COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recomendations for Germany'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, Germany, 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) 373 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recomendations for Germany'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) 374 final} - {SWD(2020) 375 final} - {SWD(2020) 376 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GERMANY’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 contribute to the 

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

1.3 

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

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

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake ............................................... 5 

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

2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN GERMANY
 ............................................................................................................................................. 8 

2.1 

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

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation ................................................ 9 

2.3 

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

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

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

2.5 

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

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

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

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas .... 18 

2.8 

2.9 

Promote employment, growth, social inclusion and local development in rural 
areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry ................................... 20 

Improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and 
health, including safe, nutritious and sustainable food, as well as animal 
welfare................................................................................................................... 22 

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation ............. 24 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  GERMANY’S  CAP  STRATEGIC 

PLAN  

In  the  framework  of  the  structured  dialogue  for  the  preparation  of  the  common  agricultural 
policy  (CAP)  strategic  plan,  this  document  contains  the  recommendations  for  the  CAP 
strategic plan of Germany. The recommendations are based on analysis of the state of play, 
the needs and the priorities for agriculture and rural areas in Germany. The recommendations 
address  the  specific  economic,  environmental  and  social  objectives  of  the  future  CAP,  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 Germany, 
in its CAP strategic plan, to set explicit national values for the Green Deal targets1 taking into 
account its specific situation and these recommendations. 

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

security 

Germany  is  the  second  largest  agricultural  producer  in  the  EU.  The  agricultural  sector  is 
highly  specialised,  with  the  focus  on  livestock  production  and  arable  crops.  It  is  market-
oriented and is a large exporter of meat, dairy and cereal products. Nevertheless, the shift to a 
sustainable  food  system  presents  both  significant  economic  opportunities  as  well  as 
challenges  for  German  farmers.  Agricultural  productivity  has  been  lagging  behind  the  EU 
average, also due to increasing capital intensity. Income in the farming sector remains below 
the  country’s  average  income.  Livestock  and  arable  crops  in  particular  experience 
considerable  income  fluctuations.  The  CAP  payments  therefore  play  an  important 
safeguarding role. Against this background, improving the fairness and effectiveness of direct 
payments  and  other  income  support  tools  by  lowering  the  concentration  of  direct  payments 
and  territorial  differences,  especially  for  areas  facing  natural  constraints,  should  be 
encouraged.  Income  support  should  be  better  targeted  towards  smaller  farms  by  increasing 
direct  payments  per  hectare  for  smaller  farms.  Agricultural  income  remains  volatile  despite 
the diverse risk management mechanisms available. More innovative and preventive types of 
solutions  to  manage  production  and  income  risks  in  agriculture  should  therefore  be 
considered.  

In  the  light  of  environmental  challenges  in  Germany,  designing  income  support  to  reward 
environmental  performance  would  be  desirable.  The  food  supply  chain  in  Germany  is 
characterised  by  the  long-standing  practice  of  cooperation  between  primary  producers,  in 
form  of  non-recognised  (predominantly  cooperatives)  as  well  as  recognised  producer 
organisations  (POs).  Despite  the  strong  presence  of  producer  organisations  and  well-
developed  sectoral  coverage,  with  milk,  cereals  and  pig  meat  sectors  as  mostly  represented 
sectors,  the  share  of  value  added  for  primary  producers  in  the  food  supply  chain  remains 
considerably below the EU average. This can be attributed mainly to the high concentration in 
food and beverages manufacturing and especially in retail, and the focus on low food prices, 
particularly compared to its western neighbouring countries. In this respect, the potential for 
increasing  the  value  added  of  agricultural  products  through  quality  schemes  and  regionally 
produced food should be harnessed, in particular in view of increasing consumer demand for 
organic, plant-based, genetically modified (GM)-free and animal friendly produced food. 

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 

 
 
                                                           
1.2  Bolster environmental care and climate action contribute to the environmental 

and climate-related objectives of the Union 

On  environmental  performance,  the  opportunities  for  Germany’s  agricultural  sector  vary 
depending on the part of the country. Some Länder, especially in the north-west and south-
east,  have  high  livestock  density  and  land  use  intensification,  which  significantly  affect 
ecosystems and imply certain climate change vulnerabilities. This is particularly reflected in 
continuously high levels of nutrient surplus (nitrogen and phosphorous) in water bodies and 
ammonia  emissions  to  the  air.  On  water  quality,  not  all  water  bodies  have  achieved  good 
status  yet  and  agriculture  is  the  most  significant  pressure.  Better  integration  of  the  water 
objectives of the Water Framework Directive into agriculture is needed and synergies should 
be optimised with policies including the CAP. Germany has recently taken steps to strengthen 
its national rules on the use of fertilisers, but putting these new rules into practice will be a 
challenge  in  the  coming  years.  For  ammonia  and  methane  emissions,  despite  the  slight 
decrease in emissions since 2015 following several  years of increase, more effective efforts 
are still needed to meet  the ammonia emission reduction commitments for 2020-2029 (high 
risk of non-compliance). Such efforts should include adapting and upgrading manure storage 
and application systems and animal housing, in line with higher animal welfare standards and 
with the methane strategy.  

The  risk  of  water  and  wind  erosion  in  arable  land  remains  an  issue  mainly  in  uplands, 
especially in Bayern, Baden-Württemberg, Sachsen, Rheinland-Pfalz and Saarland, as well as 
in  the  North  German  lowlands  and  in  coastal  areas  of  the  North  Sea  and  the  Baltic  Sea. 
Remedial  practices  such  as  catch  crops,  under  sown  crops  and  minimum  tillage  should  be 
encouraged in addition to mandatory requirements.  

As  a  result  of  climate  change  (extreme  event  such  as  drought),  a  negative  effective  water 
balance and negative effects on groundwater recharge are projected for some regions like the 
northern  parts  of  Germany,  and  in  the  south  west.  Key  actions  for  more  climate-resilient 
agriculture  include  in  particular  farm  resilience  plans  and  drought  resilience  plans. 
Furthermore, in the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, greenhouse gas 
(GHG) emissions from cropland show an increasing trend, while grassland GHG emissions, 
despite  a  decreasing  trend,  remain  the  highest  in  the  EU.  Therefore,  more  sustainable 
management of arable land and low-intensity management of permanent grassland should be 
promoted,  also  to  protect  farmland  related  habitats  and  species.  Carbon  farming  and 
agroforestry to increase carbon stocks could be developed for suitable regions. Forests remain 
the  biggest  sink  in  the  LULUCF  sector,  although  the  carbon  storage  capacity  has  been 
decreasing  due  to  ageing  tree  stock  and  increased  mobilisation  due  to  excessive  damages. 
Sustainable  and  climate-resilient  forest  management  and  restoration  is  therefore  needed  to 
maintain  a  strong  carbon  sink  and  ecosystem  services.  Key  measures  for  climate  resilient 
forests  include  i)  the  creation  of  a  forest  climate  fund  (‘Waldklimafonds’);  ii)  more 
sustainable  and  adapted  forest  management;  iii)  integration  in  regional  forest  management 
regulations;  and  iv)  actions,  and  research  and  information  platforms.  A  vast  portion  of 
peatland and wetland, which covers a sizeable area in Germany, was drained in the past also 
for farming, which turned it into  a GHG emitter instead of a carbon sink.  Maintenance and 
restoration of peatland and wetland for their carbon sequestration potential will therefore be 
crucial  in  the  future.  In  terms  of  renewable  energy  production  from  agriculture,  Germany 
needs to strike a better balance between the objective of increasing the share of renewables in 
energy  consumption  and  the  share  of  agricultural  area  under  energy  crops,  as  it  can  often 
cause further land intensification and biodiversity loss. Therefore, rebalancing the production 
of  renewable  energy  from  crops  to  fuelwood,  wood  residues  and  by-products  should  be 
considered. 

3 

 
 
The decline of protected habitats  and species associated with  agricultural land has not  been 
reversed  or  halted  in  Germany.  In  particular,  90  %  of  grassland  habitats  are  in  less  than 
favourable state of conservation, with further deterioration. Moreover, the share of landscape 
features and fallow land is very marginal. Great efforts by the agricultural sector and adequate 
financial input will therefore be needed to achieve at least 10% of agricultural area under high 
diversity  and  reverse  deterioration  in  conservation  trends  in  biodiversity.  Maintenance  or 
restoration of the favourable conservation status of protected habitats and species identified in 
the prioritised action framework as well as in the EU and national species and habitats action 
plans should be ensured. Appropriate action should be taken to respond to the high demand of 
civil society to protect pollinators in Germany, also in light of the EU pollinators initiative. 
To meet the EU 2030 target of 25% of agricultural area under organic farming, Germany will 
need to boost the uptake rate, in particular by setting appropriate strategies at Länder level, as 
some have been lagging behind in their ambition. This should include identifying potential in 
local  organic  food  production  and  food  chain  structures  that  should  be  further  strengthened 
and developed.  

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

concerns 

The  transition  towards  a  green  and  modern  agricultural  sector,  as  envisaged  in  the  Farm  to 
Fork  Strategy,  requires  addressing  one  of  the  biggest  social  challenge  facing  European 
agriculture:  generational  renewal.  Farm succession patterns in  Germany  change,  away  from 
family  business  inheritance  to  selling  it  off  to  third  parties.  Most  businesses  (70%)  suffer 
from  uncertainty  about  succession.  This  often  leads  to  underinvestment  on  holdings, 
especially small farms, efficiency loss and delayed succession.  

Overall,  German  agricultural  demographics  shows  a  positive  trend  as  the  share  of  young 
farmers has increased since 2010, while the EU has experienced a downward trend. However, 
there  are  regional  differences  in  the  share  of  young  farmers.  Improving  the  succession  of 
farms,  while  addressing  the  unfavourable  gender  balance  among  young  farmers,  critically 
hinges  on  adequate  access  to  finance,  sustainable  business  models  and  knowledge,  which 
facilitate informed investments. It is also intrinsically linked to favourable prospects allowing 
people  to  stay  and  live  well  in  rural  areas.  These  prospects  are  called  into  question  by 
phenomena linked to ageing and depopulation, such as a very strong old age dependency ratio 
in large parts of eastern Germany (among others) and projected negative demographic trends 
for a large part of Germany until 2032. This might be due among others to the large urban-
rural  gap  in  gross  domestic  product  (GDP)  per  capita  and  specific  challenges,  which  often 
exist  for  certain  vulnerable  parts  of  the  society.  This  holds  in  particular  for  female 
participation  in  rural  and  farm  employment  (the  gender  gap  in  rural  employment  is  8 
percentage points (pp) and the proportion of female farmers is one of the lowest in the EU), 
and the educational situation of the younger generation in rural areas (Germany ranks in the 
upper middle field among EU Member States on early school leavers in rural areas,). Careful 
consideration of the specific needs of women in agriculture and rural areas is needed in order 
to  deliver  on  gender  equality.  Addressing  the  specific  needs  of  these  areas  will  require 
investments  into  both  physical  and  human  capital,  underpinned  by  adequate  financial 
resources and particular attention to those territories and stakeholders most in needs. At the 
same  time,  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.  This  is  an  essential  element  of  the  fair  EU  food  system 
envisaged in the Farm to Fork Strategy.  

The  Strategy  also  aims  to  contribute  to  sustainable  EU  food  systems.  This  implies  among 
others  prioritising  a  stronger  shift  towards  consumer  preferences  in  areas  such  as  quality 

4 

 
 
production, more balanced diets and health. German production pattern is very dependent on 
the  use  of  inputs  like  pesticides.  Their  global  sale  stays  stable.  Effective  controls  on  the 
implementation  of integrated pest  management are still lacking, whilst  the Biodiversity  and 
Farm to Fork Strategies ask for action to reduce by 50% the overall use of – and risk from – 
chemical  pesticides  by  2030  and  reduce  by  50%  the  use  of  more  hazardous  pesticides  by 
2030.  While  Germany  has  made  significant  efforts  to  reduce  antimicrobials  in  animal 
production, some measures need to  continue to  be implemented to  achieve the EU Farm to 
Fork objective. In addition, breeding conditions need to be further improved in some animal 
sectors,  such  as  pig  and  poultry  as  well  as  dairy  production  in  order  to  alleviate  animal 
welfare  concerns.  Germany  should  also  make  an  effort  to  shift  towards  healthier,  more 
environmentally sustainable diets.  

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

digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

Knowledge  and  innovation  have  a  key  role  to  play  in  helping  the  farmers  and  rural 
communities  meet  the  present  and  future  challenges.  The  agricultural  knowledge  and 
innovation system (AKIS) should facilitate knowledge flows between its actors to respond to 
the  growing  information  needs  of  farmers,  to  speed  up  innovation  and  to  increase  the 
valorisation of existing knowledge in order to achieve the CAP objectives. The German AKIS 
is among the ‘strongest’ in the EU (high resource allocation). However, knowledge networks 
do  not  cooperate  enough  with  each  other,  and  the  lack  of  overall  coordination  leads  to 
‘fragmentation’  of  actions  and  services  provided.  Germany  has  set  up  a  well  working 
European  Innovation  Partnership  (EIP)  network,  and  some  Länder  have  already  achieved 
good  results  with  their  EIP  operational  groups  (OGs).  As  the  competence  for  advisory 
services  lies  with  the  Länder,  different  organisational  structures  and  horizontal  knowledge 
flows  have  emerged.  An  overall  reinforced  coordination  could  help  structure  knowledge 
flows within Germany and also across borders. It is therefore important to further strengthen 
AKIS coordination and horizontal knowledge flows between research and practice as well as 
ensure  efficient  networking  of  advisors  in  the  knowledge  system  and  investing  in  their 
training and skills, especially for private advisors. Advisors should also be supported in their 
role  as  efficient  ‘innovation  support  services’.  The  downward  trend  in  total  factor 
productivity  in  Germany  could  be  slowed  by  promoting  cooperation  and  sharing  of 
knowledge and innovation, as well as helping find practical solutions for farmers to address 
environmental,  climate  and  biodiversity-related  challenges.  The  digital  transition  of  the 
farming sector in Germany should be continued by making large-scale training efforts and by 
exploiting the EU’s technological lead in satellite observation, precision farming, geolocation 
services, autonomous farm machinery and drones to better monitor and optimise agricultural 
production  processes.  Digital  transition  for  the  farming  sector  as  well  as  businesses  and 
private  and  public  services  in  rural  areas  will  also  require  flawless  coverage  of  fast  digital 
infrastructure  across  the  country.  In  terms  of  fast  broadband  accessibility  in  rural  areas, 
Germany still has a considerable gap to fill.  

1.5  Recommendations 

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

5 

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

  Improve the resilience and viability of farms by better targeting the income support 
on  smaller  and  medium-sized  farms  and  farms  located  in  areas  facing  natural 
constraints,  by  using,  for example, the complementary  redistributive income support 
for sustainability and the reduction of payments. 

  Strengthen the competitiveness  of the agricultural  sector by targeting investment 
interventions  towards  more  sustainable  solutions  for  future  food  markets  as  well  as 
promoting cooperation and sharing of knowledge, information and innovation. 

  Increase  the  value  added  captured  by  primary  producers  in  the  food  supply 
chain  through  targeted  actions  available  under  both  CAP  pillars  by  increasing  the 
value added of agricultural products, in particular through quality schemes as well as 
local and regional value chains. 

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

  Halt and reverse the deterioration in conservation status of all protected habitats 
and  species  depending  on  agriculture  through  an  appropriate  blend  of  obligations 
under  conditionality  and 
interventions,  such  as  result-based  and  collective 
commitments,  by  ensuring  connectivity  among  selected  habitats  and  increasing  the 
presence  of  high-diversity,  non-productive  landscape  features  in  farmland,  thus 
contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  high  diversity  landscape  features. 
Special  attention  should  be  given  to  the  preservation  of  farmland  birds  and  wild 
pollinators.  

  Contribute  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  organic  farming  by  enhancing  the 
currently increasing trend of areas under organic farming through adequate conversion 
and maintenance schemes. 

  Alleviate the strong pressures from agriculture on natural resources, especially in 
the  livestock  and  intensive  production  sectors,  by  promoting  low-emission  systems 
and techniques for  achieving efficient ammonia  emission reductions,  and facilitating 
innovative  farming  practices  and  more  extensive  land  management  (reduced  and 
improved fertiliser application, creation of large vegetalised buffer strips along water 
courses  and  application  of catch  crops) to  prevent  soil erosion and to  further  reduce 
the nutrient surplus in synergy with Nitrates legislation, thus contributing to the EU 
Green  Deal  target  on  nutrient  losses  and  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Water 
Framework Directive.  

  Foster climate change mitigation by promoting less intensive management of arable 
land to increase carbon sequestration and of permanent grassland for carbon storage as 
well as protection of carbon-rich soils through rewetting and restoration of peatlands 
and  wetlands.  Reduction  of  GHG  emissions  from  agriculture,  particularly  methane 
emissions,  should  be  promoted.  Preservation  of  tree  stocks  and  increase  of  carbon 
sinks in forests should be enhanced, as well as the multifunctional forest management 
that makes the most of all the ecological services provided by forests. 

  Adapt agriculture and forestry to projected climate change through an appropriate 
combination of agricultural and silvicultural practices. Actions to decrease the impacts 
of extreme weather events, and further strengthen water efficiency in farming as well 

6 

 
 
as invest in flood prevention and protection should be facilitated in affected regions. 
Restoration  of  forests  in  order  to  build  resilience  to  climate-related  threats  and 
reconnect healthy and biodiverse forests should be accelerated. 

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

  Contribute  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  reducing  the  use  and  risk  of 
pesticides  by  promoting  best  practices,  giving  priority  to  non-chemical  pest 
management practices, and ensuring the uptake of Integrated Pest Management by all 
professional users of pesticides, and by phasing out high-risk pesticide use. 

  Contribute to  the EU  Green  Deal  target on  reducing the sale of antimicrobials. 
Whilst  its  sales  of  antimicrobials  are  below  the  EU  average,  Germany  should 
continue  to  implement  measures  to  reduce  the  use  of  antimicrobials  in  farming,  for 
example by integrating targets into concrete and more ambitious CAP actions.  

  Promote  higher  levels  of  animal  welfare  by  putting  in  place  more  ambitious 
measures  to  support  farmers  in  improving  their  livestock  management  practices, 
especially as regards the welfare of pigs. 

  Counter  phenomena  of  ageing  and  depopulation  by  enhancing  the  economic 
attractiveness  of  rural  areas,  compared  to  urban  areas,  and  by  addressing  specific 
difficulties of vulnerable groups, including via targeted investments into the business 
environment and human capital. In doing so, it will be important to ensure synergies 
with other EU and national funds. 

Foster and share of knowledge, innovation and digitalisation in agriculture and rural areas, 
and encourage their uptake 

  Contribute  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  broadband  by  timely  ensuring  fast 
digital  infrastructure  coverage  across  the  country  in  order  to  unlock  the  potential  of 
digital transition in rural economies and in the farming sector. In this respect, it will be 
important to ensure synergies with other EU and national funds. 

 

Invest in AKIS coordination and horizontal knowledge flows between research and 
practice  and  in  efficient  networking  of  advisors  in  the  knowledge  system,  in 
particular for private advisors, as well as in advisors’ training and skills. 

7 

 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN GERMANY 

German  agriculture  is  very  diverse  across  16  Länder  in  terms  of  farm  structure  as  well  as 
natural  conditions  for  farming.  There  is  a  north-south  disparity  in  farm  sizes.  Small-scale 
structures are mainly found in the south of Germany. More than 80% of farms are specialised, 
whereof  around  two  thirds  are  specialised  in  livestock  production.  In  Germany,  rural  and 
intermediate  areas  cover  almost  90%  of  the  territory,  where  almost  60%  of  German 
population  live,  however  with  considerable  differences  between  the  Länder.  Rural  areas  in 
Germany  accommodate  the  vast  majority  of  small  and  medium-sized  economy  and  ensure 
food security as well as offer space for quality living, nature and tourism. 

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

food security 

In Germany, the agricultural income is about 52% of the average wage of the economy, with 
substantial  variations  between  2005  and  2019.  In  the  more  recent  period  (2015-2019),  the 
share  tends  to  be  lower  than  before  (2011-2014),  due  to  a  decrease  in  farm  entrepreneurial 
income.1 

The agricultural factor income fluctuates over the time, as well. It fell down in 2009 and 2015 
and picked up in 2013 and 2017. Direct payments form approximately 40% of the income and 
payments under rural development are around 6%. In the period from 2015 to 2018, 20% of 
the beneficiaries farmed about 71% of the land and received 69% of the direct payments. 

The factor income increases with farm physical size from 20 up to 200 hectares and fluctuates 
beyond, while the direct payment per hectare decreases constantly. The average unit support 
for  farms  below  average  size  is  110%  of  the  total  average  unit  amount  in  Germany. 
Concerning  the  economic  size,  the  income  also  increases  whereas  the  direct  payment  per 
hectare decreases. However, important differences in income by farm size persist. As regards 
sectors,  the  income  shows  highest  values  for  cereals,  oilseeds  and  protein  crop  farms  and 
granivores, however with deviations between the years. The lowest income, though in upward 
trend,  is  for  horticulture,  fruits,  permanent  crops  and  cattle,  which  are  mainly  smaller  size 
farms.  The  cattle  sector  presents  the  highest  share  of  income  support  in  the  income.  The 
average  direct  payment  per  hectare  varies  only  modesty  between  sectors  despite  the 
differences in the income level.2  

The  factor  income  is  lower  in  areas  facing  natural  constraints  (ANC)  (ca.  77%  of  the  non-
ANC).  In  these  areas,  the  total  share  of  operating  subsidies  (direct  payments  and  rural 
development  support  excluding  investment  support)  and  the  total  payment  per  hectare  are 
considerably higher than the country average. Difference in the share of direct payments exist 
between the Länder, where the Land with the lowest income show the highest share of direct 
payments,  while  the  direct  payment  per  hectare  varies  moderately  between  the  Länder.3 
Those  results  illustrate  the  moderate  differentiation  of  the  unit  amount  given  the  still  high 
income differences between categories.  

8 

 
 
In  Germany,  the  income  is  volatile  and  a  variety  of  different  risk  management  instruments 
exist  covering  climate,  veterinary  and  income  risks  with  high  level  of  uptake:  private  crop 
insurance  (75%  for  hail;  5%  for  multi-peril)  and  contractual  price  agreements  (50%), 
nationally  funded  animal  health  funds  (50%)  and  state  aid  (income  taxation).  The  risk 
management  tools  that  exist  under  rural  development  support  are  currently  not  used  in 
Germany  due  to  limited  amount  of  available  funding  as  well  as  preferences  for  market-
orientated mechanisms or for already existing instruments.4  

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

Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms  
Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy  
Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy – EU-27 

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

2.2  Enhance  market  orientation  and  increase  competitiveness  including  greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

Germany has a  market-oriented agriculture,  with  certain  sectors very much export-oriented, 
especially  in  meat,  dairy  and  cereal  products.  Although  Germany  is  the  second  largest 
agricultural producer in the EU, it is a net importer of agri-food. Between 2008 and 2018, the 
deficit  increased  from  EUR  8.7  billion  to  EUR  15.3  billion5,  mainly  intra-EU  for  primary 
products like fruit and vegetables and piglets for pork production.  

Between  2005  and  2016,  the  total  number  of  farms  declined  by  30%  from  390 000  to 
276 000;  the  agricultural  area  declined  from  17.0  million  hectares  to  16.7  million  hectares; 
and  the  average  farm  size  increased  from  44  to  60  hectares,  which  is  well  above  the  EU 
average  of  15  hectares.  The  number  of  livestock  units  remained  stable.  This  decline  in 
number of farms is experienced in most of the sectors, together with a growth in average size, 
as  the  smaller  farms  with  little  perspective  tend  to  stop.  The  decline  in  number  of  farms  is 
below the EU-27 average6. 

Germany  is  the  largest  EU  milk  producer  (22%  of  total  EU  production  in  2018).  In  2008-
2018,  the  milk  production  has  been  growing  at  a  comparable  rate  to  Denmark  and  the 
Netherlands  (1.4%  p.a.).  The  milk  yield  reached  8 000  kg  per  cow  in  2018,  almost  1 000 
above the EU average. Between 2005 and 2016, the average size of German dairy farm grew 
from 54 to 71 cows (52 being EU-28 average)7. 

9 

 
 
Germany  is  also  the  largest  producer  of  both  non-GM  and  organic  milk  in  absolute  terms, 
even though only 3% of the German milk is organic, which is comparable with France and 
the  Netherlands,  but  well  below  Austria  and  the  Scandinavian  countries  (9-16%).  In 
Germany, there is an increasing consumer demand for GM-free, plant-based, animal friendly 
produced and organic food.  

Germany is the second biggest producer of arable crops (cereals, oilseeds, sugar beet) in the 
EU. It represents 15% of the total EU gross production. While Germany is self-sufficient in 
soft wheat and barley, it needs to import maize as well as rapeseed and soya beans to satisfy 
their domestic demand. Germany is heavily relying on intra-EU partners for their maize and 
rapeseed  imports  but  on  extra-EU  for  soya  beans.  Germany  benefits  from  a  competitive 
advantage  on  yields  for  certain  commodities:  respectively  the  fifth  and  fourth  highest  yield 
for  soft  wheat  and  barley,  and  fourth  highest  in  rapeseed  (average  2009-2019),  but  the 
production of rapeseed is declining8. 

The production of fruit and vegetables is subject to a major structural change, which is even 
more  intense  in  vegetable  production  than  in  fruit  production9.  The  trend  is  towards  more 
specialised farms with larger areas. In vegetable production, there is a significant increase in 
the area under cultivation, which leads to a significant increase in production.  

Since  2014,  the  total  factor  productivity  is  declining.  While,  on  the  one  hand,  the  labour 
productivity improved as the labour input decreased by 18%10 between 2005 and 2017, on the 
other  hand,  the  capital  productivity  decreased  by  20%  as  farms  got  more  capital  intensive, 
partly  caused  by  increased  investments  in  sustainability.  The  gross  fixed  capital  in  German 
agriculture grew by 50% from EUR 6.1 billion in 2005 to EUR 9.4 billion in 201711. German 
horticulture  for  harvesting  and  food  processing  is  relying  to  certain  extent  on  migrant 
workers, as  the  gross value added (GVA) per  employee is  with  EUR 46 600 below the  EU 
average (EUR 48 000).  

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

Total factor productivity 
Total factor productivity 
Land productivity 
Land productivity 

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

TFP EU-27 

Labour productivity 

Capital productivity 

2.3 

Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

Germany has a longstanding practice of cooperation of primary producers. The most common 
form  of  cooperation  represent  cooperatives  (around  2 400  in  2017).  Less  than  10%  of  the 
cooperatives operate as recognised POs.12 With 693 recognised POs in 2019, which makes up 
for one fifth of all POs in EU-27, Germany ranks second after France.13 Almost half of the 
existing  POs  were  established  before  1990  and  a  quarter  between  1990  and  2000.  The 
majority of POs (60%) has less than 100 members, and less than 10% have more than 1 000 
members. With 16 sectors, Germany has the largest variability of recognised POs as regards 

10 

 
 
the sectorial coverage in the EU.14 Unlike in other Member States, where the vast majority of 
POs  is  recognised  in  the  fruit  &  vegetables  sector,  in  2018  the  highest  number  of  POs  in 
Germany  was  recognised  in  milk  and  milk  products  (194),  followed  by  cereals  (160),  pig 
meat (101), and wine sector (90). There were 11 PO associations in 2018, most of them in pig 
meat  (4),  and  milk  and  milk  products  (3),  and  in  2016,  an  interbranch  organisation  in  the 
sugar sector was established.15  

In  terms  of  adding  value  to  agricultural  products,  Germany  had  170  products  under  EU 
quality  schemes  in  September  2020.  This  represents  a  relatively  low  share  (5%)  in  the  EU 
compared to other larger Member States like Italy (27%) and France (23%). Almost half of 
quality products in Germany are wines and spirits, followed by fruit & vegetables and cereals 
and processed meat.16  

In  2018,  Germany  had  the  largest  organic  market  in  Europe,  worth  EUR  10.9  billion.17 
Consumer demand for organic food in Germany continues to rise. In 2019, the market share 
of  organic  food  in  total  food  turnover  in  Germany  was  around  5.7%.18  Based  on  2019 
consumer survey Ökobarometer, almost a half of the respondents say they buy organic  food 
frequently or exclusively, whereas in 2018 it was only 28%. While organic eggs and organic 
fruit and vegetables continue to be consistently demanded by consumers, recently there is an 
increasing demand also for organic bread products and potatoes.19 

According  to  a  2020  representative  survey  on  eating  and  dietary  habits  in  Germany, 
consumers’  preference  for  regionally  produced  food  is  increasing,  also  in  the  light  of  the 
Covid-19 pandemic. More than 80% of consumers surveyed prefer that their food comes from 
their region. The importance of regional origin also depends on the product. The focus lies on 
fresh  products,  mainly  milk,  milk  products  and  eggs,  bread  and  bakery  products  and  fresh 
fruit and vegetables.20 

Between  2008  and  2017,  the  share  of  value  added  in  the  food  supply  chain  captured  by 
primary producers in Germany was on average around 20%, with a drop to 15% in 2009 and 
2015-2016  and  a  slight  recovery  to  18%  in  2017,  which  is  considerably  lower  than  EU 
average of 27%. This is partly because the costs of the intermediate goods and services used 
had increased at a faster rate than the value of the agricultural output. However, the low value 
added  captured  by  primary  producers  in  Germany  can  mainly  be  attributed  to  high 
concentration in food and beverages manufacturing and especially in retail. In 2017, the share 
of  value  added  in  the  food  supply  chain  captured  by  food  and  beverages  manufacturing 
amounted to 29%, by retail 35% and by food and beverages consumer services 17%.21  

Food  industry  is  one  of  the  most  important  industries  in  Germany.  In  2019,  approximately 
6 100 enterprises employed more than 618 000 people, with turnover of EUR 185.3 billion. 
The  majority  are  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises.  The  most  important  sectors  are  meat 
and  meat  processing,  dairy,  confectionery  and  bakery,  and  production  of  alcoholic 
beverages.22  In  2019,  the  four  largest  retail  enterprises  had  a  market  share  of  around  70%. 
The  top-listed  enterprise  alone  had  a  market  share  of  26.8%.23  Food  prices  in  Germany  are 
low  in  comparison  to  its  neighbouring  countries,  such  as  France,  Belgium,  Austria, 
Luxemburg and Denmark.24 

11 

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

Primary producers 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 

Food and beverage distribution 

% for primary producers (right axis) 
% for primary producers – EU-27 
Source: European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Result indicator RPI_03 Value for 
primary producers in the food chain. 

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

energy 

In  2018,  Germany’s  GHG  emissions  from  agriculture  (including  LULUCF  categories 
cropland and grassland) amounted to 96 Mt CO2 equivalent, which presented 21% of EU-27. 
Thus,  Germany  remains  the  biggest  contributor  to  total  GHG  emissions  from  agriculture  in 
the  EU.  Compared  to  1990,  GHG  emissions  from  agriculture  decreased  by  19%,  but  they 
have  roughly  stabilised  over  the  last  two  decades.  The  share  of  agriculture  (including 
LULUCF  categories  cropland  and  grassland)  in  total  German  GHG  emissions  (with 
LULUCF) was 11% in 2018.25 

The main sources of agricultural GHG emissions (without LULUCF categories cropland and 
grassland) in Germany in 2018 were enteric fermentation with 39% (25 Mt CO2 equivalent), 
agricultural  soils  with  39%  (24.6  Mt  CO2  equivalent),  and  manure  management  with  15% 
(9.3 Mt CO2 equivalent). In the three categories, GHG emissions decreased between 14% and 
29%  since  1990  and  between  3%  and  6%  since  2013.  Despite  these  reductions,  with  2.81 
tCO2eq  per  livestock  unit  (LU)  of  ruminants,  emissions  from  enteric  fermentation  slightly 
exceeded  EU-27  average  in  2016  (2.67  tCO2eq  per  LU).  So  did  emissions  from  manure 
management  (0.53  tCO2eq  per  LU  compared  to  0.48  tCO2eq  per  LU  in  EU-27).  GHG 
emissions  from  agricultural  soils,  however,  (1.48  tCO2eq  per  hectare  of  agricultural  land) 
significantly exceeded EU-27 average (0.94 tCO2eq) in 2018.26  

In  the  LULUCF  sector,  net  removals  are  dominated  by  forestland,  with  -67  Mt  CO2 
equivalent in 2018. However, removals from forest showed a decrease by 5.6% compared to 
1990 and by 1.5% compared to 2013.27 This is due to changes in the use of wood and a shift 
in the distribution of age classes of trees with the resulting reduction in tree growth.28 Based 
on 2012 forest inventory, deciduous trees represent 45% of forest trees in German woodland, 
with  beech  covering  15%  and  oak  10%.  Among  coniferous  trees,  spruce  grows  on  26%  of 
forestland and pine on 23%.29 Spruce and pine forests are often monocultures. However, area 
under mixed stocks has been increasing due to conversion of coniferous trees to mixed stocks 
in the past decades.30 In the recent years, German forest has suffered damages due to adverse 
climatic events, such as heat waves, drought, storms, fires, and snow breakage, as well as pest 
infestation.31 In 2018, cropland emissions increased by 27.5% compared to 1990 and by 5.4% 
compared  to  2013.  Although  emissions  in  grassland  in  2018  showed  a  reduction  by  34% 
compared  to  1990  and  by  7%  compared  to  2013,  the  grassland  emissions  reported  by 

12 

 
 
Germany  are  by  far  the  highest  in  EU-27.32  The  share  of  permanent  grassland  in  the  total 
agricultural area has slightly decreased since 2000, from 30% to 28% in 201833.  

In  Germany,  peatlands  are  concentrated  in  the  North  German  low  plain  (78%)  and  in  the 
Alpine foothills (20%). According to 2010 estimations, peatlands covered around 1.4 million 
hectares, out of which approximately 65% were farmed. Overall, it was estimated that  more 
than 90% of all German peatlands were affected by drainage, making it major GHG emitter. 
According to estimations, GHG emissions from drained peatlands produced up to 10%-30% 
of total emissions in northern Germany.34  

The  German  Climate  Action  Programme  203035  sets  the  2030  GHG  emissions  reduction 
targets,  whereby  agriculture  is  to  achieve  a  reduction  in  GHG  emissions  by  34-31%36 
compared to 1990. 

In 2018, total production of renewable energy in Germany amounted to 43 Mt oil equivalent 
(Mtoe). This made up for the largest share in total production of renewable energy in EU-27, 
i.e. 20%. The share of agriculture in total German production of renewable energy was 24.1% 
(12.1% in EU-27) and of forestry 27.2% (41.4 in EU-27).37 In terms of individual renewable 
sources of energy, energy production from fuelwood, wood residues and by-products shows a 
decrease  by  17.3%  between  2013  and  2018,  while  energy  production  from  other  vegetal 
materials  and  residues  shows  an  increase  by  160.7%38.  In  2019,  approximately  2.4  million 
hectares  of  agricultural  land  were  under  energy  crops.  More  than  two  thirds  were  energy 
crops for biogas production, with maize as the main crop.39  

In 2018, the share of  renewable  energy in  gross final  energy  consumption in  Germany was 
16.5%, which is still below its 2020 target of 18%40. Direct use of energy in agriculture and 
forestry  as  well  as  in  food  processing  has  been  increasing.  In  2018,  direct  use  of  energy  in 
agriculture  and  forestry  amounted  to  3.3  Mtoe,  which  represents  1.7%  of  total  final  energy 
consumption  in  Germany,  and  119.1  kgoe  per  hectare  of  agricultural  land  and  forestland. 
Compared  to  2013,  direct  use  of  energy  increased  drastically.  Direct  use  of  energy  in  food 
processing  amounted  to  5.2  Mtoe,  which  presented  2.6%  of  the  total  final  energy 
consumption. Compared to 2013, direct use of energy in food processing increased by 5%.41 

In  2018,  almost  4%  of  agricultural  area  in  Germany  was  under  contracts  contributing  to 
reduction of GHG and ammonia emissions42 and 1% of agricultural area and forestland was 
under contracts contributing to carbon conservation and sequestration43. 

In terms of vulnerability to the effects of climate change, the effects of gradual temperature 
change  vary  for  different  crops.  They  could  lead  to  yield  increase  for  crops  such  as  grain 
maize  or  rape,  and  to  yield  decrease  for  winter  wheat  or  silo  maize.  Warmer  temperatures 
could lead to an early pest infestation or to several generations of pests per season. Growing 
heat  stress  and  vector  borne  disease  risks  are  also  expected  for  livestock.  A  negative  water 
balance  is  expected  for  some  regions.  Damages  due  to  droughts  are  expected  for  the 
continental region, e.g. North-Eastern part with its sandy soils, and extreme temperatures in 
the  South-West.  Regarding  forests,  impacts  are  mainly  expected  due  to  lower  water 
availability,  heat  stress,  pests,  and  risk  of  forest  fires.  Forest  fires  are  projected  to  increase 
substantially,  by  up  to  50%  in  the  long  term.44  In  view  of  this  scenario,  the  importance  of 
species-rich  forests,  climate-resilient  species  and  provenances  (where  it  is  possible 
autochthonous) will grow as a way to address these challenges.  

13 

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

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

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

2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air 

In Germany, the risk of soil erosion both by water and by wind is still limited compared with 
other Member States. With 1.4%, the share of agricultural area at risk of soil erosion by water 
was clearly below the EU-27 average of 7% in 2016.45 Nevertheless, erosion phenomenon is 
more prominent sub-regionally. The risk of water erosion in arable land is present in hills and 
mountain  areas,  like  Bavarian  tertiary  hills,  Erzgebirge,  Kraichgau,  and  hills  between 
Rheinland-Pfalz and Saarland46, while potential risk of wind erosion is especially present in 
the North German lowlands and in coastal areas of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea47. The 
risk  of  soil  erosion  in  arable  land  can  be  reduced  through  remedial  actions  such  as  catch 
crops,  under  sown  crops  and  minimum  tillage  (57%  of  tillable  agricultural  land  was  tilled 
conventionally  in  201648).  The  mean  soil  organic  carbon  (SOC)  content  in  arable  land  of 
Germany is 30.1 g/kg, which is below the mean EU49. The impact of soil improving measures 
may  be  increased  by  research,  innovation  and  demonstration  activities  available  under  the 
forthcoming Horizon Europe Mission on soil health. 

In relation to the Water Framework Directive, around 90% of surface water bodies are failing 
to  achieve  good  ecological  status  and  all  surface  water  bodies  are  failing  to  achieve  good 
chemical  status.  For  groundwater,  around  4%  were  failing  good  quantitative  status  and 
around  36%  were  failing  good  chemical  status.  Diffuse  agriculture  pollution  is  the  most 
significant  pressure  on  both  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  with  nitrate  being  the  top 
pollutant causing failure to achieve good chemical status in groundwater.  

The surplus of nutrients is still very high, especially nitrogen values are largely above the EU 
average (more than 75 kg/ha/year + 54% compared with EU average in 2015), despite some 
improvements  with  regard  to  phosphorous  (the  same  trends  as  EU  average).  In  2017,  only 
25% of surface water was classified as high quality (less than 2 mg/l NO3-N), while 63% of 
groundwater  was  considered  as  high  quality  (less  than  25  mg/l  NO3).  Still,  28%  of 
groundwater  in  agricultural  areas  are  above  the  limit  value  established  in  the  Nitrates 
Directive of 50 mg/l NO3. This situation has not improved in comparison with 2012.50 Of all 
the  Member  States,  Germany  has  the  second-highest  number  of  monitoring  stations  with 
average  nitrate  levels  exceeding  50  mg/l51.  There  is  a  strong  correlation  between  regional 
animal density and hot spots where water pollution has been identified. Following a ruling of 
the Court of Justice of the European Union in June 2018, Germany has reinforced measures 
14 

 
 
to  reduce  and prevent pollution of water caused by  nitrates from agriculture  gradually. The 
last update of the national fertiliser legislation was published on 1 May 2020. Germany needs 
to  correctly  identify  the  polluted  areas  on  which  reinforced  measures  to  reduce  nutrient 
pollution should apply.  

In 2015, none of the water bodies of the transitional and coastal waters in the North Sea and 
the Baltic Sea was in good or very good status. In the North Sea, 51.7% of water bodies were 
in moderate, 34.5% in poor and 13.8% in bad status, while in the Baltic Sea the situation is 
much more dire. There, one third of water bodies is in moderate, one third in poor and one-
third  in  bad  status.  The  main  reason  is  the  excessive  flow  of  nutrients  into  coastal  and 
transitional  waters  (eutrophication).  These  come  mainly  from  agriculture,  wastewater 
treatment plants and shipping.52 

+)  in 
As  regards  water  quantity,  based  on  the  new  indicator  water  exploitation  index  (WEI 
2018, there was no situation of over abstraction in all water catchment areas (all indexes on 
extraction represent a share lower than the limit of 20% of available water as established by 
EEA),  except  in  Weser.  Irrigation  concerns  only  some  arable  land  in  few  regions.  In  2016, 
only 2.7% of total agricultural area were irrigated in Germany.53 

Among  different  non-CO2  air  pollutant  sources,  agriculture  is  the  main  source  of  ammonia 
emissions  in  Germany  (95%).  Between  2005  and  2016,  ammonia  emissions  have  increased 
by more than 8%, reaching 675 kt  in  2016. The 2018 figures show an improvement, as the 
total emissions value has fallen to 636 kt. The livestock sector is the main contributor to these 
ammonia  emissions  (75%).54  Progress  so  far  has  been  insufficient  and  Germany  has  been 
found  to  be  at  high  risk  of  non-compliance  with  the  ammonia  emission  reduction 
commitments  for  2020-2029  and  at  medium  risk  of  non-compliance  with  the  emission 
reduction  commitment  for  2030  onwards.  On  the  regional  level,  the  emission  density  (g 
NH3/ha  agricultural  area)  in  2010  was  the  highest  in  Nordrhein-Westfalen  and  in 
Niedersachsen. One source of pressure is the livestock density, which grew by 3.5% in 2012-
2015  compared  with  2008-2011.  Beyond  ammonia  air  pollution,  almost  13%  of  the  total 
reported  emissions  of  nitrogen  oxides,  29%  of  the  total  reported  emissions  of  non-methane 
volatile organic compounds and 9% of the total fine particulate matter emissions in Germany 
come from agricultural sources. 

Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Germany 

Kg P/ha/year 

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

EU-27 GNB for Nitrogen 

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

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

15 

 
 
 
Livestock units per 100 hectares of agricultural area 
in 2010 

Groundwater bodies in bad chemical 
status due to nitrate concentration 

˂=30 

>30 to 60 

>60 to 90 

>90 to 120 

>120 to 150 

>150 

Source: The Thünen agricultural atlas, Thünen-Institut (2014) 

Good 

Bad 

Source: German Federal Environment 
Agency (11/2017) 

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

preserve habitats and landscapes 

The  level  of  intensity  of  farmed  agricultural  land  has  a  relevant  impact  on  biodiversity  and 
environmental  pressures.  In  2017,  38.4%  of  agricultural  area  in  Germany  was  managed  by 
farms  with  high  input  intensity  per  hectare  (EU-27  average:  36.3%),  which  represents  a 
significant decrease compared to 2015 and 2013 (57.8% and 56.2% respectively).55 In 2018, 
70.6% of agricultural area in Germany was arable land, 28.2% was permanent grassland and 
meadows and 1.2% was under permanent crops56. 

The  national  network  of  Natura  2000  sites  covered  15.5%  of  Germany’s  territory  (EU-27: 
19.8%) in 2018, with special protection areas amounting to 11.3% (EU-27: 14.1%) and sites 
of community interest  only 9.4% (EU-27:  14.9%). The share of agricultural  area  (including 
natural grassland) under Natura 2000 was 10.7% and the share of forest area was 25.4%.57  

The conservation status of agricultural grassland habitats according to the Habitats Directive 
in  the  2013–2018  period  shows  that  only  10%  were  in  favourable  condition,  36.7%  in 
unfavourable-inadequate condition and 53.3% in unfavourable-bad condition. While the share 
of habitats assessed as favourable increased by 3.3 pp compared to the 2007–2012 period, the 
share  of  habitats  assessed  as  unfavourable-bad  increased  by  13.3  pp,  showing  further 
deterioration  of  the  state  of  habitats  in  Germany.58  In  2017,  the  high  nature  value  farming 
indicator (HNV) continued to decline compared to 2009 (from 13.1% to 11.4%). While there 
was a strong and continuing decrease within the lowest quality level of HNV-Farmland, the 
highest quality level remained static at a low value.59 In an ongoing infringement procedure, 
Germany is asked to step up the protection of flower-rich grasslands in protected Natura 2000 
sites that play a vital role for pollinating insects, bees and butterflies. 

16 

 
 
The value of the farmland bird index reported in 2013 was 82.6 (2000=100), which was the 
lowest  value  since  2000  (except  in  2011  when  it  was  81.2).60  In  2016,  the  value  of  the 
national  “common  biodiversity  and  landscape  quality”  indicator61  was  at  70.5%  of  its  2030 
target.  The  different  sub-indicators  give  a  more  nuanced  picture.  The  sub-indicator  for 
farmland birds shows a decreasing trend from 71.7% in 2000 to 60.5% in 2016. On the other 
hand, the situation for forest birds is much more favourable. There was a positive trend and 
increase from 73.4 in 2000 to 87.5 in 2016.62  

A study by the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld from 2017 showed an average 76% decrease 
in insect biomass based on long-term observations in 63 protected areas in Germany over 27 
years.63  The  study  results  are  concurrent  with  the  data  observed  in  red  lists  of  endangered 
species, which currently monitor almost 8 000 species. In 45% of red-listed insect species, a 
long-term downward trend is evident, and 42% of red-listed insect species are considered to 
be  endangered,  extremely  rare  or  already  extinct.  Out  of  561  red-listed  bee  species  in 
Germany, 41% are considered to be of conservation concern.64 

In 2018, fallow land presented 1.6% of total agricultural area, and landscape elements made 
out for 0.5% of total agricultural area, compared to 4.1% and 0.5% in EU-27 respectively65. 
In  2019,  13%  of  arable  land  in  Germany  was  declared  as  ecological  focus  area.  Thereof, 
landscape features and terraces covered 2.1% and land laying fallow 15%.66 

In Germany, area under organic farming has been steadily increasing. In 2018, it covered 1.2 
million  hectares  of  agricultural  area,  thereof  43.5%  was  arable  land,  54.8%  permanent 
grassland and 1.7% permanent crops. This represents 7.3% in total agricultural area (almost 
in  line  with  the  8%  in  EU-27).  This  shows  an  increase  by  27.2%  compared  to  201267. 
However, the distribution of the share of agricultural area under organic farming between the 
Länder varies considerably68. 

At national level, biodiversity-related issues are addressed by the 2007 National Biodiversity 
Strategy (NBS)69. The progress of the NBS is monitored through a set of indicators, regularly 
presented in the so-called Indicator Reports (latest 201970). 

In  2020,  14%  of  agricultural  land  in  Germany  was  under  contracts  contributing  to 
biodiversity and landscapes71. German rural development programmes dedicated 51% of the 
rural development funding to restoring, preserving and enhancing eco-systems in agriculture 
and forestry72.  

Area under organic farming in Germany 

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

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

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

17 

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

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

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

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

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

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

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

The current age structure of Germany’s agricultural sector is good and compares well in the 
European context. The graph below73 shows that in 2016, Germany had a higher than average 
share of young farmers below 35 years of age (Germany 7.4% vs EU-27 5.1%) as well as a 
lower than  average share of farmers older than  55  years of age (Germany 39.5% vs EU-27 
57.9%). The combination of these two statistics leads to the young farmer to elderly farmer 
ratio  of  0.19,  again  above  average  in  the  EU  (0.09).  Pairing  with  France,  this  young  to  old 
ratio is the fourth highest in the EU after Austria (0.42), Poland (0.27) and Slovakia (0.24)74.  

The graph below also shows a positive trend in the German agricultural demographics, where 
the  share  of  young  farmers  increased  since  2010,  while  the  EU  trended  downward.  At 
regional level, the German picture gets more diverse75, with Rheinland-Pfalz, Niedersachsen 
and  Brandenburg  depicting  young  farmer  to  elderly  farmer  ratio  that  range  close  to  the  EU 
average  of  0.09.  Nevertheless,  the  overall  trend  in  the  agriculture  sector  is  a  shift  towards 
farmers staying longer in the business and thus leading to an ageing of the sector, as evident 
when looking a bit further back in the German age structure development. The young farmer 
share  is  down  from  the  2005  level  of  approximately  9%.  Looking  ahead,  by  2027 
approximately 109 000 German farmers will have reached the retirement age of 65, leading to 
an estimate of 9 650 holdings per year to change owner due to retirement. Over the next 10 
years, approximately 35% of all holdings will be concerned. Also in terms of gender balance, 
there is a clear margin for manoeuvre. Since 2005, women represent only a very small part of 
young farmers, reaching a ratio of roughly one female per seven male young farmers in 2016. 

Regarding the 2016 average German farm size in hectares, the structure across age groups is 
quite  uniform,  contrasting  to  other  EU  Member  States  with  more  differentiated  patterns76. 
During the last decade, German young farmers caught up with the other age groups, showing 
the highest growth rates. From that perspective, no significant structural difference due to age 
exists.  In  terms  of  standard  output  (SO),  young  farmers  in  2016  reached  higher  levels 
compared  to  older  farmers.  The  young  farmers  have  realised  a  better  growth  rate  between 
2005 and 2016, over proportional to the increase in hectare farm size77. 

For  new  entrants  and  the  installation  of  young  farmers,  the  main  barriers  in  Germany  are 
access to land, access to finance and the traditional approach to farm successions. Farmland 

18 

 
 
 
in Germany is scarce, while regional differences exist with higher scarcity in southern Länder 
and  somewhat  less  pressure  on  land  in  eastern  parts  of  the  country.  For  the  near  future, 
expectations are that the pressure on land use will further increase. On the one hand, the land 
scarcity in itself represents a bottleneck for new entrants, but on the other hand also leads to 
high land prices. In this line of causality, access to finance is an additional impediment. High 
land  prices  create  a  huge  hurdle  since  the  agricultural  income  is  not  sufficient  to  repay  the 
upfront investment in a reasonable timeframe78. Access to finance is constrained for farmers 
mainly due to a lack of collateral and a lack of credit history. New entrants and young farmers 
not  inheriting  businesses  from  their  parents  are  particularly  disfavoured.  Traditionally, 
farmers  found  their  successors  in  their  own  family.  This  approach  to  succession  planning, 
however,  is  changing,  with  currently  almost  70%  of  active  farmers  not  having  solved  the 
succession  aspects  of  the  farms79.  Therefore,  succession  to  outsiders  becomes  increasingly 
necessary. The financing gap that relates to this group of farmers is estimated to be between 
EUR 44 million and EUR 80 million80.  

Under  the  young  farmer  payment  scheme,  Germany  paid  out  1.36%  of  its  direct  payments 
envelope  in  2018,  which  is  close  to  EU  average81.  In  the  2015-2018  period,  the  number  of 
young farmer beneficiaries increased by 70%, and the hectares declared by young farmers by 
73%82.  In  2014-2020  rural  development  programming  period,  Germany  does  not  provide 
start-up support for young farmers, except Sachsen-Anhalt. The objective there is to support 
70 young farmers, using 0.4% of Sachsen-Anhalt’s financial envelope.  

The  share  of  young  farmers  in  Germany  with  agricultural  training  is  higher  than  the  EU 
average  (In  2016:  62%  vs  43%).  However,  educational  level  among  these  trained  young 
farmers in Germany has deteriorated. While in 2005 the majority of young farmers achieved 
“full”  training,  “basic”  knowledge  is  now  the  prevalent  educational  level  since  2010.83 
Information  and  advice  towards  young  famers  or  potential  young  farmers  is  scattered  over 
many  different  sources,  which  complicates  informed  decision  making,  while  internet 
platforms  mainly  offer  basic  information84.  Advisory  services,  in  general,  are  broadly 
available, however, they do not cover management and business issues needed for developing 
a business plan or starting a new agricultural activity85.  

More  broadly,  the  business  environment  in  Germany  is  favourable.  However,  business 
development,  also  in  rural  areas,  could  be  further  facilitated  by  increasing  the  support  to 
entrepreneurs  regarding  administrative  procedures  and  legal  compliance  issues,  including 
through further improvement of digital public services 86. 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Germany 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

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

Source: EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 

19 

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

areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

Germany has less rural (39%) and more intermediate (50%) areas than the EU-27 (45% and 
46%)87; rural areas  are most important (60% or more of the total territory) among others in 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and parts of Bayern (towards the border with Czechia)88. German 
population  lives,  comparatively,  less  in  rural  (16%)  and  more  in  intermediate/urban 
(41%/44%) areas than the EU-27 (21% and 39%/40%)89. Similar to urban areas, in rural areas 
nearly 15% are aged under 15, around 65% are aged between 15 and 64 and around 20% are 
aged  over  65,  while  in  terms  of  gender  there  is  a  balance90.  While  recently  population 
increased  in  all  types  of  areas,  it  increased  clearly  less  in  rural  areas  (1.1%  in  2015-2019 
compared  to  1.9%  in  intermediate  and  2.9%  in  urban  areas)91.  Already  today  the  old  age 
dependency  ratio  is  very  strong  (≥  42.5%)  in  large  parts  of  eastern  Germany  (except  e.g. 
around Berlin) and in some northern coastal areas among others.92. For the future, there are 
projected  negative  demographic  trends  for  a  very  large  part  of  Germany  until  2032  (except 
e.g. parts of Bayern, of the South-West and of Nordrhein-Westfalen)93. In Germany, the share 
of foreign-born residents in rural areas is quite similar for EU-born (6% in 2019) and not EU-
born (5%) persons (about 3 pp and 2 pp above EU-27 average)94.  

In Germany, in 2005 both the total and the rural employment rate95 had started roughly at the 
same level than the EU-27 rate for rural areas (around 65%), while thanks to a steady growth 
ever since, today both are clearly above the EU-27 average (68%) with respectively 77% and 
80%; Germany ranks second among all EU Member States. Over the last 15 years, both male 
and female employment grew in rural areas (84% and 76% respectively in 2019) and while 
the gender  gap closed by  one third, it  remains at  8 pp in 2019.96  For both men and women 
with  low/medium  educational  level,  the  employment  rate97  is  higher  in  rural  than  in  urban 
areas, while for the highly educated it is rather evenly distributed among territories; also here 
the gender gap shows (13 pp for the low and 7 pp for the high educated in rural areas)98.  

Between 2010 and 2017, the share of employment very slightly increased in tourism and very 
slightly  decreased  in  the  food  industry  and,  slightly  more  in  agriculture;  in  2017,  they 
respectively  reached  3.8%,  2.2%  and  1.2%99,  while  the  primary  sector  globally  accounted 
only for 3.2 % of the employment in rural areas in 2016100. Agricultural labour force is still 
predominantly  male  (30%  female  in  2016)  and  of  family  origin101,  while  with  only  10% 
Germany had the forth lowest share of female farmers in EU-28 (28%) in 2016102. Between 
2007 and 2010, the number of small farmers in Germany decreased for the two categories of 
smallest  farms103  (respectively  -3.2  pp  to  0.5%  and  -10.6  pp  to  11.6%);  in  2016,  both  size 
classes accounted only  for a  very minor share of farms (0.3% and 10.5%), of hectares (0% 
and 1.2%), of livestock units (0.9% and 1.3%) and of SO (0% and 0.3%)104. 

In  the  aftermath  of  the  financial  crisis,  the  unemployment  rate105  in  Germany,  both  in  total 
and in rural areas, has been declining by 2 pp between 2013 and 2019 reaching 3% and 2% 
respectively. In Germany, rural unemployment is therefore slightly lower than for the country 
as a whole and below the nearly 6% for EU-27 rural areas, which implies that Germany has 
the  second  lowest  rural  unemployment  rate  (after  Czechia).  The  situation  is  comparatively 
less favourable for the young generation (aged 20-24) of which, despite decreasing as well by 
2 pp since 2013, nearly 4% remained unemployed in rural areas106 (nearly 13% for EU-27) in 
2019; for young men the unemployment rate in rural areas is with 4.6% higher than for young 
women  with  2.6%  (young  women  also  recovered  slightly  faster  since  2013  with  -2.2  pp 
compared  to  -1.8  pp  for  young  men).  The  population  aged  50-64  in  rural  areas  even  has  a 
lower  unemployment  rate  of  1.9%  (4.2%  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 

20 

 
 
areas are relatively worse off in terms of unemployment rate (overall and for the age groups 
looked at)107. 

While  in  2009,  the  share  of  young  people  (aged  15-24)  neither  in  employment  nor  in 
education and training ranged between 8% and 10% for Germany as a whole as well as for 
cities, towns and suburbs and rural areas, since then it decreased and ranged in 2019 between 
4% and 7% for the country in total (5.7%) and for the different territories. Out of this, rural 
areas had the lowest share with 4.2%, which was the second lowest share in EU-27 (10.7%), 
while with 4.9% the share for young women in rural areas was slightly higher than for young 
men with 3.5% (implying that the gender gap was basically the same as in 2009).108 Between 
2009 and 2019, the share of early leavers from education and training (aged 18 to 24) evolved 
rather  stable  in  total,  for  cities  and  towns  and  suburbs  (for  all  the  average  ranged  between 
10.5% and 11%) and likewise, yet at a slightly lower level, for rural areas (on average 8.6%); 
over the period, the share for young men and young women has moved close to the total share 
for rural areas being overall slightly disadvantageous for young men (9.5% to 8.3% in 2019). 
Since 2015, the share for rural areas in Germany has been around 3 pp lower than for EU-27, 
while  in  2019  it  ranked  in  the  upper  middle  field  among  the  EU  Member  States.109  Since 
2009,  in  Germany  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 had increased by 4.5 pp (to 10.6 pp, driven by a faster development 
in urban areas). At the same time, rural areas continued to have the lowest share of population 
with low education (17% in 2018) of all territories.110 

Looking  at  GDP  per  capita,  although  between  2005  and  2016  in  Germany  both  rural  areas 
and intermediate areas became relatively richer (around +10 pp), with respectively 102% and 
110% of EU average in 2016 compared to 148% for the urban areas, the historically wide gap 
among territories largely persisted.111 Since 2010, the share of value added has grown by 4 pp 
in EU-27 rural areas, while in Germany it remained in essence stable in rural areas (13%) as 
well as in the primary sector (around 1%)112. In terms of tourism, between 2012 and 2017 in 
Germany the number of beds overall very slightly increased; since 2012 in Germany the share 
of beds in rural areas has been lower than in EU-27 rural areas (42% vs 45% in 2018) and, 
just like it, decreased until 2018 (by 2 pp vs 6 pp)113.  

In 2005, in Germany the poverty rate was close to 20% in all types of areas. Subsequently, it 
rose  in  rural  areas  until  2010,  then  basically  decreased  until  2015  and  then  stayed  rather 
stable, while over the period it rose in  urban  areas (in particular in  2012) and stayed  rather 
stable in towns and suburbs; in 2018 it amounted to 17%, 22% and 16% respectively. Over 
2010-2018,  it  was  on  average  8  pp  lower  in  rural  areas  in  Germany  than  in  EU-27114. 
Whereas  between  2012  and  2018,  in  Germany  the  mean  income  increased  in  all  territories, 
with nearly 20% it did so in particular in intermediate (EUR 27 500 in 2018) and rural areas 
which,  with  EUR  24 800  in  2018,  had  slightly  bypassed  the  urban  areas.  Mean  income  in 
rural areas continues to be higher for men than for women (ca EUR 900 in 2018); the median 
income largely follows the same patterns115. It is currently higher than the EU-27 average for 
all  types  of  territories  (21 800  vs  15 200  in  purchasing  power  standard  for  rural  areas  in 
2018), but less dispersed116.  

In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  321  local  action  groups  were  established  under 
LEADER  to  advance  the  bottom-up  approach  engaging  local  actors  in  the  development  of 
their rural areas. Under the German rural development programmes, EUR 1.3 billion (14% of 
Germany’s  envelope  under  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development 
(EAFRD)) were allocated to the implementation of LEADER. The frontrunners Sachsen and 
Brandenburg  dedicated  respectively  around  40%  and  27%  of  their  regional  budgets  to 

21 

 
 
LEADER.  Only  Sachsen-Anhalt  has  implemented  the  multi-fund  Community-Led  Local 
Development, together with the cohesion funds.117 

In  Germany,  forests  cover  32.7%  of  the  total  land  area  and  other  wooded  land  0% 
(respectively  39.8%  and  5.3%  in  EU-27).118.  Between  2005  and  2017,  Germany  saw  an 
(sometimes strong) increase in major economic indicators for forestry and logging: the total 
output increased from EUR 4 141 million to EUR 8 513 million (wood in the rough and trees 
accounted for the biggest shares in 2017), persons employed119 from 47 400 to 48 000 annual 
working  units  (while  decreasing  for  EU-27),  the  alleged  labour  productivity120  from  EUR 
36 600 to EUR 66 400 GVA per person employed and the investments from EUR 168 million 
to  EUR  275  million121.  Germany  ranked  first  among  the  Member  States  both  in  terms  of 
timber  resources  (2015122)  and  their  net  annual  increment  (2010123).124  Between  2011  and 
2015,  in  Germany  the  turnover  from  the  bio-economy  was  roughly  EUR  390  billion,  while 
employment  was  roughly  around  2  million  (with  a  decrease  between  2011  and  2015);  the 
turnover per person employed increased from EUR 176 300 in 2008 to EUR 201 600 in 2015 
(from EUR 97 000 to EUR 119 000 for EU-27). Food, beverages and tobacco was the most 
important  sector  (53%  of  the  2015  turnover  and  45%  of  2015  employment)  followed  by 
agriculture,  paper,  wood  products  and  furniture  and  bio-based  chemicals,  pharmaceuticals, 
plastics and rubber (excl. biofuels) (13%, 10%, 9% and 10% of the 2015 turnover and 27%, 
8%, 11% and 5% of 2015 employment).125  

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 

The  implementation  of  National  Action  Plans  against  Antimicrobial  Resistance  (AMR)  in 
Member States has already led to a decrease in overall EU sales of antimicrobials. Based on 
the  tenth  European  Surveillance  of  Veterinary  Antimicrobial  Consumption  (ESVAC) 
report126  for  25  countries,  from  2011  to  2018  an  overall  decrease  of  34.6%  in  sales  per 
population correction unit (mg/PCU) was observed. Germany is part of a group of Member 
States,  where  the  most  significant  decrease  was  registered.  From  2011  to  2018,  the  sale  in 
mg/PCU fell from 211.5 to 88.4 mg/PCU, which is below the EU average of 118.3 mg/PCU 
but  above  leaves  room  for  further  reduction  in  order  to  achieve  the  EU  Farm  to  Fork 
objectives  for  2030.  This  decrease  is  observed  in  almost  all  regions.127  It  results  from  the 
national  policy  based  on  the  German  Antibiotic  Resistance  Strategy  (DART)128.  DART 
includes  a  set  of  measures  to  detect,  prevent  and  better  combat  antibiotic  resistance.  This 
strategy is implemented by the regional competent authorities, which are allowed to impose 
sanctions.  

There  is  an  increased  demand  for  animal-based  food  produced  under  conditions,  which 
respect animal welfare. This trend is clearly expressed in a 2013 study on food consumption 
in  Germany129.  Nevertheless,  a  lack  of  enforcement  of  EU  animal  welfare  legislation  is 
observed,  in  particular  in  the  pig  sector.  Although  prohibited  as  a  routine  measure,  the  tail 
docking of pigs is still common practice in Germany. Husbandry conditions on pig farms still 
do not allow for an increase in the percentage of pigs reared with intact tails, which has barely 
changed  since  2016.  Animal  welfare  concerns  are  also  present  in  poultry  meat  production, 
and diseases in broilers, as well as in cattle production, in particular with regard to transport 
arrangements. Biosecurity is equally a challenge. Germany is among the countries affected by 
African Swine Fever, hence the need for reinforced measures. 

Meeting  high  animal  welfare  standards  involves  increased  production  costs.  German  rural 
development  programmes  support  investment  cost  in  relation  to  housing  improvement  and 
conversion in order to increase animal welfare under measure investment in physical assets. 
22 

 
 
According  to  Eurostat  statistics,  the  total  sales  of  plant  protection  products,  despite  some 
fluctuations,  increased  slightly  by  2%  over  the  2011-2018130  period.  According  to  the  last 
update for 2018, the Harmonised Risk indicator 1, measuring the use and risk of pesticides, 
shows  a  downward  trend  by  18%  since  the  baseline  period  in  2011-2013  (slightly  stronger 
decline than the EU average trend minus 17%).  

Based  on  the  Harmonised  Risk  indicator  2  (HRI2),  which  is  calculated  by  weighting  the 
number of emergency approvals,  the trend still shows a stable use of emergency approvals. 
From 2016 to 2018, the HRI2 was dominated by emergency approvals with active and most 
toxic substances from the group of candidate for substitution131.  

In Germany, training of users, control of pesticide application equipment in use, and pesticide 
storage  conditions  are  implemented  according  to  Sustainable  Use  Directive  (SUD) 
provisions, but there is still a gap in the National Action Plan for the SUD. The main issue in 
Germany  is  that  effective  controls  on  the  implementation  of  the  general  principles  of 
integrated pest management need to be put in place for all types of professional users of plant 
protection products.132  

Based on 2012 data, Germany represented more than 12% of the total EU food waste amount 
per year (88 million tonnes)133. A national strategy for reduction of food waste was adopted in 
February 2019134, but no mandatory measures have been taken until now.  

Germany  has  a  high  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  due  to  dietary  risk  factors 
expressed as Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALYs) per 100,000 population attributable to 
diet135. This DALY’s value is influenced by a number of dietary factors. A significant part of 
the  German  population  is  overweight  or  obese136.  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 more plant based foods, with less consumption of red and processed meat 
(which is high in Germany)137 and more fruit and vegetables (consumption of which is very 
low consumption in Germany138) as well as whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds.  

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

HRI 1 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

Source: European Medicines Agency, European 
Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial consumption 
(ESVAC). Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 
31 countries in 2018 – trends from 2010 to 2018 Tenth 
ESVAC Report. EMA/24309/2020  

Source: European Commission. Harmonised Risk 
Indicator for pesticides (HRI1), by group of active 
substance. As in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51] 

23 

 
 
 
 
2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

AKIS in  Germany counts among the strongest  ones in  the EU (high resource allocation)139, 
yet falling halfway between being fully fragmented and fully integrated (knowledge networks 
insufficiently operating in cooperation and lack of coordination)140.  

For the 2014-2020 programming period, Germany has earmarked 3% of their total EUR 9.45 
billion EAFRD budget for the ‘Knowledge transfer and innovation’ priority, which includes 
M01  (knowledge 
information  actions),  M02  (advisory  services,  farm 
management and farm relief services) and M16 (Co-operation-EIP)141. Furthermore, 2.1% are 
earmarked for roll-out of broadband infrastructure and digitalisation in rural areas.  

transfer  and 

In  the  framework  of  the  national  rural  network  a  dedicated  network  for  the  European 
Innovation Partnership for agriculture (EIP-AGRI) was set up. This positive experience can 
be the basis for the future national CAP network to intensify such actions and play a key role 
in promoting synergies between the CAP and European Research Area. The best way to do so 
is  to  keep  in  close  touch  with  the  Horizon  National  Contact  Points  and  to  intensify  the 
spreading  of  the  information  on  the  EIP  website,  and  by  setting  up  advisory  back-offices 
where the latest knowledge and innovation is collected and shared with the field advisors and 
the farmers. At EU level, the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research is an important 
channel for connecting research and innovation and for removing obstacles to innovation. 

Germany is ranked fourth in the EU with close to 180 Operational Groups (OG) – having an 
average budget of EUR 507 000 – launched under EIP-AGRI142. While the overall 2014-2020 
target  of  232  OG  has  not  yet  been  reached,  some  Länder  such  as  Baden-Württemberg, 
Niedersachsen  &  Bremen,  Nordrhein-Westfalen  and  Schleswig-Holstein  have  already 
surpassed  their  regional  targets.  Overall,  the  number  of  beneficiaries  advised  (22 754)  was 
above EU average (18 595), while the number of advisors trained was below143.  

As  the  competence  for  agricultural  advisory  services  lies  with  the  Länder,  very  different 
organisational structures have emerged, including official advice from agricultural offices or 
authorities  as  downstream  organisations  of  the  ministries  of  agriculture;  chambers  of 
agriculture  with  official  and  business  consultancy;  private  consultants  and  self-employed 
consultants; advice from cooperatives, producer and control rings; advice from upstream and 
downstream  suppliers/processors;  advice  from  research  organisations.  Thematic  working 
panels  are  in  place  for  a  number  of  topics,  including  advisory  services  and  agricultural 
research, to coordinate the exchange between the federal and Länder ministries. Nevertheless, 
the differences in the approach towards the provision of advisory services between the Länder 
create  obstacles  for  horizontal  knowledge  flows.144  An  efficient  networking  of  advice 
providers  in  the  knowledge  system  is  missing,  especially  of  private  providers,  since  an 
increasing privatisation of advisory services in Germany is evident. Digitalisation is a crucial 
topic,  in  particular,  since  the  use  of  digital  technologies  will  further  change  production 
advice.  Technological  possibilities,  however,  have  not  yet  been  fully  utilised  by  advisory 
services.145 

Between  2005  and  2016,  nearly  65%  of  all  farmers  in  Germany  attained  a  basic  or  full 
training,  while  over  the  same  period  the  number  of  farmers  completing  basic  training  grew 
more than the number of farmers attaining a full training. In 2016, the share of farmers with 
basic  or  full  training  out  of  all  farmers  was  higher  in  Germany  than  at  EU  level  (65%  to 
32%),  while  the  relative  importance  of  basic  to  full  training  was  roughly  4:1  in  Germany 
compared to roughly 3:1 at EU level146.  

24 

 
 
In 2013, there was a very strong territorial gap in terms of fast broadband with 75% of overall 
households and only 21% of rural households covered.  In 2019, 92% of overall households 
and, thanks to a very strong catch-up, 75% of rural households benefitted from fast internet; 
however,  the  territorial  gap  in  terms  of  fast  broadband  coverage  still  amounts  to  17  pp.  In 
2019, the share of people with basic or above basic digital skills ranged roughly between 65% 
and  75%  for  all  territories  (lowest  in  rural  areas);  this  places  Germany  among  the  Member 
States  with  the  highest  and  less  dispersed  shares147.  Germany  ranks  first  in  the  EU  on  5G 
readiness.  In  2019,  Germany  ranked  18th  in  the  EU  on  integration  of  digital  technology  in 
business activities and 21st on digital public services, since only 49% of German online users 
actively engaged with e-government services, compared with an EU average of 67%. 

In early September 2020, there were nine fully operational Digital Innovation Hubs148 related 
to agriculture, hunting and forestry among a total of 142 hubs amongst EU members. Digital 
Innovation  Hubs  are  to  support  scaling  up  digital  innovations  and  bringing  it  to  the  “end 
users”  and  build  up  regional  capacities  to  deploy  those  innovative  digital  technologies.  In 
2018, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture created a new Directorate dedicated specifically 
to  the  subject  of  “digital  innovations”  and  every  Directorate-General  of  the  Ministry  has  a 
designated  Digitalisation  Officer149.  Since  September  2019,  the  ministry  has  launched  eight 
‘digital  trial  fields’  as  a  new  funding  tool  to  harness  the  potential  of  digitalisation  in 
agriculture150. Trial fields are digital test fields on agricultural holdings, which perform tests 
to  analyse  -  among  other  things  -  how  digital  technologies  can  best  be  used  to  protect  the 
environment, improve animal welfare, promote biodiversity and reduce workloads. 

Broadband coverage in Germany 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 
NGA broadband (% of total households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

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

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

Managers with 
full agricultural 
training 

Managers with 
basic agricultural 
training 

Full training EU 
average 

Basic training 
EU average 

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

25 

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

2   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data. 
3   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data. 
4   Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (European  Commission),  ECORYS, 
Wageningen Economic  Research.  Study on risk management in EU agriculture. Publications Office  of the 
European Union, Luxembourg. 2018. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5a935010-af78-
11e8-99ee-01aa75ed71a1. 

5   European Commission. Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Analytical factsheet for 
Germany:  Nine  objectives  for  a  future  Common  Agricultural  Policy.  September  2019.  22  pages. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_de.pdf. 

6   European Commission. Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Analytical factsheet for 
Germany:  Nine  objectives  for  a  future  Common  Agricultural  Policy.  September  2019.  22  pages. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_de.pdf. 

7   European  Commission.  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Short-term  outlook 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

report 
fisheries/farming/documents/short-term-outlook-statistical-annex_en.pdf.  

statistical 

EU-27 

annex. 

8   EUROSTAT. [apro_cpnh1]. 
9   EUROSTAT. [apro_cpnh1]. 
10   European Commission. Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Analytical factsheet for 
Germany:  Nine  objectives  for  a  future  Common  Agricultural  Policy.  September  2019.  22  pages. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_de.pdf. 

11   European Commission. Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Analytical factsheet for 
Germany:  Nine  objectives  for  a  future  Common  Agricultural  Policy.  September  2019.  22  pages. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_de.pdf. 

12   Montanari, F., Chlebicka, A., Szabo, G. G., Amat, L., Traon, D., Sorrentino, A., Russo, C., Ferreira, I. Study 
of the best ways for producer organisations to be formed, carry out their activities and be supported, Final 
pages. 
report.  Publications  Office 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2c31a562-eef5-11e9-a32c-01aa75ed71a1. 

the  European  Union,  Luxembourg. 

2019. 

171 

13   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Output  indicator  OIM_05  Producer 

of 

– 

organisations. 

14   Montanari, F., Chlebicka, A., Szabo, G. G., Amat, L., Traon, D., Sorrentino, A., Russo, C., Ferreira, I. Study 
of the best ways for producer organisations to be formed, carry out their activities and be supported, Final 
report.  Publications  Office 
pages. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2c31a562-eef5-11e9-a32c-01aa75ed71a1. 

the  European  Union,  Luxembourg. 

2019. 

171 

of 

15   German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture.  Statistisches Jahrbuch über Ernährung, Landwirtschaft 
und Forsten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2019. 63. Jahrgang, Federal Office for Agriculture and Food, 
2020. p. 140. 

16   European 

Commission. 

eAmbrosia 

– 

the 

EU 

geographical 

indications 

register. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-
labels/geographical-indications-register/#. 

17   Research  Institute  of  Organic  Agriculture  (FiBL).  European  organic  market  grew  to  40.7  billion  euros  in 
2018.  FiBL,  Frick/Nuremberg,  12  February  2020.  https://www.fibl.org/en/info-centre/news/european-
organic-market-grew-to-40-7-billion-euros-in-2018.html. 

18   Statista  GmbH.  Marktanteil  von  Bio-Lebensmitteln  in  Deutschland  bis  2019.  Statista  GmbH,  2020. 

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/360581/umfrage/marktanteil-von-biolebensmitteln-in-
deutschland/. 

19   German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Ökobarometer 2019. Federal Office for Agriculture and 

Food, 2020. 24 pages. 

20   German  Federal  Ministry  of  Food  and  Agriculture.  Deutschland,  wie  es  isst  Der  BMEL-Ernährungsreport 
https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/ernaehrungsreport-

2020. 

2020. 
2020.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=21. 

26 

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

producers in the food chain. 

22   German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy. Lebensmittelindustrie. 2020. 
https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Branchenfokus/Industrie/branchenfokus-
lebensmittelindustrie.html. 

23   Statista GmbH.  Marktanteile  der führenden Unternehmen im Lebensmittelhandel in Deutschland bis 2019. 
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/4916/umfrage/marktanteile-der-5-

Statista  GmbH, 
groessten-lebensmitteleinzelhaendler/. 

2020. 

24   EUROSTAT [prc_ppp_ind]. 
25   European 

Environmental  Agency 

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

Environmental  Agency 

(EEA). 

EEA 

greenhouse 

gas 

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

Environmental  Agency 

(EEA). 

EEA 

greenhouse 

gas 

26   European 

27   European 

(EEA). 

EEA 

greenhouse 

gas 

– 

– 

– 

data 

viewer. 

data 

viewer. 

data 

viewer. 

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

28   German  Federal  Ministry  for  Environment,  Nature  Conservation  and  Nuclear  Safety.  Klimaschutzbericht 
2019 
2020. 
https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/klimaschutzbericht_2019_kabinet
tsfassung_bf.pdf. 

Aktionsprogramm 

Bundesregierung. 

Klimaschutz 

2020 

zum 

der 

29   German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. Baumartenzusammensetzung der Wälder. 2012. 
https://www.bfn.de/infothek/daten-fakten/nutzung-der-natur/forstwirtschaft-und-waelder/ii-31-2-
baumartenzusammensetzung.html. 

30   German Federal Environment Office. Strukturvielfalt der Wälder. 2016. 

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/land-forstwirtschaft/strukturvielfalt-der-waelder#mischbestande-
fordern-die-waldfunktionen-und-streuen-das-risiko. 

31   German  Federal  Statistical  Office.  Trockenheit  schadet  dem  Wald:  Durch  Insektenbefall  verursachter 
Schadholzeinschlag 2019 im Vergleich zum Vorjahr fast verdreifacht. Press release No. N 041, 27 July 2020. 
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2020/07/PD20_N041_412.html. 

32   European 

Environmental  Agency 

(EEA). 

EEA 

greenhouse 

gas 

– 

data 

viewer. 

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

33   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Result indicator RPI_12 Share of grassland in 

total UAA. 

34   Jensen,  R.  et  al.  Potentiale  und  Ziele  zum  Moor-  und  Klimaschutz  Gemeinsame  Erklärung  der 
Naturschutzbehörden.  Schleswig-Holstein  Office  for  Agriculture,  Environment  and  Rural  Areas,  2012.  38 
pages. https://www.umweltdaten.landsh.de/nuis/upool/gesamt/moore/moorresolution.pdf. 

35   German  Federal  Government.  Klimaschutzprogramm  2030  der  Bundesregierung  zur  Umsetzung  des 
pages. 
Klimaschutzplans 
https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/975226/1679914/e01d6bd855f09bf05cf7498e06d0a3ff/2019-
10-09-klima-massnahmen-data.pdf?download=1. 

2050. 

2019. 

171 

36   The  distribution  of  emissions  in  the  2030  German  Climate  Action  Programme  corresponds  to  the  areas  of 
action  laid  down  in  the  2050  German  Climate  Action  Plan,  not  to  the  categories  of  the  official  UNFCCC 
reporting. Therefore, a comparison of the GHG emissions reductions set in the 2030 German Climate Action 
Programme and the GHG emissions reductions based on EEA data viewer on greenhouse gas emissions and 
removals according to IPCC sectors is not possible. 

37   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. 

38 EUROSTAT. [nrg_cb_rw]. 
39   Agency for Renewable Resources e.V. Anbau und Verwendung nachwachsender Rohstoffe in Deutschland. 

2020. https://www.fnr-server.de/ftp/pdf/berichte/22004416.pdf. 

40   EUROSTAT. [t2020_31]. 
41   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food  industry. 

Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s]. 

42   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.,  CAP  Result  indicator  R.17  Percentage  of 
agricultural land under management contracts targeting reduction of GHG and/or ammonia emissions (focus 
area 5D). 

43   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  R.20  Percentage  of 
agricultural and forest land under management contracts contributing to carbon sequestration or conservation 
(focus area 5E). 

44   Buth,  M.  et  al.  Vulnerabilität  Deutschlands  gegenüber  dem  Klimawandel.  Climate  Change  24/2015, 
Umweltbundesamt,  2015.  Dessau-Roßlau.  https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/vulnerabilitaet-
deutschlands-gegenueber-dem. 

27 

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

Centre. 

46   German  Federal 

Institute 
der 

for  Geosciences  and  Natural  Resources.  Karte  der  Potentiellen 
2020. 

Erosionsgefährdung 
https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Boden/Bilder/Bodenerosion/Bod_BoEro_KartePEGWasser_k.html. 
47   Federal  Institute  for  Geosciences  and  Natural  Resources.  Karte  der  Potentiellen  Erosionsgefährdung  der 
2020. 

Ackerböden 
https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Boden/Bilder/Bodenerosion/Bod_BoEro_KartePEGWind_g.html. 

Deutschland. 

Deutschland. 

Ackerböden 

Wasser 

durch 

durch 

Wind 

48   EUROSTAT. [ef_mp_prac]. 
49   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.41  Soil  organic  matter  in  arable  land.  Joint  Research 

in 

in 

Centre (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015. 

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

51   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  The  EU  Environmental  Implementation 
final. 
– 

SWD(2019) 

GERMANY. 

2019. 

137 

Review 
Country 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_de_en.pdf.  

Report 

52   German Federal Environment Agency. Indicator: Ecological status of transitional and coastal waters. 2017. 

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/indicator-ecological-status-of-transitional-coastal#at-a-glance. 

53   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA Waterbase - Water Quantity. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-

and-maps/data/waterbase-water-quantity-12. 

54   European Environmental Agency (EEA).  EEA National Emission Ceilings Directive emissions data viewer 

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

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

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification”. 

56   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.18 Agricultural area. Based on EUROSTAT [apro_cpsh1]. 
57   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.34  Natura  2000  areas.  Based  on  NATURA  2000 

Barometer and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018. 

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

source: European Environmental Agency. 

59   German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.  The High Nature Value farmland indicator in Germany. 

2019. https://www.bfn.de/en/activities/monitoring/hnv-farmland-indicator.html. 

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

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

61   The biodiversity and landscape quality indicator monitors the changes in the population of 59 selected bird 
species representing the six main landscape and habitat types in Germany (farmland, forest land, settlements, 
inland waters and coasts/seas, Alps (currently suspended)). An expert panel has set a target value for 2030, 
which presents 100%.  

62   German  Federal  Environment  Agency.  Indicator:  Species  diversity  and  landscape  quality.  2020. 

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/indicator-species-diversity-landscape-quality#at-a-glance. 

63   Hallmann  et  al.  (2017).  More  than  75  percent  decline  over  27  years  in  total  flying  insect  biomass  in 
protected areas. PLOS. 2017. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809. 
64   German  Federal  Agency  for  Nature  Conservation.  Bestandstrends  und  Gefährdung  der  Insekten.  2020. 
https://www.bfn.de/themen/insektenrueckgang/bestand-und-gefaehrdung.html; and German Federal Ministry 
Insektenschutz. 
for  Environment,  Nature  Conservation  and  Nuclear  Safety.  Aktionsprogramm 
pages. 
68 
Bundesregierung. 
Publikationsversand 
https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/aktionsprogramm_insektenschutz_kabinettv
ersion_bf.pdf. 

2019. 

der 

65   European Commission. 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. 

66   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Output  indicator  OID_09  Ecological  focus 

area (EFA). 

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

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar]. 

68   German  Federal  Ministry  of  Food  and  Agriculture.  Ökologischer  Landbau  nach  Verordnung  (EG)  Nr. 
Jahr  2018.  2019. 

(EG)  Nr.  889/2008 

i.V.m.  Verordnung 

834/2007 
in  Deutschland 
https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Landwirtschaft/Biologischer-
Landbau/OekolandbauInDeutschland2018.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3. 

im 

69   German Federal Government. National Biodiversity Strategy. German Federal Ministry for the Environment, 
pages. 

Conservation 

Nuclear 

Safety. 

Nature 

2007. 

180 

and 

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/nationale_strategie_biologische_vielfalt_20
15_bf.pdf. 

70   German Federal Government. Indikatorenbericht 2019 der Bundesregierung zur Nationalen Strategie zur 

biologischen Vielfalt. 23 September 2020. 121 pages. 
https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Naturschutz/nbs_indikatorenbericht_2019_bf.p
df. 

71   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  R.07  Percentage  of 
agricultural land under management contracts supporting biodiversity and/or landscapes (focus area 4A). 
72   Rural  Development  Programme  of  Baden-Württemberg,  2014-2020,  Version  5.1,  Rural  Development 
Programme of Bayern, 2014-2020, Version 7.1, Rural Development Programme of Berlin & Brandenburg, 
2014-  2020,  Version  6.0,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Hessen,  2014-  2020,  Version  5.1,  Rural 
Development  Programme  of  Mecklenburg  Vorpomern,  2014-  2020,  Version  7.2,  Rural  Development 
Programme  of  Niedersachsen  &  Bremen,  2014-  2020,  Version  6.2,  Rural  Development  Programme  of 
Nordrhein-Westfalen,  2014-  2020,  Version  5.1,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Rhineland-Pfalz,  2014- 
2020,  Version  5.2,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Saarland,  2014-  2020,  Version  6.1,  Rural 
Development Programme of Sachsen, 2014- 2020, Version 6.1, Rural Development Programme of Sachsen-
Anhalt,  2014-  2020,  Version  7.2,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Schleswig-Holstein,  2014-  2020, 
Version 6.1, Rural Development Programme of Thüringen, 2014- 2020, Version 5.1, Financing plan - 10.3 
Breakdown by measure or type of operation with a specific EAFRD contribution rate, 2020. 

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

[ef_m_farmang]. 

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

[ef_m_farmang]. 

76   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang].  
77   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang].  
78   European  Commission,  fi-compass,  2020,  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in 
https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications 

pages. 

Study 

Germany, 
/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Germany.pdf. 

report, 

80 

79   European  Commission,  fi-compass,  2020,  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in 
https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications 

report, 

Study 

Germany, 
/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Germany.pdf. 

pages. 

80 

80   European  Commission,  fi-compass,  2020,  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in 
https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications 

report, 

Germany, 
/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Germany.pdf. 

pages. 

Study 

80 

81   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on AGREX. 
82   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on AGRIVIEW. 
83   European Commission. Analytical factsheet for Germany: Nine objectives for a future Common Agricultural 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

pages. 

22 

Policy. 
2019. 
fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_de.pdf. 

September 

84   Ecorys.  Pilot  Project:  Exchange  programmes  for  young  farmers.  2015.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-

farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cmef/farmers-and-farming/pilot-project-
exchange-programmes-young-farmers_en.  

85   Business Angels Netzwerk Deutschland e.V. (BAND). https://www.business-angels.de/. 
86   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  European  Semester,  2020  Country  Report 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
504 

SWD(2020) 
for 
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1584543810241&uri=CELEX%3A52020SC0504. 

Germany. 

final. 

87   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.03  Territory.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [reg_area3]  and 

[urt_d3area]. Reference year: 2016. 

88   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.03 Territory. Based on EUROSTAT [demo_r_d3area] as in 
update. 
indicators 

European  Commission.  CAP 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-indicators-doc-
c3_2018_en.pdf. Reference year: 2015. 

3.  Territory. 

2014-2020. 

context 

2018 

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

Reference year: 2019.  

90   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.02 Age structure.  Based on EUROSTAT [urt_pjanaggr3]. 

Reference year: 2019.  

91   See endnote 89. Reference year: 2015-2019. 
92   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 
2019. 
2:  Old-age 
change.  SWD(2020) 

final.  Map 

dependency 

region. 

ratio 

241 

by 

29 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-staff-working-document-impact-demographic-change-
17june2020_en.pdf.  

in 

93   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 
regions. 
intermediate 
https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/ESPON%20ESCAPE%20Interim%20Report.pdf. 

shrinking 

rural 

and 

94   See  endnote  92.  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. 

95   15-64 years. 
96   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.05 Employment rate. Based on EUROSTAT [lfst_r_ergau]. 

Reference year: 2005-2019. 

97   20-64 years. 
98   EUROSTAT. [lfst_r_erednu]. Reference year: 2018. 
99   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.13  Employment  by  economic  activity.  Based  on 

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

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

[nama_10r_3empers]. Reference year: 2016. 

101  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. 

102  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.pdf. 
103  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”. 

104  EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmleg]. Reference year: 2007, 2010 and 2016. 
105  20-64 years. 
106  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.07  Unemployment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_urgau]. Reference year: 2013-2019. 

107  See endnote 1066. Reference years: 2013-2019 for young men and women; 2019 for total, men and women 

aged 50-64 years; and 2019 for urban areas. 

108  EUROSTAT. [edat_lfse_29].  Reference year: 2009 and 2019.  
109  EUROSTAT. [edat_lfse_30]. Reference year: 2009-2019.   
110  EUROSTAT. [edat_lfs_9913]. Reference year: 2009-2018. 
111  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. 

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

[urt_10r_3gva]. Reference year: 2010-2016 for rural areas and 2010-2019 for the sectoral breakdown. 

113  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.30  Tourism  infrastructure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[tour_cap_natd]. Reference year: 2012-2017/8 (for share of beds in rural areas there are no  EU-27 data for 
2013). 

114  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.  

115  EUROSTAT. [ilc_di17]. Reference year: 2012-2018 in Euro. One difference in the pattern is that the 2012-
2018 increase of the median income of intermediate areas is more similar to the one of urban than of rural 
areas. 

116  See  endnote  92.  Figure  37:  Median  equivalised  net  income,  2018  (Purchasing  power  standard  (PPS),  by 

degree of urbanisation).) 

117  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Baden-Württemberg,  2014-2020,  Version  5.1,  Rural  Development 
Programme of Bayern, 2014-2020, Version 7.1, Rural Development Programme of Berlin & Brandenburg, 
2014-  2020,  Version  6.0,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Hessen,  2014-  2020,  Version  5.1,  Rural 
Development  Programme  of  Mecklenburg  Vorpomern,  2014-  2020,  Version  7.2,  Rural  Development 
Programme  of  Niedersachsen  &  Bremen,  2014-  2020,  Version  6.2,  Rural  Development  Programme  of 
Nordrhein-Westfalen,  2014-  2020,  Version  5.1,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Rhineland-Pfalz,  2014- 
2020,  Version  5.2,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Saarland,  2014-  2020,  Version  6.1,  Rural 
Development Programme of Sachsen, 2014- 2020, Version 6.1, Rural Development Programme of Sachsen-
Anhalt,  2014-  2020,  Version  7.2,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Schleswig-Holstein,  2014-  2020, 
Version 6.1, Rural Development Programme of Thüringen, 2014- 2020, Version 5.1, Financing plan - 10.3 
Breakdown by measure or type of operation with a specific EAFRD contribution rate, 2020. 

30 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
118  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  (FAO).  FAO  2020  Global  Forest  Resources  Assessment.  https://fra-

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

119  The indicator C.13 Employment by economic activity shows a constant share of forestry in employment of 

0.1% between 2010 and 2017. See endnote 99. 

in 

120  The  indicator  C.15  Labour  productivity  in  forestry  shows  a  decrease  between  2012  and  2018  of  -4%  in 
Germany  (+11%  for  EU-27).    European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.15  Labour  productivity  in 
forestry. Based on EUROSTAT [for_eco_cp] and [for_awu]. 

121  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 
and  2017.  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
productivity 
explained/index.php?title=Forests,_forestry_and_logging#Economic_indicators_for_forestry_and_logging. 

logging,  2005 

forestry 

and 

122  Roughly 3 500 000 000 m3 over bark of growing stock in forests available for wood supply. 
123  Roughly  118  600  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. 

124  See endnote 121. Table 2: Timber resources. 
125  European Commission. Jobs and Wealth in the European Union Bioeconomy. Knowledge centres and data 
nova-Institute. 
portals.  Results 
https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html.  To  note  that  data  on  turnover 
are no longer available. 

collaboration 

between 

from 

JRC 

and 

the 

the 

126  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. 

127  German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety. Abgabe an Antibiotika in der Tiermedizin 
2020. 

sinkt 
https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/05_tierarzneimittel/2020/2020_07_29_PI_Antibiot
ikaabgabe.html. 

weiter. 

July 

29 

128  German Federal Government. German Antibiotic Resistance Strategy: DART 2020 – Antibiotika-Resistenzen 
Tier. 

bekämpfen 
https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/Publikationen/Ministerium/Broschueren/B
MG_DART_2020_Bericht_dt.pdf. 

Mensch 

Wohl 

zum 

und 

von 

129  Krems, C., Walter, C., Heuer, T., Hoffmann, I (2013). Nationale Verzehrsstudie II: Lebensmittelverzehr und 
Nährstoffzufuhr  auf  Basis  von  24h-Recalls.  Max  Rubner-Institut,  Bundesforschungsinstitut  für  Ernährung 
und 
pages. 
https://www.mri.bund.de/fileadmin/MRI/Institute/EV/Lebensmittelverzehr_Nährstoffzufuhr_24h-recalls-
neu.pdf. 

Lebensmittel. 

2013. 

16 

a 

130  Eurostat. Agri-environmental indicator - consumption of pesticides. May 2020. 

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

131  German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety. Harmonisierte Risikoindikatoren. 

https://www.bvl.bund.de/DE/Arbeitsbereiche/04_Pflanzenschutzmittel/01_Aufgaben/02_ZulassungPSM/05_
HarmonisierteRisikoindikatoren/psm_HRI_node.html. 

132  European  Commission.  Directorate  General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety.  Letters  to  All  Member  States 

regarding the Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy on Sustainable Food Systems. Ares(2020)2643693. 

133  Kranert, M., Hafner, G., Barabosz, J., Schuller, H., Leverenz, D., Kölbig, A., Schneider, F.,Lebersorger, S., 
Scherhaufer, S. Ermittlung der weggeworfenen Lebensmittelmengen und Vorschläge zur Verminderung der 
Wegwerfrate bei Lebensmitteln in Deutschland. Universität Stuttgart, Bundesministerium für Ernährung und 
Landwirtschaft. 
2012. 
https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Ernaehrung/Lebensmittelverschwendung/Studie_Lebens
mittelabfaelle_Langfassung.html. 

134  German  Federal  Ministry  of  Food  and  Agriculture.  Nationale  Strategie  zur  Reduzierung  der 

Lebensmittelverschwendung. 2019. 
https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Ernaehrung/Lebensmittelverschwendung/Nationale_Strat
egie_Lebensmittelverschwendung_2019.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3. 

135  European  Commission  Science  Hub.  EU  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  and  key  risk  factors. 

October 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden. 

136 EUROSTAT. [sdg_02_10]. Overweight rates are above EU27 average.  
137 Red meat being defined as beef, lamb and pork, 118,68 g/per capita/d, net of waste in the EU 2010. Global 

Burden of Disease Study 2017, M. Springmann. 

31 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
 
 
 
138  Defined as: consumption of ≥ 5 portions, it is below EU27 average and one of the 2 additional criteria is met: 
a)  1-4  portions  below  EU27  average,  b)  0  portions  above  EU27  average.  EUROSTAT. 
[HLTH_EHIS_FV3C]. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/hlth_ehis_fv3c/default/table?lang=en. 
139  EU  SCAR  AKIS.  Preparing  for  Future  AKIS  in  Europe.  Brussels,  European  Commission.  2019. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/report-preparing-for-
future-akis-in-europe_en.pdf. 

140  In a ‘strong’ AKIS, 1) influential actors or organisations at national level support the knowledge system, 2) 
dedicated  resources  are  allocated  to  the  AKIS,  for  example,  to  enhance  advisory  services,  knowledge 
production and exchange, and 3) evidence exists that farmers are being reached by and benefit from advisory 
services.  A  weak  AKIS  would  be  lacking  of  these  features.  An  ‘integrated’  AKIS  features  a  coordinating 
structure,  often  a  public  body,  and  the  system  is  supported  by  national  policies  on  AKIS  and  advisory 
services that frame the (inter)actions of AKIS actors. In addition, in an integrated AKIS there is evidence of 
linkages  between  various  actors.  A  fragmented  AKIS  is  characterised  by  several  independent  knowledge 
networks that operate in parallel. They are typically not well coordinated, rarely cooperate and even might 
compete. Source: Knierim, A., Prager, K. Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems in Europe: Weak 
or strong, fragmented or integrated? PRO AKIS, European Commission 7th Framework Programme project. 
July 
https://430a.uni-
hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/430a/PRO_AKIS/About/OVERVIEW.OF.AKIS.IN.EUROPE.AKIS
_characterisation_briefing_final.pdf. 

2015. 

141  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Baden-Württemberg,  2014-2020,  Version  5.1,  Rural  Development 
Programme of Bayern, 2014-2020, Version 7.1, Rural Development Programme of Berlin & Brandenburg, 
2014-  2020,  Version  6.0,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Hessen,  2014-  2020,  Version  5.1,  Rural 
Development  Programme  of  Mecklenburg  Vorpomern,  2014-  2020,  Version  7.2,  Rural  Development 
Programme  of  Niedersachsen  &  Bremen,  2014-  2020,  Version  6.2,  Rural  Development  Programme  of 
Nordrhein-Westfalen,  2014-  2020,  Version  5.1,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Rhineland-Pfalz,  2014- 
2020,  Version  5.2,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Saarland,  2014-  2020,  Version  6.1,  Rural 
Development Programme of Sachsen, 2014- 2020, Version 6.1, Rural Development Programme of Sachsen-
Anhalt,  2014-  2020,  Version  7.2,  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Schleswig-Holstein,  2014-  2020, 
Version 6.1, Rural Development Programme of Thüringen, 2014- 2020, Version 5.1, Financing plan - 10.3 
Breakdown by measure or type of operation with a specific EAFRD contribution rate, 2020. 

142  European Commission. EIP-AGRI. Projects - Operational groups. 2020. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/eip-agri-projects/projects/operational-
groups?search_api_views_fulltext_op=AND&search_api_views_fulltext=&field_proj_geographical_area%5
B0%5D=126&page=2. 

143  European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Output  indicator  OIR_13  Number  of 

beneficiaries advises. 

144  Paul, C., Knuth, U., Knierim, A., Ndah, H.T. and Klein, M. AKIS and advisory services in Germany: Report 
https://www.uni-

for 
(WP3) 
hohenheim.de/uploads/media/Pro_Akis_-_Country_Report_Germany.pdf.  

the  PRO  AKIS 

the  AKIS 

inventory 

project. 

2014. 

145  Knierim,  A.,  Gerster-Bentaya,  M.,  Thomas,  A.  (2018).  Landwirtschaftliche  Beratung  -  quo  vadis?.  B&B 

of 

Agrar, issue 5-2018. Federal Office for Agriculture and Food. 2018. pp. 26-27. 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]. 

147  EUROSTAT. People with basic or above basic digital skills, 2019. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/10321587/Regional_digital_skills-01.jpg. 

148  European Commission Smart Specialisation Platform. Digital Innovation Hubs. 

https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/digital-innovation-hubs-
tool?p_p_id=digitalinnovationhub_WAR_digitalinnovationhubportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal
&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-
1&p_p_col_count=1&formDate=1599036953363&freeSearch=&countries=19&evolStages=3&marketSecto
rs=1&h2020=false. 

149  German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Digitalisation. 2020. 
https://www.bmel.de/EN/topics/digitalisation/digitalisation_node.html. 

150  German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. More than 50 million euros for digital trial fields in the 

agricultural sector. 2 July 2020. https://www.bmel.de/EN/topics/digitalisation/digital-trial-fields.html. 

32