COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Italy'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, Italy, 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) 396 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Italy's CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy   {COM(2020) 846 final} - {SWD(2020) 367 final} - {SWD(2020) 368 final} - {SWD(2020) 369 final} - {SWD(2020) 370 final} - {SWD(2020) 371 final} - {SWD(2020) 372 final} - {SWD(2020) 373 final} - {SWD(2020) 374 final} - {SWD(2020) 375 final} - {SWD(2020) 376 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.   COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITALY’S CAP 

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

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

1.2   Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union ..................... 2 

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

concerns .......................................................................................................... 3 

1.4   Fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation and digitalisation in 

agriculture and rural areas, and encouraging their uptake ...................... 4 

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

2.   ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 

ITALY ................................................................................................................. 8 

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

enhance food security .................................................................................... 8 

2.2   Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including 

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

2.3  

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

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

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

2.5   Foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural 

resources such as water, soil and air .......................................................... 14 

2.6   Contribute to the protection of biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes ....................................................... 17 

2.7   Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas

 ....................................................................................................................... 20 

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

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry ................. 22 

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........................................................................................................... 25 

2.10   Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation ..... 27 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.   COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  ITALY’S  CAP  STRATEGIC 

PLAN  

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

its  specific  situation  and 

targets1, 

taking 

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

security 

For  Italian  farmers  the  shift  to  a  sustainable  food  system  means  both  significant 
economic  opportunities  as  well  as  challenges.  In  recent  years,  positive  income 
developments in Italian farming sectors, even though still quite moderate, are reflected in 
the  narrowing  gap  between  farm  and  non-farm  income.  However,  this  is  not  always 
accompanied  by  the  same  trend  in  competitiveness.  Italy  is  still  confronted  with  low 
productivity  growth  on  its  farms  due  to  an  ageing  farm  population,  the  low  level  of 
digitalisation  and  the  small  size  of  the  farms.  Moreover,  despite  the  good  level  of 
organisation of producers, the primary sector’s share of value added in the food chain has 
gone down.  

Farm income remains volatile, and despite the crucial role that direct  payments  play in 
stabilising  farm  income,  significant  differences  in  the  distribution  of  support  (mainly 
direct  payments  based  on  individual  historical  references)  constrain  their  effectiveness. 
These  differences,  which  emerge  due  to  characteristics  of  production  in  the  past,  have 
lost their justification over time as they mostly support those less in need (i.e. the bigger 
farms  and  the  very  small  farms)  and  seem  detached  both  from  realities  of  production 
today  and  from  future  economic  and  environmental  needs.  In  addition,  a  fairer 
distribution  to  viable  family  farms,  with  a  greater  share  of  income  support  tied  to 
environmental performance, is  desirable by applying the available tools under the CAP 
Plan such as the complementary redistributive income support for sustainability. 

1.2   Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union  

The  environmental  objectives  are  particularly  relevant  for  Italian  agriculture.  Climate 
change mitigation is  a key issue:  agricultural  emissions  (including both  greenhouse  gas 
(GHG) and ammonia emissions) in Italy, after a reduction between 1990 and 2013, have 
not  decreased  over  the  past  7  years,  and  more  will  need  to  be  done  to  reduce  them  in 
order  to contribute to European Union (EU) targets. The livestock sector, especially in 
the most intensive agricultural areas in the north of Italy, plays a particularly important 

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

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

2 

 
 
                                                           
role here, as emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management are the main 
sources  of  total  emissions.  Extensification  and  appropriate  grassland  management,  the 
adoption of low emission feeding strategies and better manure management can work in 
synergy  and  help  make  the  livestock  sector  more  sustainable,  in  line  with  the  EU 
methane strategy1. The production of renewable energy from the agriculture and forestry 
sector can be improved, as Italy is below the EU average despite a significant potential to 
produce biomass, solar and wind energy. 

Sustainable  management  of  forests  also  holds  a  lot  of  potential  for  the  socio  economic 
development  of  rural  areas:  despite  the  significant  forest  coverage,  a  large  portion  of 
Italian  forests  are  not  actively  managed,  which  may  prevent  forests  from  playing  their 
role as carbon sinks, reduce their resilience to weather extremes  and prevent them from 
providing other ecosystem goods and services. 

Improving climate change adaptation is a transversal priority, as related actions can bring 
multiple  environmental  and  economic  benefits  :  Italy  is  highly  vulnerable  to 
hydrogeological  risks  and  to  risks  of  soil  erosion  by  water,  with  increasing  damage 
caused  by  extreme  climate  events  and  related  challenges,  such  as  forest  fires,  invasive 
species  and  biotic  attacks  to  forests.  Water  is  a  critical  natural  resource  in  a 
Mediterranean country like Italy, where drought episodes are already frequent and could 
become more acute in the future due to climate change. Switching to less water intensive 
crops, coupled with enhanced deployment of efficient irrigation technologies, could help 
to  lessen  the  impacts.  The  nutrient  balance  for  nitrogen  is  above  the  EU  average,  and 
many  areas  have  a  high  level  of  nitrates  pollution,  especially  in  intensive  areas  and  in 
groundwater. Inn this regard, digital farm nutrient management tools can be of valuable 
use  and  there  is  considerable  room  for  improving  the  consistency  between  agricultural 
policy  incentives  and  environmental  legislation  (water  and  nitrate  directives).  In 
particular,  obstacles  to  investments  in  greater  irrigation  efficiency  should  be  removed. 
Irrigation should be sustainable. That means limiting the increase in irrigated area or in 
the quantity of water abstracted and above all ensuring that irrigation is in line with the 
Water  Framework  Directive  requirements,  including  those  of  no  deterioration  and 
achievement  of  good  status.  All  the  obligations  stemming  from  the  Water  Framework 
Directive are to be fulfilled by Italy. Investments that favour the accumulation of water 
resources and flood prevention/protection, which are also useful in better regulating the 
extreme weather events linked to climate change, should also be supported.  

Despite  organic  farming  in  Italy  being  well  above  the  EU  average  (see  section  2.5  for 
details  on  the  main  drivers),  the  situation  of  biodiversity  in  Italy  is  steadily  worsening 
especially  for  farmland  birds,  species  and  habitats.  More  should  be  done  to  promote  a 
much lower and more rational use of plant protection products (considering that certain 
Italian regions are among the most intensive users of pesticides in the EU), as well as to 
ensure  the  presence  and  conservation  of  landscape  features.  Improved  management  of 
Natura 2000 and other protected areas is necessary, taking into account the analysis and 
recommendations from prioritised action frameworks.  

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

concerns 

To  make  the  transition  towards  a  green  and  modern  agricultural  sector,  which  could 
further help  to  make  Italy’s variety  of high-value food products  a  global  success  story, 
the country needs to address one of the most important social challenges facing European 
3 

 
 
agriculture:  generational  renewal.  In  Italy,  the  challenge  is  very  acute  as  the  country’s 
proportion of young farmers places it in the lower third of Member States (MSs) and this 
proportion  continues  to  decline.  This  trend  can  also  be  seen  with  the  ratio  of  young 
managers  to  the  elderly  (6  young  farmers  for  every  100  elderly  ones).  Improving  the 
succession  of  farms  critically  hinges  on  having  adequate  access  to  primary  production 
factors, which enable investments, and it is intrinsically linked to  favourable conditions 
and perspectives that allow people to stay and live well in rural areas. 

Over the last decade, Italy has been faced with a general rural exodus. Of all the Member 
States, it has the lowest rural employment rate (with one of the highest gender gaps), the 
second highest share of young people (aged 15-24) neither in a job nor in education and 
the  third  highest  rural  unemployment  rate.  Addressing  the  specific  needs  of  rural  areas 
has  become  crucial  for  their  future.  To  do  so  will  require  investments  in  both  physical 
and  human  capital  underpinned  by  adequate  financial  resources  and  by  particular 
attention to those territories and stakeholders most in need. 

In  order  to  deliver  on  gender  equality,  the  specific  needs  of  women  in  agriculture  and 
rural  areas  will  need  to  be  carefully  considered.  Ensuring  the  protection  of  agricultural 
workers, especially those in precarious, seasonal and undeclared employment, will play a 
major  role  in  delivering  on  the  respect  of  rights  enshrined  in  legislation,  which  is  an 
essential element of the fair EU food system envisaged by the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

To contribute to a sustainable food system, such investments should prioritise a stronger 
shift of production to address consumer preferences in areas such as quality production, 
and  organic  production.  Italy  should  make  an  effort  to  shift  towards  more  balanced, 
healthier  and environmentally sustainable diets.  Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) linked 
to the excessive and inappropriate use of antimicrobials in animal and human healthcare 
should  be  especially  prioritised  as  the  sales  of  veterinary  antimicrobial  agents  in  Italy 
was  the  second  highest  among  all  EU  MSs  in  2018.  An  important  contribution  to 
sustainable agriculture can be achieved by improving animal welfare, especially for areas 
with intensive livestock production, pigs and laying hens, by promoting best practices for 
improved animal husbandry, infection prevention and control. 

The  use  of  pesticides  remains  high,  and  there  is  significant  room  for  improvement. 
Certain issues related to animal welfare must also be tackled and investments and actions 
need to be promoted to prevent a further spread of infectious plant and animal diseases. 

1.4   Fostering  and  sharing  of  knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation  in 

agriculture and rural areas, and encouraging their uptake  

Tackling  the  economic,  environmental  and  social  challenges  outlined  in  the  previous 
paragraphs is an essential step in the transition towards sustainable food production and 
competitive  rural  areas.  The  presence  of  a  well-functioning  agricultural  knowledge  and 
innovation system (AKIS) will be key in this process, as it can foster knowledge flows 
among  various  actors,  respond  to  the  growing  information  needs  of  farmers,  speed  up 
innovation  and  increase  valorisation  of  existing  knowledge  to  achieve  all  CAP 
objectives, not only in agriculture but in any activity related to farming and rural areas.  

Currently, the fragmentation of the Italian agricultural knowledge and innovation system 
and the lack of strategic coordination among its components negatively affects the flow 
of knowledge and innovation. In order to collect and bring to the field the latest scientific 

4 

 
 
findings and innovations, advisors need to be supported both in receiving training and in 
providing  innovation  support  services,  also  through  European  Innovation  Partnership 
(EIP) Operational Group (OG) projects. Moreover, the current framework of knowledge 
sharing  actions  should  be  coordinated  and  strengthened  to  build  a  solid  National  CAP 
Network,  which  will  facilitate  the  implementation  of  relevant  research  and  innovation 
results.   

Considering, in addition to this, the relatively low education level of Italian farmers and 
the  lack  of  training  initiatives  for  advisors  and  farmers,  the  shortcomings  of  the  Italian 
AKIS may limit their ability to transition towards a greener and more digital agriculture 
envisaged by the Farm to Fork Strategy and to make rural areas more attractive. 

A  stronger  AKIS  could  also  help  to  increase  the  level  of  digitalisation  of  Italian  farms 
and rural areas, which now lag behind in comparison to other MSs and in comparison to 
non-rural  areas  of  the  country.  The  availability  of  a  flawless  coverage  of  fast  digital 
infrastructure will be crucial to improve the uptake of digital technologies and to improve 
the digital skills of the Italian rural population. 

Finally, it should be noted that the overall efficacy of the actions supported by the CAP 
in  Italy is hindered by several obstacles in the functioning of the public administration. 
Improving  the  administrative  and  bureaucratic  system,  also  by  increasing  its  level  of 
digitalisation and by coordinating different, complementary policies, is a key step to be 
taken  in  order  to  efficiently  and  equally  support  farmers  across  the  country  and  people 
living in Italy’s rural areas. 

1.5   Recommendations 

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

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

  Strengthening  the  competitive  position  and  resilience  of  the  agricultural 
sector, hampered among others by its low level of digitalisation and small farm 
size, by improving the fairness of support, advancing in the internal convergence 
process and better targeting investments and direct payments, using the available 
tools  under  the  CAP  Plan,  such  as  the  complementary  redistributive  income 
support  for  sustainability  and  the  reduction  of  payments.  Adequate  risk 
management tools should also be provided;  

  Improving  the  position  of  farmers  in  the  food  supply  chain  with  targeted 
actions  available  under  both  CAP  pillars,  such  as  strengthening  and  developing 
Producers’  Organisations  (POs)  and  cooperatives,  particularly  in  regions  and 
sectors  were  they  are  less  present,  as  well  as  promoting  innovative  short  food 
supply chains; 

5 

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

  Contributing to the EU Green Deal target on organic farming  by enhancing 
the currently increasing trend of areas under organic farming through appropriate 
incentives  for  conversion  and  maintenance  schemes  and  initiatives  such  as  the 
recognition of bio-districts for organic farming; this should be accompanied by an 
increase in organic food demand;  

  Increasing the sustainability of production, while mitigating climate change 
and reducing GHG and air pollutant emissions, through an appropriate blend 
of voluntary interventions and obligations such as supporting practices leading to 
more efficient input use (in particular  harnessing the potential of carbon farming, 
precision  farming,  low  input  and  agro-ecological  methods),  adopting  low 
emission feeding strategies, improving manure management, increasing the use of 
energy  from  renewable  sources,  improving  the  management  of  agricultural 
residues, grassland and forest areas and their valorisation as a carbon sink; 

  Fostering  climate  change  adaptation  and  resilience  by 

incentivising 
sustainable  management  of  agricultural  and  forestry  land  through  the 
definition  of  requirements  and  schemes  promoting  agroforestry,    reducing  soil 
erosion  and  hydrogeological  risks,  achieving  a  more  sustainable  water 
management  (including  by  improving  coordination  among  different  actors  and 
promoting efficient irrigation and less water intensive crops) and  enhancing soil 
quality  (particularly  the  carbon  content  in  soils)  with  farming  practices  that 
increase the efficiency of fertiliser use from animal housing down to fertilization 
techniques,  nutrient  management  tools  and  crop  management,  thereby  also 
contributing to the EU Green Deal target on nutrient losses; 

  Halting  and  reversing  the  loss  of  biodiversity  by  enhancing  appropriate 
management  practices  and  habitat  restoration  actions  towards  protected  species 
and  habitats,  farmland  birds  and  pollinators,  by  contributing  to  the  EU  Green 
Deal target on high diversity landscape features on agricultural land, as well as 
by strengthening the role of national-regional registries such as on landscapes and 
agrobiodiversity  resources,  while  increasing  the  consistency  with  environmental 
legislation  at  the  level  of  Prioritized  Action  Framework  and  Natura  2000  sites’ 
management plans; 

  Enhancing multifunctional sustainable forest management, forest protection 
and  restoration  of  forests  ecosystems  to  reach  good  condition  of  habitats  and 
species linked to the forest biodiversity and to build resilience to threats such as 
climate change; 

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

  Making  significant  efforts  to  reduce  the  use  and  risks  of  pesticides  in  line 
with the EU Green Deal target, by supporting schemes that give priority to non-
chemical  pest  management  practices  and  that  foster  a  switch  to  less  hazardous 
plant protection products and to sustainable farming practices such as integrated 
pest management; 

6 

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

  Improving  animal  welfare,  especially  for  pigs  and  laying  hens,  by  promoting 
and supporting best  practices, knowledge  and investments  in  intensive  livestock 
production and in the sectors and geographical areas most concerned; 

  Encouraging more young people to move into farming and other activities in 
rural areas, also by continuing the positive dynamics in terms of young female 
farmers, by combining interventions including to remove obstacles in the access 
to  production  factors  (such  as  the  financing  gap  for  young  farmers  and 
entrepreneurs and access to land); 

  Promoting  the  socio-economic  development  of  rural  areas  and  reversing 
depopulation  trends,  by  targeting  those  rural  areas  most  in  need,  with  an 
appropriate mix of interventions among others to bridge the rural-urban divide in 
basic  services  and  infrastructure  and  seize  economic  opportunities  including 
exploring potential for rural tourism and the bio-economy; in doing so, it will be 
important to ensure synergies with other EU and national funds; 

  Strengthening  efforts  to  promote  social  inclusion  in  rural  areas,  paying 
specific  attention  to  vulnerable  groups  and  in  particular  the  critical  situation  of 
migrants and labour exploitation in agriculture; 

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

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  broadband  by  timely 
completing investments for fast broadband connection coverage reaching the 
door  of  all  households  in  rural  areas,  especially  in  sparsely  populated  areas, 
closing the gap between rural and urban areas while accelerating the development 
of digital and knowledge skills in rural areas and agriculture; 

  Tackling 

the  AKIS 

interventions  aimed  at 
fragmentation  by  using 
strengthening  the  advisory  services  and  interlinking  them  with  the  other  AKIS 
components,  encouraging  knowledge-building  and  knowledge  exchange, 
supporting  training  of  advisors  and  farmers,  so  as  to  increase  the  uptake  of 
sustainable  farming  practices,  the  level  of  digitalisation  and  the  adoption  of 
innovations  which  can  foster  sustainability  of  agricultural  activities  and  the 
competitiveness of rural areas at large. 

7 

 
 
 
 
2.   ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN ITALY 

Italy has a population of 60.35 million inhabitants and is divided into 20 administrative 
regions.  The biggest  part  of the population  lives in  rural  or intermediate areas (53% of 
the total). These territories together cover the largest surface of the country and account 
for over 12 million employed people. Agriculture and forestry sectors are the economic 
backbone of these territories and they play a vital role in keeping rural areas a liveable 
and  vibrant  environment.  However,  many  Italian  rural  areas  still  suffer  from  serious 
development  issues  and  delays  in  the  provision  of  basic  services  and  fundamental 
infrastructures such as broadband. This has a negative effect on the economic and social 
development of these territories, especially concerning generational renewal and business 
development. 

In  2016,  there  were  around  1.1  million  farms  active  in  Italy,  covering  12.6  million 
hectares (ha). The vast  majority are family-operated and small. Furthermore, more than 
50%  of  the  total  area  in  agricultural  use  is  classified  as  mountainous  or  with  natural 
constraints.  The  unique  mixture  of  different  climates,  soils  and  territorial  morphology 
fostered  the  development  of  a  great  diversity  in  Italian  agriculture  and  forestry.  This 
results  in  one  of  the  most  diversified  agricultural  output  in  the  EU.  Furthermore,  Italy 
specialises  in  the  production  of  quality  agricultural  goods  under  EU  quality  schemes 
(Geographical Indications - GIs, Protected Designation of Origins - PDOs and Protected 
Geographical  Indications  -  PGIs).  Italy  also  accounts  as  a  major  wine  producer  in  the 
world  by  volume.  The  sustainability  of  Italian  agriculture  and  forestry  is  threatened  by 
high fragmentation of the farm structure (one of the most fragmented in the EU), lower 
agricultural income compared to other EU MSs and widespread labour exploitation. 

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

enhance food security 

In Italy, the average agricultural factor income per worker fluctuates around EUR 18 300 
between 2005 and 2018, going from EUR 14 800 in 2010 to more than EUR 22 000 in 
2013. The agricultural income per worker is on average about 59% of the average wage 
in the whole economy between 2005 and 20182. This share ranges from 45% in 2010 to 
71% in 2013 and tends to be higher than the EU average, which goes from 33% in 2009 
and 50% in 2017, even if it remains lower than the EU 15 average and is partly due to 
low growth of the economy in Italy.  

Data by physical size of the farms show that income per worker dramatically increases to 
3 times the average for farms above 250 ha (EUR 97 000 as compared to EUR 32 700 
average)3.  

As shown for instance by Result indicator 6, the amount per ha of direct payments is on 
average lower (97.1%)4 for farms below the average size (which in 2016 was about 11 ha 
among direct payments beneficiaries in Italy), while their income is significantly lower5. 
Moreover,  in  addition  to  the  reduction  of  the  support  in  Italy  due  to  external 
convergence, the implementation of the current scheme resulted in the relative decrease 
of  the  support  granted  to  farms  smaller  than  10  ha6.  In  2017,  20%  of  the  beneficiaries 
owned  75%  of  the  land  and  received  80%  of  direct  payments7.  Farms  of  the  economic 
class above EUR 250 000 have the highest agricultural factor income per worker and also 
a direct payment per ha above the average.8  

8 

 
 
Direct  payments  accounted  for  15%  of  the  agricultural  factor  income  in  Italy  in  2018. 
Payments  under  Pillar  II  (except  investment  subsidies)  accounted  for  more  than  5%  of 
the  factor  income  in  20189.  When  looking  at  the  different  sectors,  payments  for  areas 
facing  natural  or  specific  constraints  (ANC)  are  particularly  important  in  the  milk  and 
livestock sector. 

The income per worker tends to be above average for granivores, milk and horticulture. 
Income per worker is on average lower in olives, cereals, oilseeds, protein crops, mixed 
crops and livestock. The amount of direct payments per ha is the highest for olives, milk 
and cattle and the lowest for sheep and goats, wine and horticulture.  

The share of direct payments on income is high especially for field crops (also because of 
lower income), but it is also important for the sheep, goats and cattle sectors. 

The  highest  income  is  in  granivores  (which  have  the  biggest  economic  size),  milk  and 
horticulture; otherwise is comparable across sectors. Due to historic references for direct 
payments  and  to  different  standard  output,  in  2018  the  share  of  the  total  operating 
subsidies (direct payments and rural development support) in income is higher for cereal, 
oilseed  and  protein  crops  and  olives  (56%  and  54%).  Horticulture  and  wine  sector 
receive a very little level of income support (1% and 8% respectively), while the 46% of 
the sheep sector is due equally to direct payments (26%) and ANC (20%) 10. 

Among  other  reasons,  including  climatic  risks,  farm  incomes  strongly  fluctuate,  in 
particular in sectors where the level of support is very low (horticulture). As far as crop 
insurance  covering  climatic  risks  is  concerned,  uptake  in  Italy  is  around  50%  of 
professional  farms,  even  though  with  regional  differences  with  the  southern  regions 
having lower shares11. 

The number of very  small beneficiaries continue to  drop, with  the  total  number halved 
compared  to  2006  (from  1.6  million  to  800  000  in  2018);  as  from  2005,  a  slight 
redistribution  of  support  towards  the  medium-size  family  farms  (between  EUR  10  000 
and 100 000) is observed.12 

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

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 

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. 
9 

 
 
Beneficiaries, area and direct payments by physical farm size 

Share of beneficiaries 

Share of area 

Share of direct payments 

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

2.2   Enhance  market  orientation  and  increase  competitiveness  including 

greater focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

The  total  factor  productivity  has  remained  stable  in  Italy  between  2005  and  2018  with 
sharp differences per sector. Labour productivity increases mainly due to the outflow of 
labour (-10% between 2005 and 201913). Land productivity reflects the developments in 
yields  and  rents.  Productivity  per  ha  and  per  unit  of  work  increases  with  the  economic 
size  of  the  farm.  Enterprises  with  higher  sizes  present  a  better  use  of  resources,  in 
particular those linked to labour.14 

The agri-food trade balance in Italy is positive as of 2016, even if regional differences are 
present15. Extra-EU trade balance is positive with a steady increase since 2012. Intra-EU 
trade  balance  is  negative  but  showing  an  upward  trend.  Wine  and  processed  products 
show  a  positive  trend  in  both  intra-  and  extra-EU  trade  balances;  this  trend  is 
concentrated  in  very  few  regions.  The  largest  share  of  exports  to  non-EU  countries 
corresponds  to  processed  foods16,  demonstrating  the  importance  of  value-added.  Wine 
(42%) and food preparations (28%) are the most significant in Italian agri-food exports in 
201817.  

Exports to third countries are even more concentrated in the area of processed food and 
wine (47.5% of total exports in 2018), which recorded very positive performance (+ 81% 
compared  to  2007)  and  food  preparations  (25%  of  the  total,  + 146%  in  2007). 
Nevertheless,  all  exports  have  experienced  significant  dynamics,  such  as  non-food 
products  (+ 206.6%  since  2007)  and  beverages  (+ 102.4%);  for  the  latter,  the  value  of 
exports  is  more  than  three  times  higher  than  imports  (EUR  797  million  and  EUR  240 
million).18   

Over the last decade, given the low national consumption, marketing on foreign markets 
has been a key factor for the businesses survival, including in the agri-food sector.  

10 

 
 
There  is  a  downward  trend  in  investments  in  all  sectors  and  in  all  geographical  areas, 
though  mainly  in  the  South,  linked  to  economic  recession.  In  the  period  2007-2016, 
investments in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors have decreased in all regions 
with the exception of Piemonte and  Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano/Bozen. The extent 
of  the  decrease  of  the  total  factor  productivity  in  agriculture  has  been  different  across 
regions,  leaving  several  regions  of  the  Centre-South  lagging  behind  in  comparison  to 
most regions in the Centre-North19. 

In  2017,  the  output  of  Italian  agricultural  sector  was  of  EUR  5.6  billion,  15%  of 
European agricultural gross fixed investment (EUR 57.6 billion) compared with 19% in 
2007. Investments in the agricultural sector at national level have decreased significantly 
in comparison to those of the EU-28 and of the EU-1520. 

In comparison to other European countries, the competitiveness of the Italian agricultural 
sector  is  hampered  by  a  low  use  of  digital  technologies.  Research  and  innovation  are 
dynamic in Italy (§2.10). There are 20 fully operational Digital Innovation Hubs21 in the 
agricultural,  forestry  and  hunting  sector.  However,  the  uptake  of  digital  innovations  is 
low, linked to a sub-optimal AKIS (§2.10), the lack of digital infrastructure in rural areas 
(§2.8) and the lack of digital skills in the rural population.  Indeed, only  38% of people 
living in rural areas have basic or above basic digital skills, compared to an EU average 
of 45%22. Rural  development  measures in  synergy with  national  and European policies 
play  a  key  role,  as  acknowledged  in  the  “Guidelines  on  the  development  of  Precision 
Agriculture in Italy” (2015)23. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of such actions has been 
hindered  by  severe  reductions  in  their  initial  financial  allocations  and  a  slow 
implementation.  

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

Total factor productivity 

Land productivity 

TFP EU-27 
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 

Labour productivity 
Intermediate costs productivity 

Capital productivity 

2.3   Improve farmers' position in the value chain  

The share of value added by primary producers (30% in 2017) is greater than that added 
by  other  operators  of  the  food  value  chain  (including  distribution,  manufacturing  and 
consumer  services),  and  slightly  higher  than  the  EU  average  in  the  last  years24. 
Nevertheless, we observe a constant decrease of this share (from 35% in 2013 to 30% in 
2017, whereas the EU average is recently increasing) since the value for the agricultural 
sector is rather stable in absolute terms, whereas the other sectors are expanding25. This 
takes place in a challenging context of relative fragmentation of the producers in the food 
supply  chain  and  of  weakening  contractual  position  of  agricultural  producers  versus 

11 

 
 
upstream and downstream players, where farmers struggle to keep agricultural incomes 
in  line  with  the  evolution  of  wages  and  salaries  in  other  sectors  despite  some  recent 
progress26.  Further  analysis  shows  that  the  crop  sector  generates  64%  of  Italy’s 
agricultural  output,  in  particular  through  fruits  and  vegetables,  wine  and  olive  oil27.  A 
national  Unfair  Trading  Practices  (UTPs)  legislation  is  already  in  place  to  a  certain 
extent28 whereas producers’ prices are slightly behind the consumer food prices29. 

Several  indicators  show  the  cooperation  level  amongst  farmers30:  in  most  of  the 
agricultural sectors there are recognised POs, the number of recognised POs per million 
of  agricultural  holdings  in  Italy  is  higher  than  the  EU  average  (360  compared  to  254), 
and the average number of members in POs is very high (25% of POs have more than 2 
000  members  each).  The  share  of  products  marketed  through  POs  in  the  key  sector  of 
fruits and vegetables is also one of the highest in the EU, and increasing (from 63% in 
2014 to 71% in 2017). Nevertheless, regional disparities exist and several farmers in the 
South  are  associated  to  POs  based  in  the  North.  The  agricultural  cooperatives  have  a 
prominent  place,  but  they  are  concentrated  in  the  North.  Furthermore,  the  cooperatives 
would benefit from innovative forms of cooperation to slow down the ongoing reduction 
in  farmers’  participation.  Some  inter-branch  organisations  (IBOs)  are  also  operating  at 
national and regional level31. 

The segments of agricultural production with higher value added are rather dynamic: the 
share of the total organic farming area is higher than the EU average (15% compared to 
8%  in  2018),  the  number  of  organic  producers  is  the  top  in  the  EU  (almost  67  000  in 
2017 out of a total of 309 000) and the data of the latest  years confirm this trend32.  A 
territorial unbalance can be observed, since organic farming production is coming mainly 
from  the  South  of  the  country,  and  processing/consumption  is  concentrated  in  the 
North33.  Quality  schemes  are  also  well  developed  (866  products  under  EU  quality 
schemes, the highest number in the EU)34, where most of the revenue is generated in the 
North  and  concentrated  on  meat  products,  cheeses  and  wines35.  Quality  schemes  are 
normally linked to traditional landscapes36. 

Concerning the short food supply chains, local food systems are significantly developed 
in Italy, but they focus on on-farm direct sales rather than on more innovative approaches 
like Community-supported agriculture, systems involving a large number of producers or 
connecting urban consumers to agricultural production.37  

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

EU-27 
Primary producers 
Food and beverage consumer services 

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

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

European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer.  
CAP Result indicator RPI_03 Value for primary producers in the food chain. 
12 

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

sustainable energy 

In 2018, agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) (without the Land Use, Land 
Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector) in Italy amounted to 30.2 million tonnes of 
CO2  equivalents,  a  decrease  of  13%  compared  to  GHG  emissions  in  1990  and  5.8% 
compared to 2005 but only 1% compared to 2013.38 Regional differences exist with some 
regions registering a decrease between 1990 and 2015 as high as 40%, while others only 
10%. In terms of share, agriculture represents only about 6.9% of total GHG emissions in 
Italy (below the EU average of 13%) and 7.6% of the total EU-27 GHG emissions from 
agriculture.39 Until 2006, agricultural emissions and their shares in total GHG emissions 
showed a clear trend of decrease but they have stagnated ever since.40 47% of agricultural 
emissions in Italy relate to enteric fermentation of livestock, 27.5% to agricultural soils 
(fertiliser),  almost  19%  to  the  management  of  manure  and  5.4%  to  rice  cultivation. 
Compared  to  2013  data,  emissions  from  enteric  fermentation  increased  by  3.8%  while 
emissions from manure management and soils management decreased by 7.7% and 2.5% 
respectively.  The  emission  of  GHG  from  manure  per  livestock  unit  is  above  the  EU-
average (0.61 and 0.48 respectively).41  

On  LULUCF,  according  to  2018  data,  in  addition  to  forests,  both  grasslands  and 
croplands  in  Italy  acted  as  carbon  sinks;  the  LULUCF  sector  as  a  total  was  able  to 
sequester  33.4  million  tonnes  of  CO2  equivalents.42  However,  data  show  a  worrying 
trend  of  increase  in  emissions  from  grasslands  in  the  period  2013-2018  (+13%),  above 
the  EU  average  of  +9.35%.43  The  area  covered  by  peatland  in  Italy  is  not  significant 
(0.1%)44;  however,  peatlands  can  be  large  sources  or  sinks  for  atmospheric  CO2  and 
therefore  their  management  is  important  for  climate  change  mitigation,  even  on  small 
areas. 

The  share  of  agriculture  in  the  production  of  total  renewable  energy  in  Italy  is  8.3%, 
somewhat below the EU-27 average (12.1%). A more significant percentage (26.5%) of 
renewable energy production came from the forestry sector although the forestry sector’s 
share  decreased  compared  to  2017  (31.2%).45  Italy’s  agricultural  and  forestry  sectors 
account  for  12%  of  the  total  production  of  renewable  energy  from  agriculture  and 
forestry in EU-27.46 Energy consumption in Italian agriculture and forestry as a share in 
total final energy consumption is 2.4%, slightly below the EU-27 average of 2.9%. Italy 
is among the countries with the highest direct use of energy in food production in the EU 
(third after France and Germany).47 

The National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-203048 puts strong emphasis on increasing 
energy efficiency and the use of renewables as a means of decarbonisation. The current 
and future CAP  as well as measures to  promote  CO2 sequestration in  agricultural  soils 
and forest systems and measures in the forestry sectors are recognised as contributing to 
the achievement of the target.49  

In  the  current  Rural  Development  Programmes  (RDPs)  around  2%  of  land  is  under 
contracts targeting climate action (GHG or conservation), in line with the EU average.50 
Farming  practices  contributing  to  climate  action  were  a  priority  in  the  Partnership 
Agreement  and  included,  inter  alia,  agri-environment-climate  commitments,  genetic 
resources, investments,  knowledge transfer and advisory services, renewable sources  of 
energy  (less  than  the  EU  average),  afforestation,  agroforestry  and  the  improvement  of 

13 

 
 
resilience of forest ecosystems. The uptake of these measures was, however, significantly 
lower than expected and the planned budget was eventually reallocated. 

Like other countries of the Southern climate region, Italy is vulnerable to risks stemming 
from climate change such as an increased risk of drought and soil erosion and a related 
risk  of  decrease  in  water  availability  and  crop  yields.51  Extreme  weather  events  are 
already  causing significant  damage to  the  agriculture sector, estimated to  amount to  14 
billion  euros  in  the  last  decade  between  losses  of  national  agricultural  production  and 
damage caused to infrastructure in the fields. 

Italy suffers in  particular from  high hydrogeological  risks, caused also  by depopulation 
of  rural  areas  (especially  in  mountains  and  hills)  and  increased  urbanization.  7  275 
municipalities (91% of the total) are at risks of landslides and/or floods, while 16.6% of 
the national territory is classified as at high risk52.  

Italy  is  projected  to  experience  an  exceptional  rise  in  temperatures  (especially  in 
summer),  with  warmer  temperatures  leading  to  an  increase  in  parasites  some  of  which 
have already caused significant damage. Livestock in the Continental and Mediterranean 
area of Italy will be exposed to high risks of reduction in welfare and health conditions 
due  to  reduced  quality  of  feed,  increase  in  pathogens  and  risk  of  heat  stress  during  the 
summer period.   

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

Ammonia emissions in  Italy followed a stable though slight  decrease over time, in line 
with the EU average, with some fluctuations in the latest years, reaching around 362 000 
tonnes  in  2017.  With  a  reduction  of  6%  between  2005  and  2017,  Italy  is  projected  to 
have  the  possibility  to  reach  the  2020-2029  National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive 
emission  reduction  commitment  for  ammonia  (-5%  compared  to  2005)  and  2030  (-
16%)53,  but  did  not  submit  a  final  National  Air  Pollution  Control  Programme  to  date, 
failing to show how the emission reduction commitments will be reached in the future. 
14 

 
 
The  management  of  manure  contributes  to  around  56%  (above  the  45%  EU  average), 
while  other  sources  (distribution  of  manure  and  inorganic  fertilisers)  are  below  the 
average.  Emissions from livestock farming are mostly coming from bovines, especially 
dairy  farms.  Higher  emissions  are  concentrated  in  northern  regions  where  livestock 
farming  and  crop  production  are  more  intensive.  Few  regions  are  increasing  the 
emissions  from  2005  to  2015,  while  others  are  decreasing  less  than  the  national 
average54. 

Italy is subject to the highest risk of water soil erosion in Europe, with the average loss of 
soil in  all erosive lands (agricultural  land including cropland and grassland, forests and 
sparse vegetated areas) estimated to be above 8.5 t/ha/year  in 2016, well above the EU 
average (about 2.5 t/ha/year)55. The overall area at risk of serious erosion in Italy is 6.8 
million ha. On the other hand, 32.8% of the Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) (about 5.6 
million ha in total) is at risk of severe erosion, which is also well above the EU average 
(6.6%). The UAA at risk of erosion is mainly arable and permanent crops (5 million ha) 
and less on grassland. There is greater erosion risk in Calabria, Sicilia, Marche, Abruzzo, 
Molise. 

The mean soil organic carbon content in arable land in Italy is around 18 g/kg in 2015. 
Italy, such as other Mediterranean and southern countries (Spain, Greece and Portugal), 
have  lower  values  compared  to  northern  countries  due  to  the  faster  organic  carbon 
mineralisation.  At  regional  –  local  level,  lower  carbon  stock  are  present  in  southern 
regions,  on  the  islands  (Sardegna  and  Sicilia)  and  in  plains,  especially  in  intensive 
agricultural  areas,  while  higher  stocks  are  found  on  hilly  and  mountainous  areas56.In 
Italy, 92% of tillable UAA is tilled conventionally57, and an increase in conservation/zero 
tillage contributes to an improved soil quality. 

In  Italy,  7.64%  of  the  national  territory  is  covered  by  artificial  impermeable  surfaces 
leading  to  soil  sealing,  with  a  constant  increasing  trend.  In  2018,  in  15  regions,  5%  of 
land  consumption  is  exceeded,  with  the  highest  percentage  in  Lombardia,  Veneto  and 
Campania.  Areas  with  a  lower  quality  of  habitats  are  the  whole  Po  Valley  and  urban 
hubs. Land consumption is predominant in agricultural areas (66% in 2018), leading to a 
reduction of agricultural production and threats to ecosystem services58.  

Linking  soil  management  practices  to  research,  innovation  and  demonstration  activities 
available  under  the  forthcoming  Horizon  Europe  Mission  on  soil  health  can  help  to 
improve soil quality. 

Water  quality  in  groundwater  stations  in  Italy  is  slightly  lower  than  the  European 
average: 71% of the groundwater stations in 2012 were of high quality (74% for EU 28), 
18% were of moderate quality (14% for EU 28) and 11% was of poor quality (12% for 
EU  28).  Over  the  period  2012-2015,  the  most  risky  class  of  the  monitoring  sites 
(concentration  of  more  than  50  mg/l)  have  a  near  constant  trend,  showing  a  slight 
improvement.  However,  several  hot  spots  with  high  concentrations  located  in  different 
regions are still present over time. Water quality in surface water stations show a better 
trend:  over  the  period  2012-2015,  around  83.7%  of  sites  belong  to  the  high  quality 
classes (below 10 mg/l) with positive trends also for the other classes59. 

The implementation of water framework directive and nitrate directive still show several 
shortcomings:  in  2018,  Italy  was  subject  to  an  infringement  procedure  on  the  nitrate 
directive,  addressing  the  revision  of  nitrate  vulnerable  zones  and  the  need  to  improve 

15 

 
 
actions  included  both  in  the  CAP  and  river  basin  management  plans  to  improve  water 
quality.  Recommendations  on  a  better  consistency  with  the  CAP  and  improved 
monitoring  were  provided  also  for  the  water  framework  directive.  Agricultural 
management practices such as soil cover in winter can also contribute; in 2016, 16%60 of 
arable land in Italy was bare during winter months.  

The nitrogen surplus measured by the gross nutrient balance in Italy has remained stable 
over time between  2004 and 2014, compared of  a decrease of around 10% at  EU level 
(calculated  on  a  three  years  average).  The  quantitative  average  value  in  2017  is  of  66 
kg/ha/year  in  Italy,  higher  than  the  EU-27  average  of  46.5  kg/ha/year.  Over  the  same 
period, phosphorus surplus has been declining below zero kg/ha/year (-1.0 kg/ha/year in 
Italy), lower than the EU-27 average. 

Water quantity is  a critical  aspect: in  2016, there were 2.5 million  ha of irrigated land, 
around 20% of UAA, with an increase of 6% from 2010 to 201661, higher than the EU 
trend. Irrigated land is around 60% of the irrigable area, which amounts to 4 million ha 
and is  stable over time. Water consumptions  varies according to  the regions, crops and 
irrigation  systems.  The  indicator  Water  Exploitation  Index  plus  (WEI+)  shows  average 
annual  stress  conditions  at  national  level;  in  particular,  it  shows  conditions  of  stress  in 
several  Italian  river  basin  districts  located  in  the  South  and  in  the  islands62,  with  a 
potential risk of soil salinization by salt-rich irrigation water and/or insufficient drainage 
in  some  areas.  Similarly  to  other  countries,  it  is  difficult  to  have  a  clear  picture  of  the 
situation  of  water  consumption  due  to  lack  of  reliable  information.  The  river  basin 
management  plans  recommendations  highlighted  the  need  to  reinforce  water  metering, 
review the abstraction permits system and improve the water consumption monitoring63. 
In 2017, Italy committed to incentivise the efficient use of the resource in agriculture by 
extending water metering and volumetric charging based on actual consumption.64  

Regarding  the  CAP  implementation,  in  2018  53%  of  the  arable  land  was  subject  to 
greening  crop  diversification  compared  to  74%  at  EU  level65.  Italy  committed  in  2018 
around  12%  of  UAA  for  agro  environmental  climate  measures  contracts  dedicated  to 
water  management  and  to  soil  quality  and  erosion,  in  line  with  the  EU  average66. 
According  to  the  current  rural  development  implementation,  specific  needs  were 
highlighted  to  increase  investments  related  to  manure  management  with  the  aim  to 
reduce  ammonia  emissions,  measures  supporting  farming  practices 
to 
sustainable  fertilisation  and  reduction  of  nitrogen  surplus,  improved  water  quantity 
management. There is  a strong need to  improve national  coordination between regions, 
especially  for  water  management.  The  Italian  RDPs  also  pursue  water  efficiency  in 
agriculture  through  investments  in  irrigation.  EU  level  evaluations67  recommended 
avoiding  as  much  as  possible  exemptions  based  on  farm  dimension  on  basic 
environmental  obligations  which  are  particularly  important  for  water  issues,  such  as  in 
the current period for cross compliance and greening. 

targeted 

16 

 
 
Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Italy 

Kg P/ha/year 

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

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

2.6   Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

The farmland bird index (FBI) in Italy follows a similar trend to the EU average, with a 
decline  of  around  23%  in  2017,  (24%  reduction  at  EU  level  compared  with  the  2000 
baseline  value,  which  equals  to  100).  In  the  plains,  the  indicator  shows  a  significantly 
worse trend (-45%) than in the hills (-26%)68. The development of individual species is 
stable  in  the  hills,  but  declining  in  the  plains.  A  national  FBI  has  been  calculated  for 
species sensitive to pesticides, which a higher decline of 36% from 2000 to 2014. On the 
other  side,  the  woodland  bird  index  in  Italy  is  positive  with  an  increase  of  about  20% 
between 2014 and 2000, higher compared to the EU average, which shows a substantial 
stability.  

According to the indicator conservation status of grasslands agricultural habitats for the 
period 2013-2018, 2.6% of agricultural habitats (natural and semi-natural grassland) are 
in  favourable  status,  while  97.4%  are  bad  (50%)  or  inadequate  (47.4%)  with  a  very 
strong decrease of favourable status,  compared with the previous periods and especially 
with the EU average, which shows substantial stability over time69. The greatest habitat 
richness  is  concentrated  in  the  mountainous  regions  of  the  Alpine  area  located  in 
northernmost regions of the country and in the central regions along the Apennines.  The 
target  species  identified  for  extensive  farming  habitats  are  in  traditional  farming  - 
pastoralism areas, especially on the Apennine and in Sicilia. For grassland habitats, the 
main  pressures  identified  include  conversion  of  grassland  to  cropland,  overgrazing  and 
unregulated  grazing,  abandonment  of  traditional  shepherding  systems  and  of  mowing 
practices,  draining,  use  of  fertilizers.  For  cropland  and  permanent  crops,  the  pressures 
include  excessive  use  of  pesticides,  degradation  of  landscape  features,  alteration  of  the 
hydrographic networks.  

The  Natura  2000  network  covers  in  2016  around  19%  of  the  country  with  more  than 
2 600 sites and 8% of UAA (9% EU)70. Agricultural land is a substantial part: more than 
210 000 farms receiving CAP subsidies are located in the network for 1.5 million ha of 
UAA,  with  around  33%  permanent  grassland.  As  suggested  by  the  Prioritized  Action 
Frameworks of Italy, there is a need to better prioritize financial support in Natura 2000 
and outside for grassland (e.g. periodical mowing and controlled grazing to optimize the 

17 

-5.00.05.010.015.020.025.030.00.020.040.060.080.0100.0200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Italy potential surplus of nitrogen on agricultural land (in kg N/ha/year)EU-27 GNB for Nitrogenpotential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year)kg N/ha/yearkg P/ha/year 
 
cattle  load  in  Basilicata),  for  croplands  (e.g.  maintenance  and  restoration  of  dry  stone 
walls  in  favour  of  reptiles  in  Campania),  for  forests  (e.g.  conversion  of  coppice  woods 
into  high  forests  in  Abruzzo).  In  terms  of  governance/administrative  capacity/training, 
support  is  needed  for  forest  and  agricultural  advice,  for  monitoring  the  habitats  of  EU 
interest and for the creation of management plans. 

Forest  area  in  Natura  2000  sites  is  1.9  million  ha,  covering  20%  of  total  forestry  areas 
and 33% of total Natura 2000 areas. Italy has also a consistent area of national protected 
areas,  partly  overlapped  with  the  Natura  2000  areas,  covering  10%  of  the  national 
territory (3 million ha)71.  

Regarding farming intensity for  year 2016, Italy have 48% of the UAA in low, 25% in 
medium and 27% in high intensity farming, slightly less intensive compared to the EU-
28  average,  but  with  higher  expenses  for  agricultural  inputs.  The  trend  in  the  country 
across  time  between  2004  and  2016  show  substantial  stability.  According  to  further 
national  analysis,  the  intensity  is  different  across  regions  and  agricultural  sectors,  also 
due to different input prices72. 

Regarding  the  CAP  implementation,  in  2018  Italy  committed  in  2018  around  14%  of 
UAA for agro environmental climate measures dedicated to biodiversity and landscapes, 
in  line  with  the  EU  average.  For  forestland,  the  share  of  contracts  for  biodiversity  is 
0.7%,  around  double  the  EU  average73.  Specific  measures  such  as  the  Natura  2000 
measure  has  been  implemented  with  an  overall  low  financial  allocation.  Permanent 
grassland covers 3.6 million ha and represent 28% of the UAA in 2019, close to the EU 
average.  Italy  designated  all  permanent  grassland  in  Natura  2000  as  environmentally 
sensitive  for  enhanced  protection74.  Available  Prioritised  Action  Frameworks  (PAF) 
analysis  (available  for  eight  regions  at  the  time  of  drafting)  identify  overgrazing  and 
abandonment  as  major  threats  for  grassland,  especially  on  mountains75.  Co-existence 
between wild animals (such as wolves, bears and deer) and agricultural productions is an 
issue highlighted in all available PAFs, as well as in the EU evaluation on the impact of 
the CAP on biodiversity76. 

Non-productive features (land lying fallow and landscape features) amount to a total of 
474 000  ha,  3.7%  of  UAA.  According  to  Eurostat  crop  statistics  information,  Italy  has 
294 000 ha of land lying fallow in 2018 (2.3% of UAA) with a decreasing trend, in line 
with  other  EU  countries.  The  estimation  of  linear  landscape  features  coming  from  the 
2015 LUCAS survey amounts to 180 000 ha (1.4% of UAA)77. 

As a country with highly diversified agro-ecosystem conditions, in Italy there is plenty of 
traditional  landscapes,  which  are  an  important  factor  for  rural  areas  for  both 
environmental  and  economic  (e.g.  related  to  tourism)  aspects.  The  main  threats  are 
intensification,  abandonment  and  landscape  fragmentation.  High  nature  value  areas 
covers potentially around 16% of the UAA taking in consideration national estimations 
for  the  most  valuable  class:  the  most  important  typology  being  mosaic  areas  with  low 
intensity  farming  and  semi  natural  elements.  Invasive  species  are  a  serious  threat  to 
biodiversity  and  agricultural  production  due  to  favourable  climatic  conditions.  In  Italy, 
alien  species  have  increased  by  96%  over  the  last  30  years  and  the  phenomenon  has 
increased dramatically78.  

Local agrobiodiversity resources are included in a national registry from 2015: in 2018, 
300  animal  breeds  were  included,  of  which  200  at  risk  of  extinction  following  EU 

18 

 
 
criteria.  The  aim  is  to  protect  and  maintain  both  traditional  crop  varieties  and  animal 
breeds,  which  are  linked  to  traditional  farming  systems  and  disappearing  due 
specialisation of the sector79. 

The total area under organic farming is increasing in Italy, covering about 1.9 million ha 
in 2017 in around 67 000 farms. With 15.2% of the total utilized agricultural area under 
organic  farming  in  2018,  Italy  has  almost  double  the  share  of  the  average  European 
country  (8%).  Organic  surfaces  are  mainly  concentrated  in  southern  regions,  while  an 
increased  consumption  of  organic  products  is  recorded  in  northern  regions.  Differently 
from the distribution by crops at EU level, permanent crops are of significant importance 
and represent 24% of the organic UAA (11% in the EU), while permanent grassland is 
less  important  (28%  in  Italy,  44%  at  EU  level).    Among  arable  crops,  the  most 
represented  biological  crop  group  is  forage  crops  (28.5%  of  the  organic  UAA).  The 
proportion  of  organic  livestock  in  animal  husbandry  is  below  10%  for  cattle  and  pigs, 
however  organic  bovine  are  steadily  increasing  over  time.  The  Italian  policy  brief 
indicates a clear positive correlation between the increase in number of farms - areas and 
the CAP support. The concentration of organic production is actively supported at local – 
regional  level  through  the  creation  of  more  than  40  “biodistricts”  which  have  the 
objective of promoting organic products along the food chain and through tourism80. 

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

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

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

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

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

19 

 
 
 
 
 
Area under organic farming in Italy 

Hectares under organic farming 

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

% of area under organic farming in 
the EU-27 

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

2.7   Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

In Italy, there were 46 510 young farmers (aged below 35 years) in 2016 corresponding 
to 4.1% of all farm managers (slightly lower than the share of 5.1% for EU-27). For both 
Italy and EU-27 this share first increased between 2005 and 2010 (to 5.1% or +1.6 pp for 
Italy and to 7.5% or +0.6 pp for EU-27) and subsequently decreased between 2010 and 
2016  (-1  pp  for  Italy  and  -2.4  pp  for  EU-27).  This  is  also  confirmed  by  the  old  age 
dependency ratio: whereas in 2010 in Italy there were eight young farmers for every 100 
elderly ones (14 in EU-27), in 2016 there were only six (nine in EU-27).81 The ratio was 
most favourable in  the Provincia Autonoma di  Bolzano/Bozen (15-20  young every 100 
elderly farmers)  and least  favourable in  the Nord-South  extension of the areas between 
the  Appennino  mountain  range  and  the  Adriatic  Sea  (from  Emilia-Romagna  to  Puglia 
region;  5  young  or  less  every  100  elderly  farmers).82  To  note  that  within  the  group  of 
young  farmers,  between  2005  and  2016  those  aged  below  25  years  increased  by  6%, 
whereas  those  from  25  to  34  years  decreased  by  25%.  In  terms  of  gender,  in  Italy  the 
ratio of young female managers to male managers was roughly still only 1:3 in 2016, but 
had improved from roughly 1:4 in 2005/2007. 

Compared to the elderly, young farmers tend to have bigger farms and a higher economic 
(standard) output. In 2016, farmers aged less than 25 years farmed on average on 21 ha 
and farmers between 25 and 34 years on 20 ha compared to 11 ha for farmers from 55 to 
64 years and 7 ha for the ones aged 65 years or older; for all these age groups the average 
had increased compared to 2005 (respectively up from 17, 15, 7 and 5 ha). The same year 
(2016), the average economic output was EUR 59 700 for farmers under 25 years, EUR 
103  500  for  farmers  between  25  and  34  years,  EUR  41  800  for  farmers  from  55  to  64 
years  and  EUR  22  900  for  the  ones  aged  65  years  or  older.  To  note  that  in  2016  the 
farmers between 25 and 34 years also outperformed the middle-aged ones83 in terms of 
average  farm  size  and  economic  output.  The  same  year  farmers  under  25  years  had  on 
average the biggest farms (21 ha), but only the third highest economic output (EUR 59 
700)  which,  unlike  for  some  other  age  groups,  corresponded  in  essence  to  the  level  of 
2005. 

Compared  to  the  elderly,  young  farmers  tend  to  embrace  less  subsistence  farming,  but 
more livestock farming. In 2016, 9% of all farmers under 25 years old managed a semi-

20 

4%6%7%8%8%7%6%7%9%8%8%8%9%9%9%11%11%12%14%15%15% - 500 000 1 000 000 1 500 000 2 000 000 2 500 0000.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0%199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018Area under organic farming in Italyhectares under organic farming in Italy% agricultural area under organic farming in Italyarea under organic farming - EU-27 
 
subsistence farm84 and 12% of those aged 25 to 34 years compared to 27% of those aged 
55 to 64 years and 30% of the ones aged 65 years or older; since 2005 semi-subsistence 
farming had decreased in all these age groups by over 40%. In 2016, 28% of all farmers 
under  25  years  old  managed  a  live-stock  farm  and  30%  of  those  aged  25  to  34  years 
compared to 14% of those aged 55 to 64 years and 7% of the ones aged 65 years or older; 
since  2005  livestock  farming  had  decreased  in  all  these  age  groups  except  for  the 
youngest  for  which  it  increased  (+9%).  In  2016,  farmers  aged  25  to  34  years  had  the 
highest  livestock  intensity  together  with  those  aged  45  to  54  (respectively  76  and  80 
livestock  units  per  farm  on  average)  and  farmers  aged  under  25  years  ranked  in  the 
middle-range  (56 livestock units  per farm on average). While farmers aged 65  years or 
older had the least intensity (44 livestock units per farm on average), with +225% they 
had the highest increase compared to 2005. The intensity of farmers between 25 and 34 
years increased by 31%, whereas the one of those under 25 decreased by 16%.85 

Between 2010 and 2016 the share of young farmers with basic training decreased in Italy 
(by 9 pp to 77%), compared to a slight increase in EU-28 (by 4 pp to 21%), whereas the 
share of young farmers with full training increased for both  Italy (by 9 pp to 23%) and 
the  EU-28  (by  8  pp  to  22%).  Young  farmers  tend  to  be  better  trained  than  the  general 
farming  population  in  both  Italy  and  EU-28  (full  training  of  farm  managers  was 
respectively only 6% and 9% in 2016).86 

The financing  gap in  the  Italian agricultural  sector87 is  estimated to  amount to  between 
EUR 110 million and EUR 1.3 billion of which non-satisfied financing of young farmers 
and  new  entrants  determines  an  important  part.  Long-term  loans  are  usually  heavily 
collateralised  particularly  penalising  young  farmers  and  new  entrants  (unless  supported 
by families  or with  prior experience in  the sector). Similarly, access  to  land is  an issue 
particularly  for  young  farmers88,  even  if  special  support  is  foreseen  in  the  activities  of 
some  national  and  regional  land  banks89.  The  financing  gap  in  the  Italian  agri-food 
sector90 is estimated to amount up to EUR 1.5 billion mostly driven by a lack of credit 
history  (affecting  particularly  start-ups  and  young  entrepreneurs)  and  insufficient 
financial  education  and  collateral  (affecting  mainly  businesses  in  Central  and  Southern 
Italy).91 

In Italy, young farmers are supported via the top-up payment in Pillar I and via different 
Pillar  II  measures  which  can  be  modulated  in  favour  of  young  farmers,  notably  also 
through  a  “package”  approach  under  which  various  measures  are  grouped  providing  a 
«one-stop shop» with facilitation for farmers. While this approach has shown the benefits 
of  integrated  farm-level  projects,  it  could  embrace  more  measures  relevant  for  young 
farmers  (e.g.  promotion,  cooperation  or  mentoring  schemes)  and  the  selection  process 
improved with regard to timing and competences. 92 

As  far  as  businesses  in  rural  areas  are  concerned,  in  2016  in  Italy  the  birth  rate  of 
enterprises was lower in rural (7.1%) and intermediate areas (7.3%) than in urban areas 
(8.6%) and for all types of territories it was lower than for most other MSs for which data 
were  available93.  A  positive  trend  has  been  observed  in  agritouristic  activities,  which 
increased  by  13%  between  2013  and  201894.  Even  in  presence  of  limited  statistical 
evidence, the structural context characterised by unemployment and depopulation across 
rural  areas  (see  §2.8)  strongly  hints  at  a  generally  difficult  business  environment  in 
Italian  rural  areas.    Moreover,  the  bottom-up  approach  promoted  in  the  framework  of 
LEADER did not produce the expected results, due to delays in its implementation.  

21 

 
 
Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Italy 

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

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 
Ratio < 35 y.o />= 55 y.o. (right axis) 

EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 

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

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

Italy has relatively less rural (26%) and more intermediate (54%) areas than the  EU-27 
(45% and 46%)95; rural areas are most important in mountainous areas (60% or more in 
the  Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano/Bozen, Molise and Basilicata)96. Italian population 
lives,  comparatively,  clearly  less  in  rural  (10%)  and  more  in  intermediate/urban  (43%-
47%) areas than the EU-27 (21% and 39%-40%)97. Similar to urban areas, in rural areas 
nearly 15% are aged under 15, nearly 65% are aged between 15 and 64 and over 20% are 
aged  over  65,  while,  in  terms  of  gender,  nearly  50%  are  men  and  just  over  50%  are 
women.98.  While  recently  population  decreased  in  all  types  of  areas,  it  decreased 
substantially more in rural areas (-1.5% in 2015-2019 compared to -0.8% in intermediate 
and  -0.4%  in  urban  areas).99100  In  the  context  of  a  general  rural  exodus  over  the  last 
decade101, the migration balance for rural  areas decreased or turned negative across the 
country;  while  rural  areas  of  the  Centre-North  overall  kept  a  certain  attractiveness,  the 
balance  was  particularly  negative  for  rural  areas  in  Calabria,  Sicilia  and  Sardegna  in 
2018.102 While already today the old age dependency ratio is very strong (>= 42.5%) in 
parts  of  the  Appennino  and  coastal  areas  of  the  Centre-North  and  some  parts  of  the 
Alpine  arc/Sardegna103,  unfavourable  depopulation  and  ageing  dynamics  are  likely  to 
persist  in  large  parts  of  the  South  and  Sardegna  with  projected  negative  demographic 
trends until 2032104. The share of foreign-born residents in rural areas is quite similar for 
EU-born  (4% in  2019) and not  EU-born (6%) persons (and respectively  1 pp and 2  pp 
above EU-27 average) and, compared to  other  MSs, the situation in  intermediate/urban 
areas is quite similar105.  

In Italy the employment rate106 in rural areas is just under the total employment rate (both 
close to 60%) and clearly under the EU-27 employment rate in rural areas (68%; with a 
gap of 10 pp); these patterns in essence hold since 2005; Italy ranks lowest among all EU 
MS107  and  employment  is  particularly  low  in  rural  areas  in  large  parts  of  the  South108.  
Despite a favourable overall trend (down by 6 pp since 2005), Italy continues to have a 
considerable gender gap in rural employment (20.5 pp in 2019); over the last 15  years, 
female  employment  in  rural  areas  rose  quite  steadily,  but  overall  just  by  5.5  pp109.  For 
both  men  and  women  with  low/medium  educational  level  the  employment  rate110  is 
higher in rural than in urban areas, while the opposite holds for the highly educated; also 
here the gender gap clearly shows (31 pp for the low and 10 pp for the high educated in 
rural areas)111.  

22 

 
 
 
 
While the share of employment in tourism and the food industry has slightly grown since 
2010, reaching 6.3% and 2.2% in 2017, the share of employment in agricultural remained 
around  3.5%112;  globally  the  primary  sector  still  accounted  for  7.5%  of  employment  in 
rural  areas  in  2016113.  While  in  2016  agricultural  labour  force  was  still  predominantly 
male  (27%  female)  and  of  family  origin,  non-family  origin  had  slightly  increased114. 
Labour exploitation in agriculture is a widespread phenomenon in Italy115 and it mainly 
concerns  migrants  living  in  rural  areas  in  critically  vulnerable  conditions.  The  rate  of 
irregular  work  in  agriculture  (over  24%  in  2018)  is  the  highest  among  all  economic 
sectors; the rate increases to 35% of employed workers (164 000 on a total of 470 000 in 
2018); however, these figures are underestimated because they do not take into account 
migrants  without  visa  or  not  registered;  in  fact,  controls  run  by  INL  (Ispettorato 
Nazionale del Lavoro) detect a much higher rate of irregularities (55% in 2018)116. With 
32%,  Italy had the fifth  highest  share of female  farmers in  EU-28 (28%) in  2016117.  In 
2016,  farms  in  the  two  categories  of  smallest  farms118  accounted  respectively  for  15% 
and 51% of farms, but only for a small share of farmland and a minor share of economic 
output.119 

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, since 2014 the unemployment rate120 in Italy, both 
in total and in rural areas, has been steadily (but only very slightly) declining to 10%121, 
which, compared to the nearly 6% for EU-27, implies that Italy has the third highest rural 
unemployment rate (after Greece and Spain).122 The situation is particularly problematic 
for the young generation (aged 20-24) of which, despite a decrease of 14 pp since 2014, 
24% remain unemployed in rural areas (13% for EU-27) in 2019; for young women the 
unemployment  rate in  rural  areas is  with  26% slightly higher than for  young men with 
22%  (however  woman  recovered  faster  since  2014  with  -17  pp  compared  to  -12  for 
men). The situation of the population aged 50-64 in rural areas is in essence the opposite 
with a very low total unemployment rate in rural areas of 5.5% (just over 4% for EU-27) 
which in essence corresponds to the unemployment rate for women and men of that age 
group  in  rural  areas.  To  note  that  urban  areas  are  worse  off  in  terms  of  unemployment 
rate (overall and for the age groups looked at).123 

After a period of growth in 2010-2013/14, which deepened the urban-rural gap, the share 
of young people (aged 15-24) neither in employment nor in education and training, has 
decreased over the last years to just under 20% in all type of areas and, in rural areas, for 
both men and women124. However, since 2015 the total share for rural areas has been on 
average  over  8  pp  higher  than  for  EU-27,  while  currently  Italy  has  the  second  highest 
share  (after  Bulgaria)125.  In  comparison,  the  share  of  early  leavers  from  education  and 
training  (aged  18  to  24)  rather  constantly  decreased  in  all  areas  from  around  19%  to 
around  14%  in  2010-2019;  with  18%  in  2019  young  men  in  rural  areas  continue  to  be 
clearly  worse  off  than  young  women  (11%).  Over  the  same  period,  the  total  share  for 
rural areas has been on average over 3 pp higher in Italy than for EU-27, while currently 
Italy has the fifth highest share126. Since 2009, in Italy the educational level has improved 
in all types of areas (relative weight decreased for low education and increased for high 
education), but in 2018 the urban-rural gap for higher education still was 11 pp127. 

Looking  at  Gross  Domestic  Product  (GDP)/capita,  in  Italy  rural  areas  were  already 
relatively  poorer  (100%  of  EU-27  average)  than  intermediate  (108%)  and  urban  areas 
(117%)  in  2005.  While  since  then  all  three  territories  have  become  clearly  relatively 
poorer, without change in their order (89%, 94% and 103% in 2016), also intermediate 
areas have in the last  years been below the EU-27 average.128 Between 2010 and 2016, 

23 

 
 
the  share  of  value  added  has  grown  by  4  pp  in  EU-27  rural  areas,  while  in  Italy  it 
remained in essence stable in rural areas (at around 9%) as well as in the primary sector 
(at around 2%)129. Tourism continues to be an important sector in  Italy with a growing 
share of employment and in number of beds in 2012-2017; however, since 2012 the share 
of beds in rural areas has been clearly lower than in EU-27 (35% vs 45% in 2018) and, 
just like it, decreased until 2018 (by 11 vs 6 pp)130.  

Before the financial crisis131, in Italy the poverty rate in rural areas was higher than, but 
steadily converging towards, the one of towns and suburbs and cities; between 2010 and 
2012, it increased clearly more in rural areas (8 pp) than in towns and suburbs (4.5 pp) 
and cities (4 pp); between 2013 and 2015, it sharply fell in rural areas and slightly grew 
in towns and suburbs and cities; since 2015 it fluctuates for all three between 26 to 31% 
and is since 2017 relatively higher in urban areas; over 2010-2018 it was on average 3.6 
pp higher in rural areas in Italy than in EU-27132.  In 2017, the risk of poverty for natives 
in  rural  areas  was  roughly  half  the  one  for  migrants  (both  from  the  EU  and  from  third 
countries)133. Since 2014, in Italy the mean income has overall increased in all territories 
and continues to be higher in urban (EUR 20 600 in 2018) relative to intermediate (EUR 
18  900)  and  rural  areas  (EUR  17  700;  being  ca.  EUR  700  higher  for  men  than  for 
women); the median income followed the same patterns.134 It is currently roughly aligned 
with  the  EU-27  averages  for  all  types  of  territories  (all  within  15  000  to  18  000 
Purchasing Power Standard), but less dispersed135. 

As remarked in the Partnership Agreement with Italy for the use of European Structural 
and  Investment  (ESI)  Funds  in  2014-2020  136  and  in  the  latest  Country  Specific 
Recommendations  issued  in  the  context  of  the  European  Semester  exercise137,  a 
significant  gap  in  the  provision  of  services  between  urban  and  rural  areas  has  been 
growing  in  Italy  in  the  last  decade,  with  intermediate  rural  areas  and  areas  with 
development problems138 being especially affected. It regards primarily the quantity and 
quality  of  basic  services  (health,  education  and  social  services),  but  also  other  sectors, 
including transport, culture and leisure.  

In  Italy,  forests  cover  32.5%  of  the  total  land  area  and  other  wooded  land  6.3% 
(respectively 39.8% and 5.3% in EU-27).139 Between 2005 and 2017, Italy saw a strong 
increase in major economic indicators for forestry and logging: the total output increased 
from  EUR  456  to  2  662  million  (services,  secondary  activities  and  other  products  and 
trees accounted for the biggest shares in 2017), persons employed140 from 31 900 to 39 
800  annual  working  units  (while  decreasing  for  EU-27), 
labour 
productivity141  from  EUR  11  400  to  EUR  54  200 Gross  Value  Addedperson  employed 
and the investments from EUR 83 to 237 million142. Italy was in the upper third of MSs 
both in terms of timber resources (2015143) and of their net annual increment (2010144).145 
Between 2011 and 2015, the turnover from bio-economy was roughly 290 billion EUR, 
while employment decreased from close to 2 million in 2008 to 1.8 million in 2015; in 
line with it, the turnover per person employed increased from EUR 147 100  in 2008 to 
EUR 163 300 in 2015 (from EUR 97 000 to EUR 119 000 for EU-27). Food, beverages 
and  tobacco,  agriculture  and  bio-based  textiles  were  the  three  most  important  sectors 
(45%,  16%  and  17%  of  the  2015  turnover  and  24%,  43%  and  15%  of  2015 
employment)146. 

the  alleged 

Despite the serious and growing development needs of Italian rural areas and rural-urban 
divide (also highlighted in the Commission 2020 Country Specific Recommendations to 
Italy and the 2020 Country Report in the context of the European Semester exercise), the 
24 

 
 
attention dedicated to the development of rural  areas in terms of European Agricultural 
Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  allocations  in  the  2014-2020  programming 
period has been limited both compared to the previous programming period and the EU 
average. 

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

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a priority area for the Farm to Fork strategy. In Italy, 
sales  of  antimicrobial  agents  in  the  past  five  years  averaged  293.4  mg/PCU,  which  is 
significantly above the EU average of 118.3 mg/PCU in 2018. A significant decrease in 
sales is noticeable, however. In terms of species, cattle is the dominant category although 
sales  are  significant  also  for  pigs,  poultry  and  sheep/goats147.  Italy  adopted  a  National 
Action  Plan  on  AMR  2017-2020  that  sets  clear  targets  most  notably  to  reduce  the 
consumption  of  antibiotics  in  the  veterinary  sector  by  at  least  30%  and  the  use  of 
critically  important  antimicrobials  by  at  least  10%.  A  fact-finding  mission  in  2018 
concluded  that  Italy  has  invested  considerable  resources  in  the  introduction  of  a 
compulsory  e-prescription  system  for  veterinarians  and  raising  AMR  awareness  among 
veterinarians, farmers and other stakeholders. However many of their other initiatives on 
this topic are voluntary  and focus on awareness  raising. Some farmers might  choose to 
continue using (comparatively cheap) antimicrobials as they do not have the capacity to 
finance improvements in farm infrastructure or husbandry systems.148 

The Farm to Fork strategy also highlights how the respect of the social rights of agri-food 
workers  (including  social  protection,  working  and  housing  conditions  as  well  as 
protection  of  health  and  safety)  will  play  a  major  role  in  building  fair,  strong  and 
sustainable  food  systems.  In  this  context,  the  scope  of  labour  exploitation  in  Italian 
agriculture is alarming (see details under §2.8). 

In  terms  of  animal  welfare,  another  priority  area  for  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy,  tail 
docking  of  pigs  remains  routine  practice  in  Italy  despite  being  forbidden  as  a  routine 
practice by EU  rules.149 Notwithstanding recent  success  in  increasing the percentage of 
pigs  reared  with  intact  tails  in  Italy,  this  has  not  yet  become  the  common  system  of 
production. Efforts could also be made to increase the production of eggs under non-cage 
systems for laying hens: in Italy, around half of hens is produced in cages (49%), in line 
with the EU average150. Biosecurity is equally a challenge. Italy is among the countries 
affected by African Swine Fever (ASF). 

On pesticides, implementation of the directive on sustainable use of pesticides is central 
and, although a National Action Plan has been adopted in  2012, no revised action plan 
was  submitted.151  Harmonised  Risk  Indicator  1  (HRI1)152  on  pesticides  shows  a  slight 
positive trend that is worth mentioning although the decrease is slower than at EU level. 
Data  showing  evolutions  per  group  demonstrate  that  the  sale  of  low  risk  active 
substances (group 1) has increased significantly while pesticides classified as candidates 
for substitution (group 3) show a decreasing trend in terms of volume of sales although 
their share in overall sales is stable. Italy is the fifth most intensive user of pesticides in 
the EU calculated as kg active substance sold per ha of UAA (although it must be taken 
into account that pesticides are not only used in agriculture and the statistics are not split 
by sector). In 2018, there were 4.2 kg of pesticide active substances used per ha of UAA, 

25 

 
 
compared to an average of 2.3 kg/ha for the EU.153 Harmonised Risk Indicator 2 (HRI2) 
indicates that emergency authorisations, although stable in the last 3 years, remain above 
the  baseline.  In  addition,  there  is  significant  room  for  improvement  concerning  the 
training and certification of professional operators on the proper handling of pesticides, 
inspections  of  equipment  used  for  pesticide  application  and  effective  controls  on  the 
implementation  of  the  general  principles  of  the  integrated  pest  management  by  all 
professional pesticides users.154  

On consumption trends, demand for organic products has increased by 217% in the past 
ten  years  but  remains  low  in  certain  rural  areas  and  areas  where  the  GDP  per  capita  is 
low.155  Demand  for  products  with  quality  denominations  (PGO/PDO)  is  also  high.  On 
consumption of fruits and vegetables, Italy has a higher proportion of the population that 
eats  at  least  one  portion  of  vegetables  and  fruits  per  day  compared  to  the  EU 
average.156At the same time, Italy has a high estimated consumption of red and processed 
meat157.  Efforts  should  focus  on  shifting  towards  healthy  sustainable  diets,  in  line  with 
national recommendations in order to contribute to reducing overweight and obesity rates 
and  the  incidence  of  non-communicable  diseases  while  simultaneously  improving  the 
overall environmental impact of the food system. This would include moving to a more 
plant  based  diet  with  less  red  meat  and  more  fruits  and  vegetables,  whole  grains, 
legumes, nuts and seeds. 

On  food  loss  and  food  waste,  food  waste  amounts  to  30%  of  produced  food,  10%  of 
which stem from agricultural production and processing.158 It is expected that food loss 
and waste in agriculture will be part of new national food waste prevention programme 
as required by Article 29(2a) of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC. 

The  RDPs  2014-2020  included  measures  to  improve  animal  welfare  and  sustainable 
pesticide use. The budget allocated to animal welfare was significant but data on policy 
impact  is  not  yet  available.  Some  regions,  notably  Sardegna  and  Calabria,  were 
particularly successful in implementing animal welfare measures thus playing a key role 
not  only  in  improving  welfare  of  animals  on  farms  but  also  in  driving  innovation  and 
modernisation in the farming sector. 

Integrated  production,  based  on  the  principles  of  integrated  pest  management  and 
including  broader  commitments  on  agricultural  production  aimed  at  sustainable 
pesticides use, is one of the most important agro environmental climate measures in Italy, 
amounting to around one third of the budget allocated to measure 10159.    

26 

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

HRI 1 in Italy 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

Left: 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. 

Right: 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  Italian  AKIS  is  characterised  by  a  high  level  of  fragmentation160.  Agricultural 
research is conducted by numerous universities, research institutes and companies, public 
and private, which are not well interconnected161. Advisory services as well are provided 
by  several  entities  acting  independently.  Despite  the  fact  that  in  the  past  the  EU  has 
generously financed technical assistance services for Italy through agricultural advisors, 
advisory  services  are  not  present  everywhere  on  the  national  territory.  Public  advisory 
services are only provided by a few Regions. Private services, provided by self-employed 
advisors, employees of farmers’ organisations or by private agribusiness companies, are 
not  always  available  or  affordable  everywhere.  Strong  advisory  networks  are  present 
only in a few high value added sectors (e.g. organic agriculture, wine)162. Therefore, even 
if the number of actors involved in the AKIS has a good potential to bring innovation to 
farmers  in  every  Region  and  in  every  sector,  the  lack  of  strategic  coordination  often 
impacts  negatively  vertical  and  horizontal  flows  of  knowledge  and  innovation  in  the 
Italian AKIS.  

So  far,  knowledge-sharing  actions  have  largely  benefited  from  the  activities  of  the 
National  Rural  Network  and  its  dedicated  website  (www.innovarurale.it)163.  As  of 
August 2020, Italy holds the highest number of approved OGs (545) in the EU164. Italian 
OGs deal with a great variety of themes, thus reflecting the innovation need of the very 
diverse  sectors  of  Italian  agriculture165.  However,  some  shortcomings  will  need  to  be 
addressed in order to increase the effectiveness of knowledge sharing actions. Firstly, a 
territorial unbalance can been observed: even if all Regional RDPs foresee the setting up 
of  OGs,  not  all  of  them  made  progress  as  of  August  2020171.  Moreover,  there  is  no 
provision  for  national  or  cross-border  OGs.  Lastly,  according  to  the  available  data,  it 
appears that the involvement of advisors is marginal: as of August 2020, they represent 
only 3% of the partners in Italian OGs166. More in general, only part of the advisors are 
systematically  exposed  to  updated  knowledge  and  innovation  through  regular  training 
courses167.  Their  training  has  not  been  supported  by  public  policies.  Measure  2168 

27 

 
 
financial  allocation  was  more  than  halved  in  comparison  to  the  original  RDP  financial 
plan169. Its implementation was not timely nor efficient, as on December 2018, none of 
the  RDPs  had  succeeded  in  providing  training  to  advisors170.  In  this  context,  advisors 
may need to pay personally for their training and may have limited access to Knowledge 
& Innovation (K&I) resources171. 

The highlighted shortcomings of the Italian AKIS, both in the structure and in the K&I 
flows, can represent  a serious obstacle in  the transition  towards a  greener, more digital 
and more competitive agriculture172. 

Farmers’  education  level  correlates  positively  with  farms’  economic  size173  in  Italy. 
Nevertheless, Italian farmers tend to have a low education level: in 2016, only 3.65% of 
Italian farmers had received a secondary education in agriculture and only 1.32% held a 
degree  in  agriculture174.  Furthermore,  training  for  farmers  has  not  been  fully  supported 
by public policies: in Quarter 2 of 2020, only 22% of the financial resources allocated to 
Measure 1175 had been spent. An improvement in the farmers’ education level has been 
observed since 2013176, probably also thanks to the higher educated younger generations 
(§2.7), but improvement is still necessary in order not to affect adversely  Italian farms’ 
competitiveness.  

As observed in the latest European Semester recommendations177 and in a recent Opinion 
of the European Court of Auditors178, the Italian administrative system does not succeed 
in  absorbing  effectively  EU  funds,  albeit  with  great  differences  among  administrative 
Regions. The sector of agricultural policies is no exception, affecting negatively farms’ 
competitiveness  and  territorial  cohesion,  and  producing  distorting  effects  among 
entrepreneurs  of  different  Regions.  Nonetheless,  much  progress  is  still  needed.  In  the 
first  place,  lengthy  administrative  and  bureaucratic  procedures  and  the  lack  of  uniform 
and/or  interoperable  IT  systems  have  brought  delays  in  area-related  rural  development 
payments  in  more than  one instance. Such delays have been recorded in  some Regions 
more than in others, thus producing disparities among farmers who operate in the same 
market  but  different  geographical  areas.  The  need  for  coordination  among  regions  can 
also be observed in the actions to support investments in rural development programmes: 
the  number  of  calls  for  such  measures  varies  greatly  among  Regions,  pointing  to  an 
unbalanced  national  context,  rather  than  to  a  policy  with  a  territorial  target.  Finally,  a 
lack of coordination with regional, national and European policies has been recorded: in 
several  instances,  this  resulted  in  overlaps  of  different  policies  funding  similar 
investments, in noticeable gaps or in contradictory legislation179. In the framework of a 
more  general  process  of  digitisation  of  the  public  administration,  in  the  attempt  to 
improve its efficiency and effectiveness, action has been taken to improve the quality of 
the  Land  Parcel  Identification  System  (LPIS)  and  to  adopt  Check-by-Monitoring 
technologies180,  which  can  reduce  the  administrative  burden  on  the  beneficiaries;  in 
addition  to  this,  governmental  organisations  have  been  participating  in  EU  projects 
the  modernisation  of  CAP 
the  uptake  of  new 
dealing  with 
administrations,  CAP  controls  and 
the 
aforementioned examples show that much progress is still needed for the administrative 
system to timely meet the needs of the CAP current and potential beneficiaries. 

technologies  for 
interactions  with  farmers.  Nonetheless, 

In 2013, fast broadband was scarce in Italy with only 21% of overall households and 0% 
of rural households covered. Between 2015 and 2017, a fast catch-up dynamic took place 
and, after a strong slowdown in 2017/2018, recently reassumed181. In 2019, nearly 90% 
of  overall  households,  but  only  68%  of  rural  households  were  covered  by  fast 
28 

 
 
broadband182. Considerable efforts in rural areas will be needed to meet the EU target of 
100%  coverage  by  2025,  while  EU  2020  targets183  will  not  be  met  on  time.  Particular 
attention  will  need  to  be  paid  to  the  “last  mile”  connection  between  the  main 
infrastructure  and  the  end  user  as  well  as  to  sparsely  populated  areas  not  covered  by 
planned  investments  despite  being  those  most  at  risk  of  depopulation184.  In  2019,  the 
share of people with  basic or above basic digital skills was lower in  rural  areas (below 
40%) compared to towns/suburbs (40%) and cities (close to 50%). While this meant that 
the differences between territories were not as wide as in other MSs, it made Italy one of 
the MSs with the lowest share, and clearly below the EU average, for all territories185. 

Farmers by education level (%) 
Farmers by education level (%) in Italy 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

No title 
No title
Elementary or middle school 
Elementary or middle school
Vocational school 
Vocational school
Secondary school (agricultural) 
Secondary school (agricultural)
Secondary school (non agricultural)
Secondary school (non agricultural) 
University (agricultural)
University (agricultural) 
University (non-agricultural)
University (non-agricultural) 

2013

2016

ISTAT, Dataset: Struttura delle aziende agricole. 

Tipo di dato: Aziende per titolo di studio del conduttore (2013, 2016) 

Broadband coverage in Italy 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

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

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1   European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an EU strategy to 
reduce methane emissions. COM(2020) 663. 

2   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. All the latest 
data  for  the  context  indicators  is  available  on  the  EUROPA  website.  For  more  information  about  the 
Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  (CMEF)  to  assess  the  performance  of  the  Common 
Agricultural Policy is available here. 

3   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and Rural Development own calculations based on  FADN (Farm 

Accountancy Data Network) data. 

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

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

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

to 2018). 

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

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

8   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.26  Agricultural  entrepreneurial  income.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04] and [aact_ali01].  

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

to 2018). 

10   Farm Accountancy Data Network. FADN Standard reports. 
  YEAR.COUNTRY.TF14 and own calculations (up to 2018). 
11   ECORYS, Wageningen Economic Research. Study on risk management in EU agriculture. Publications 
office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg.  2017.  Study  for  the  Directorate  General  for  Agriculture 
and Rural Development (European Commission). 

12   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development (European Commission). Direct payments 

to agricultural producers – graphs and figures – Financial year 2018. 2018. 

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

EUROSTAT [aact_eaa01] and [aact_ali01]. 

14   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. 

15   Osservatori RRN – ISMEA. Indicatori di competitività. Scambi con l’estero. 
16   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development based on COMEXT. 
17   European Commission. CAP Impact indicator I.06 Agricultural trade balance.  Based on EUROSTAT 
–  COMEXT  database.  Data  at  EU  level  available  on  the  Agri  food  trade  webpage.  Data  for  Italy 
available in Analytical factsheet.  

18   See endnote 17. 
19   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;  Osservatori 
RRN-ISMEA. Indicatori di competitività – Contesto socio-economico. Investimenti 

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

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3gva] and [nama_10r_2gfcf]. 

21   European Commission. Smart Specialisation Platform – Digital Innovation Hubs. 2020. 
22   EUROSTAT, [isoc_sk_dskl_i]. 
23    Italy, Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies. Linee guida per lo sviluppo dell’agricoltura 

di precisione in Italia. 2017. 

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

primary producers in the food chain. 

25   European Commission. CAP Indicator – ‘Adding value’ dashboard: Distribution of Gross Value Added 

along the food chain (Italy). 

26   European  Commission.  CAP  impact  indicator  I.01  Agricultural  entrepreneurial  income.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04] and [aact_ali01]. 

27   EUROSTAT [aact_eaa01], 2017. 

30 

 
 
                                                           
 
28   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Impact  Assessment  –  Initiative  to 

improve the food supply chain (unfair trading practices). SWD(2018) 92 final. 

29   European Commission – Food price monitoring tool. 
30   Amat L. et al. Study of the best ways for producer organisations to be formed, carry out their activities 
and  be  supported.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg.  2019.  Study  for  the 
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development (European Commission). 

31   Cagliero  R.  et  al..  L’Italia  e  la  PAC  post  2020  –  Policy  Brief  3.  OS  3:  Migliorare  la posizione degli 
agricoltori nella catena del valore. 2019. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 
32   European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  –  ‘Organic  Production’  dashboard:  Organic  Area  and 

Producers (Italy). 
33   See endnote 30.  
34   See endnote 24. 
35   See endnote 30. 
36   Trisorio A. e Lauricella P.. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 6. OS6: Contribuire alla tutela 
della biodiversità, rafforzare i servizi ecosistemici e preservare gli habitat e il paesaggio. 2019. pp. 37-
40. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

37   Santini F. et al. Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of their 
Socio-Economic Characteristics. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 2013. Study 
performed  for  the  Joint  Research  Centre  Institute  for  Prospective  Technological  Studies  (European 
Commission). 

38   European Environmental Agency (EEA), EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. 
39   European Environmental Agency (EEA), EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. 

Foderà  I.  et  al.  L’Italia  e  la  PAC  post  2020  –  Policy  Brief  4.  Contribuire  alla  mitigazione  dei 
cambiamenti climatici e all’adattamento a essi, come pure allo sviluppo dell’energia sostenibile. 2019. 
p.8. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

40   European Commission. CAP Indicators – ‘Climate Change & Air Quality’ dashboard: GHG emissions 
from agriculture (1000 ton of CO2 equivalent); Foderà I. et al.  L’Italia e  la PAC post 2020  – Policy 
Brief 4. Contribuire alla mitigazione dei cambiamenti climatici e all’adattamento a essi, come pure allo 
sviluppo dell’energia sostenibile. 2019. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

41   European Environmental Agency (EEA), EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. 
42   European Environmental Agency (EEA), EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. 
43   European Environmental Agency (EEA), EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. 
44   Hiederer R.. Relative cover (%) of peat soils (0-30 cm), per country. ESDAC. 2010.  
45   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. 

46   European Commission.  CAP context indicator C.43 Production of renewable energy from agriculture 

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

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

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s]. 

48   Italy,  Ministry  of  Economic  Development,  Ministry  of  the  Environment  and  Protection  of  Natural 
Resources  and  the  Sea,  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  Transport.  Integrated  National  Energy  and 
Climate Plan. 2019. 

49   Italy,  Ministry  of  Economic  Development,  Ministry  of  the  Environment  and  Protection  of  Natural 
Resources  and  the  Sea,  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  Transport.  Integrated  National  Energy  and 
Climate Plan. 2019. 

50   European Commission. CAP Indicator –  'Climate Change and Air Quality' dashboard. 
51   AgriAdapt, AWA – AgriAdapt Webtool for Adaptation. EU farmland and climate change risks. 
52   ISPRA - Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale. Dissesto idrogeologico in Italia: 

pericolosità e indicatori di rischio. Edizione 2018. 

53   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.45 Emissions from agriculture. Based on EUROSTAT 
[env_air_emis],  original  source  European  Environmental  Agency 
(UNFCC_v22);  European 
Environmental  Agency  (EEA).  National  Emission  Ceilings  (NEC)  Directive  emission  inventory  data; 
Falconi I. et al. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 5. OS 2.2: Favorire lo sviluppo sostenibile e 
un’efficiente  gestione  delle  risorse  naturali  come  l’acqua,  il  suolo  e  l’aria,  2019.  pp.  73-74.  Study 
performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

54   Falconi I. et al. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 5. OS 2.2: Favorire lo sviluppo sostenibile e 
un’efficiente  gestione  delle  risorse  naturali  come  l’acqua,  il  suolo  e  l’aria.  2019.  pp.  79-80.  Study 
performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

31 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
 
55   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.42  Soil  erosion  by  water.  Original  source:  Joint 
Research  Center;  Falconi  I.  et  al.  L’Italia  e  la  PAC  post  2020  –  Policy  Brief  5.  OS  2.2:  Favorire  lo 
sviluppo sostenibile e un’efficiente gestione delle risorse naturali come l’acqua, il suolo e l’aria. 2019. 
pp.  68-69.  Study  performed  for  the  Rete  Rurale  Nazionale  2014-2020;  European  Commission.  CAP 
context indicator C.42 Soil erosion by water. Original source: Joint Research Center. 

56   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.41 Soil organic matter in arable land. Joint Research 
Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015; Foderà I. et al. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – 
Policy Brief 4. OS 4: Contribuire alla mitigazione dei cambiamenti climatici e all’adattamento a essi, 
come  pure  allo  sviluppo  dell’energia  sostenibile.  2019.  p.  44.  Study  performed  for  the  Rete  Rurale 
Nazionale  2014-2020;  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.41  Soil  organic  matter  in 
arable land. Joint Research Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015. 

57   EUROSTAT [ef_mp_prac], 2016. 
58   Trisorio A. e Lauricella P.. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 6. OS6: Contribuire alla tutela 
della biodiversità, rafforzare i servizi ecosistemici e preservare gli habitat e il paesaggio. 2019. pp. 34-
36. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

59 European Environmental Agency (EEA), Waterbase – Water Quality ICM; Falconi I. et al. L’Italia e la 
PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 5. OS 2.2: Favorire lo sviluppo sostenibile e un’efficiente gestione delle 
risorse  naturali  come  l’acqua,  il  suolo  e  l’aria.  2019.  pp.  58.  Study  performed  for  the  Rete  Rurale 
Nazionale 2014-2020. 

60   EUROSTAT [ef_mp_soil] for soil cover and [ef_lus_main] for arable land, 2016. 
61   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.20 Irrigated land. Based on EUROSTAT [ef_poirrig] 
and [ef_m_farmleg]; Falconi I. et al. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 5. OS 2.2: Favorire lo 
sviluppo sostenibile e un’efficiente gestione delle risorse naturali come l’acqua, il suolo e l’aria. 2019. 
pp. 23-29. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

62   Falconi I. et al. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 5. OS 2.2: Favorire lo sviluppo sostenibile e 
un’efficiente  gestione  delle  risorse  naturali  come  l’acqua,  il  suolo  e  l’aria.  2019.  pp.  34-42.  Study 
performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

63   Falconi I. et al. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 5. OS 2.2: Favorire lo sviluppo sostenibile e 
un’efficiente  gestione  delle  risorse  naturali  come  l’acqua,  il  suolo  e  l’aria.  2019.  pp.  23-42.  Study 
performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

64   This was a condition for the fulfilment of the ex-ante conditionality 5.2 needed to benefit from EAFRD 

funding for irrigation investments under RDPs 2014-2020. 

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

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

66   European  Commission.  CAP  Indicators  –  ‘Soil  quality’  dashboard:  Share  of  agricultural  land  under 
contracts to improve soil (%). August 2020; European Commission. CAP Indicators – ‘Water quality & 
availability’ dashboard: Share of agricultural land under contracts to improve water management (%). 
August 2020. 

67   EEIG Alliance Environnement.  Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on water. Publications Office of 
the European Union, Luxembourg. 2019. Study performed for the Directorate General for Agriculture 
and Rural Development (European Commission). 

68   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.35  Farmland  birds  index  (FBI).  As  in  EUROSTAT 
[env_bio2], original source: EBCC, BirdLife, RSPB and CSO; Trisorio A. e Lauricella P.. L’Italia e la 
PAC  post  2020  –  Policy  Brief  6.  OS6:  Contribuire  alla  tutela  della  biodiversità,  rafforzare  i  servizi 
ecosistemici e preservare gli habitat e il paesaggio. 2019. pp. 7-9. Study performed for the Rete Rurale 
Nazionale 2014-2020. 

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

Original source: European Environmental Agency. 

70   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.34  Natura  2000  areas.  Based  on  NATURA  2000 
Barometer and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018; Trisorio A. e Lauricella P.. 
L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 6. OS6: Contribuire alla tutela della biodiversità, rafforzare 
i servizi ecosistemici e preservare gli habitat e il paesaggio. 2019. pp. 10-13. Study performed for the 
Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

71   Trisorio A. e Lauricella P.. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 6. OS6: Contribuire alla tutela 
della biodiversità, rafforzare i servizi ecosistemici e preservare gli habitat e il paesaggio. 2019. pp. 17-
19. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

72   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.33  Farming  intensity.  Based  on  FADN  –Agri-
environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification” ; De Leo S. et al. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 

32 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
–  Policy  Brief  9.  OS9:  Migliorare  la  risposta  dell’agricoltura  dell’UE  alle  esigenze  della  societa  in 
materia di alimentazione e salute, compresi alimenti sicuri, nutrienti e sostenibili, sprechi alimentari e 
benessere degli animali. 2019. pp. 31-35. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 
73   European  Commission.  CAP  indicator,  ‘Biodiversity’  dashboard:  Share  of  land  under  contracts 

supporting biodiversity and/or landscapes and forests (%). August 2020. 

74   Trisorio A. e Lauricella P.. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 6. OS6: Contribuire alla tutela 
della biodiversità, rafforzare i servizi ecosistemici e preservare gli habitat e il paesaggio. 2019. pp. 26-
27. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020; European Commission, DG Agriculture 
and  Rural  Development  analysis  based  on  Member  States’  notifications  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1307/2013. 

75   Member State notifications to the Directorate General for Environment. 
76   EEIG Alliance Environnement.  Impact of the  CAP on habitats, landscapes,  biodiversity. Publications 
Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg.  2019.  Study  performed  for  the  Directorate  General  for 
Agriculture and Rural Development (European Commission). 

77   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on  EUROSTAT 
and JRC calculations based on LUCAS data. Linear elements considered: grass margins, shrub margins, 
single trees bushes, lines of trees, hedges and ditches.  

78Trisorio  A.  e  Lauricella  P..  L’Italia  e  la PAC  post  2020  –  Policy  Brief  6.  OS6:  Contribuire  alla  tutela 
della biodiversità, rafforzare i servizi ecosistemici e preservare gli habitat e il paesaggio. 2019. pp. 23-
25, 28-33, 37-40. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

79   Trisorio A. e Lauricella P.. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 6. OS6: Contribuire alla tutela 
della biodiversità, rafforzare i servizi ecosistemici e preservare gli habitat e il paesaggio. 2019. pp. 44-
46. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

80   EUROSTAT  [org_cropar_h1];  De  Leo  S.  et  al.  L’Italia  e  la  PAC  post  2020  –  Policy  Brief  9.  OS9: 
Migliorare la risposta dell’agricoltura dell’UE alle esigenze della societa in materia di alimentazione e 
salute,  compresi  alimenti  sicuri,  nutrienti  e  sostenibili,  sprechi  alimentari  e  benessere  degli  animali. 
2019. pp. 41-42. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

81   Number of farmers aged below 35 years to number of farmers aged 55 years or older; here expressed in 

100 of elderly farmers.  

82   To  note  that  here  the  ratio  is  defined  as  young  farmers  below  35  years  to  elderly  farmers  above  55 

years. 

83   No information for age class 35-44 years. 
84   Farms whose household consumes more than 50% of the final production. 
85   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 
EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] For livestock intensity, “farm” means “livestock farm” and there are no 
data for the age group 35 to 44 years. 

86   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 
EUROSTAT  [ef_mp_training]  To  note  that  a)  data  consulted  were  for  EU-28  and  not  EU-27  and  b) 
there is a discrepancy in the definition of “full” and “basic” training for Italy compared to EU-28 (see 
methodological fiche). 

87   The  financing  gap  consists  of  the  unmet  financing  demand  from  economically  viable  enterprises 
operating  in  the  sector.  The  unmet  demand  includes  lending  applied  for  but  not  obtained,  as  well  as 
lending  not  applied  for  due  to  the  expectation  that  the  application  will  be  rejected  by  the  financial 
institution. 

88   fi-compass.  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in  Italy.  Study  report.  2020.  86 
pages. The information on access to land for young farmers is based on CREA.  Indagine sul mercato 
degli affitti in Italia Rapporto regionale 2017. 2018 as in fi-compass. Ibidem. 

89   Zanetti  B.  et  al.  L’Italia  e  la  PAC  post  2020  –  Policy  Brief  7.  OS  7:  Attirare  i  giovani  agricoltori  e 
facilitare lo sviluppo imprenditoriale nelle aree rurali. 2019. pp. 17-21. Study performed for the Rete 
Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

90   The financing gap calculated for the agri-food sector is independent of the financing gap calculated for 

the agriculture sector. It follows the same methodology. 

91   See endnote 88. To note that the source indicates that the drivers are “suggested” by the available data. 
92   Dwyer,  Janet  et  al.  Evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  CAP on  generational  renewal,  local  development 
and jobs in rural areas. Evaluation for the European Commission by  ADE s.a , CCRI  and OIR. 2019. 
p. 65 and p.209 (summary of recommendations of national workshops).  

93   EUROSTAT. [urt_bd_hgn2]. Birth rate refers to the number of enterprise births in the reference period 
(t) divided by the number of enterprises active in t. Data are available for 16 Member States for 2016. 

33 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
94   ISTAT. dataset: Agriturismo, tipo dato: aziende agrituristiche autorizzate.  
95   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.03 Territory. Based on EUROSTAT [reg_area3] and 

[urt_d3area]. Reference year:  2016. 

  To note that since 2013 Italy developed a national urban-rural classification, which is often referred to 
in  the  Policy  Briefs  per  specific  objective  constituting  the  analytical  basis  for  Italy’s  future  CAP 
strategic plan. This classification defines four types of areas:  A)  urban and peri-urban areas; B) rural 
areas  with  intensive  agriculture;  C)  intermediate  rural  areas:  and  D)  rural  areas  with  development 
difficulties.  See  in  particular  Amato,  A.  et  al..  L’Italia  e  la  PAC  post  2020  –  Policy  Brief  8.  OS8: 
Promuovere  l’occupazione,  la  crescita,  l’inclusione  sociale  e  lo  sviluppo  locale  nelle  aree  rurali, 
comprese  la  bioeconomia  e  la  silvicoltura  sostenibile.  2019.  Annex.  Study  performed  for  the  Rete 
Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. https://www.reterurale.it/PACpost2020/percorsonazionale. 

96   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.03 Territory. Based on EUROSTAT [demo_r_d3area] 
as in European Commission. CAP context indicators 2014-2020. 3. Territory. 2018 update. Reference 
year: 2015. 

  To note that on the grounds of the national urban-rural classification, the rural areas with development 
difficulties (type D) basically cover the whole Alpine and Appenino arc as well as large parts of Sicilia 
and Sardegna. See Amato, A. et al.. Ibidem. Figure 3 at endnote 95. 

97   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.01  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [urt_gind3]. 

Reference year: 2019. 

indicator  C.02  Age  structure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

98   European  Commission.  CAP  context 
[urt_pjanaggr3]. Reference year: 2019.  
99   See endnote 97. Reference year: 2015-2019. 
100  Please note that there are different ways to define “rural areas”. The text above is based on the so-called 
“urban-rural  typology”  in  line  with  the  CAP  common  context  indicators.  However,  according  to  the 
definition based on the “degree of urbanisation typology”, in Italy 61% of the territory are rural areas 
and 18% of the population lives in rural areas. Source: Eurostat. [code to be added]. 

101  Between  2008  and  2018  only  the  population  of  Type  D  rural  areas  decreased  by  2.2%,  while  it 

increased in all other types of areas. See Amato, A. et al.. Ibidem. Figure 13 at endnote 95. 

102  Compared  to  2008,  Type  D  rural  areas  of  all  Italian  regions  experience  a  lower  or  even  a  negative 
migration saldo in 2018. See  Amato, A. et al.. Ibidem. Tables 7 and 8 at endnote  955.  Depopulation 
trends in Italian rural areas, especially in the  South, are also confirmed by the  2020 Country Specific 
Recommendations  to  Italy  and  the  2020  Italy  Country  Report  issued  in  the  context  of  the  European 
Semester exercise.  

103  European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – Additional figures, maps and tables on 
the  key  aspects  of  demographic  change  and  its  impact.  Accompanying  the  report  on  the  impact  of 
demographic change. SWD(2020) 241 final. Map 2: Old-age dependency ratio by region. 2019.  

104  Copus, A. et al.. ESCAPE European Shrinking Rural Areas: Challenges, Actions and Perspectives for 
Territorial  Governance.  Interim  Report.  Espon  Escape  project.  Map  5:  Future  demographic  trends 
2017-2032 in shrinking intermediate and rural regions. 

105  See endnote 103. Figures 40 and 41: Proportion of population born in another EU Member State and 
proportion of population born outside the EU as share of population aged 15 years or over by degree of 
urbanisation. 2019. 

106  15-64 years. 
107  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.05  Employment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_ergau]. Reference year: 2005-2019. 

108  In 2018, the rural employment rate was below 45% in Calabria, Campania, Puglia and Sicilia, while it 
was  75%  in  the  Provincia  Autonoma  di  Bolzano/Bozen.  See  Amato,  A.  et  al..  Ibidem.  Table  11  at 
endnote 95. To note that it is based on ISTAT data classified according to NUTS urban-rural definition 
per Italian region and covering 15-64 years old. 

109  See endnote 107. Reference year: 2005-2019. 
110  20-64 years. 
111  EUROSTAT. [lfst_r_erednu]. Reference year: 2018. 
112  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.13  Employment  by  economic  activity.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfe2en2]. Reference year: 2010-2017. 

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

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3empers]. Reference year: 2016. 

114  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.22  Farm  labour  force.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[ef_lf_main]. Reference year: 2013 and 2016. In annual working units. 

34 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
115  Despite  the  national  Law  No  199  and  the  recent  national  plan  (Piano  triennale  2020-2022)  against 

irregular work in agriculture.   

116  Italy,  Ministry  of  Labour  and  of  Social  Policies.  Piano  triennale  di  contrasto  allo  sfruttamento 
lavorativo in agricoltura e al caporalato 2020-2022. 2020. The seriousness of the phenomenon in Italy 
is also highlighted in the Commission 2020 Country Specific Recommendations to Italy and the 2020 
Italy Country Report issued in the context of the European Semester exercise.  

117 Franić, R. and Kovačićek. T. The professional status of rural women in the EU. Study for the European 
Parliament. 2019. Figure 17 : Proportion of farm managers who are women.  2016. Based on Eurostat. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608868/IPOL_STU(2019)608868_EN.pd
f 

118  Defined  in  terms  of  economic  output  (“standard  output”  or  “SO”).  The  two  classes  are  respectively 

farms with “< 2000 EUR of SO” and “< 8000 EUR of SO”. 

119 EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmleg]. Reference year: 2016. 
120 20-64 years. 
121 In 2019, it  was 0.3 pp less in rural areas than in total.  European Commission.  CAP context indicator 

C.07 Unemployment rate. Based on EUROSTAT [lfst_r_urgau]. Reference year: 2013-2019. 

122 See endnote 121. Reference year: 2019. 
123See endnote 121121. Reference year: 2013-2019 and 2019.  
124  Eurostat.  [edat_lfse_29].  Reference  year:  2010-2018.  Statement  that  all  shares  are  under  20%  is  true 

also for 2019. 

125 See endnote 124. Reference year: 2015-2019. 
126 Eurostat. [edat_lfse_30]. Reference year: 2010-2019. 
127 Eurostat. [edat_lfs_9913]. Reference year: 2009-2018. 
128  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[urt_10r_3gdp]. Purchasing power standard (PPS, EU27 from 2020), per inhabitant in percentage of the 
EU27 (from 2020) average. Reference year: 2005-2016.  

129 European Commission.  CAP context indicator C.10 Structure of the economy.  Based on EUROSTAT 
[urt_10r_3gva]. Reference year: 2010-2016. For the sectoral breakdown data exist until 2019; they are 
in line with the sentence.  

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

[tour_cap_natd]. Reference year: 2012-2017/8. 

131 2005-2008. 
132  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.09  Poverty  rate  (People  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social 

exclusion). Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps13]. Reference year: 2005-2018.  

133 Natale, F., Kalantaryan, S., Scipioni, M., Alessandrini, A. and Pasa, A.  Migration in EU Rural Areas. 
EUR  29779  EN.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg.  2019.  ISBN  978-92-76-
08600-0  (online),  doi:10.2760/544298  (online),  JRC116919.  Figure  1.9  Comparison  of  the  risk  of 
poverty indicators between and natives and migrants in rural areas, by country (2017).  

134 EUROSTAT. [ilc_di17]. Reference year: 2012-2018 in Euro. 
135 See endnote 103. Figure 37: Median equivalised net income, 2018 (Purchasing power standard (PPS), 

by degree of urbanisation). 

136  Italy,  Presidency  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  –  Department  for  Cohesion  Policies.  Accordo  di 

Partenariato 2014-2020. Italia. Sezione 1A. 2017. p. 105. 

137 European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. Country Report Italy 2020. SWD(2020) 

511 final. p. 43. 
138 See endnote 95. 
139 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). FAO 2020 Global Forest Resources Assessment.  
140 The indicator C.13 Employment by economic activity shows a constant share of forestry in employment 

of 0.2% in 2010-2017. See endnote 112.  

141 Similarly, the indicator indicator C.15 Labour productivity in forestry shows an increase between 2012 
and 2018 of 13% in Italy (11% for EU-27). European Commission. CAP context indicator C.15 Labour 
productivity in forestry. Based on EUROSTAT [for_eco_cp] and [for_awu]. 

142 European Commission. Forests, forestry and logging. Eurostat statistics explained. Table 3: Economic 
indicators for forestry and logging, 2005 and 2017 (current basic prices), Figure 1: Output of forestry 
and logging by type, 2017 (million EUR, current basic prices) and Table 4: Employment and apparent 
labour productivity in forestry and logging, 2005 and 2017.  

143 Roughly 1 300 000 000 m3 over bark of growing stock in forests available for wood supply. 

35 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
144 Roughly 32 500 000 m3 over bark in forests available for wood supply. The net annual increment is the 
average growth in volume of the stock of living trees available at the start of the year minus the average 
natural mortality of this stock. 

145 See endnote 142. Table 2: Timber resources. 
146 European Commission. Jobs and Wealth in the European Union Bioeconomy. Knowledge centres and 
the  nova-Institute. 
that  data  on 

from  a  collaboration  between 
data  portals.  Results 
https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html  To  note 
turnover are no longer available. 

JRC  and 

the 

147  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. 

148 Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (European Commission). Final report of a fact-finding 
mission  carried  out  in  Italy  from  08  November  2018  to  16  November  2018  in  order  to  gather 
information on the prudent use of antimicrobials in animals. 2019. DG(SANTE) 2018-6371.  

149  Directorate  General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  (European  Commission).  Letter  from  Commissioner 
Kyriakides  to  Italy  regarding  the  Farm  to  Fork  (F2F)  Strategy  on  Sustainable  Food  Systems.  2020. 
Ares(2020)2643693. 

  Directorate  General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  (European  Commission).  Final  report  of  an  audit 
carried out in Italy from 13 November 2017 to 17 November 2017 in order to evaluate Member State 
activities to prevent tail-biting and avoid routine tail-docking of pigs. 2017. DG(SANTE) 2017-6257. 
150 Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development (European Commission). Market dashboard 

on eggs. 2020. 

151  Directorate  General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  (European  Commission).  Letter  from  Commissioner 
Kyriakides  to  Italy  regarding  the  Farm  to  Fork  (F2F)  Strategy  on  Sustainable  Food  Systems.  2020. 
Ares(2020)2643693;  Directorate  General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  (European  Commission).  Final 
report  of  an  audit  carried  out  in  Italy  from  13  November  2017  to  17  November  2017  in  order  to 
evaluate  Member  State  activities  to  prevent  tail-biting  and  avoid  routine  tail-docking  of  pigs.  2017. 
DG(SANTE) 2017-6257. 

152 Istituto Superiore per la protezione e la ricerca ambientale (ISPRA). Indicatori di rischio armonizzato.  
153 EUROSTAT, [aei_fm_salpest09] and [apro_cpsh1]. 
154 Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (European Commission). Final report of a fact-finding 
mission  carried  out  in  Italy  from  03  to  11  May  2017  in  order  to  evaluate  the  implementation  of 
measures to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. DG(SANTE) 2017-6006; Directorate General for 
Health  and  Food  Safety  (European  Commission).  Letter  from  Commissioner  Kyriakides  to  Italy 
regarding the Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy on Sustainable Food Systems. 2020. Ares(2020)2643693. 
155  De  Leo  S.  et  al.  L’Italia  e  la  PAC  post  2020  –  Policy  Brief  9.  OS9:  Migliorare  la  risposta 
dell’agricoltura  dell’UE  alle  esigenze  della  societa  in  materia  di  alimentazione  e  salute,  compresi 
alimenti  sicuri,  nutrienti  e  sostenibili,  sprechi  alimentari  e  benessere  degli  animali.  2019.  pp.  31-35. 
Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

156 EUROSTAT, [hlth_ehis_fv1e]. 
157 Defined as beef, lamb and pork, 123.53 g/per capita/d, net of waste in the EU 2010, GBD study 2017 

and M. Springmann. 

158  De  Leo  S.  et  al.  L’Italia  e  la  PAC  post  2020  –  Policy  Brief  9.  OS9:  Migliorare  la  risposta 
dell’agricoltura  dell’UE  alle  esigenze  della  societa  in  materia  di  alimentazione  e  salute,  compresi 
alimenti  sicuri,  nutrienti  e  sostenibili,  sprechi  alimentari  e  benessere  degli  animali.  2019.  pp.  31-35. 
Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

159  Trisorio A. e Lauricella P.. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief 6. OS6: Contribuire alla tutela 
della  biodiversità,  rafforzare  i  servizi  ecosistemici  e  preservare  gli  habitat  e  il  paesaggio.  2019. 
Appendice, pp. 47-50. Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

160 EU SCAR AKIS. Preparing for future AKIS in Europe. 2019. 
161 De Leo S. et al. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief. OS: Promuovere e condividere conoscenze, 
innovazione e processi di digitalizzazione nell’agricolture e nelle aree rurali promuovendone l’utilizzo, 
2019.  Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

162 De Leo S. et al. L’Italia e la PAC post 2020 – Policy Brief. OS: Promuovere e condividere conoscenze, 
innovazione e processi di digitalizzazione nell’agricolture e nelle aree rurali promuovendone l’utilizzo. 
2019.  Study performed for the Rete Rurale Nazionale 2014-2020. 

163 Some examples are found on Innovarurale, InnovaInAzione – Notizie ed Eventi. 
164 Member State notifications to the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. 

36 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
Innovarurale. PEI-AGRI. Il contatore dei GO. consulted in August 2020. 

165 Member State notifications to the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. August 

2020. 

166 Member State notifications to the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development.  August 

2020. 

167 Testo coordinato del Decreto-legge 13 agosto 2011, n. 138  (in Gazzetta Ufficiale  - serie generale - n. 
188 del 13 agosto 2011), art. 3 (5); Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 7 agosto 2012 n.137, art. 7;  
  Consiglio  dell’Ordine  Nazionale  dei  dottori  Agronomi  e  dei  Dottori  Forestali,  Regolamento  CONAF 
3/2013;  Consiglio  del  Collegio  Nazionale  dei  Periti  Agrari  e  dei  Periti  Agrari  Laureati,  Regolamento 
della Formazione Continua del Perito Agrario e del Perito Agrario Laureato. 

168  Measure  2  of  Rural  Development  Programmes  in  the  programming  period  2014-2020 is  dedicated  to 
helping farmers benefit from advisory services (2.1), to the setting up of farm management, farm relief 
& farm advisory services as well as forestry advisory services (2.2) and to the training of advisors (2.3). 
169 Member State notifications to the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, August 

2020. 

170  European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  -  Data  explorer:  CAP  Output  indicator  OIR_14  Number  of 

advisors trained.   

171  Some  examples  can  be  found  in  CONAF.  Sistema  Informativo  dei  Dottori  Agronomi  e  dei  Dottori 

Forestali. Visualizzazione eventi formativi del Catalogo CONAF. 2020. 

172  As  EU  level  evaluations  highlighted  (evaluation  on  water  and  evaluation  on  habitats,  landscape  and 
biodiversity),  the  uptake  of  environmental  practices  and  farmers’  awareness  on  climate  change  and 
environment  is  strongly  dependent  on  targeted  training  and  advice  on  such  themes,  which  may  be 
missing  in  the  Italian  context.  Furthermore,  flows  of  knowledge  and  innovation  at  any  AKIS  level 
foster the uptake of new technologies and digital innovations, which are crucial for Italian farms to be 
competitive in the European landscape. 

173  The  farm  economic  size  is  defined  on  the  basis  of  the  total  farm’s  standard  output.  More  details  are 
found  in  ISTAT.  6°  Censimento  Generale  dell’Agricoltura.  Caratteristiche  tipologiche  delle  aziende 
agricole. 2013. 

174  ISTAT,  Dataset:  Struttura  delle  aziende  agricole.  Tipo  di  dato:  Aziende  per  titolo  di  studio  del 

conduttore.  

175  Measure  1  of  Rural  Development  Programmes  in  the  programming  period  2014-2020 is  dedicated  to 
knowledge  transfer  and  information  actions.  In  particular,  it  supports  vocational  training  &  skills 
acquisition actions (1.1), demonstration activities & information actions (1.2) and short-term farm and 
forest management exchange as well as farm and forest visits (1.3). 

176  See endnote 174. 
177 European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. Country Report Italy 2020. SWD(2020) 
511 final. p. 53; European Commission. Recommendation for a Council Recommendation on the 2020 
National  Reform  Programme  of  Italy  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2020  Stability 
Programme of Italy. COM(2020) 512 final. p. 9.  

178  European  Court  of  Auditors.  Opinion  No.  6/2020  concerning  the  proposal  for  a  regulation  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Recovery and Resilience Facility. OJ C 350/01. 
20-10-2020. p. 20. 

179  Such  issues  were  already  highlighted  by  ECA  with  regard  to  investments  for  infrastructures  in  rural 
areas  during  the  programming  period  2007-2013  (European  Court  of  Auditors.  Special  Report.  Eu 
support  for  rural  infrastructure:  potential  to  achieve  significatnly  greater  value  for  money.  2016. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union). 

  Over the course of the programming period 2014-2020, external evaluators still observed similar cases. 
As  an  example,  the  evaluation  report  of  the  RDP  Lazio  mentions  that  operations  4.1.3  and  4.2.2, 
incentivising investments meant to improve energy efficiency, did not attract as many beneficiaries as 
expected,  most  likely  because  of  an  overlap  with  other  policies  (COGEA  Consulenti  per  la  Gestione 
Aziendale.  Servizio  di  valutazione  indipendente  del  Programma  di  Sviluppo  Rurale  2014-2020  del 
Lazio.  Rapporto  Annuale  di  Valutazione.  2020.  p.  74).  One  of  the  evaluation  reports  of  the  RDP 
Lombardia,  instead,  highlights  a  low  level  of  participation  in  measures  incentivising  renewable 
energies,  due  to  two  reasons:  the  absence  of  tariff  concessions  in  the  framework  of  a  more  general 
national  energy  strategy  and  a  legislative  gap  with  regard  to  the  production  and  distribution  of 
biomethane  by  livestock  farms  (Agriconsulting.  Servizio  di  Valutazione  del  Programma  di  Sviluppo 
Rurale 2014-2020 di Regione Lombardia a valere sul Fondo Europeo Agricolo per lo Sviluppo Rurale 
(FEASR). Relazione Annuale di Valutazione al 2017. 2018. p. 12).  

37 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
 
180 European Court of Auditors.  Special Report 04/2020. Using new imaging technologies to monitor the 
Common  Agricultural  Policy:  steady  progress  overall,  but  slower  for  climate  and  environment 
monitoring. 2020. 

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

(NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc]. 

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

(NGA) coverage. 

183 European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  Regions.  Connectivity  for  a 
competitive Digital Single Market – Towards a European Gigabit Society. COM(2016) 587 final. 

184  Italy,  Presidency  of  the  Council  of  Ministers.  Strategia  italiana  per  la  banda  ultralarga.  Piano  di 
investimenti per la diffusione della banda ultralarga. 2015.  The Italian rural-urban digital divide and 
the consequent poor access to basic services in rural areas leading to depopulation are also highlighted 
in  the  Commission  2020  Country  Specific  Recommendations  to  Italy  and  the  2020  Country  Report 
issued in the context of the European Semester exercise. 

185 EUROSTAT, [isoc_sk_dskl_i]. 

38