COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Slovakia’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, Slovakia, 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) 392 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Slovakia’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy   {COM(2020) 846 final} - {SWD(2020) 367 final} - {SWD(2020) 368 final} - {SWD(2020) 369 final} - {SWD(2020) 370 final} - {SWD(2020) 371 final} - {SWD(2020) 372 final} - {SWD(2020) 373 final} - {SWD(2020) 374 final} - {SWD(2020) 375 final} - {SWD(2020) 376 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 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 SLOVAKIA’S CAP 
STRATEGIC PLAN ........................................................................................ 2 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

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

Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and 
contribute  to  the  environmental-  and  climate-related 
objectives of the Union ...................................................................... 2 

Strengthen  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  and 
address societal concerns .................................................................. 3 

Modernising  the  sector  by  fostering  and  sharing  of 
knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation,  and  encouraging 
their uptake ........................................................................................ 4 

1.5 

Recommendations .............................................................................. 4 

2. 

ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 
IN  SLOVAKIA ............................................................................................... 7 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

2.8 

2.9 

Support  viable  farm  income  and  resilience  across  the  EU 
territory to enhance food security .................................................... 7 

Enhance  market  orientation  and  increase  competitiveness 
including  greater  focus  on  research,  technology  and 
digitalisation ....................................................................................... 9 

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

Contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, as 
well as sustainable energy ............................................................... 11 

Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management 
of natural resources such as water, soil and air ............................ 13 

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

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

Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local 
development  in  rural  areas,  including  bioeconomy  and 
sustainable forestry ......................................................................... 19 

Improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal 
demands on food and health, including safe, nutritious and 
sustainable food, as well as animal welfare ................................... 20 

2.10 

Cross-cutting  objective  on  knowledge,  innovation  and 
digitalisation ..................................................................................... 22 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR 

SLOVAKIA’S 

CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN 

the  priorities  for  agriculture  and  rural  areas 

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 Slovakia. The recommendations are based on analysis of the state of play, 
the  needs  and 
in  Slovakia.  The 
recommendations  address  the  specific  economic,  environmental  and  social  objectives  of 
the  future  CAP  and  in  particular  the  ambition  and  specific  targets  of  the  Farm  to  Fork 
Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. As stated in the Farm to Fork Strategy, the 
Commission invites Slovakia, in its CAP strategic plan, to set explicit national values for 
the  Green  Deal 
these 
into  account 
recommendations. 

its  specific  situation  and 

targetsa, 

taking 

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

security 

The economic performance of Slovakia’s  agricultural  sector is  strongly influenced by its 
dual structure. On the one hand, there are larger, professional farms integrated in vertical 
chains, with access to capital and land. As farms are getting bigger and investments allow 
for higher efficiency, there is a considerable outflow of labour from agriculture, resulting 
in higher income per annual work unit and total factor productivity.  

On the other hand, the sector is adapting in line with transition to sustainable food systems 
(e.g. increasing consumer demand for organic products, higher animal welfare standards, 
short  supply  chains)  in  which  the  small  farms  play  an  important  role.  In  that  transition, 
further use of EU quality schemes could help improve the position of farmers in the food 
value chain and therefore add value and generate competitive advantages. 

In  general,  Slovakia  should  better  target  its  measures  to  tackle  disadvantages  stemming 
from natural conditions, size and specific sectoral characteristics in order to help increase 
the sector’s overall resilience. Support for innovative and digital smart solutions, as well as 
availability of the appropriate risk management tools could be instrumental. 

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Slovak farms and forests are facing major challenges linked to the management of natural 
resources,  especially  in  light  of  the  intensification  of  agricultural  production  and  the 
impacts of climate change. 

While  the  agricultural  sector’s  non-CO2  greenhouse  gas  emissions  have  decreased 
dramatically  since  the  1990s,  the  trend  has  started  to  reverse  in  the  recent  years  due  to 
increasing  emissions  from  the  fertilisation  of  agricultural  soils  (these  account  for  half  of 
the emissions although they remain relatively low in per ha terms). This is in contrast to 
the livestock sector (ruminants), which - despite an overall reduction in emissions due to a 
reduction  in  the  number  of  livestock  -  is  still  relatively  emission  intensive.  As  in  other 

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

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

2 

 
 
 
                                                 
countries in the region, forests’ capacity to absorb CO2 has flattened out because of ageing 
and  pests.  This  is  also  the  case  for  grasslands,  whereas  the  CO2  absorption  capacity  of 
croplands  has  increased.  Slovakia’s  agri-forestry  sector  has  steadily  increased  its  energy 
production and is also considerably energy efficient when compared to the EU average.  

Changing weather patterns are making Slovakia’s agricultural sector vulnerable to higher 
yield  variability  and  crop  disturbances  due  to  water  imbalances,  pests  (that  also  damage 
forests)  and,  heat-induced  stress  for  livestock.  However,  there  are  some  opportunities 
linked to increased productivity and new crops.  

As  in  many  other  Member  States,  the  biodiversity  situation  in  Slovakia  is  continuously 
worsening  especially  for  bird  species,  amphibians  and  reptiles,  agricultural  and  forest 
habitats  in  Natura  2000  sites,  and  aquatic  and  wetlands  ecosystems.  A  lack  of  overall 
variety  in  landscape  features  on  agricultural  land  also  continues  to  be  a  challenge.  To 
address  these  challenges,  Slovakia  should  expand  the  use  of  sustainable  practices  and 
environmentally-sound farming systems, and take action to restore habitats and species  – 
especially those included in the Prioritised Action Framework for CAP funding and, in the 
EU and national species and habitats action plans.  

Numbers of hectares of organically farmed agricultural land and of organic farmers show 
the  importance  that  organic  farming  has  gained  in  Slovakia  over  the  last  decades.  This 
presents  a  good  starting  point  for  Slovakia  to  contribute  to  reaching  the  EU  Green  Deal 
target. Nevertheless, conversion to organic farming should speed up, since it has stagnated 
in recent years. 

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

concerns  

The  transition  towards  sustainable  food  systems  also  involves  supporting  the  creation  of 
vibrant  rural  areas,  a  better  quality  of  life  and  greater  attention  to    emerging  societal 
demands. 

Since 2010,  macroeconomic  developments have led to an increase in the level of income 
per capita in Slovakia. However, the differences between rural and urban areas continue to 
be  high.  To  ensure  that  rural  areas  and  communities  remain  attractive  places  to  live  and 
work, Slovakia needs to reduce the gap in standard of living between rural and other areas. 
This  will  require  addressing  the  specific  needs  and  challenges  of  rural  areas  and  of 
vulnerable  groups,  namely  the  lack  of  job  opportunities  and  limited  access  to  basic 
services.  

Careful  consideration    must  be  given  tothe  specific  needs  of  women  in  agriculture  and 
rural areas in order to ensure on gender equality and close the gender gaps in employment, 
pay, pensions and decision-making.  

Ensuring  the  protection  of  agricultural  workers,  especially  the  precarious,  seasonal  and 
undeclared ones, will play a major role in upholding the rights enshrined in EU laws that 
are central to fair EU food system envisaged by the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

Farming  is  key  in  helping  rural  communities  remain  economically  viable.  However  it 
needs  skilled  and  innovative  farmers  that  can  respond  to  societal  demands,  from  quality 
food  to  environmentally  friendly  products.  This  entails  addressing  the  sector’s  relatively 

3 

 
 
high reliance on more hazardous pesticides, and the limited or delayed access to low risk 
alternatives in the Slovak market.  

Animal  welfare  concerns  also  need  to  be  addressed.  The  persistent  practice  of  docking 
pigs’ tail signals the still inadequate conditions on farms that usually motivate this banned 
practice.  In  contrast,  sales  of  antimicrobials  for  farmed  animals  remain  relatively  low 
while  the  occurrence  of  African  swine  fever  proved  the  importance  of  biosecurity 
measures.  

Slovakia has very high rates of non-communicable diseases due to dietary risk factors, and 
efforts are needed to support the shift to a more healthy environmentally sustainable diet in 
line with national recommendations. 

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

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

A  well-functioning  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS)  should  ensure 
that  knowledge  flows  between  its  actors,  respond  to  farmers’  growing  need  for 
information,  to  achieve  the  CAP  objectives.  In  addition  to  “agriculture”,  AKIS  covers 
other rural activities related to the landscape, environment, forestry, climate, biodiversity, 
food and non-food systems. 

The Slovak AKIS is quite fragmented and weak. There is also no coherent policy on the 
development and functioning of the AKIS. Investment is essential to improve knowledge 
exchange and innovation flows between researchers, advisors, farmers and CAP networks. 
Improving  links  between  public  and  private  advisors  and  investing  in  their  training  and 
skills  is  also  of  utmost  importance.  Group  projects  under  the  European  Innovation 
Partnership shold be set up to help advisors capture and further develop innovative grass 
roots ideas.  

Strenghening  the  organisation  of  actors,  structuring  the  exchange  s  on  and  uptake  of 
knowledge  and  innovation,  as  well  as  digitalisation  are  key  for  a  swift  digital  and  green 
transition  towards  more  sustainable  agriculture  in  Slovakia.  The  future  role  of  farm 
advisors  should  include:  (i)  tailored  services  on  sustainable  management  choices,  on 
climate  impacts  and  adaptation  options;  (ii)  helping  to  initiate  and  facilitate  innovation 
projects that respond to farmers’ needs including on digital technologies, and (iii) helping 
farmers adapt to a digital landscape.  

Much faster broadband needs to be made available in Slovakia’s rural areas, as it can help 
r  job  and  business  creation,  generational  renewal,  and  the  provision  of  support  services 
that can improve the general quality of life in rural areas. This was highlighted as essential 
during the COVID-19 crisis. 

1.5  Recommendations 

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

4 

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

  Rebalancing  the  distribution  of  power  in  vertical  chains  by  strengthening  the 
role  of  producer  organisations  and  the  participation  of  small  farmers  in  them,  as 
well as diversification from conventional agricultural and foodstuffs to sustainable 
and high added value ones (such as EU quality schemes and organic food). 

 

 

Improving  the  viability  of  farms  by  better  addressing  the  income  gaps  among 
different  (professional)  farm  sizes,  sectors  and  territories  through  strengthened 
redistribution  by  applying,  for  example,  the  complementary  redistributive  income 
support  for  sustainability,  the  round  sum  payment  for  small  farmers  and  the 
reduction of payments, which reflect actual support needs in light of the economic, 
social and/or territorial objectives. 

Improving  resilience  of  the  agricultural  sector  through  promotion  of  risk 
management tools (including climate risks through a risk transfer mechanism, e.g. 
crop insurance), or, if needed, introducing new tools  on the basis of a systematic 
risk management strategy. 

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

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  organic  farming  by  fostering  a 
conversion from conventional farming to organic through adequate conversion and 
maintenance schemes. 

  Halting  and  reversing  the  loss  of  biodiversity,  in  particular  in  conservation 
trends and status of all protected habitats and species linked to agriculture and the 
decline  in  farmland  birds  and  wild  pollinators,  by  promoting  sustainable 
management  practices  in  agricultural  area  and  sustainable  forest  management, 
habitats restoration actions in line with priorities defined in the Prioritised Action 
Framework  and  by  contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  high  diversity 
landscape features on agricultural land. 

 

Increasing  resilience  to  climate  change  by  increasing  water  efficiency  through 
modernisation of water infrastructure and rainwater harvesting, crop adaptation and 
appropriate land management practices improving water retention in soils. 

  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, in particular by mitigating 
the emissions from soils through practices leading to more efficient use of inputs; 
and addressing the intensity of enteric emissions from ruminants by adopting low 
emission feeding strategies in line with the Methane Strategy. 

  Maintaining  and  strengthening  the  carbon  sink  in  existing  forests  and 
implementation  of  afforestation  programmes,  by  considering  projected  climate 
change for the selection of appropriate species.  

  Fostering  sustainable  forest  management  and enhancing  multifunctionality, 
forest  protection  and  restoration  of  forests  ecosystems,  particularly  after  large 
scale damages, to reach good condition of habitats and species linked to the forests 
in order to enhance ecological services and biodiversity, and to build resilience to 
threats such as climate change impacts on forests. 

5 

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

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  targets  on  pesticides  by  strengthening  the 
efforts  to  decrease the quantities and risks of most hazardous used pesticides and 
promoting the sustainable use of pesticides, in particular by ensuring the uptake of 
integrated pest management practices. 

  Promoting  the  socio-economic  development  of  rural  areas  by  supporting  the 
development of economic activities in rural areas through mobilisation of activities 
in  new  sectors  (i.e.  developing  the  bio-economy)  with  an  appropriate  mix  of 
interventions,  such  as  investments  into  business  environment  and  by  investments 
into basic services. In doing so it will be important to ensure synergies with other 
EU and national funds. 

  Putting  in  place  more  ambitious  measures  to  support  farmers  to  improve 
livestock  management  practices  aimed  at  higher  animal  welfare,  especially  for 
pigs and laying hens, as well as better biosecurity.  

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

  Contributing to the EU Green Deal target on broadband by timely completing 
investments  for  fast  broadband  connection  coverage  in  rural  areas,  while 
strengthening  digital  capacities  and  skills  to  foster  the  digital  transition  and 
harnessing  the  potential  of  technological  advancements  for  modern,  competitive 
and  sustainable  agriculture.  In  doing  so  it  will  be  important  to  ensure  synergies 
with other EU and national funds. 

  Strengthening  the  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Innovation  System, 

in 
particular by interlinking actors and supporting competent advisors which can help 
the  green  transition,  by  setting  up  interactive  innovation  projects  and  innovation 
support services, and by organising attractive and targeted agricultural training for 
advisors and farmers. 

6 

 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN  

SLOVAKIA 

Agricultural  sector,  together  with  forestry,  represents  around  2.8%  of  the  gross  value 
added of the Slovak economy. Nevertheless, its role is crucial in the provision of food and 
public  goods  by  using  and  utilizing  resources  of  rural  areas.  Agricultural  area  covers 
around 47% of the Slovak territory, out of which 62% are designated areas facing natural 
constraints. The sector is  characterized by its dual  structure, with  a dominant  position of 
large  farm  and  an  average  size  of  75  hectares.  This  is  due  to  historical  reasons  as  many 
large cooperatives and state-owned companies were formed during the period of the state 
collectivization and after 1989 were transformed into private business companies and co-
partner  cooperatives. Regarding  production,  Slovakia  produces  mainly  cereals,  oilseeds, 
industrial  crops  and  forage  plants  while  milk,  cattle  and  pigs  dominate  the  animal 
production.  

Rural areas comprise 46% of the Slovak territory and host 37% of population. The socio-
economic  conditions  differ  across  the  regions  of  Slovakia.  The  lack  of  labour 
opportunities, as well as, limited access to basic services remain the main challenges. 

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

enhance food security  

The average entrepreneurial income per worker more than quadrupled between 2005 and 
2018, ultimately reaching EUR 16 600 per worker, which slightly exceeds (+4%) the EU 
average.1 The increasing productivity, linked to the considerable outflow of labour force, 
contributed to this increase (see 2.2). This level exceeds (+10%) the average wages in the 
Slovak  economy,  which  ratio  is  more  favorable  than  the  EU  average  (i.e.  -53%).2 
Similarly,  the  agricultural  factor  income  also  improved  spectacularly  between  2005  and 
2018 (from EUR 5 500 to EUR 18 800 per worker), after which it slightly exceeds (+13%) 
the EU average.3 

EU subsidies play a key role in the farms’ revenues and thus in their continued existence. 
Though this share gradually decreased primarily due to the increasing factor income over 
the  years,  58%  of  the  factor  income  still  came  from  subsidies  in  2018:  44%  from  direct 
payments,  13%  from  the  rural  development  programme  and  further  2%  from  other 
subsidies.4 These shares  show in  fact  much higher values (often above 100%) in  case of 
small/medium  farms,  and  a  gradual  decrease  in  particular  above  EUR  750 000  of 
economic size due to the higher efficiency of larger farms.  

There  are  only  few  and  relatively  weak  measures  with  redistributive  effect  in  favour  of 
smaller  than  average  farms  (the  obligatory  reduction  of  payments  and  the  young  farmer 
scheme  subject  to  area  ceiling).  At  the  same  time,  their  limited  impact  is  actually 
neutralized  by  other  support  decisions  (larger  farms  benefit  more  from  environmental 
subsidies5).  This  is  visible  from  the  very  narrow  difference  in  the  amount  of  direct 
payments  per  hectare  (EUR  235  per  hectare  on  average  in  2018,  with  hardly  any 
differences  among  the  various  farm  sizes)6,  as  well  as  the  respective  indicator.7  The 
uniform rate (EUR 140 per hectare in 2018) of the Single Area Payment Scheme, which 
represents 58% of the direct payments envelope and covers 97% of the utilised agricultural 
area, also contributes to this effect.8 The highly concentrated allocation of direct payment 
(20%  of  farms  receive  94%  of  direct  payment)  thus  mirrors  the  similarly  high 
concentration of land (also 20% / 94%, which is in fact the highest in the EU).9  

7 

 
 
Nonetheless, an analysis of the factor income highlights various needs for income support, 
depending the following factors:  

  Farm  size:  Half  of  the  Slovak  farms  are  below  EUR  4  000  of  economic  size10, 
many  of  these  actually  semi-subsistence  farms  often  below  the  minimum 
requirements  for  direct  payments  (only  72%  of  all  holdings  benefit  from  direct 
payments);  these  farms  only  cover  2%  of  the  utilised  agricultural  area  and  give 
non-scaling share (1%) of the national standard agricultural output. With regard to 
professional  farms,  the  factor  income  generally  increases  with  the  farm  size,  but 
with  important  ups  and  downs.  Only  economic  sizes  above  EUR  500  000  show 
relatively  stable  high  values;  these  farms  cover  64%  of  utilised  agricultural  area, 
give 74% of the standard output and are substantial employers.11  

  Agricultural  sector /  type of farming:  Sheep  &  goat  and cattle farms  generate the 
lowest  factor  income,  whereas  ‘mixed  crops  and  livestock’  farms  the  highest. 
Slovakia currently provides coupled support to 7 sectors (beside sheep & goat and 
beef, also in the dairy, protein crop, sugar beet, fruit & vegetables and hop sectors), 
with  a  support  corresponding  to  15%  of  the  direct  payments  envelope.  Some  of 
these  sectors  (sugar  beet,  certain  vegetables)  already  show  signs  of  economic 
recovery,  whereas  in  others  (e.g.  sheep  &  goat,  cattle)  the  factor  income  without 
subsidies remains still low.12  

  Regional differences:  62% of utilised agricultural  area are located in  areas facing 
natural  or  specific  constraints  (ANC)  (25%  in  mountain  area),  whose  increased 
support  under  the  rural  development  programme  does  not  fully  compensate  for 
their  handicap,  especially  in  the  mountain  areas.  These  areas  predominantly 
produce livestock, also complemented with arable crops in ‘other ANC’.13  

  Systematic  risk  management  approach  is  still  lacking  in  Slovakia.  To  address 
income  volatility  arising  from  e.g.  climatic  risks,  only  very  limited  commercial 
insurances  are  available  with  low  uptake;  though  the  state  aid  scheme  for 
commercial insurance in agricultural primary production (implemented since 2019) 
will probably  bring improvement. There are no  mutual  funds, forward, or futures 
contracts.14  Since  the  climate  change  is  expected  to  affect  the  frequency  and 
intensity of extreme weather events, leading to further vulnerability of production, 
adequate risk management tools in place should become a norm for Slovakia. The 
exposure  to  sanitary  and  phytosanitary  risks  is  also  more  and  more  requiring 
appropriate solutions (see also point 2.4). 

8 

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

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

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy  

Source: DG AGRI, based on EUROSTAT15 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation  

According  to  last  Farm  Structure  Survey  (2016),  there  were  more  than  25  000  farms  in 
Slovakia  (+9%/2013).16  Crop  sectors  (mainly  cereals)  generated  almost  60%  of  total 
agricultural  output  in  2019.17  While  agricultural  area  remains  stable  (around  1.9  million 
hectares) between 2005-2016, the area with permanent crops declined by 30%, mainly due 
to  lower  competitiveness  to  imports.18  This  was  acknowledged  by  granting  a  voluntary 
coupled support to fruit & vegetables sectors.  

 The number of livestock units (dairy  cows, sheep  &  goats,  cattle) continues to  decrease 
(by  almost 160 000  in  between  2005-2016).19  In  some  cases  (e.g.  dairy  cows),  this 
development  is  also  a  result  of  an  increasing  efficiency,  ongoing  restructuring  and 
modernisation  of  production  systems.  Therefore,  coupled  support  might  have  prevented 
even  further  decline.  However,  some  sectors  have  showed  an  adaptation  to  changing 
consumer demand. For example, there is an increasing trend of organic milk production20 
and  also  extensive  livestock  production  systems  provide  conditions  for  a  higher  animal 
welfare and overall better quality of animal products which meet the consumers’ demand. 
The  agricultural  area  for  extensive  grazing  (an  area  under  grazing  livestock  production 
below 1 livestock unit per hectare of forage area) increased between 2007-2013 by 9 pp to 
41% of utilised agricultural area.21 Organic land is also increasing (see 2.6). 

The agri-food trade balance of Slovakia is negative and declining, mainly due to increasing 
imports  of  products  other  than  agricultural  commodities22  (e.g.  meat,  processed  dairy 
products, fruit & vegetables), thus increasing competition for domestically produced food. 
On the export side, agricultural commodities represent the greatest share, followed by food 
preparations  with  the  greatest  value  contribution  (e.g.  chocolate,  confectionery,  ice 
cream).23 

Among all EU countries, Slovakia recorded the 6th  highest  annual  growth in  total factor 
productivity  (TFP)  in  2007-2017  (around  2 pp  annually).24  Labour  productivity  growth 
was driven strongly by the outflow of labour (-56% between 2005-2017) whereas returns 
on  investments  showed  some  stabilization.  Land  productivity  could  face  considerable 
challenges  in  the  future.25  The  land  management  (including  access  to  land,  land 
consolidation,  conditions  of  land  rentals,  industrial  competition)  should  require  extra 
attention. In addition, as land productivity is linked to yields, development and acceptance 
of  innovations  will  be  crucial  in  order  to  face  challenges  linked  to  climate  change  and 
provide a competitive advantage for Slovak farmers.  

9 

0%20%40%60%80%100%120%140%€0 €5.000 €10.000 €15.000 €20.000 €25.000 200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019Trend in agricultural income (versus average wage in the economy)Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms in Slovakiaagricultural income as % of average wage in the economy in Slovakiaagricultural income as % of average wage in the economy - EU-27 
 
 
After  a  period  of  stagnation,  the  level  of  investments  in  the  Slovak  agri-food  sector  has 
been increasing since 2016. In 2018, total investment was 21% higher compared to 2013. 
However, there is still a financing gap estimated at EUR 37 million. Around 77% of the 
gap  value  relates  to  small-sized  enterprises  (below  50  employees).  In  terms  of  financial 
products, the gap mainly relates to short and long-term investment loans.26  

The age of managers is playing an important role in the use of innovations (see also 2.7). 
Therefore,  supporting  generational  renewal  and  access  to  land  for  young  farmers  would 
also benefit the overall sector in its adaptation to new challenges.  

Moreover,  adequate  support  to  R&D  and  reinforced  interlink  between  different  actors 
(users  and  producers  of  knowledge  and  innovation,  advisors)  will  be  needed  to  trigger 
productivity gains in agriculture (see also 2.10).  

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

Total factor productivity 
Land productivity 

Labour productivity 
Intermediate costs productivity 

Capital productivity 

TFP EU-27 

Source: EUROSTAT for TFP and DG AGRI for partial productivities27 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain  

In 2017, primary production captured roughly 34% of the total value generated along the 
food  chain  (7 pp  above  the  EU  average).  This  value  remains  volatile  on  annual  basis  in 
contrast  to  food  processing  and  distribution,  which  both  showed  analogous  trends  and  a 
stable  increase  since  2013.  In  absolute  terms,  the  value  added  for  primary  producers  in 
Slovakia is higher in 2017 compared to 2008.28 

Incorporated  farms  (12%  of  all  farms,  mainly  limited  liability  companies,  joint  stock 
companies and co-operatives; in some cases established by foreign investors) farm 80% of 
agricultural  area  and  represent  83%  of  standard  output  in  2016.  This  illustrates  their 
relatively  stronger  position  in  vertical  chains  compared  to  farms  owned  and  operated  by 
natural persons, of which around 70% are farms where the farm household consumes more 
than 50% of final production.29 

The activities of primary production provide for living of around 52 600 people, compared 
to 56 500 in food manufacturing and 79 500 in food and beverage service activities.30 51% 
of food retail turnover comes from the wholesale channel. In absolute term, it is growing 
continuously since 2010 following a drop in 2009 due to financial crisis. There is also an 
increasing demand in food service.31 Therefore, the guaranty and stability of employment 
could be considered higher in those stages of the food supply chain compared to primary 
production.  

10 

 
 
 
In  order  to  safeguard  and  strengthen  the  position  of  farmers  in  the  food  supply  chain, 
besides other measures,  producer organisations  (POs) could  be established.  In particular, 
POs should mainly focus on small and medium-sized agricultural holdings for which this 
kind of co-operation would help to create economies of scale and thus provide long-term 
economic  and  social  sustainability  despite  their  sizes.  Only  5  POs  were  recognised  in 
201932 and these were mainly established in view of funding opportunities provided. Small 
farms  are  at  a  loose  end  as  these  POs  are  dominated  and  managed  by  large  farms  with 
already  large  economies  of  scale  and  strong  bargaining  power.33  No  Interbranch 
Organisation has been recognised so far and no cooperatives are active in Slovakia.  

However, some grass-root initiatives of short supply chains like farmers’ markets, fruit & 
vegetables  boxes,  sales  from  farms  have  gained  a  popularity  in  Slovakia,  although  not 
having  necessarily  a  strong  institutional  and/or  financial  support.  These  are  in  particular 
relevant to smaller farms. In addition, impacts on local economy could be observed as well 
as a recognition and preservation of cultural heritage.  

The value creation at farm level in Slovakia is also re-inforced by EU and national quality 
schemes  (e.g.  Znacka  kvality).  In  2019,  there  were  29  Slovak  products  registered  in  EU 
quality  schemes34  and  more  than  1 300  of  Znacka  kvality.35  Develop  the  quality  aspects 
and increase consumers’ interest in EU and national quality schemes would also strengthen 
the position of farmers/producers and lead to obtaining a higher share of the added value.  

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

Primary production 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 
% for primary producers (right axis) 
Source: EUROSTAT36 

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

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

sustainable energy  

Compared to the EU levels, Slovak agriculture contributes three times less to the country’s 
overall greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions.  

In  2018,  non-CO2  GHG  emissions  from  agriculture  in  Slovakia  were  lower  by  55% 
compared  to  1990  while  the  EU  emissions  were  reduced  by  21%  in  the  same  period. 
However, since mid-2000s emissions from agriculture have been increasing at a higher rate 
than the EU average:  +4.5% compared to  the EU’s  -0.74% in  the period 2005-2018, and 
+3.2% in the period 2013-2018 compared to the EU’s +1.8%.37 The emissions of methane 
(CH4)  and  nitrous  oxide  (N2O)  per  hectare  of  utilised  agricultural  area  in  Slovakia  are 
below the EU-average (2015).38  

11 

 
 
As of 2018, 51% of agricultural emissions relate to agricultural soils (EU: 38%), 36% to 
enteric  fermentation  of  livestock,  primarily  cattle  (EU:  44%),  another  10%  to  manure 
management  (EU: 14%).39  The  emissions  per  livestock  unit  (LSU)  from  enteric 
fermentation  place  Slovakia  above  the  EU  average  (2016: 2.75  TCO2eq,  EU: 2.67 
TCO2eq)  while  those  from  manure  are  below  the  EU  average  (2016:  0.43TCO2eq,  EU: 
0.48TCO2eq).  Emissions  from  soil  per  hectare  are  also  below  the  EU  average  (2018: 
0.73TCO2eq,  EU:  0.94TCO2eq).  Between  2013  and  2018,  emissions  from  agricultural 
soils increased by 11% (EU: +2%) while those from ruminants fell by 5.5% (EU: +2%).40 

Considering the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, forestland is a 
substantial  CO2  sink  and, within agricultural  land both  cropland and  grassland are sinks, 
though grassland to a smaller extent. The sink role of forests has decreased compared to 
the  1990s  and  stabilised  in  mid-2000s,  except  2012  and  2013,  years  where  the  removals 
were  much  higher.  CO2  removals  from  croplands  increased  in  the  period  2013-2018  by 
15%  in  contrast  to  the  EU  average  emissions’  increase  of  some  12%  and  those  from 
grasslands decreased by 44% (EU: reduction of emissions by 9%).41 

Following  a  decrease  in  2003/2004,  the  share  of  permanent  grassland  in  utilised 
agricultural  area stabilised at  around 27%, below the EU average of 31%.42 The share is 
similar  for  areas  under  direct  payment  system.43  Peatlands  cover  only  0.1%  of  Slovak 
soils.44 

Production  of  energy  from  forest  and  agriculture  increased  by  64.5%  between  2013  and 
2018 with a substantial increase in several related agricultural sources, the stronger being 
the  anaerobic  fermentation  (+171%).  Per  unit  production  of  energy  exceeds  the  EU 
average  both  as  regards  vegetal  materials  and  residues  sources  (1.36  Gigajoule/ha, 
EU: 1.04)  and  especially  biogases  from  anaerobic  fermentation  (8.71  Gigajoule/LSU, 
EU: 3.93).  In  2018,  almost  18%  of  renewable  energy  in  Slovakia  came  from  agriculture 
(EU: 12%) and 56% from forestry (EU: 41%), bringing the total to 74%.45  

Energy consumption in Slovak agriculture and forestry (2018 data) as a share of total final 
energy consumption equals 1.3%, less than the EU average of 2.9%.46 In 2018 final energy 
consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area (69 kg oil eq) 
was less than half of the EU average (168 kg oil eq) and in the period 2013-2018 has been 
increasing at a lower rate than the EU average (1.7%, EU: 8%)47. The energy use in food 
production (2018 data) of 1.5% is about half of the EU average (2.9%).48 

In the current rural development programme, less than 1% of funds were programmed to 
facilitate  the  supply  and  use  of  renewable  sources  of  energy.  Only  very  little  of  this  has 
been  spent  by  2019  (0.98%)49,  mainly  due  to  low  interest  leading  to  low  uptake  by 
potential beneficiaries.   

In  terms  of  climate  adaptation,  like  other  countries  in  the  continental  region  of  the  EU, 
Slovakia faces changing weather patterns (wet, warmer winters and hotter, drier summers), 
and increasing risk of soil erosion. This makes Slovakia’s agriculture vulnerable to higher 
yield  variability,  disturbances  to  crop  growth  due  to  water  imbalances/insufficient  soil 
moisture  reserves  especially  in  light  soils  in  the  southern  part  of  the  country,  increased 
heat  stress  for  livestock  and  risks  of  new/more  pests/diseases/weeds  due  to  higher 
temperatures  and  longer  vegetation  period,  as  exemplified  by  the  increasing  damage  of 
bark  beetle  to  parts  of  Slovak  spruce  forests,  and  the  decrease  of  feed  production  and 
production on natural pastures due to droughts. In contrast, opportunities could come from 
new  crops/varieties,  longer  vegetation  period’s  positive  impact  on  grasslands  and  tuber 

12 

 
 
crops  and  reduction  of  moisture  loving  pathogens.  Climate  impacts  will  influence 
regionalisation  and  shift  location  of  crops  grown,  such  a  more  pronounced  presence  of 
durum  wheat,  maize  and  other  thermophilic  crops  in  the  northern  parts  of  the  country 
taking advantage of warmers temperatures and greater water availability.50  

The  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plan  of  Slovakia  (NECP)51  foresees  a  reduction  in 
agricultural  emissions  compared  to  1990s  level  supported  by  a  reduction  in  livestock 
breeding,  lower  use  of  fertilisers  and  slowdown  in  agricultural  activities.  From  2017 
onwards, the document  projects  an initial  decrease of  emissions and their return to  2017 
levels by 2040. While emissions from fertiliser management and enteric fermentation are 
projected  to  fall,  those  from  agricultural  soils  would  increase.  This  is  attributed  to  a 
projected  further  decline  in  livestock  inventory  and  ensuing  replacement  of  organic 
fertilisers  with  the  industrial  ones.  Within  the  LULUCF  sector,  natural  calamities  and 
aging have reduced forests’ CO2 removals after 1990s. The projections show the increase 
in removals until the end of the 2030s, then a falling trend that would stabilise in the late 
2030s. The removals by arable land and grasslands are also projected to decrease.  

The  NECP  lists  agriculture  among  the  sectors  with  the  greatest  potential  for  GHG 
reductions  (reducing  losses  and  recycling  nutrients)  emphasising  manure  and  slurry 
management/storage and animal feeding as possible mitigation measures, in continuation 
of the rural development programme support. It also notes the need to renew forests.  

Total Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (including and excluding 
LULUCF) in Slovakia (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  Slovakia,  agriculture  is  the  major  producer  (92.8%)  of  ammonia  emissions  (NH3). 
Emissions  from  livestock  production  represent  81.1%  and  from  crops  18.9%.52  While 
between  1990-2011  the  emissions  decreased  (mainly  due  to  reduction  of  livestock 
numbers see 2.2), from 2012 to 2017, a slight rise was observed due to an increased use of 
inorganic nitrogen fertilisers.53 In 2018 the emissions reduced by 13% (27.96 Gg) against 
2017  (32.21 Gg).54  An  assessment  of  the  risk  of  non-compliance  with  the  emission 
reduction commitments under Directive (EU) 2016/2284 (NEC Directive), based on a joint 
analysis of the quality of projections, the credibility of the policies and measures selected 

13 

 
 
for adoption in the National Air Pollution Control Programmes, and the projected margin 
of compliance, concluded that, for both 2020-29 and for 2030 and beyond, Slovakia would 
be at low risk of non-compliance with the emission reduction commitment for ammonia.55 

Agricultural practices influence soil viability, while agriculture production is reciprocally 
dependent  on  soil  quality.  In  order  to  assess  soil  productivity  and  quality,  soil  organic 
carbon  (SOC)  stocks  is  used.  In  2015,  SOC  stocks  (Mt/ha)  in  Slovakia  was  higher  on 
grasslands  (62.4 Mt/ha)  in  comparison  to  arable  land  (47  Mt/ha).  Mean  organic  carbon 
content  of  arable  land  remains  stable  over  the  last  years  (22.60 g/kg,  EU: 43.1 g/kg).56 
However, there is  significant  relationship  between SOC stocks and agro-climatic regions 
in Slovakia (e.g. positive correlation was observed on arable land of Danubian and Zahorie 
lowlands, negative correlation was observed on arable land of north-eastern Slovakia).57  

Soil  erosion  caused  by  water  is  one  of  the  most  widespread  soil  degradation  form  in 
Europe. In 2016, the mean rate of soil erosion caused by water on utilised agricultural area 
(incl.  grassland)  was  2.2 t ha-1 year-1  (2.5 t ha-1 year-1  in  the  EU).  In  Slovakia,  6.7%  of 
agricultural area is under a risk of severe soil erosion (EU: 6.6%)58, mountain areas having 
a  higher  probability  of  being  impacted  due  to  the  combined  factors  of  slopes’  steepness 
and  length  influencing  significantly  the  soil  loss.  Areas  having  regular  problems  with 
muddy  floods  and  denudation  of  soil  particles  have  been  currently  identified. These 
unfavourable phenomena may be prevented by appropriate management and application of 
technical  measures,  such  as  water  level  ditches,  erosion-control  weirs,  terraces  and 
others.59 A high share of arable land is left without soil cover during winter, 43% in 201660 
which is double the EU average of 23%. Soil cover limits the risk of soil erosion, nutrient 
and pesticide run-off. The share of conventional tillage in an arable area is also high, with 
70.5%61  and  more  sustainable  agricultural  management  practices  would  be  beneficial.  In 
the  future,  Slovakia  can  address  these  key  issues  in  synergy  with  activities  under  the 
Horizon Europe mission on Soil Health.      

Besides ammonia, agriculture is considered as a key source of water pollution by nutrients, 
organic  substances  and  pesticides.62  A  potential  surplus  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  on 
agricultural  land  can  serve  as  an  indicator  of  potential  water  pollution.  The  nitrogen 
surplus in Slovakia is slightly decreasing, ranging from a maximum of 50 kg N/ha per year 
in  2007  and  a  minimum  of  16 kg N/ha  per  year  in  2016  (47 kg  N/ha  per  year,  the  EU 
average  2012-2015).  The  deficit  of  phosphorus  is  increasing,  thus  depleting  soils  in 
Slovakia over time.63   

During  the  period  2016  –  2019,  12%  of  the  groundwater  monitoring  stations  had  nitrate 
concentrations  above  the  maximum  limit  of  50 mg/l.  An  increasing  trend  is  observed. 
Designated  nitrate  vulnerable  zones  represent  an  area  of  13 685  km2  of  the  national 
territory  and  55%  of  agricultural  area.64  Although  nitrogen  surplus  is  below  the  EU 
average,  there  are  hotspot  areas  with  high  nitrogen  loadings  due  to  agricultural  intensity 
(e.g. Zitny ostrov65) that require special attention. 

In terms of the Water Framework Directive, 44% of surface waters are in less than good 
ecological status and 2% are failing to achieve good chemical status. For groundwater 3% 
are failing to achieve good quantitative status and 26% are in unknown quantitative status 
and  11%  are  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  with  26%  in  unknown  chemical 
status.  The most significant  pressure on surface  waters was diffuse agricultural  pollution 
and this  was one of the  pressures  affecting  groundwater.  In terms  of impacts  for surface 
waters  the  most  significant  were  altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  changes,  organic 
pollution, nutrient pollution and chemical pollution. For groundwater the most significant 

14 

 
 
impacts  were  chemical  pollution  and  abstraction  exceeding  the  available  groundwater 
resource.66 

In 2016, 3.9% of utilised agricultural area was  equipped for irrigation in Slovakia (down 
from 9.6% in 2005) compared to the EU average 8.9%. The irrigated area covered 1.5% of 
utilised agricultural area.67 The share of irrigation in total water abstraction in agriculture 
ranged between 2012-2017 from 3.2% to 3.9%, therefore remained relatively stable.68  

The rural development programme targets to support 20.6% of utilised agricultural area to 
improve  soil  and  water  management.  Even  if  82.2%  of  this  target  have  so  far  been 
achieved, the evaluation of the rural development programme interventions identified that 
only  few  of  them  (notably  integrated  production  and  grass  strips  on  arable  land)  had  a 
positive  impact  on  soil  conservation  status  and  only  in  terms  of  reduction  of  potential 
erosion. As regards the change of soil organic carbon, no significant effect of interventions 
was observed mainly because interventions did not include management practices focused 
on soil organic carbon increase. On the other hand, interventions under agri-environment-
climate  measure  and  organic  farming  resulted  in  an  annual  average  reduction  of  24.64 
kg/ha  of  fertilisers’  use  and  thus  might  have  contributed  to  the  groundwater  quality.69  It 
should be noted that overall, the inorganic fertiliser consumption increased in Slovakia and 
reached its highest level in 2018 with 129 000 tonnes of nitrogen.70 This is mainly due to 
the  decrease  in  the  use  of  organic  fertilisers  resulting  from  the  reduction  in  livestock 
breeding. 

Further  agricultural  practises  that  could  contribute  to  more  resilient  soil  ecosystems 
includes crop diversification: in 2018, 89% of arable land (EU: 74%) was subject to crop 
diversification, linked to application of greening in Slovakia.71 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Slovakia 

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

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

Source: EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb]72 

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

preserve habitats and landscapes  

In 2018, 30% of Slovakia’s land area was covered by  Natura 2000 sites (EU: 18%). The 
agricultural  and  forest  areas  under  Natura  2000  sites  accounted  for  16%  of  utilised 
agricultural  area  (including  natural  grassland)  and  46%  of  the  total  forest  area, 

15 

 
 
respectively.73  In spite of efforts  over the last  years, there has been a delay in  approving 
management plans for Natura 2000 sites.74 

For the reporting period 2013-2018, only less than a third (22.7%) of agricultural habitats 
(grasslands)  showed  a  favourable  conservation  status,  while  the  rest  was  in  an 
unfavourable  conservation  status.  As  regards  those  forest  habitats,  which  are  covered  by 
Annex I of the Habitat Directive, 65.5% remain in an unfavourable conservation status out 
of which 10.3% showed even a decreasing trend.75  

The  Farmland  Bird  Index  as  a  barometer  of  change  for  the  biodiversity  of  agricultural 
landscapes has also a negative trend in Slovakia. Over the period 2005 - 2018, the overall 
population  index  declined  by  17%76,  while  only  a  minor  decrease  (4%)  was  observed  in  
areas where agri-environment-climate measure of  the rural  development  programme  was 
implemented.77   

The Prioritised Action Framework (PAF) indicates that for grasslands the main pressures 
identified are natural processes related to abandonment, followed by shrub encroachment, 
lack  of  proper  management  by  grazing  or  mowing,  intensive  agriculture,  alien  and 
problematic  species  and  development.  For  cropland  and  permanent  crops,  the  main 
pressures  is  intensive  agriculture,  using  of  crop  monocultures  and  intensive  use  of 
pesticides and fertilisers. For forests, the main pressures identified are forestry, alien and 
problematic species and extraction and cultivation of biological living resources. Species 
related  to  forests  as  the  Western  Capercaillie  (Tetrao  urogallus)  and  the  Black  Grouse 
(Tetrao tetrix) are in unfavourable-bad conservation status, which is strongly linked to the 
appropriate way of managing forests and other mountain habitats due to the strong decline 
in  their  populations.  The  Commission  has  launched  infringement  procedures  on  those 
issues. 

The  PAF  identifies  the  following  needs  in  Natura  2000.  For  grasslands:  restoration  and 
support  of  grazing  including  infrastructure;  support  of  mosaic,  irregular  mowing  (with  a 
frequency  adapted  to  each  habitat);  support  of  manual  mowing  or  mowing  by  light 
mechanization. Dealing  with  impact  of secondary  succession and  eradication of invasive 
species;  Preventing  the  transformation  of  the  natural  and  the  semi-natural  habitats  and 
habitats  of  species  to  agricultural  land.  For  cropland:  reintroduction  of  appropriate 
agricultural  practices  for  solving  the  problem  of  land  abandonment,  including  mowing, 
grazing,  burning  or  similar  measures;  restoration  of  traditional  small  landscape  elements 
and  balks  in  agriculture  country;  removal  or  management  of  drainage  and  irrigation; 
infrastructures  in  agriculture  (restoration  of  wetland  habitats  and  wet  meadows  by 
removing drainage infrastructures); restore and create wetlands in the country. In addition, 
there is a need to prioritize financial support to the following main types of Natura 2000-
related communication and awareness raising measures.  

While  in  2018  the  share  of  fallow  land  represented  1.9%  of  utilised  agricultural  area 
(EU: 4.1%), the share of linear landscape elements (grass margins, shrub margins, single 
trees  bushes,  lines  of  trees,  hedges  and  ditches)  was  close  to  0%  (EU: 0.6%).78  Slovakia 
will need to considerably improve this in order to contribute to the European Green Deal 
target of at least 10% of the EU agricultural area under high-diversity landscape features 
by 2030. 

In  2019,  Slovakia  reported  136 116  hectares  of  arable  land  as  ecological  focus  areas 
(EFA). Slovakia, likewise most of Member States, heavily  uses catch crops  (47.2%) and 
nitrogen fixing crops (27.8%) for fulfilling EFA requirements. 

16 

 
 
As  regards  farming  intensity  (input  intensity  per  hectare),  in  2017,  61.3%  of  utilised 
agricultural  area  was  managed  by  farms  with  high  input  intensity  and  20.2%  with  low 
input intensity. These figures differ from the EU averages: 36.3% for high input and 27% 
for low input intensity. Moreover, Slovakia is characterized by a high share of agricultural 
area used for extensive grazing (39.3%, EU: 19.8%).79 

The share of organic farming on utilised agricultural area has been increasing since 2003. 
In 2018, Slovakia reached a share of almost 10% (EU: 8%). More than 83.6% of organic 
area received CAP support in 2018. The number of organic producers increased from 362 
in 2012 to 439 in 2017 as well.80 However, this increasing trend has slowed down in the 
last  years:  182 000 ha  in  2015,  187 000  ha  in  2016,  189 000  ha  in  2017  and  2018.81  By 
ensuring a further increase of the area under organic farming in the future, Slovakia could 
contribute  to  the  European  Green  Deal  target  on  achieving  25%  of  the  EU  land  under 
organic farming by 2030.  

In 2018, Slovakia reported 17% of  utilised agricultural area and 2% of forest land under 
contracts  supporting  biodiversity  and/or  landscapes  financed  from  the  rural  development 
programme.82  However, 
implementation,  when  comparing  different 
interventions,  was  unbalanced,  mainly  due  to  beneficiaries'  preferences  for  certain 
interventions that are easier to implement.  

level  of 

the 

The  evaluation  of  the  rural  development  programme  interventions  identified  areas  for 
future improvements in this objective. Regarding agriculture, evaluators recommended to 
introduce  support  for  High  Nature  Value  farming  (type  2  -  Farmland  dominated  by  low 
intensity  agriculture  or  a  mosaic  of  semi-natural  and  cultivated  land  and  small-scale 
features)  in  order  to  reverse  the  declining  trend  in  this  type  of  farming.  Concerning 
forestry measures, they proposed to extend the eligible area for support under Natura 2000 
sites under forest-environmental-climate commitments and to target investment support to 
forests having a potential being converted to a high nature value forest area. 

Area under organic farming in Slovakia 

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

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

Source: EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1 and org_cropar]83 

17 

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

Fallow land as % of agricultural area 

Landscape features as % of agricultural area 

Source: DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey84 
* 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  

Slovakia has the 2nd highest share of young farmers (11.1%) in the total number of farm 
managers in 2016 (EU: 5.1%). Whereas the EU average decreases after 2010, in Slovakia 
there was a change of trend in 2007 and the share has been increasing since then. The ratio 
of  young  managers  to  elderly  in  Slovakia  is  0.24,  meaning  that  for  each  young  farmer, 
there  are  4  farmers  older  than  55  years,  and  is  among  the  highest  in  the  EU  (following 
Austria  and  Poland).  The  percentage  of  female  young  farmers  has  been  increasing  over 
years up to 2016, where the ratio of young female managers to male managers is 23.4%.85  

Access to land is one of the main barriers faced by young farmers in Slovakia, given the 
limited availability of land for sale or rent. Young farmers with CAP support manage only 
22  840  ha  of  land  in  Slovakia,  and  mostly  run  small  first-generation  family  farms.  The 
average  size  of  a  young  farmer's  farm  is  38  ha,  which  is  significantly  below  the  EU 
average  (80.7  ha).86  In  general,  in  the  EU  young  farmers  tend  to  have  bigger  and  more 
specialized farms. In Slovakia, they also encounter administrative barriers stemming from 
national legislation that creates difficulties in the access to land. 

They also face serious difficulties when trying to access the capital in particular they have 
a  low  access  to  loans  due  to  poor  credit  history,  a  lack  of  assets  that  could  be  used  as 
collateral  and  because  they  are  often  considered  economically  unviable.  They  have  a 
higher demand for investment, face higher costs from starting their business, and therefore 
have  lower  returns  from  their  farming  activities,  which  reduces  their  profitability  and 
access to credit.87  

Access  to  knowledge  is  another  of  the  main  challenges,  since  Slovakia  is  among  the 
countries  with  lowest  agricultural  training  of  young  farm  managers,  both  basic  and  full 
training,  and  far  below  the  EU  average  (28%,  EU: 43%).88  Furthermore,  the  share  is 
slightly  decreasing  over  the  years,  in  clear  contrast  to  the  EU  average.  The  insufficient 
level of education or skills makes banks consider the young farmers in a riskier category. 
Moreover,  the  lack  of  knowledge  adds  difficulty  to  the  setting  up  and  also  risks  viable 
operation and thus remaining in business in particular in the first years. 

18 

 
 
 
Slovakia  is  already  implementing  different  CAP  instruments  to  encourage  generational 
renewal. Under Direct Payments, Slovakia earmarked an average of 0.33%89 of the annual 
financial  envelopes  for  2015-2020  to  the  payment  for  young  farmers.  On  average  (till 
2018), this financed 62 EUR/ha annual support for 650 young farmers, each with some 41 
ha. As regards the rural development programme, 347 young farmers (almost 50% female) 
have been provided with the start-up aid support (12.2 million EUR) by 2019.90  

In  2016,  nearly  18  000  new  business  were  created  in  rural  areas.  The  number  has 
decreased after reaching a maximum in 2014 with over 32 000.91 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Slovakia 

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]92 

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

rural areas, including bioeconomy and sustainable forestry  

Slovakia  covers  an  area  of  49  035  km2,  comprising  a  population  of  around  5.4  million. 
Predominantly  rural  areas  represent  46.1%  of  this  area  (EU: 44.6%),  the  share  of  rural 
population  is  especially  high  37.4%  (EU: 20.8%)  and  there  is  no  depopulation  trend 
(population even slightly increased in rural areas +0.1%/ 2015).93  

After the slump in 2009, the employment rate was increasing both at the national level as 
well  as  in  rural  areas.  In  2019,  it  reached  66.8%  (age  category  15-64)  and  73.4%  (age 
category  20-64),  but  remained  slightly  below  the  EU  average  for  rural  areas  as  well  as 
below  a  national  average  (respectively  68.4%, 73.4%).  However,  some  convergence 
between the national average and the trend in rural areas has been observed in last years. 
The  employment  rate  remains  higher  for  males.94  As  regards  the  unemployment  rate, 
Slovakia  belongs  to  the  Member  States  where  the  gap  in  unemployment  rates,  between 
those  living  in  cities  and  rural  areas,  is  the  widest.95  The  total  unemployment  rate  (age 
category  15-74)  in  rural  areas  remains  above  the  EU  level  (8.4%  /  EU  level  6.3%),  the 
same applies for youth unemployment rate (age group 15-24) in rural areas (17.8% / EU 
level 14.6%).96 

Agricultural  labour  force  is  still  predominantly  male.  In  2016,  the  share  of  women  was 
only 26.6%97 while the female farm holders rate was 19.9% (EU: 28%).98 

Despite  a  limited  increase  in  2018  to  19%,  the  rural  poverty  rate  in  Slovakia  follows  a 
declining trend and remains below the EU average (24%).99 However, substantial regional 

19 

 
 
 
disparities are present in economic and social areas and certain groups (e.g. Roma) are in a 
particularly vulnerable position100 and thus require targeted actions for social inclusion.  

The  overall  strong  economic  recovery  and  expansion  following  the  2009  financial  and 
economic crisis is slowing down. In spite of the growth recorded also in rural areas, there 
is  a  significant  gap  when  comparing  GDP  per  capita  in  rural  and  urban  areas  (59.1% 
versus 186.7% of the EU average). Rural areas in Slovakia are also lagging behind when 
comparing  them  with  the  EU  level  (71%).101  Certain  rural  areas  still  lack  basic 
infrastructure (water, sewage and fast  broadband infrastructure), essential  public services 
and  labour  opportunities.102  Since  Community-led  Local  Development  (LEADER)  is 
lagging behind, the local development strategies (110), which cover almost 60% of rural 
population  and  aim  to  support  tailored  local  development  in  rural  areas,  have  not  been 
fully implemented yet. 

Rural areas have a potential in terms of development of the bioeconomy, which is still not 
sufficiently  used.  Although  turnover  of  bioeconomy  has  increased  substantially  between 
2008  and  2017,  the  turnover  per  person  employed  in  the  bioeconomy  represented  only 
60%  of  the  EU  average.  Agriculture  and  the  food  sector  remain  the  main  sectors 
contributing  to  the  bioeconomy  (60.2%  share  on  turnover  in  2017).  In  2017,  more  than 
167 000 persons were employed in bioeconomy sectors.103  

Forests  are  important  renewable  resources,  providing  a  wide  range  of  benefits  to  society 
including employment and economic development, in particular in rural areas. In Slovakia, 
the forest area has slightly increased since 1991 by 1.2% reaching 1.9 million ha in 2020 
(40.1%  of  total  area)104  slightly  above  the  EU  level  (39.8%).  While  a  significant  rise  of 
fellings has taken place in the last decades, especially sanitary logging in reaction to forest 
disturbances such as bark beetle infestations  or storm damage, the intensity of the  forest 
exploitation is still considered as sustainable as the felling is lower than the increment of 
growing  stock.105  In  2018,  the  ratio  of  forest  fellings  to  increment  reached  82.2%.106 
Meanwhile, the total growing stock in forests increased from 401.6 million m3 over bark in 
1990  to  537.67  million  m3  over  bark  in  2020  (33.9%  increase).  In  addition,  in  the  same 
period,  the  “density”  of  forest,  the  growing  stock  per  hectare  also  increased  from  211 
m3/ha  to  279  m3/ha,  meaning  that  there  are  more  wood/biomass  in  the  forest,  also 
representing  higher  carbon  storage.107  Total  employment  in  forestry  shows  a  downward 
trend.  In  2018,  it  accounted  for  17 900  persons  (forestry  and  logging).108  Between  2009 
and  2019,  the  gross  value  added  from  forestry  and  logging  activities  increased  by  60% 
reaching  634  million  EUR  while  the  total  output  was  almost  doubled  from  781  million 
EUR to 1 143 million EUR.109 

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

Antimicrobial  resistance  (AMR)  is  linked  to  the  excessive  and  inappropriate  use  of 
antimicrobials in human and animal healthcare.  

The  sales  of  veterinary  antimicrobial  agents  in  Slovakia  expressed  as  milligram  per 
population  correction  unit  (mg/PCU)  were  at  49.3  mg/PCU  in  2018,  significantly  below 
the EU average (118.3 mg/PCU).110 

20 

 
 
In  terms  of  animal  welfare,  tail  docking  of  pigs  remains  a  routine  practice  in  Slovakia 
despite  being  forbidden  by  the  EU  rules.  Tails  are  usually  docked  to  prevent  pigs  from 
stress-induced tail biting in response to negative environmental and management factors. 
The percentage of pigs reared with intact tails in Slovakia has barely changed since 2016.  

Biosecurity  is  equally  a  challenge.  Slovakia  is  among  the  countries  affected  by  African 
swine  fever  (ASF)  and  among  countries  which  need  to  revise/upgrade  registration  of 
certain farms, animal ID and animal movements.  

With  annual  fluctuations,  the  sales  of  pesticides  in  Slovakia  increased  in  the  2011-2018 
period; the majority of pesticides sold are ‘herbicides, haulm destructors and moss killers’ 
followed by ‘fungicides and bactericides’.111  

In  terms  of  risks  stemming  from  pesticides,  a  more  precise  picture  of  the  situation  is 
provided  by  the  Harmonised  Risk  Indicator 1  (HRI  1).  The  HRI  1,  which  weights  the 
volume of pesticides placed on the market according to the actual risk of active ingredient 
decreased by 16% in Slovakia in the 2011-2018 period (EU: 17%) but the candidates for 
substitution  comprised  a  relatively  high  proportion  of  the  total  pesticides  sales  in  the 
period 2015-2017.  

In terms of placing plant protection products on the market, Slovakia experiences delays in 
approval/authorisation processes, especially for minor uses. The REFIT survey indicated a 
limited availability of low-risk products authorised in the Slovak territory and concerns for 
availability of herbicides, bactericides and acaricides.  

While a National Action Plan under the Sustainable Use Directive (SUD) was adopted in 
2012,  no  revision  has  yet  been  submitted  to  the  Commission.  There  is  a  need  to 
significantly  improve  the  system  of  controls  on  the  implementation  of  the  general 
principles  of  the  Integrated  Pest  Management  for  all  types  of  professional  users  of  plant 
protection products.  

Slovakia  has  a  very  high  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  due  to  dietary  risk 
factors  expressed  as  disability-adjusted  life  year  (DALYs)  per  100,000  population 
attributable to diet.112 The DALY’s value is influenced by a number of dietary factors. On 
consumption trends, Slovakia has a very low consumption of fruits and vegetables - some 
47% of population in Slovakia indicates not to include fruit and vegetables in their daily 
diet, a higher proportion compared to  the EU average  (36%).113 The proportion of obese 
persons  in  the  population  (14%,  2017  data)  decreased  since  2008s  and  is  slightly  below 
EU  average  (15%).  Notwithstanding,  a  significant  part  of  the  population,  above  the  EU 
average, is overweight and the share of overweight and pre-obese persons has been on an 
increase  in  the  2008-2017  period.114  Actions  should  focus  on  shifting  towards  healthy 
sustainable diets, in line with national recommendations, in order to contribute to reducing 
overweight, obesity and the incidence of non-communicable diseases while simultaneously 
improving  the  overall  environmental  impact  of  the  food  system.  This  would  include 
moving  to  a  more  plant  based  diet  with  less  red  meat  and  more  fruits  and  vegetables, 
whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds. 

Data on food loss and waste in primary production and processing is not yet available. The 
recent National Waste Prevention Programme (2019-2025)115 gives little attention to food 
loss and waste occurring at the primary production level and the early stages of the supply 
chain.  This  could  be  tackled  in  the  future  national  food  waste  prevention  programme  as 
required by Article 29(2a) of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC. 

21 

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

Source: DG AGRI after ESVAC, Tenth ESVAC Report (2020)116  

HRI 1 
 Source: EUROSTAT [aei_hri]117 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation  

The Pro-AKIS study118, carried out at  EU level,  marked Slovak Agricultural  Knowledge 
and Information System (AKIS) as quite fragmented in terms of the level of integration of 
AKIS  actors,  and  as  weak,  which  means  that  it  lacks  resources.  Moreover,  there  is  no 
coherent policy targeting the development and functioning of the AKIS.  

Consultancy  and  vocational  training  to  stakeholders  is  provided  by  the  state  enterprise 
Agroinstitut, s.p. and National Forest Centre which are training providers that may deliver 
an accredited training course to agricultural as well as forest advisors. It also operates the 
information and communication web portal of the Agricultural Advisory System. Current 
central register of agricultural advisors comprises 101 accredited advisors.119  

Although  Research  and  development  (R&D)  plays  generally  a  critical  role  in  the 
innovation  process,  R&D  investment  in  Slovakia  remain  low.  In  2018,  the  government 
support to agricultural R&D was only of 2.1 EUR/inhabitant (EU: 6.3 EUR/inhabitant).120  
Agricultural  science  and  research  make  little  contribution  to  the  development  of 
agriculture, food, forestry and other related sectors of the national economy.121 

In the programming period 2014 – 2020, 3.2% of the rural development programme funds 
were programmed to foster knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry and 
rural areas (EU: 3.6%), covering trainings, advise and cooperation projects; 25 cooperation 
projects  were  scheduled  under  the  framework  of  the  European  Innovation  Partnership 
(EIP).  However,  the  implementation  of  these  measures  is  delayed  and  little  progress  has 
been achieved so far. No EIP operational group has been reported to the Commission yet, 
though  support  efforts  with  a  specific  focus  on  EIP  have  been  organised  by  the  Slovak 
National Rural Network.122 

Regarding agricultural training of farm managers, 23% of all farm managers participated 
in  a  basic  or  full  agricultural  training  in  2016  (EU: 31.6%).  This  share  is  rather  low  but 
stable over time since 2010. Compared to the EU, the share of farmers that participated in 
a full agricultural training123 is similar in Slovakia (9.3%).124 

Digitalization offers many possibilities for farmers to address challenges of a sustainable 
agricultural production. However, it needs to be accompanied by appropriate digital skills 
and  digital  infrastructure.  Moreover,  fast  internet  is  a  key  enabler  for  job  and  business 

22 

 
 
 
creation  in  rural  areas,  as  well  as  for  improving  quality  of  life  by  supporting  services  in 
areas such as healthcare, education, entertainment, and e-government.  

Slovakia ranks 22nd among all EU countries in Digital Economy and Society Index DESI 
2020  ranking  which  considers  5  dimensions,  namely  connectivity,  human  capital,  use  of 
internet services, integration of digital technologies and digital public services. The share 
of  Slovaks  who  declare  to  have  some  digital  skills  is  low.  Only  27%  of  Slovaks  have 
above-basic  digital  skills  (EU: 33%).125  In  2019,  the  gap  in  digital  skills  between  city-
dwellers and people living in rural areas was 10 pp.126 Among all EU countries, Slovakia 
ranks low on fast broadband coverage (24th position in DESI). In 2019, only 45% of rural 
households  were  covered  by  fast  broadband  internet  access  (EU: 59%),  compared  to 
76% in  Slovakia  entire  population.127  Closing  the  fast  broadband  coverage  gap  can 
enhance opportunities for farmers and rural dwellers. 

There  is  no  operational  Digital  Innovation  Hub  in  Slovakia  related  to  agriculture  and 
forestry.128 

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

Agricultural training of farm managers 

Managers with full 
agricultural training 

Managers with basic 
agricultural training 

Full training EU average 

Basic training EU average 

Source: DG AGRI129 

Broadband coverage in Slovakia 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

Source: DESI report130 

23 

 
 
 
1   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  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. 

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

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

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

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

2018). 

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

2018). 

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

2018). 

7   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on CATS (Clearance 
of Accounts trailing System) data (2015-2017). CAP result indicator R6 Redistribution to smaller farms. 
8   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on  Member  State 

notifications via ISAMM. 

9   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on CATS (Clearance 

of Accounts Trailing System) data (up to 2017). 

10   According to the FADN definition, the ‘economic size’ of an agricultural holding is measured based upon 

its total Standard Output (expressed in euro), i.e. the standard value of its agricultural output. 

11   Data  with  regard  to  physical  size:  Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own 
calculations  based  on  FADN  data  (up  to 2018);  data  with  regard  to  economic  size:  Farm  Accountancy 
Data Network. FADN Standard reports. YEAR.COUNTRY.SIZ6 and own calculations (up to 2018). 
12   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.TF14  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018). 

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

calculations (up to 2018). 

14   Study  on  risk  management  in  EU  agriculture  (Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development  (European  Commission),  ECORYS,  Wageningen  Economic  Research;  24/08/2018)  and 
Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (MoARD)  and  Ministry  of  Finance  (MoF)(2019). 
Revízia výdavkov na pôdohospodárstvo a rozvoj vidieka. Záverečná správa  (Review of Agriculture and 
Rural Development Expenditure. Final Report), July 2019. Bratislava. 

15   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. 

16   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmleg].  
17   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01]. 
18   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.18  Agricultural  area.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[apro_cpsh1] and EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmleg]. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

19   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmleg]. 
20   EUROSTAT. [org_aprod]. 
21   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.33  Farming  intensity.  Based  on  FADN  –Agri-

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification”. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

22   Highly standardised products mostly traded in bulk (cereals, vegetable oils…). 
23   Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development based on COMEXT. 
24   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. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  

24 

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

[ef_lf_main]. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  
26   Fi-compass (2020) Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Slovakia. Study report. 72 

pages. 
https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Slovakia.pdf  
27   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.27  Total  factor  productivity.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

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

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

producers in the food chain. 
29   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmleg]. 
30   EUROSTAT. [lfsa_egan22d]. 
31   EUROSTAT. [sbs_na_dt_r2] [sbs_sc_sca_r2].  
32   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Output  indicator  OIM_05  Producer 

organisations. 

33   Michalek,  J.,  P.  Ciaian  &  J.  Pokrivcak  (2018)  The  impact  of  producer  organisations  on  farm 
performance:  A  case  study  of  large  farms  in  Slovakia.  European  Commission,  Joint  Research  Centre, 
EUR 28793 EN, doi:10.2760/463561 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC108059/jrc_po_report.pdf  

34   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Output indicator OIH_02 Quality policy. 
35   Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoA). Značka kvality.  
36   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Result indicator RPI_03 Value for primary 

producers in the food chain. 

37   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer.  

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

38   EUROSTAT. Statistics Explained, Aggregated emissions of CH4 and N2O per hectare of UAA, 2015. 
39   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas - data viewer, EUROSTAT.  
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

40   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. 

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

41   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas - data viewer. 

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

42   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. R.12_PI Share of grassland in total UAA. 
43   European  Commission,  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  analysis  based  on  Member  States’ 

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

44   European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Relative cover (%) of peat soils (0–30cm), per country. 
45   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.43  Production  of  renewable  energy  from  agriculture 

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

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

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s].  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_energy_use  

47   EUROSTAT. [tai04].  
48   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s].  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_energy_use  
49   Annual  Implementation  Reports:  Annual  Implementation  Report  (AIR)  of  Rural  Development 

Programme of Slovakia, 2019. 

50   Among others, LIFE project AgriAdapt Webtool for Adaptation. EU climate change risks for Continental 

countries. 

51   The  Slovak  Republic,  Ministry  of  Economy  (MoE).  Integrated  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plan  for 

2021 to 2030. 

52   European Environmental Agency (EEA). Air pollutant emissions 1990-2018 – data viewer. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-pollutant-emissions-data-viewer-3  

25 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                   
 
53   Ministry of Environment (MoE). Národný program znižovania emisií SR (National Air Pollution Control 

Programme Slovakia), Bratislava, 2020.  
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/sk/eu/nec_revised/programmes 

54   European Environmental Agency (EEA). Air pollutant emissions 1990-2018 – data viewer. 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-pollutant-emissions-data-viewer-3 

55   Ricardo  Energy  &  Environment.  Review  of  the  National Air  Pollution  Control  Programme  –  Slovakia. 

European Commission, DG Environment, ED12960 – Issue Number 2, 2020. 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/reduction_napcp/NAPCP%20review%20report%20SK%20FIN
AL%2015Jun20.pdf  

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

Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

57   BARANČÍKOVÁ,  G.,  MAKOVNÍKOVÁ,  J.,  SKALSKÝ,  R.,  TARASOVIČOVÁ,  Z.,  NOVÁKOVÁ, 
M., HALÁS, J., KOCO, Š., GUTTEKOVÁ, M. Changes in organic carbon pool in agricultural soils and 
its  different  development 
regions  of  Slovakia.  Agriculture 
(Poľnohospodárstvo), vol. 59, 2013, no. 1, pp. 9-20. 
https://content.sciendo.com/configurable/contentpage/journals$002fagri$002f59$002f1$002farticle-
p9.xml  

individual  agro-climatic 

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

in 

Research Center (JRC). 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

59   Roman Výleta et al 2017 Monitoring and Assessment of Water Retention Measures in Agricultural Land. 

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 95 022008.  
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/95/2/022008/pdf  

60   EUROSTAT. [ef_mp_soil] and [ef_lus_main].  
61   EUROSTAT. [ef_mp_prac] and [ef_lus_main].  
62   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document - Second River Basin Management Plans – 

Member State: Slovakia. SWD(2019) 54 final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:54:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN  

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

64   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the 
Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC 
concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based 
on Member State reports for the period 2012-2015. SWD(2018) 246 final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:dab860df-4f7e-11e8-be1d-
01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_4&format=PDF  

65   Slovak  Hydrometeorological  Institute  (SHI).  Kvalita  podzemných  vôd  Žitného  ostrova  2017  –  2018 

(Groundwater quality on Zitny ostrov 2017-2018). 
http://www.shmu.sk/File/Hydrologia/Publikacna_cinnost/Publikacie_kvality_PzV/KvPzV_2017_2018_Z
O_kvalita_PzV.pdf  

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

Member State: Slovakia. SWD(2019) 54 final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:54:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN 

67   EUROSTAT. [ef_poirrig] and [aei_ef_ir]. 
68   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.39  Water  abstraction  in  agriculture.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [env_wat_abs]. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

69   Annual  Implementation  Reports:  Annual  Implementation  Report  (AIR)  of  Rural  Development 

Programme of Slovakia, 2018. 
70   EUROSTAT. [aei_fm_usefert]. 

26 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                   
 
 
71   European  Commission.  CAP  Indicators  -  Data  explorer.  CAP  Output  indicator  OID_07_2a  Crop 

diversification. 

72   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb]. 
73   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.34  Natura  2000  areas.  Based  on  NATURA  2000 

Barometer and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

74   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document  – The EU Environmental Implementation 

Review 2019 Country Report  - SLOVAKIA. SWD(2019) 116 final. 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_sk_en.pdf  

75   European Environmental Agency (EEA). Conservation status and trends of habitats and species. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/state-of-nature-in-the-eu/article-17-national-summary-
dashboards/conservation-status-and-trends  

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

[env_bio2], original source: EBCC, BirdLife, RSPB and CSO. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
77   Annual  Implementation  Reports:  Annual  Implementation  Report  (AIR)  of  Rural  Development 

Programme of Slovakia, 2018. 

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

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

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

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification”. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

80   European Commission. CAP Indicators - Data explorer. CAP Output indicator OIH_03 Organic farming. 
81   EUROSTAT. [org_cropar]. 
82   European Commission. CAP Indicators - Data explorer. CAP Result indicator R.07 Share of land under 

contracts supporting biodiversity and/or landscapes and forest. 

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

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar]. 

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

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

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang]. 

86   Fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Slovakia, Study report, 72 

pages.  
https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Slovakia.pdf  
87   fi-compass, 2020, Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Slovakia, Study report, 72 

pages.  
https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Slovakia.pdf 
88   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.24  Agricultural  training  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]. 

89   European Commission. DG AGRI data from MS notifications via ISAM. 
90   Annual  Implementation  Reports:  Annual  Implementation  Report  (AIR)  of  Rural  Development 

Programme of Slovakia, 2019. 
91   EUROSTAT. [urt_bd_hgn2]. 
92   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang]. 
93   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.01 Population. Based on EUROSTAT [demo_r_gind3]; 

CAP context indicator C.03 Territory. Based on EUROSTAT [reg_area3] and [urt_d3area] 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

94   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.05  Employment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_ergau] 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

27 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                   
 
95   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions on the impact of demographic change. SWD(2020) 109 final. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-staff-working-document-impact-demographic-
change-17june2020_en.pdf  

96   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.07  Unemployment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_lfu3rt] 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

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

[ef_lf_main] 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-indicators-doc-
c22_2018_en.pdf  

98   Franic, R. & Kovacicek, T. The professional status of rural women in the EU. PE 608.868 - May 2019.  
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608868/IPOL_STU(2019)608868_EN.pdf  

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

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

100  European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  Country  Report  Slovakia  2020. 

SWD(2020) 524 final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0524  

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

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp] 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

102  European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  Country  Report  Slovakia  2020. 

SWD(2020) 524 final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0524  

103  European Commission. The bioeconomy in different countries.  

https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/visualisation/bioeconomy-different-countries_en  

104  Food and Agriculture Organization of  the  United Nations  (FAO).  Global Forest Resources Assessment 

2020. 
https://fra-platform.herokuapp.com/SVK/assessment/fra2020/extentOfForest/  

105  European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA).  EEA  indicator  assessment  -  Ratio  of  forest  fellings  to 

increment.  
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/forest-growing-stock-increment-and-fellings-
3/assessment  

106  Ministry of Environment (MoE). Indicator sets – Sustainable forest management. 

https://www.enviroportal.sk/indicator/detail?id=4061  

107  Food and Agriculture Organization of  the  United Nations  (FAO).  Global Forest Resources Assessment 

2020. 
https://fra-platform.herokuapp.com/SVK/assessment/fra2020/extentOfForest/ 

108  EUROSTAT. [lfsa_egan22d]. 
109  EUROSTAT. [for_eco_cp].  
110  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. 

111  EUROSTAT. [aei_fm_salpest09]. 
112  European Commission. EU burden from non-communicable diseases and key risk factors. 

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

113  EROSTAT. [hlth_ehis_fv3e]. 
114  EUROSTAT. [sdg_02_10]. 
115  Ministry of Environment (MoE)(2018).  Program predchádzania vzniku odpadu Slovenskej republiky na 

roky 2019-2025. (Waste prevention programme of the Slovak Republic for 2019-2025).   
https://www.minzp.sk/hladat/?words=Program+predch%C3%A1dzania+vzniku+odpadu+  

116  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. 

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                   
 
117  European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for pesticides (HRI 1), by group of active substance. 

As in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51]. 

118  EU SCAR AKIS. Preparing for Future AKIS in Europe. Brussels, 2019. European Commission.  

https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/publication/preparing-future-akis-europe_en  
119  Agroinštitút Nitra, š.p. Pôdohospodársky poradenský systém. (Advisory services system). 

https://www.agroinstitut.sk/sk/centralny-register-poradcov/?start  

120  EUROSTAT. [sdg_02_30]. 
121  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (MoARD)  and  Ministry  of  Finance  (MoF)(2019). 
Revízia výdavkov na pôdohospodárstvo a rozvoj vidieka. Záverečná správa  (Review of Agriculture and 
Rural Development Expenditure. Final Report), July 2019. Bratislava.  
https://www.mpsr.sk/institut-podohospodarskej-politiky/47-184-1  

122  Annual  Implementation  Reports:  Annual  Implementation  Report  (AIR)  of  Rural  Development 

Programme of Slovakia, 2019. 

123  Being  an  equivalent  of  at  least  two  years  of  full-time  training  following  compulsory  education  and 

completed at an agricultural college, university or other institute of higher education in agriculture. 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  
125  European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index 

(DESI) 2020. SWD(2020) 111 final. 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi  

126  EUROSTAT. [isoc_sk_dskl_i].  
127  European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index 

(DESI) 2020. SWD(2020) 111 final. 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi  
128  European Commission. Smart specialization platform. 

https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home  

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

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]. 

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

(NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc]. 

29