.16 While the reported outflow 
of labour is largely a result of structural changes, the COVID crisis revealed also the sector’s 
vulnerability – its low attractiveness and the developed dependency on non-native workers. 

The financing gap in the agricultural sector is estimated between EUR 28 million and EUR 117 
million. Lack of collateral, high lending risk and poor financial planning skills are among the 
main  constraints  on  access  to  finance,  and  in  addition,  there  seems  to  be  an  insufficient 
availability of long-term loans.17 

The agri-food trade balance is negative. The balance is positive with non-EU countries, but it 
forms a lesser part of the trade (7% of all imported and 25% of all exported agri-food products 
in 2019)18. The main trading partners are Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, for export also Russia 
and Sweden. In 2019, the main products for export continued to be cereals (20%), and milk and 
milk products (19%).19 

9 

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

Total factor productivity 

Land productivity 

Labour productivity 

Intermediate costs productivity 

Capital productivity 

TFP EU-27 

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

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

Although the factor income of the primary production and processing sectors in absolute value 
are  in  Estonia  much  below  the  EU  average,  the  share  captured  by  the  farmers  of  total  value 
added  is  higher  in  Estonia  than  the  EU  average  (30%  versus  24%  in  2017).  This  share  is 
relatively  stable  over  the  years  although  shrinking  in  crisis  years.  During  market  failures, 
market  prices  are  dropping  faster  in  Estonia  than  in  other  Member  States  on  average  and 
primary producers are often obliged to take higher risks than other stakeholders in the supply 
chain with more market power.  

There  are  no  recognised  producer  organisation  or  inter-branch  organization  in  Estonia. 
However,  there  were  152  agricultural  co-operatives  registered  in  Estonia  in  2018.20  To  make 
full use of the benefits stemming from the producers’ cooperation, co-operatives and other type 
of  non-recognized  producer  organisations  would  have  to  be  recognised  by  the  public 
authorities.  Therefore, co-operatives should be encouraged to seek recognition. Moreover, they 
should be encouraged to  explore the use of quality labelling to  improve  cooperation between 
producers and to strengthen their bargaining position in the value chain. 

80%  of  the  co-operatives  are  small  (13.3  producers  per  co-operative  in  2016),  with  low 
turnover.  A  “silo  approach”  is  predominant  –  cooperatives  in  different  sectors  or  different 
regions  are not  interacting, members are not  overlapping and development  is  impeded by the 
inability  of  members  to  adopt  a  proper  management  and  ownership  model  and  to  raise 
additional  capital.    Because  of  historical  factors,  co-operating  and  joint  operations  are  not 
highly  regarded,  in  particular  by  the  older  generation  of  farmers.  However,  long-term 
knowledge  transfer  measures,  financed  from  the  Estonian  RDP  for  2014-2020,  has  started  to 
change that narrative. This measure should be continued and mergers of smaller co-operatives 
and co-operation between different  stakeholders  in  the supply chain,  including in  the form  of 
inter-branch activities, should be fostered. Knowledge transfer, generational renewal, advisory 
and  training  measures  targeting  co-operation  in  agriculture  should  be  enforced  in  order  to 
consolidate the primary sector and thus improve farmers’ position in the supply chain. 

Estonia has not yet transposed the Directive on unfair trading practices21 in the agricultural and 
food supply chain into its national law although it should do it by May 2021. A private code of 
good trading practices as adopted by the Estonian Traders Association in 2008 has not phased 
out the use of unfair trading practices within agricultural sector. 

10 

 
 
 
During  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  Estonia  has  implemented  rural  development 
support for short supply chains or marketing through local markets. The number of applicants 
who have benefited from  this measure remains low. Value of food products  bought  online in 
Estonia  is  low  as  well  (estimated  to  be  ca  1%)  although  it  grew  multiple  times  during  the 
COVID confinement.  COVID crises also  contributed  to  the launching of several  e-commerce 
facilities  by  individual  farmers  but  several  of  these  have  become  inactive  upon  end  of  the 
confinement.  Food  e-commerce  market  in  Estonia  remains  pre-mature  and  rather  turbulent.  
Nevertheless,  there  are  at  least  seven  countrywide  e-commerce  platforms  providing  food 
products directly from producer to the consumer plus large number of regional platforms and/or 
possibilities to order food via social media (mainly Facebook). 

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

Primary production 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 

% for primary producers (right axis) 

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

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

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

energy 

In 2018, agricultural emissions of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in Estonia amounted to 1.8 
million tonnes of CO2 equivalents22, up by almost 10% compared to the year 2000. In terms of 
share,  agriculture  represents  7%  of  Estonia’s  total  GHG  emissions  (EU  average  is  10%)  and 
slightly less than a half percent of the total EU-27 GHG emissions from agriculture.23 47% of 
agricultural  emissions  in  Estonia  relate  to  agricultural  soils,  38%  to  enteric  fermentation  of 
livestock (mainly cattle) and 14% to the management of manure.24 An upward trend in GHG 
emissions in the agricultural sector is expected to continue due to predicted growth in livestock 
numbers and an increased milk  yield, in  case of dairy cows. Also, the emissions from liming 
and from the use of synthetic and lime fertilizers are expected to increase.25  

The  land  use,  land-use  change  and  forestry  (LULUCF)  sector,  acting  as  a  carbon  sink  in 
Estonia,  plays  an  important  role  in  the  national  carbon  cycle.  Estonia  is  one  of  the  few  EU 
Member States in which peatlands and peat-topped soils are strongly present – covering 20.2% 
of total national territory, 9.150 km2 (data for 2011)26.  Such areas, whether used as agricultural 
land  or  not,  can  be  large  sinks  for  or  sources  of  atmospheric  CO2  and  must  therefore  be 
appropriately managed. In particular peatland used as arable land is to be considered at risk of 
degradation.  Suitable  soil  management  techniques  or  rewetting  are  considered  useful  tools  to 
prevent  degradation,  to  stop  further  GHG  emissions  and  to  preserve  carbon  sequestration. 

11 

 
 
 
 
Forests cover about  56%27  of the country’s territory  and the majority of CO2 removals in the 
LULUCF sector comes from the biomass increment in forest land.28 So far the removal of CO2 
has outweighed the GHG emissions of the sector, though, this trend is changing.  According to 
the  national  projections,  the  LULUCF  sector  remains  a  carbon  sink  until  2030  (though  the 
effect  being almost  negligible already  as of 2025), after which the sector  is  projected to  be  a 
source of emissions. This  course is  mainly due to increased  emissions from  cropland and the 
reduction  of  carbon  stored  in  forests,  as  the  replacement  of  older  forests  with  younger  ones 
reduces  forest  stocks.  In  the  coming  years,  forest  stocks  will  reach  a  peak  and  then  begin  to 
decline, which is why an increase in CO2 emissions from forest land is expected.29 

The  National  Energy  and  Climate  Action  Plan  2021-203030  reflects  on  how  to  achieve  the 
target for decreasing the emissions in the sectors falling under the scope of the Effort Sharing 
Regulation  (which  includes  agriculture)  by  2030  at  13%  compared  to  2005.  The  Action  Plan 
lists  the  planned  actions  for  the  agricultural  and  forestry  sector  (22  and  8  measures 
respectively) for this purpose. These focus on environmentally friendly land management and 
animal rearing techniques.  

In  2018,  renewable  energy  represented  almost  30%  of  the  energy  consumed,  exceeding  the 
2020  target  of  25%31.  However,  the  share  of  agriculture  in  the  production  of  total  renewable 
energy  in  Estonia  was  a  marginal  0.3%  (the  EU-27  average  12.1%).  The  main  contributor 
(94.5%)  to  renewable  energy  production  was  the  forestry  sector.32  Energy  consumption  in 
Estonian agriculture and forestry  as a share in  total final  energy  consumption is  4.3%, above 
the EU-27 average of 2.9%.33 While there was an overall slight decrease (-2.5) in the number of 
kg of oil equivalent use per hectare (kgoe/ha) of agricultural land and forest area in the EU-28 
between 2009  and 2015, the energy  consumption in  Estonian agriculture  increased by almost 
12 kgoe/ha.34  

The  current  Estonian  RDP  already  recognises  reducing  GHG  emissions  as  an  important 
challenge;  several  measures  supporting  environmentally  friendly  management  do  target  also 
GHG and/or ammonia emissions, covering almost 52% of the agricultural land with respective 
management  contracts  at  the  end  of  2019  (exceeding  slightly  the  initial  target  for  2023  of 
49.6%)35. Support is also provided for investments into renewable energy production, for which 
already EUR 13 million of total investment in renewable energy production have been achieved 
by the end of 2019 (i.e. about 64% of the target set for 2023). Furthermore, by the end of 2019, 
the target for 2023 to support management contracts contributing to  carbon sequestration and 
conservation on 14.8% of Estonian agricultural and forest land has been reached.36 

Like  other  Nordic  countries,  the  Estonian  agricultural  sector  is  vulnerable  to  risks  stemming 
from  climate  change  such  as  decreases  in  summer  rainfall  and  increased  numbers  of  winter 
storms and floods as well as pests and diseases risks.37 National studies also predict a likelihood 
of an increase in the average amount of precipitation, reduction in snow cover and spring time 
floods  due  to  temperature  rise  and  the  increasing  number  of  extreme  climate  events,  such  as 
droughts or heavy showers.38  

12 

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

Estonia’s  situation  in  terms  of  management  of  natural  resources  is  better  than  that  of  some 
Member States, but there are nevertheless points which require attention. 

Emissions of ammonia from Estonian agriculture (which make up almost 89% of total reported 
emissions) have been roughly stable for a decade or more, hovering between 9 000 and 10 000 
tonnes  per  year.  However,  recent  data  (2017  and  2018)  indicate  an  uptick  in  volumes  and  in 
any  case  –  crucially  –  the  country  is  not  projected  to  meet  its  ammonia  emission  reduction 
targets under the National Emissions reduction Commitments (NEC) Directive.39 Moreover, a 
review of Estonia’s National Air Pollution Control Programme suggests that proposed technical 
measures targeting ammonia may be inadequate if intended growth for the agricultural sector 
production is not achieved in an appropriate way.40  

The  pressure  on  water  availability  in  Estonia  is  unusually  high  for  a  Baltic  Member  State: 
values for the Water Exploitation Index+ have typically lain between 10% and 15% in recent 
years  (compared  with  less  than  1%  in  Latvia  and  usually  less  than  5%  in  Lithuania).41 
However,  as  Estonia  has  a  very  small  area  equipped  for  irrigation  (just  0.3%  of  agricultural 
land  in  2016)42  agriculture  is  not  the  main  source  of  this  pressure  and  is  not  currently  under 
threat from it – though this could be an issue to watch for the long term. 

The  picture  on  water  quality  in  Estonia  is  slightly  clouded  by  doubts  over  the  current 
classification  of  water  bodies,  but  nevertheless  pressures  seem  to  be  most  acute  in  coastal 
waters: only 13% of these were reported as having good ecological status, compared with 60% 
of  rivers  and  67%  of  lakes.43  Moreover,  the  most  recent  figures  (for  2012-2015)  on 
eutrophication  and  hypertrophication  in  coastal  waters  showed  a  substantial  rise44  –  which 
reflects  a  serious  and  more  general  problem  of  eutrophication  in  the  Baltic  Sea  as  a  whole. 
Groundwater  bodies  in  Estonia  are  generally  not  suffering  high  pollution  from  nitrates:  in 
2015-2017 95% of them were considered to be of “high quality” (i.e. with less than 25 mg of 
nitrates per litre of water).45 Nevertheless, reporting under the Nitrates Directive revealed rising 

13 

 
 
 
nitrate concentrations in 44% of groundwater stations in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones between the 
periods  2008-2011  and  2012-2015.46  47  (At  the  same  time,  21%  of  groundwater  bodies  are 
failing  good  chemical  status)  Estonia  has  designated  3267  km2  as  Nitrate  Vulnerable  Zones, 
which is 7% of the total territory and 34% of the total agricultural area,48 and overall, diffuse 
agricultural  pollution  is  the  third  significant  pressure  on  surface  waters  and  the  sixth  most 
significant with regard to groundwater bodies. 

On the other hand, on its territory as a whole Estonia is not a heavy user of fertilisers. Its gross 
nitrogen surplus was 22 kg/ha/year in 2015 – less than half the EU average and down from 36 
kg/ha/year in 2004 – and it recorded a phosphorus deficit of 7 kg/ha/year in the same year (up 
from 2 in 2006).49  50 However, given the hotspots of problems mentioned above, and the fact 
that  a  substantial  proportion  of  farmland  is  subject  to  a  high  input  intensity  (55%  in  2017, 
against  an  EU-27  average  of  36%)51,  attempts  at  balanced  fertilisation  will  clearly  need 
regional differentiation.  Note that the impact  of  activities to  improve nutrient  management  in 
Estonia could be increased by linking them to research, innovation and demonstration activities 
available  under  the  forthcoming  Horizon  Europe  Mission  on  soil  health  and  food.  In  this 
context, it is significant that 28% of arable soils are left without soil cover in winter52 and 54% 
of tillable land is under conventional tillage53. 

Although  appropriate  fertilisation  may  present  an  issue  for  the  future  if  Estonia  is  to  get  the 
most  from  its  agricultural  soils  in  a  sustainable  manner,  in  general  those  soils  show  positive 
characteristics. The mean organic carbon content in arable land was 51g/kg in 201554 – more 
than  in  the  EU  as  a  whole  –  and  with  an  average  rate  of  soil  loss  from  water  at  0.21 
tonnes/ha/year  (EU  average:  2.46)55,  Estonian  soils  do  not  suffer  from  significant  water 
erosion. Nor is there major pressure on farmland from urban sprawl in a country with artificial 
land coverage of 1.9% (compared with an average of 4.1% in the EU-28).56 From 2000 to 2018, 
0.28% of cropland and 0.65% of grassland was lost to “artificial areas” – low by EU standards 
(though the figure for forest and woodland, 2.1%, was more significant).57 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Estonia 

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]. 

14 

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

preserve habitats and landscapes 

Available  data  –  including  information  from  the  Prioritised  Action  Framework  for  Estonia 
drawn  up  pursuant  to  the  Habitats  Directive  and  the  Birds  Directive  -  indicate  causes  for 
concern in Estonia with regard to specific objective 6. 

The  Farmland  Bird  Index  was  at  62  in  2017  (compared  to  70  in  the  EU-27),  having  fallen 
sharply from a value of 102 in 2007.58 The message from this general trend has been confirmed 
by  a  marked  decline  in  the  breeding  population  of  the  skylark  –  a  key  indicator  species  in 
Estonia as in many EU countries.59 

At  the  same  time,  the  conservation  status  of  grassland  habitats  of  EU  interest  affected  by 
agriculture is deteriorating overall. Although in the reporting period 2013-2018 the proportion 
of such habitats with “favourable” status was stable from the previous reporting period at 38% 
(compared  with  20%  in  the  EU  as  whole),  13%  had  moved  downwards  to  the  status 
“unfavourable – bad” (from “unfavourable – inadequate”).60 It may be relevant that only 11% 
of permanent grassland in Estonia’s Natura 2000 areas is designated as “sensitive”, compared 
with 55% in Natura 2000 zones in the EU as a whole.61 In any case, a key contributing factor to 
the decline of grassland habitats in protected areas has been identified as non-management of 
many  semi-natural  grasslands:  although  a  support  scheme  is  currently  available  through 
Estonian RDP, assessments indicated that this should be expanded.62 

Forest habitats of EU interest in Estonia are also experiencing mixed fortunes: only 20% have 
enjoyed  “favourable”  status  in  the  period  2013-2018,  and  numbers  of  key  forest  birds  are 
declining (e.g. the population of Tetrao urogallus has fallen by 31% over 19 years)63 .  

These statistics on protected areas are significant in themselves but should also be understood 
in a wider geographical context – especially as Estonia’s Natura 2000 zones cover a relatively 
modest  surface:  just  6%  of  UAA  (compared  with  11%  in  the  EU)  and  18%  of  forested  area 
(30% in the EU).64 

A  trend  of  concern  is  that  the  presence  of  permanent  grassland  is  being  eroded:  in  2018  it 
covered 31% of agricultural area, down from 34% in 2013.65 Otherwise, where grassland is still 
in place, noted threats from the perspective of biodiversity and landscapes include cultivation 
and fertilisation (note the comparison with  the threat  of non-management  inside Natura 2000 
zones).66  Evidence  also  suggests  that  definitions  and  eligibility  rules  applied  by  Estonia  may 
make  some  semi-natural  grasslands  ineligible  for  direct  payments,  which  can  encourage 
inappropriate  management.  The  absence  of  a  dedicated  support  scheme  for  such  land  outside 
protected areas is also considered problematic.67 

In  the  case  of  other  agricultural  eco-systems  –  including  on  cropland  –  the  main  pressures 
identified come from  increased use of plant protection products,  mineral  fertilisers and liquid 
manure, especially in areas where livestock rearing is more concentrated.68 In this context, it is 
perhaps significant  that  Estonia has a  greater proportion  of farms categorised as using a high 
input intensity (55% in 2017) than does the EU as a whole (36%).69 

About 1% of Estonia’s UAA is taken up by linear landscape features which can be beneficial to 
biodiversity – such as hedges, ponds, ditches and traditional stone walls – in addition to about 
3.4%  of  UAA  taken  up  by  fallow  land.  This  compares  reasonably  well  to  the  EU  averages 
(0.6%  for  linear  landscape  features,  4.1%  for  fallow  land).70  However,  the  distribution  in 

15 

 
 
Estonia  is  uneven:  certain  agricultural  areas,  especially  certain  arable  areas,  have  become 
relatively unbroken, monotonous landscapes.71 

Despite  the  above-mentioned  substantial  presence  of  more  intensive  farms,  Estonia  has 
enthusiastically adopted organic farming – which covered 22% of UAA in 2019 (second only 
to Austria), half of which is permanent grassland.72  The share of UAA under conversion is also 
high, at around 3%. 

Area under organic farming in Estonia 

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]. 

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

Fallow land as % of agricultural area 

Landscape features as % of agricultural area 

Source: 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. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

In 2016, 8.7% of the total number of farm managers in Estonia were below 35 years old and 
49.9% older than 55 years. Whereas the EU average decreased between 2010 and 2016, Estonia 
had an increase in the share of young farmers in the same period. In addition, Estonia's ratio of 
young managers to elderly (0.17 in 2016) is one of the higher ratios in the EU.73 74 75 The ratio 
of  young  female  managers  to  male  managers  is  about  3:10,  which  is  also  one  of  the  higher 
ratios in Europe. The average economic farm size in Estonia is the highest in the age class of 45 
to 54 years old in 2016.  

Access to land (land to buy or to rent) seems to be the most important general need for young 
farmers  in  Estonia.  Access  to  land  was  reported76  as  critical  by  37%  of  Estonian  farmers, 
compared to 11% in the EU.  

The demand for financing77 is particularly high amongst  young farmers and new entrants, but 
banks  have  not  developed  dedicated  products  for  them.  Overall,  interviews  with  farmers’ 
organizations and financial institutions confirm that this segment of the sector is experiencing 
the  most  difficulties  in  obtaining  loans  from  banks.    Estonia  is  notable  for  making  use  of 
financial  instruments  to  incentivise  investment  on  farms,  which  is  partly  designed  to  address 
generational renewal goals in rural areas.78 79 

In Estonia in 2016, the share of farm managers below 35 years of age with at least a basic level 
of  agricultural  training  (55%)  is  higher  than  the  respective  share  among  total  farm  managers 
(40%). The share of young farm managers with at least a basic agricultural training in Estonia 
is also higher than the EU average.80 

In the 2014-2020 programming period Estonia is implementing several CAP measures aiming 
at generational renewal. Under Pillar I, the young farmer payment (YFP) amounted to 0,67% of 
the direct payment envelope in 201881. Although this represents an increase in comparison to 
the  estimated  share  (0,3%)  and  to  previous  years  data,  such  figure  remains  below  the  EU 
average share of 0.92% (possible maximum being 2%). The average YFP/beneficiary stood at 
EUR  1131  in  2018,  placing  Estonia  in  the  group  of  Member  States  with  lower 
YFP/beneficiary.82 This can be partly explained by the fact that Estonia has set up the threshold 
of  payments  entitlements  that  can  be  activated  for  the  YFP  at  39  ha  (range  being  legally 
between  25  and  90  ha).  Currently,  Estonia  has  not  added  eligibility  conditions  (e.g.  skills, 
training etc.) to be met by young farmers to receive the YFP. The results of the implementation 
of setting up support for young farmers under rural development have been positive with 455 
beneficiaries of planned 553 having received support by the end of 2019.83 Nevertheless, it is 
important to continue with measures to encourage the younger generations to enter agriculture. 
In  addition  to  existing  support  measures,  further  support  should  be  provided  to  young 
entrepreneurs  through  advisory  services  and  mentoring  programmes,  as  they  are  the  most  in 
need of practical knowledge to cope with the day-to-day management of the business. Knowing 
that the farm replacement services can be used during holidays, sickness or other reasons may 
also encourage taking up agricultural business. 

Business  development  could  be  facilitated  by  the  development  of  the  infrastructure  in  rural 
areas. Accessible digital solutions and fast internet provide people with more flexible working 
time  and  teleworking  possibilities;  improved  basic  services  such  as  medical  care,  schools, 
children’s leisure activities and other leisure activities also facilitate moving to rural area.84 

17 

 
 
Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Estonia 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

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

Source: EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang]. 

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

areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

Estonia  is  among  the  EU  Member  States  with  the  highest  rural  areas  percentage:  82%  of  the 
total area is predominantly rural85. The share of population living in urban and in rural areas is 
however  almost  equal,  respectively  45.2%  and  44.5%.  While  in  2015-2019  the  population  in 
urban areas grew by 5%, the rural population decreased by 1% and the share of elderly people 
increased  in  a  higher  speed  than  in  other  territories.86  The  employment  rate  in  rural  areas  in 
Estonia  decreased  after  the  economic  crisis  in  2008  from  75%  to  66%  in  2010.  In  2016,  the 
rural employment rate was back at pre-crisis level87 and continued to increase reaching 77% in 
201988. Despite rapid  convergence with  the  EU, the  gap in  social  and  economic performance 
between the capital region and the rest of the country has increased.89 According to the national 
data,  the  largest  employer  is  the  service  sector,  which  provides  employment  for  61%  of  the 
rural population, followed by the industrial sector with 31% and the primary sector with 8%. 

The rural poverty rate of 28.5% (2019 data) is high compared to urban areas and above the EU 
average.90 The GDP per capita in rural areas is below the EU average. While the trend has been 
upwards since 2000, it has not yet caught up with the EU average and the convergence has been 
slowing  down  between  2012  and  2016  (the  PPS  index  in  Estonia  staying  at  50  against  EU 
average of 71 for rural areas).91 

As regards younger generation, 6.9% of 15-24 years old in Estonia are neither in employment, 
nor in education or training (NEET); this rate is higher in rural areas, but stays still below the 
EU average (8.5% and 10.7% respectively). The share of young NEET women in rural areas is 
higher than of young men (9.6% and 7.6% respectively), but both figures are again below the 
EU average (11.7% and  9.8% respectively).92 When looking  at the rate of  early leavers from 
education and training (18-24 years old), then Estonia in general scores slightly lower than EU 
average  (9.8%  vs  10.2%),  but  the  rate  in  rural  areas  exceeds  this  average  (12.3%  vs  10.7%). 
The picture is different when comparing men and women in rural areas: when 8.6% of young 
women are considered as early leavers, the issue is more pronounced among young men with 
15.2%.93 

Local action groups (LAGs) play an important role in local development. Currently there are 26 
LAGs whose area of operation cover almost the whole territory and the whole rural population. 
During current programming period 9% of EAFRD funding is allocated to LEADER, which is 
high  compared  to  the  EU  average  of  7%.  Supported  projects  mainly  aim  at  improved 

18 

 
 
 
possibilities  for  sporting  and  other  recreational  activities,  rural  tourism,  cultural  heritage  and 
developing services for local people.94 While doing so, they have also created a significant 913 
new jobs.95 

Forests  cover  almost  56%96  of  the  total  area  of  Estonia.  Forestry  sector97  employs  35  800 
persons  (20%  in  forestry,  49%  in  wood  industry,  26%  in  furniture  industry  and  5%  in  paper 
industry). The percentage of people employed by forestry sector has been rather stable for over 
a  decade  staying  at  between  5-6%  of  total  employed  persons  in  Estonia.98  The  labour 
productivity with EUR 37 032 per AWU in 2015 to 2017 is close to 70% of the EU average.99 

The  turnover  in  bio-economy  sectors  in  Estonia  has  steadily  grown  since  2008  and  reached 
EUR 7 billion in 2017.100 Main contributors are wooded products and furniture sector (39%), 
food and beverages sector (29%), agriculture (14%) and forestry sector (11%). As the number 
of persons employed in  the bio-economy  sectors has slightly  declined compared to  2008, the 
turnover per person employed increased from EUR 62 000 in 2008 to EUR 100 000 in 2017.101 
While Estonia does not yet have a comprehensive national Bio-economy strategy, the Estonian 
Research  Council  commissioned  a  targeted  study  in  2018  (expected  to  be  completed  in 
2021).102 

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 

For Estonia, the overall sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents for food producing animals has 
been stagnating and lately, in 2013-2017, even dropped by almost 27%. 

The  sales  of  antimicrobial  agents  expressed  as  milligram  per  population  correction  unit 
(mg/PCU) has been steadily decreasing, and at 53.3 mg/PCU in 2018, it was well below the EU 
average  of  118.3  mg/PCU.  Estonia  should  continue  to  implement  measures  to  maintain  its 
downward trend for the overall sales of antimicrobials to contribute to the Farm to Fork target 
at EU level and ensure that all the necessary measures are in place for a smooth implementation 
of  the  new  provisions  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/6103  on  veterinary  medicinal  products 
applicable as from 2022. The most important consumer of antimicrobials in Estonia is the cattle 
sector  followed  by  the  pigs  sector.  Estonia  had  around  10%  of  2017  sales  of  antimicrobials 
included  in  the  AMEG  Category  2  (classified  as  the  highest  priority  critically  important 
antimicrobials  for  human  health  (HP  CIAs)  by  the  World  Health  Organisation  -  i.e.  the  third 
and  fourth  generation  cephalosporins,  fluoroquinolones,  other  quinolones  and  polymyxins). 
The most widely used HP CIA antimicrobial in Estonia are polymyxins and fluoroquinolones. 

In 2018, the sale of plant protection products (PPPs) in Estonia totalled 636 tonnes, a decrease 
in relation to 2017. While there are obvious variations in the use of PPPs, data shows globally a 
decreasing trend in the last years. The sales stays largely below EU average and is one of the 
lowest in the EU. Herbicides are the most important category of PPPs sales in Estonia (about 
67% of all PPPs). 

Based  on  the  calculation  of  Harmonised  Risk  Indicators  (HRIs)  the  risks  linked  to  pesticides 
increased by 31% in the period of 2011-2018 in comparison to 17% decrease at the EU level.104 
However, the risk shows downward trend for the last three years. The significantly reduced sale 
of PPPs containing non-approved active substances is an important factor in this trend. 

Despite  the  low  figures  the  Integrated  Pest  Management  (IPM)  implementation  record  of 
Estonia is mixed. Estonia appears to have implemented most of the IPM principles, mainly crop 

19 

 
 
rotation and using certified seeds. IPM guidelines have been established for most of the crops 
and  a  scoring  system  for  self-control  on  the  implementation  of  IPM  has  been  introduced.  A 
web-based  monitoring  systems  for  plants  pest  has  been  implemented  in  parallel.  The 
implementation  of  IPM  by  PPP  professional  users  is  verified  during  official  control  by  the 
competent  authority  in  Estonia.  On  the  other  hand,  Estonia  needs  to  act  on  its  obligation  to 
inspect pesticide application equipment in use.  

At  EU  level,  the  European  Commission  has  estimated  annual  food  waste  between  30%  and 
50%  of  edible  food  along  the  entire  food  chain  until  reaching  the  consumer,  representing  an 
annual  loss  of  89  million  tons  in  the  EU.  In  Estonia,  a  study  carried  out  for  the  Ministry  of 
Environment105  showed  that  around  one  third  of  the  food  is  thrown  away  in  Estonian 
households, corresponding to around EUR 120 per year (which is below EU average). 

While the recently adopted waste legislation addresses the food waste after the farm gates, not 
enough attention is given to food loss and waste occurring at the primary production level and 
the early stages of the supply chain. This could be tackled by extending the national food waste 
prevention  programme  required  by  Article  29(2a)  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive 
2008/98/EC106  and  by  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  on  unfair  trading  practices107  to 
reinforce the farmers’ bargaining power. 

Estonia  has  a  number  of  issues  regarding  the  respect  of  the  legal  baseline  of  animal  welfare 
elements.  For  instance,  the  tail  docking  of  pigs  is  still  a  routine  practice.  The  conditions  on 
farm should improve so that the number of tail-docked pigs could decrease. Efforts could also 
be made to promote the production of eggs under non-cage systems for laying hens.    

Estonia is a major user of animal welfare support (currently included in 34 rural development 
programmes  of  17  Member  States  representing  1.8%  of  total  EAFRD  expenditure).  The 
Estonian RDP has assigned 4.7% of its EAFRD funding to the animal welfare measure, with a 
total of EUR 42.6 million of public funding. The European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 
(31/2018)  on  animal  welfare108  however  pointed  to  weaknesses  concerning  cost-effectiveness 
of this measure.  In addition,  Estonia is  listed among the countries  affected by  African Swine 
Fever (ASF). While the ASF is currently not present in pig farms, and despite the substantial 
reduction in the number of pig farms in Estonia (701 in 2015 and 109 in 2020109), it needs to be 
noted  that  in  2017  almost  half  of  the  herds  were  with  up  to  100  pigs110.  In  terms  of  farm 
biosecurity  this  is  considered  as  an  increased  risk.  Hence,  there  is  a  need  to  assure  high 
biosecurity in all pig farms in order to avoid further spread of ASF.   

Estonia  has  a  high  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  due  to  dietary  risk  factors 
expressed  as  disability  adjusted  life  years (DALYs)  per  100  000  population.111  This  DALYs 
value  is  influenced  by  a  number  of  dietary  factors.  Also,  Estonia  has  a  low  consumption  of 
fruits  and  vegetables112.  The  overweight  rates113  reported  in  Estonia  currently  stand  at  56.1% 
(EU average 52%), obesity rates are 21.8% (EU average 14.9%), thus both are high, pointing 
towards the necessity for changes of behaviour in consumption. 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. 

20 

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

HRI 1 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

Source: 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. 

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

2.10  

Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

The  overall  structure  of  Estonian  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Information  System  (AKIS) 
appears weak and fragmented, and no central hub exists for overall coordination of innovation 
and  knowledge  development.114  Such  fragmentation  may  reduce  the  ability  of  the  system  to 
meet the knowledge needs of farmers.  

Estonia  has  well  established  public  agricultural  research,  education  and  extension  (advisory) 
system.  As  regards  Research  and  Innovation  infrastructures,  there  are  three  universities  that 
have programmes in their curricula relevant for agriculture, and there are several institutes that 
conduct research in agriculture. There are also four fully operational Digital Innovation Hubs in 
Estonia  and  one  of  them  conducts  research  and  advances  technology-based  entrepreneurship 
also  in  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors.115  In  addition,  there  are  five  vocational  education 
centres  that  offer  vocational  agricultural  education.  However,  detailed  information  on 
knowledge  flows  between  research  bodies  and  farmers  is  not  available.  There  have  been  66 
projects  funded  by  Horizon  2020  under  thematic  objective  ‘Food  security,  sustainable 
agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research’.116 

The  Advisory  Centre  of  Rural  Development  Foundation  is  in  charge  of  the  publicly  funded 
advisory system. A number of other organisations provide also training and advisory services. 
The  total  number  of  nationally  accredited  advisors  available  in  Estonia  is  135117  (on  average 
one consultant per 124 agricultural holdings118) with varying specialisation and level of skills; 
53 of them are contracted by the Advisory Centre.119 A study carried out in 2018120 pointed out 
that  while  the  farmers  are  mostly  satisfied  with  the  organisation  of  advisory  services,  the 
information  exchange  between  the  independent  advisors  and  advisors  operating  at  Advisory 
Centre is not working well. This, in turn, exacerbates the possibilities for coherent activities in 
the field of knowledge transfer, common information base, etc.121 

Under the 2014-2020 programming period, Estonia has programmed almost 4.4% of the total 
RDP  funding  for  knowledge  transfer  and  information  actions,  advisory  services,  farm 
management, farm relief services and cooperation (EU average 3.63%). The implementation of 
the  RDP122  indicates  that  by  the  end  of  2019,  the  number  of  participants  trained  were  5054 

21 

 
 
 
(2023 target being 4000), and 4511 beneficiaries had been advised (64% of planned 7000). In 
addition,  also  the  number  of  supported  cooperation  projects  exceeded  the  target  value  (43 
projects  supported  instead  of  planned  17).  As  regards  cooperation  for  innovation,  only  two 
European Innovation Partnership Operational Groups (EIP-OGs) have been planned. 

Agricultural Research Centre manages the National Rural Network (NRN) in Estonia. NRN’s 
main tasks are the collection and dissemination of project examples, information exchange and 
training  activities,  support  to  the  cooperation  measure  and  promotion  of  innovation-related 
networking.  

Based on data prior to the pandemic, Estonia ranks seventh out of the 28 EU Member States in 
the  2020  edition  of  the European  Commission’s  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI). 
While Estonia ranks 1st place in the EU on Digital public services (with its well-developed e-
government  and  e-health  systems,  with  all  central  government  services,  as  well  as 
municipalities  providing  services  online),  it  scores  slightly  below  the  EU  average  on  the 
Integration of digital technology. To boost the digital transformation of the Estonian economy, 
it is important that Estonia continues and strengthens its efforts to raise awareness of the benefit 
of better integrating digital technologies, particularly for SMEs.123 Estonia has not yet opted for 
the use of satellite-based means to monitor CAP implementation but is currently part of an EU 
project dealing with the uptake of new technologies. 

As  regards  broadband,  62%  of  rural  households  in  Estonia  are  covered  by  next  generation 
access  (NGA) broadband (EU  average in  rural  areas is  59%;  total  coverage in  Estonia 84%). 
Very-high  capacity  networks  (VHCN)  cover  20%124  of  rural  households  (total  57%;  EU 
average 44%125). Ultra-fast broadband coverage in rural areas in Estonia increased to 32.8%.126 
The level of digital skills in Estonia is above the EU average: 62% of the population has basic 
or  above  basic  digital  skills  (the  EU  average  is  56%);  in  rural  area  the  percentage  is  lower 
(57%), but still well above the corresponding EU average (48%).127  

In  2016,  the  number  of  farm  managers  that  had  attained  basic  training  was  lower  than  EU 
average  (11%  and  23%  respectively).  On  the  other  hand,  Estonia  has  higher  than  average 
number of farm managers with  full agricultural  training:  29% against EU average of 9% (for 
managers under 35 the share was 37% and 22% respectively).128 

Broadband coverage in Estonia 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

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

22 

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

Managers with 
full agricultural 
training 

Managers with 
basic agricultural 
training 

Full training EU 
average 

Basic training 
EU average 

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

23 

 
 
 
 
1   GAEC = Good agricultural and environmental conditions 
2   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.25  Agricultural  factor  income.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06]. 

3   AWU = Annual work unit 
4   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.24  Agricultural  training  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 
EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] and CAP context indicator C.26 Agricultural entrepreneurial income. Based on 
EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04] and [aact_ali01].  

5   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Result indicator RPI_01 Share of direct support 

in agricultural income. 

6   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on  Farm  Accountancy 

Data Network (FADN) data (up to 2018). 

7   Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on  Farm  Accountancy 
Data Network (FADN) data (2015) and CATS (Clearance of Accounts Trailing System) data (up to 2017). 

8   Mainly pigs, poultry, rabbits etc 
9   Within  the  programming  period  2014-2020,  the  former  category  of  ‘LFA  other  than  mountains’  had  to  be 
newly designated pursuant to Article 32(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, based on common bio-physical 
criteria,  whereas  the  former  categories  ‘LFA  mountain’  and  areas  facing  specific  constrains  could  stay 
unchanged. All three categories are now grouped under the term ‘ANC’. 

10   Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  ECORYS,  Wageningen  Economic  Research, 

Study on risk management in EU agriculture, Final Report, 2018. 

11   Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Estonia, 2019. 
12   EUROSTAT. [tag00025]. 
13   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmleg]. 
14   EUROSTAT. [tag00025]. 
15   European Commission. Statistical Factsheet Estonia, June 2020, p. 6. 

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

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

[aact_eaa01] and [aact_ali01]. 

17   fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Estonia, Study report, 78 pages.  
18   European Commission. Statistical Factsheet Estonia, June 2020, p. 13. 

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

19   Maaeluministeerium.  Põllumajanduse, 

kalanduse 

ja 

toiduainetööstuse 

ülevaade 

2019, 

2020. 

https://www.agri.ee/sites/default/files/content/ylevaated/ulevaade-pokat-2019-02.pdf  

20   Võlli,  L.,  Värnik,  R.,  Laaneväli,  K.,  Ülevaade  põllumajandustootjate 

tulundusühistutest  Eestis. 

Maaeluministeerium, Tallinn, 2018, p.4. 

21   Directive  (EU)  2019/633  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  unfair  trading 
practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain,  OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, 
p. 59–72 

22   European Commission. Climate Change & Air Quality – Data Explorer. 
23   European Environment Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas - data viewer. 
24   Idem. 
25   Ministry of Environment. Estonia’s Fourth Biennial Report under the United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change, 2019.  

26   Tanneberger et al., The peatland map of Europe, 2017. http://mires-and-peat.net/media/map19/map_19_22.pdf 
27   Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).  2020 Global Forest Resources Assessment. 

(https://fra-platform.herokuapp.com/EST/assessment/fra2020/extentOfForest/). 

28   Ministry of Environment. Estonia’s Fourth Biennial Report under the United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change, 2019. 

29   Idem. 
30   Estonia's  Communication  to  the  European  Commission.  Estonia’s  2030  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plan 

(NECP 2030), 2019.  

31   EUROSTAT. [nrg_ind_ren]. 
32   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.43  Production  of  renewable  energy  from  agriculture  and 

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

24 

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

Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s]. 

34   Idem, 2017 data. 
35   Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Estonia, 2019.   
36   Idem. 
37   LIFE Agri Adapt. EU climate change risks for Nordic countries (https://awa.agriadapt.eu/en/ ).  
38   Republic of Estonia, Ministry of the Environment. Climate Change Adaptation Development Plan until 2030.  
39   European Commission.  Communication from the Commissions to the  European Parliament,  the Council, the 
European  Economic  and Social  Committee  of  the  Regions  –  Environmental  Implementation  Review  2019:  A 
Europe that protects its citizens and enhances their quality of life. COM(2019) 149 final. 

40   Ministry  of  the  Environment,  The  National  Air  Pollution  Control  Programme,  2019.  Available  at 

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/reduction/NAPCP.htm  

41   European  Environment  Agency 

(EEA).  Use  of  Freshwater  Resources 

in  Europe.  Figure  3. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/use-of-freshwater-resources-3/assessment-4  

42   EUROSTAT. [aei_ef_ir].  
43   European Commission.  Communication from the Commissions to the  European Parliament,  the Council, the 
European  Economic  and Social  Committee  of  the  Regions  –  Environmental  Implementation  Review  2019:  A 
Europe that protects its citizens and enhances their quality of life. COM(2019) 149 final. 

44   European Commission.  Communication from the Commissions to the  European Parliament,  the Council, the 
European  Economic  and Social  Committee  of  the  Regions  –  Environmental  Implementation  Review  2019:  A 
Europe that protects its citizens and enhances their quality of life. COM(2019) 149 final. 

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

46   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  Report  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, SWD(2018) 246 final, Part 8 to 
9, p. 30. 

47   European Commission.  Communication from the Commissions to the  European Parliament,  the Council, the 
European  Economic  and Social  Committee  of  the  Regions  –  Environmental  Implementation  Review  2019:  A 
Europe that protects its citizens and enhances their quality of life. COM(2019) 149 final. 

48   Idem, p. 32. 
49   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.40  Water  quality.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [aei_pr_gnb]  and 
European  Environmental  Agency  as  in  Waterbase  –  Water  Quality,  CSI020,  based  on  data  reported  to 
EIONET. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

50   Estonia  is  also  encouraged  to  restart  the  transmission  of  gross  nutrient  balances  data  to  the  European 

Commission. 

51   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.33 Farming intensity. Based on FADN –Agri-environmental 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

“Intensification/Extensification”. 

indicator 
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

52   EUROSTAT. [ef_mp_soil].  
53   EUROSTAT. [ef_mp_prac]. 
54   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.41 Soil organic matter in arable land. Joint Research Center 
(JRC)  based  on  LUCAS  Land  Use  Survey  2015.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

55   European Commission.  Communication from the Commissions to the  European Parliament,  the  Council, the 
European  Economic  and Social  Committee  of  the  Regions  –  Environmental  Implementation  Review  2019:  A 
Europe that protects its citizens and enhances their quality of life. COM(2019) 149 final. 

56   European Commission.  Communication from the Commissions to the  European Parliament,  the Council, the 
European  Economic  and Social  Committee  of  the  Regions  –  Environmental  Implementation  Review  2019:  A 
Europe that protects its citizens and enhances their quality of life. COM(2019) 149 final. 

57   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-

and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

58   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.35  Farmland  birds  index  (FBI).  As  in  EUROSTAT 
[env_bio2],  original  source:  EBCC,  BirdLife,  RSPB  and  CSO.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-
farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

25 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                            
 
59   Based 

on 

State 

of  Nature 

in 

EU 

report 

summaries 

by 

EEA 

https://nature-

art12.eionet.europa.eu/article12/summary 

60   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.36  Conservation  status  of  agricultural  habitats.  Original 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

source: 
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

Environmental 

European 

Agency. 

61   European  Commission,  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  analysis  based  on  Member  States’ 

notifications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. 

62   Ministry of the Environment. Prioritized Action Framework (PAF) for Natura 2000 in Estonia.  
63   Based 

of  Nature 

summaries 

report 

State 

EEA 

EU 

by 

on 

in 

https://nature-

art12.eionet.europa.eu/article12/summary 

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

and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018.  

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

table_2019_en.pdf  

65   European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  -  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  R.12  Share  of  permanent 

grassland in total UAA over time.  

   https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1] 
66   Ministry  of  the  Environment.  Prioritized  Action  Framework  (PAF)  for  Natura  2000  in  Estonia,  p.  22. 

https://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/paf_estonia_2020_2027.pdf  

67   Idem.  
68   Idem, p. 23. 
69   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.33 Farming intensity. Based on FADN –Agri-environmental 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

indicator 
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

“Intensification/Extensification”. 

70   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  based  on  Eurostat  and  JRC  based  on  LUCAS 

survey. 

71   Joint  Research  Center  (JRC),  LUCAS.The  EU’s  Land  Use  and  Land  Cover  Survey,  2017  edition. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4031688/8503684/KS-01-17-069-EN-N.pdf/91e45d7a-ee8c-47ea-
a666-f49600d1ee6c  

72   EUROSTAT. [org_cropar].  
73   EUROSTAT. 

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

Agriculture, 

statistics, 

forestry 

fishery 

2019 

edition. 

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

[ef_m_farmang] 

75   European Court of Auditors (ECA). Special Report 10. EU support to young farmers should be better targeted 
II. 

to 
generational 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_10/SR_YOUNG_FARMERS_EN.pdf  

renewal, 

effective 

Annex 

foster 

2017, 

76   fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Estonia, Study report, 78 pages.  
77   Idem. 
78   Idem. 
79   European Commission. Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, local development and 

jobs in rural areas, Final Report, 2019. 

   https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4bd0b0a2-0503-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1/language-

en/format-PDF/source-145168428  

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

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]. 

81   DG AGRI analysis on implementation of direct payments, based on CATS data (Claim Year 2018) 
82   European 
Specific 

7. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/cap-briefs-7-structural-
change_en.pdf  

Commission. 

Objectives.. 

explained. 

Brief 

CAP 

no 

83   Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Estonia, 2019  
84   Idem. 
85   EUROSTAT. [urt_d3area], 2016 data. 
86   EUROSTAT. [urt_pjanaggr3]. 
87   EUROSTAT. [lfst_r_ergau]. 
88   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.05 Employment rate. Based on EUROSTAT [lfst_r_ergau]. 
89   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – Country Report Estonia 2020. 

26 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                            
 
   SWD(2020)505 final. 
90   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.09 Poverty rate. Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps11]. 
91   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.08 GDP per capita. Based on EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3gdp] 

and [nama_10r_3popgdp]. 

92   EUROSTAT [edat_lfse_29], 2019 data. 
93   EUROSTAT [edat_lfse_30], 2019 data. 
94   Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Estonia, 2018. 
95   Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Estonia, 2019. 
96   Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).  2020 Global Forest Resources Assessment. 

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

97   Forestry sector includes forestry, logging and related service activities (NACE 02), manufacture of wood and 
of  products  of  wood  and  cork,  except  furniture  (NACE  16),  manufacture  of  pulp,  paper  and  paper  products 
(NACE 17), and manufacture of furniture (NACE 31). 

98   Keskkonnaagentuur. Yearbook Forest 2018, Chapter 10 Economic Review. 

https://www.keskkonnaagentuur.ee/sites/default/files/10_majandus_07.04.20_0.pdf  

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

[for_eco_cp] and [for_awu]. 

100  European Commission. Data portal of agro-economics Modelling – DataM, Jobs and Wealth in the European 

Union Bioeconomy 

   https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html  
101  Idem. 
102  Estonian  Research  Council.  Algav  uuring  kaardistab  Eesti  biomajanduse  olukorda  ning  väljavaateid, 
02.02.2018. https://www.etag.ee/algav-uuring-kaardistab-eesti-biomajanduse-olukorda-ning-valjavaateid/  
103  Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the  Council of 11 December 2018 on veterinary 

medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC, OJ L 4, 7.1.2019, p. 43–167. 

104  EUROSTAT. [sdg_02_51].  
105  https://www.envir.ee/en/news/study-residents-estonia-throw-away-almost-eu-63-million-worth-food  
106  Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  November  2008  on  waste  and 

repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3–30. 

107  Directive  (EU)  2019/633  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  unfair  trading 
practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain,  OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, 
p. 59–72. 

108  European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA).  Special  Report  31.  Animal  welfare  in  the  EU:  closing  the  gap  between 

ambitious goals and practical implementation, 2018.  

   https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_31/SR_ANIMAL_WELFARE_EN.pdf  
109  Estonian  Veterinary  and  Food  Board.  Presentation  “ASF  situation  in  Estonia”  at  the  meeting  of  Standing 
Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, Section Animal Health and Welfare, 23 - 24 September 2020, 
slide 2 (https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/health/regulatory_committee_en ). 

110  Estonian  Veterinary  and  Food  Board.  Presentation  “ASF  situation  in  Estonia”  at  the  meeting  of  Standing 
Group of Experts on African swine fever in Europe, 20-21 September 2017, slide 14 (https://web.oie.int/RR-
Europe/eng/Regprog/en_GF_TADS%20-%20Standing%20Group%20ASF.htm#SGE8 ). 

111  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden  
112  EUROSTAT. [hlth_ehis_fv3c]. 
113  EUROSTAT. [sdg_02_10].  
114  European Commission.  Preparing for future AKIS in Europe. Standing Committee  on Agricultural Research 
(SCAR),  4th  Report  of  the  Strategic  Working  Group  on  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Innovation  Systems 
(AKIS), 2019, p.20.  

115  European Commission. Smart Specialisation Platform.  
116  European Commission. H2020 Country profile, Estonia, August 2020. 
117  Kutsekoda, August 2020. 
118  In  2016  there  were  16  700  agricultural  holdings.  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.17 

Agricultural holdings (farms). Based on EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg]. 

119  Maaelu edendamise sihtasutus, August 2020. 
120  Keskpaik,  A.,  Lassur,  S.  Eesti  maaelu  arengukava  2014–2020  meetme  2  „Nõustamisteenused, 
põllumajandusettevõtte  juhtimis-  ja  asendusteenused“  analüüs.  Aruanne.  Maaeluministeerium,  Tallinn,  2018. 
p.56.  
121  Idem. 
122  Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Estonia, 2019. 

27 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                            
 
123  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index 2020. Estonia.  
124  European  Commission.  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  2020.  Connectivity  -  Broadband  market 

developments in the EU. 

125  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index 2020. Estonia. 
126  European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Country  Report  Estonia  2020.  SWD(2020) 

505 final. 

127  EUROSTAT. [isoc_sk_dskl_i]. 
128  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.24  Agricultural  training  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]. 

28