COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for The Netherlands' 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, Netherlands, 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) 388 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for The Netherlands' 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) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
1. 

2. 

Contents 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

and 

FOR 

THE 

innovation 

digitalisation, 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

COMMISSION 
NETHERLANDS’ CAP STRATEGIC PLAN .............................................. 2 
Foster  a  smart,  resilient  and  diversified  agricultural 
1.1 
sector ensuring food security ............................................................ 2 
Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and 
contribute  to  the  environmental-  and  climate-related 
objectives of the Union ...................................................................... 3 
Strengthen  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  and 
address societal concerns .................................................................. 4 
Modernising  the  sector  by  fostering  and  sharing  of 
knowledge, 
and 
encouraging their uptake .................................................................. 5 
Recommendations .............................................................................. 6 

1.5 
ASSESSMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  AREAS  IN 
THE NETHERLANDS ................................................................................... 9 
Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU 
2.1 
territory to enhance food security .................................................... 9 
Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness 
including  greater  focus  on  research,  technology  and 
digitalisation ..................................................................................... 10 
Improve farmers’ position in the value chain ............................... 12 
Contribute  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation, 
as well as sustainable energy .......................................................... 13 
Foster sustainable development and efficient management 
of natural resources such as water, soil and air ............................ 16 
Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance 
ecosystem services and preserve habitats and landscapes ........... 18 
and 
Attract 
development in rural areas ............................................................. 20 
Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local 
development  in  rural  areas,  including  bio-economy  and 
sustainable forestry ......................................................................... 22 
Improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal 
demands  on  food  and  health,  including  safe,  nutritious 
and sustainable food, as well as animal welfare. ........................... 23 

facilitate 

business 

farmers 

2.3 
2.4 

young 

2.8 

2.2 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

2.9 

2.10   Cross-cutting  objective  on  knowledge,  innovation  and 

digitalisation ..................................................................................... 25 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  THE  NETHERLANDS’  CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN  

In the framework of the structured dialogue for the preparation of the CAP strategic plan, 
this  document  contains  the  recommendations  for  the  CAP  strategic  plan  of  the 
Netherlands. The recommendations are based on analysis of the state of play, the needs 
and the priorities for agriculture and rural areas in the Netherlands. The recommendations 
address  the  specific  economic,  environmental  and  social  objectives  of  the  future 
Common  Agricultural  Policy  and  in  particular  the  ambition  and  specific  targets  of  the 
Farm to  Fork Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. As stated in the Farm to 
Fork Strategy, the Commission invites the Netherlands, in its CAP Strategic Plan, to set 
explicit  national  values  for  the  Green  Deal  targets1,  taking  into  account  its  specific 
situation and these recommendations. 

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

security 

The  Dutch  agricultural  sector  is  characterised  as  a  productive,  innovative  and  export-
oriented sector with intensive agricultural production that is largely based on cost-price 
reduction and increasing economies of scale. By European standards, Dutch farmers earn 
a relatively high income, and their dependence on income support is lower compared to 
other  Member  States.  However,  farm  income  exhibits  volatility,  and  several  farms, 
smaller ones in particular, face lower incomes from agricultural activity.  

To  address  this  disparity,  the  Netherlands  may  explore  ways  of  redistributing  income 
support  towards  viable  smaller  and  medium-sized  farms.  Given  the  challenging 
environmental objectives facing Dutch agriculture, income support should be redirected 
towards  farmers  who  perform  practices  that  are  beneficial  for  the  environment  and 
climate  and  reward  them  accordingly  for  providing  public  goods.  Secondly,  to  address 
the volatility of farm income, risk management tools, which can also play an important 
role  in  fostering  the  resilience  of  agriculture  relating  to  climate  change,  should  be 
promoted. 

The shift to a sustainable food system presents significant economic opportunities as well 
as  challenges  for  Dutch  farmers.  The  Dutch  agricultural  sector  is  considered  very 
competitive globally, with high labour productivity and a positive trade balance in agri-
food products. The demand for financing in the agricultural sector is expected to increase 
in  the  coming  years,  in  particular  to  finance  the  transition  towards  more  circular  and 
sustainable  businesses  and  business  models  as  put  forward  by  the  Dutch  government. 
With a financing gap of around EUR 250 million for the  agri-food sector, and between 
EUR  73  million  and  EUR  303  million  for  primary  agriculture,  the  Netherlands  could 
explore investments and, in synergy with existing instruments, the development of new 
loans  to  support  innovative  projects  that  aim  to  meet  new  environmental  and  climate 
standards that banks currently do not seem willing or able to finance. 

In terms of cooperation and value added, Dutch farmers are well engaged in downstream 
activities  and  have  a  long  history  of  cooperation.  However,  fewer  EU  co-financed 
operational  programmes  have  been  implemented  in  the  fruit  and  vegetable  sector    in 
recent  years.  Aided  by  forthcoming  changes  to  the  rules  for  these  programmes,  the 

1   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 

 
                                                           
Netherlands  could  encourage  their  implementation  in  this  and  in  other  agricultural 
sectors,  as  well  as    transnational  producer  organisations  and  associations  of  producer 
organisations  to  be  set  up.  These  organisations  can  therefore  play  an  important  role  in 
e.g. the management and marketing of production, addressing environmental and climate 
challenges, and research and experimental activities. Moreover, the pooling of farmers in 
producer  organisations  also  facilitates  coaching,  knowledge  sharing,  or  extension 
activities.  There  is  also  a  significant  potential  in  the  use  of  quality  schemes  which 
enables  close  collaboration  among  producers  and  also  strengthens  their  position  in  the 
value chain. 

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Greenhouse  gas(GHG)  emissions  require  more  and  stricter  measures  in  the  agricultural 
sector to achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. Data shows that the reduction 
of  GHG  from  agriculture  has  stabilised  in  the  last  10  years  in  the  Netherlands.  The 
country has the highest GHG emissions (CH4 and N2O) per hectare of agricultural area, 
more  than  four  times  the  EU-27  average.  This  reflects  the  country’s  higher  levels  of 
intensification of agricultural activities. In terms of the Water Framework Directive , not 
all  water  bodies  have  achieved  good  status  yet,  with  agriculture  identified  as  a  major 
pressure.  Moreover,  13%  of  ground  water  bodies  report  poor  quality  during  the  2016-
2019 period and exceed the nitrate concentration norm of 50 mg/l as established in  the 
Nitrates  Directive.  The  run-off  of  nutrients  form  part  of  the  problem  as  the  nitrogen 
surplus  in  the  Netherlands,  at  200  kg  N  per  hectare  per  year,  is  four  times  the  EU 
average.  Whereas  progress  has  been  made  in  recent  years  in  reducing  the  nitrogen 
surplus,  also  in  light  of  conditional  derogations  under  the  Nitrates  Directive,  more  is 
required to  further improve the water quality.  In light of the Farm to  Fork strategy, the 
Netherlands should use the means offered by the common agricultural  policy (CAP) to 
contribute  to  significantly  decreasing  the  use  of  inorganic  fertilisers  and  manure 
(especially on sandy soils). This would improve the status of water bodies by the end of 
the programming period, and also reduce nitrogen/ammonia air pollution. In this respect, 
the impact of soil management practices on improving the environmental footprint while 
retaining  productivity  could  be  increased  by  linking  them  to  research,  innovation  and 
demonstration activities available under the forthcoming Horizon Europe mission on soil 
health.  In  addition  to  achieving  nutrient  reduction  targets  and  water  quality  objectives, 
complementary actions should be included within the CAP Strategic Plan in synergy with 
relevant environmental legislation including the Nitrates Directive and Water Framework 
Directive (and other relevant legislation listed under Annex XI of the CAP). 

The shift towards a bio-based and circular economy is part of this solution to move away 
from fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable energy. However, the scarcity of land 
in  the  Netherlands  is  a  key  issue  -  urbanisation,  recreation  and  renewable  energy  put 
pressure on the availability of agricultural land and will continue to do so in the future. 
The  excess  of  nitrogen/manure  and  the  high  livestock  density  and  numbers  in  the 
Netherlands  limit  expansion.  The  high  deposition  of  nitrogen  in  Natura  2000  areas 
(above the critical deposition value) requires further efforts in order to protect and restore 
biodiversity  in  nature  reserves  and  on  farmland.  Given  that  around  40%1  of  nitrogen 
deposition  originates  from  agriculture,  the  agricultural  sector  has  an  important  role  to 
play in addressing this situation. This includes the challenge of ammonia emissions (air 
pollution that contributes to nitrogen deposition but impacts human health), which have 
increased  since  2013.  The  Netherlands  has  been  found  to  be  at  high  risk  of  non-

3 

 
compliance with the ammonia emission reduction commitments for both 2020-2029 and 
for 2030 and beyond. 

The  preservation  of  biodiversity  is  still  a  challenge  in  many  areas  in  the  Netherlands. 
According to the latest State of Nature report on the conservation status of habitats and 
species  covered  by  the  Habitats  Directive,  almost  60%  of  habitats  and  over  72%  of 
species  are  affected  by  agriculture.  The  latest  2013-2018  reporting  on  the  status  and 
trends of bird populations, while indicating very limited improvements, showed a higher 
proportion  of  decreasing  long  term  trends  particularly  for  wet  meadow  birds  and 
farmland  birds.  The  CAP  should  therefore  support  habitat  management  measures  for 
these  groups  of  birds  and  take  into  account  the  priorities  in  the  prioritised  action 
framework. 

High nature value farmland covers approximately 15% of the total agricultural area in the 
Netherlands.  Furthermore,  landscape  features  in  the  Netherlands  are  far  below  the 
Biodiversity Strategy objective of at least 10% of agricultural area under high-diversity 
landscape features by 2030 in the EU. To improve this situation, biodiversity needs to be 
integrated  into  sustainable  farming  practices,  and  new  business  models  must  generate 
income  to  make  it  more  attractive  for  farmers  to  adapt  their  farming  practices  (nature-
inclusive agriculture). To help advance the EU Green Deal, a more integrated policy is 
needed that combines soil management and nutrient policy, manure management, climate 
mitigation, biodiversity and landscapes in the Netherlands. 

In addition, evidence shows that the current area under organic farming was only 3.2% in 
the  Netherlands  in  2018,  well  below  the  EU-27  average.  Given  the  benefits  of  organic 
farming,  for  e.g.  soil  quality,  and  its  positive  effect  on  reducing  the  use  of  chemical 
pesticides and inorganic fertilisers, increasing the organic area in the Netherlands would 
contribute  to  a  more  sustainable  food  production  system.  The  Commission  invites  the 
Netherlands  to  set  a  target  for  the  agricultural  area  under  organic  farming  in  its  CAP 
national strategic plan as there is currently no dedicated strategy to stimulate the growth 
of  organic  farming  in  the  Netherlands.  However,  to  maintain  profitability  of  organic 
farming, efforts should be made to stimulate the demand for organic products in order to 
balance the increase in supply. 

The  intensive  use  of  rural  areas  by  agriculture  has  resulted  in  lowered  ground  water 
tables by lowering surface water levels (especially in peatlands) and measures to speed 
up the transport of surface water out of the capillaries of the sub systems (especially in 
the  sandy  areas)  by  draining  land  and  canalisation  of  streams  and  rivers.  The  sponge-
function  of  rural  areas  has  been  reduced  considerably.  Climate  change  means  that  the 
Netherlands is expected to be warmer and  wetter, with more frequent summer droughts 
and a rising sea level. Many of these challenges are already being felt. Severe droughts 
have led to considerable economic damage in the last 3 years.  

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

concerns 

The  number  of  Dutch  farms  is  decreasing  by  3%  a  year,  although  the  number  of  large 
farms is increasing. The Netherlands has a lower share (4.1%) of young farmers than to 
the EU average (5.1%), even though agricultural incomes are relatively high. Moreover, 
the percentage of  female farm managers is  very low in  the Netherlands  (5.3%). Young 
farmers  are  well  educated,  but  this  also  provides  them  with  good  alternative  job 
opportunities, especially as Dutch farms are very expensive to buy due to the high value 

4 

 
of land and a high capital intensity. The main challenge facing  young farmers and new 
entrants  is  access  to  finance  when  starting-up  due  to  insufficient  own  resources  and 
collateral  together  with  the  reluctance  of  banks  to  provide  loans.  Young  farmers  and 
entrepreneurs  in  rural  areas  are  key  players  in  the  successful  realisation  of  the  green 
transition. It is therefore vital to improve access to capital by using existing instruments 
and new policy tools. 

Agriculture forms an important  share of land use in  rural  areas in  the Netherlands, and 
while  the  agri-food  industry  plays  a  significant  economic  role,  the  role  of  the  primary 
sector is only marginal in economic terms. However, there is a substantial gap between 
urban and rural areas in terms pf GDP per capita. Careful consideration should be given 
to the specific needs of women in agriculture and rural areas. Certain rural areas (mainly 
in  the  Northern  provinces  and  the  province  of  Zeeland)  are  at  risk  of  depopulation  as 
basic services are disappearing due to a lack of employment opportunities, especially for 
highly  educated  people,  putting  specific  services  under  even  greater  pressure. 
Investments in basic infrastructure and the development of services in synergy with the 
other EU or national funds are necessary to halt the risk of depopulation in these areas. 
The  growing  bioeconomy  and  the  forestry  sector  offer  opportunities  to  further  develop 
rural areas.  

The Farm to Fork Strategy aims to reduce the environmental and climate footprint of the 
food system. There are a number of issues directly linked to it that need to be addressed, 
in  particular  animal  welfare  and  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides.  On  the  Directive  on 
Sustainable Use of Pesticides, the Dutch authorities have not reported any changes to its 
first  national  action  plan  to  the  Commission.  Implementation  of  integrated  pest 
management is also not sufficiently enforced, while growers continue to rely on chemical 
pest  control  methods.  The  Netherlands  should  also  make  an  effort  to  shift  towards 
healthier,  more  environmentally  sustainable  diets,  in  line  with  national  dietary 
recommendations. 

Furthermore,  ensuring  the  protection  of  agricultural  workers,  especially  those  in 
precarious, seasonal and undeclared employment, will play a major role in delivering on 
the respect of rights enshrined in legislation. This is an essential element of the fair EU 
food system envisaged in the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

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

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake  

Knowledge  and  innovation  have  a  key  role  to  play  in  helping  farmers  and  rural 
communities meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, such as those mentioned above. 
The  Dutch  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS)  will  benefit  from  its 
full potential and the high level of resources invested if knowledge and innovation flows 
between those involved are further enhanced in order to address AKIS fragmentation. 

A well-functioning, integrated AKIS2 should deliver plenty of knowledge flows between 
those  involved  to  respond  to  the  growing  information  needs  of  farmers,  speed  up 
innovation  and  increase  the  value  of  existing  knowledge  in  order  to  achieve  all  CAP 
objectives. 

In this respect it is worth reminding ourselves that AKIS is not limited to the agricultural 
sector but extends to all upstream and downstream farming and rural activities that relate 
to  it  (e.g.  (environment,  climate,  biodiversity,  food  and  non-food  systems  including 

5 

 
processing and distribution chains, consumers and citizens, social innovation etc.) One of 
the main challenges facing the Dutch AKIS is to organise the system in such a way that 
private  and  public  interests  are  well  balanced  in  the  transition  to  a  sustainable  circular 
agriculture,  and  that  knowledge  developed  in  the  field  is  applied  as  fast  as  possible. 
Considerable  efforts  are  therefore  needed  to  make  knowledge  widely  applicable  and 
apply it in order to support the necessary transitions in the field and towards sustainable 
food  production  systems.  The  move  towards  a  more  inclusive  and  integrated  advisory 
system will be key in this. It is essential to ensure training and skills of private advisers 
reflecting public policy priorities whilst ensuring impartiality of advice. Advisers should 
be supported to help capture individual grass roots ideas for innovation and develop them 
by setting up and implementing European Innovation Partnership (EIP) operational group 
projects (“innovation support services”3)  

1.5  Recommendations 

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

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

  Improving the viability of farms through a more targeted, effective and efficient 
distribution  of  direct  payments, by  applying,  for  example,  the  complementary 
redistributive income support for sustainability and the reduction of payments. 

  Contributing  to  higher  added  value  in  agricultural  sectors,  by  investing  in 
high-quality and/or distinctive food characteristics, including organic production, 
and  increasing  the  efficiency  of  supply  chain  management  -  through  support 
available  under  both  CAP  pillars.  Focus  on  preserving  and  reinforcing  the 
cooperative structure, considering that the high level of control by farmers of the 
food supply chain facilitates long-term investments to adapt to future challenges, 
including managing operational risk for the primary producers. 

  Improving  the  competitiveness  of  the  agricultural  sector,  in  particular  by 
supporting sustainable business models for farms through support available under 
both CAP pillars, such as investment interventions. 

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

  Reducing  nutrient  pollution  of  water  and  air,  reducing  nitrogen  deposition 
below  their  critical  level  in  nitrogen-vulnerable  Natura  2000  sites,  and 
contributing  to  achieve  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  nutrient  losses  in  the 
Netherlands,  through  well-integrated  measures  that  support  the  transition  to 
more  sustainable,  less  intensive  farming.  Support  available  under  both  CAP 
pillars  should  address  the  need  for  more  efficient  use  of  mineral  and  organic 
fertilisers, as well as generally improved soil management.  

6 

 
  Reducing non-CO2 emissions from the livestock sector and soil fertilisation, and  
improving  the  carbon  storage  capacity  by  supporting  peatland/wetland 
restoration  via  carbon  farming  approaches  and  the  shift  to  a  bio-based  and 
circular  economy.  Among  other  things,  CAP  interventions  should  support  the 
shift to less-emitting livestock production systems by also considering sustainable 
manure management in line with the Methane Strategy.  

  Achieving  favourable  conservation  status  of  habitats  and  species  associated 
with  agricultural  systems,  reducing  habitat  fragmentation  and  biodiversity 
loss,  and  contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on    high  diversity  
landscape  features,  by  supporting  appropriate  management  practices  and  other 
nature  restoration  measures  in  Natura  2000  areas  and  across  farmland  where 
appropriate,  including  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  landscape  features 
practices  which  can  halt  the  decline  of  meadow  and  other  farmland  birds,  and 
wild  pollinators  and  improve  the  status  of  grassland,  wetland  and  peatland 
habitats.  

  Contributing to the EU Green Deal target on organic farming by supporting 
conversion  and  maintenance  schemes,  This  should  go  hand  in  hand  with 
identifying  potential  in  national  organic  food  demand,  and  with  improving  food 
supply chain structures. 

  Foster  sustainable 

forest  management  and  afforestation,  enhancing 
multifunctionality, forest protection and restoration of forests ecosystems 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. 

  Contributing  to  the  adaptation  objectives  of  the  EU  Green  Deal,  by 
strengthening  efforts  on  resilience  building.  Farmers  should  be  supported  for 
agricultural practices that restore natural processes with regard to water and soil 
(sponge), including peatland/wetland restoration and water retention in capillaries 
of river (sub) basins. 

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

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  reducing  the  use  and  risk  of 
pesticides by continuing to implement schemes to reduce the use and risk of plant 
protection products , by promoting non chemical pest management practices and 
low-pesticide-input  pest  management  and  by  ensuring  full  implementation  of 
Integrated Pest Management. 

  Encouraging  more  young  people,  especially  women,  to  move  into  farming 
businesses  -  by  combining  interventions  and  by  facilitating  access  to  capital  for 
farmland and green investments in the agricultural sector. 

  Developing the bioeconomy to contribute to employment and halt the decline 
and  depopulation  of  small  rural  villages,  by  promoting  the  socio-economic 
development of rural areas through an appropriate mix of CAP interventions such 

7 

 
as support for investments, the provision, development and maintenance of basic 
infrastructure  and  services,  while  ensuring  synergies  with  the  other  EU  and 
national funds.  

  Improving  animal  welfare  on  farms  by  putting  in  place  more  ambitious 
measures to support best livestock management practices, especially for pigs and 
dairy cows. 

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

  Reinforcing the national Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System by 
addressing its fragmentation and by support for putting in place effective advisory 
and  innovation  support  services,  geared  towards  achieving  more  sustainable 
farming  practices  in  the  transition  towards  a  more  circular  economy.  Focus 
should be on training and skills of advisors while ensuring impartiality of advice 
and links with public policy priorities. 

8 

 
 
 
 
2.  ASSESSMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  AREAS  IN  THE 

NETHERLANDS 

The Dutch  agricultural sector is  characterised as  highly productive, modern, innovative 
and  export-oriented  sector.  The  soil  and  climatic  conditions  are  favourable  for  a 
diversified  agriculture.  Vegetables  and  horticulture,  dairy,  and  pig  meat  production  are 
the most important sectors in terms of production value. However, environmental issues 
(e.g. soil, water and air) are important challenges to be dealt with to secure a sustainable 
future of the Dutch agricultural sector.  

Agricultural land covers two-third of the total surface area in the Netherlands but due to 
the high population density, the rural area is small (2%). The declining of the agricultural 
land is expected to continue in the future, and this due to the increasing urban spread and 
need for recreation area. The socio-economic conditions are relatively good compared to 
EU  averages  but  challenges  remain  for  certain  rural  regions  facing  a  declining 
population. 

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

enhance food security 

Compared  to  European  average,  Dutch  farmers  earn  a  relatively  high  income  at  about 
EUR 47 000 per worker between 2015 and 20194. At the same time, Dutch agricultural 
income  equals  about  80%  of  average  wages  in  the  Dutch  economy  (2012  to  2018)5. 
Income from secondary on-farm activities is limited around 3% of the agricultural output 
in  the  Netherlands,  although  it  has  been  growing  in  recent  years6.  In  addition,  large 
differences  exist  in  farm  income  between  farms  of  different  sizes  and  between 
agricultural sectors. Incomes are higher for the largest economic farm sizes. Income is on 
average  lower  for  cattle  farms  and  fruit  producers  in  the  Netherlands  as  compared  to 
other sectors. Most sectors see fluctuations in income over time. 

On average direct payments form only about 10 to 15% of the Dutch farm income in the 
last 10  years (compared to 24% for the EU average)7. However, these payments play a 
much  more  significant  role  in  land-based  sectors  where  they  contribute  to  stabilising 
farm  income,  such  as  dairy  (around  25%)  and  cattle  (around  30%),  whereas  for 
horticulture and granivores it is (close to) 0%8. At least 20% of farms earn an agricultural 
income below the poverty standard each year9 (EUR 25 000 in 2017).  

The Netherlands has moved to a flat rate payment for the basic payment scheme during 
the  2014-2020  programming  period  with  small-size  farms  receiving  about  the  same 
direct  payment  per  hectare  as  large  size  farms.  Nonetheless,  farm  income  is  increasing 
with physical farm size in the Netherlands. 

High intensity of agriculture, characterised by high production standards, knowledge and 
innovation,  and  a  favourable  climate  allow  Dutch  farmers  to  produce  high  yields.  The 
Dutch  economy  and  its  agri-food  sector  are  internationally  oriented,  with  the 
consequence that farm income is more sensitive to external events as compared to other 
EU Member States. For livestock, the sector is characterised by a high concentration of 
intensive  farms.  In  combination  with  a  reliance  on  export  –  the  Netherlands  has  an 
environment that has the potential to facilitate the spread of pests and epidemic diseases 
that  can  affect  production  levels  and  yields10.  The  capacity  of  the  sector  to  effectively 
manage animal and plant disease risk relies on individual farmers making effective risk 
management decisions to manage collectively the risk to the wider sector11. 

9 

 
To address the volatility experienced by Dutch agricultural incomes through variations in 
production levels, risk management instruments and strategies are deployed, such as crop 
insurances  (uptake  <  25%)  covering  climate  risks  and  sanitary  risk,  while  (veterinary) 
mutual  funds  for  livestock  are  mandatory  in  the  Netherlands.  In  the  current  rural 
development  programme,  the  Netherlands  has  a  specific  risk-management  measure  for 
multi-peril  crop  insurance.  With  2725  farms,  the  uptake  has  already  exceeded  its  own 
target  value.  Livestock  insurance  systems  exist  as  well;  however,  the  uptake  of  these 
insurance schemes is currently limited to around 5% to 10% by farmers12. 

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

Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms  
Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy  

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

Source: DG AGRI based on EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06] 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

The  Dutch  agricultural  sector  is  characterised  as  a  productive,  innovative  and  export-
oriented  sector  with  intensive  agricultural  production  that  in  majority  is  based  on  cost-
price-reduction  and  increasing  economies  of  scale.  Farmers  in  the  Netherlands  are 
inclined  to  apply  labour-saving  techniques  (profitable  only  for  a  certain  farm  size)  and 
land-saving production techniques (often accompanied by an intensification of land use) 
to  lower  final  product  prices.  A  high  population  density  makes  land  a  scarce  and 
expensive resource while the relatively high labour price in the Dutch agricultural sector 
creates pressure to replace labour by automation.  

Its  large-scale  production  capacity,  together  with  its  central  location  in  Europe,  its 
transport infrastructures (seaports, roads, railway lines and airport) and its high level of 
logistical  knowledge,  makes  the  Netherlands  the  second  largest  net  exporter  of 
agricultural products in the world, after the US. In 2019, it exported agri-food products in 
value  of  about  EUR  93  billion.13  In  terms  of  trade  balance  in  agri-food  products,  the 
Netherlands  are  a  net  exporter  (with  a  positive  balance  amounting  to  EUR  30  billion), 
whereby the surplus with EU countries is much larger (above EUR 29 billion) than with 
third  countries  (less  than  EUR  1  billion).  Exports  to  immediate  neighbours  have  a 
particularly  high  share  in  agri-food  trade:  in  2018  Germany,  Belgium,  the  United 
Kingdom and France alone absorbed more than a half of the Netherlands’ exports of agri-
food products. In terms of commodity types, ornamental horticulture products, dairy and 
eggs, meat, vegetables and fruit were the most exported.14 

In  terms  of  the  international  competitiveness  of  the  Dutch  agricultural  sector,  even 
though  the  Netherlands  is  still  leading  in  the  EU  agri-food  market,  other  countries  are 

10 

 
 
slowly but steadily gaining ground. Measures to contain external effects of agriculture on 
the  environment,  landscape  and  society  often  increase  products  costs  in  the  short  term 
and can thus reduce the competitiveness of the sector. For instance, Spain and Denmark 
are strengthening their position, respectively, in the vegetable market and in the pigmeat 
market.  Germany  and  France  are  also  strengthening  their  position,  at  the  Netherlands’ 
expense, in the dairy market15. 

The total number of farms in the country declined from 82 000 to 56 000 between 2005 
and  2016  -  an  average  of  3%  per  year.  The  number  of  very  small  and  small  farms  fell 
sharply  (-56%)  and  the  number  of  physically  large  and  very  large  farms  increased 
considerably (+ 53%).16 In the same time period, average farm size increased from 24 to 
32 hectares, well above the EU average (15 ha). Moreover, total Dutch agricultural area 
declined from 1.92 million hectares in 2005 to 1.8 million hectares in 2016, whereas the 
number  of  livestock  increased  by  6.7%  to  6.8  million  livestock  units.  Accordingly,  the 
livestock density (calculated as total number of livestock units/total utilised agricultural 
area) increased from 3.32 in 2005 to 3.80 in 2016 (versus 0.73 in the EU).17 

The total factor productivity in agriculture (TFP, which compares a country’s total output 
volume relative to the total input volume used in production of such output) has slowly 
but steadily increased over the last decade in the Netherlands, moving from 105 in 2013 
to  108  in  2018  (average  growth  rate  of  0.7%,  while  the  EU  average  is  0.9%).18 
Furthermore,  the  Netherlands  are  the  top  performer  in  terms  of  labour  productivity  in 
agriculture in the EU, with a sectorial index amounting to 371.5 (EU27 average is 100).19 
The recent increase in labour productivity was partly due to the outflow of labour (-11% 
between 2005 and 2017). While in the period between 2000 and 2010, the average annual 
investment in the agricultural sector was around EUR 3 billion, between 2010 and 2018 
an increasing trend was reported in the Netherlands, with an average annual investment 
in capital formation amounting to EUR 4.5 billion.20 With a gross fixed capital formation 
in  agriculture  equal  to  EUR  4.7  billion  in  2018  (representing  44%  of  the  Gross  Value 
Added in agriculture) the Netherlands recorded the third highest figure among Member 
States.21 Anyway, high land price and high labour costs in the Dutch agriculture result in 
an overall low return on equity compared to other sectors, such as supply, processing and 
retail.22  The  majority  of  farms  in  the  Netherlands  are  too  small  to  obtain  market-based 
remuneration  for  labour  and  capital  from  agricultural  activities,  with  the  consequence 
that additional income from non-agricultural activities is often required.23 

As regards the role of finance in the agricultural sector, around 28% of the Dutch farmers 
applied  for  financial  support  in  2017,  mostly  for  medium  and  long-term  loans.  Most 
farmers  applied  for  bank  loans  to  finance  investments  especially  in  new  machinery, 
equipment,  facilities  and  for  purchasing  land.  Under  the  current  rural  development 
program, the Dutch authorities promote investments in sustainability and modernisation 
of  the  agricultural  sector  through  grants  for  investments  in  physical  assets,  as  well  as 
through  grants  for  investments  specifically  for  young  farmers  up  to  and  including  40 
years.  The  programme  also  supports  the  improvement  of  the  agricultural  structure 
through  investment  in  land  parcelling  and  relocation.  Besides  the  national  rural 
development plan, a number of government instruments also provide financial support to 
Dutch farmers.  

11 

 
Despite all of this,  the demand for finance in  the Dutch agri-food sector  is  expected to 
increase  in  the  coming  years,  as  green  policy  interventions  (such  as  encouraging  more 
circular and sustainable businesses) are likely to drive the need for further investments. 
Despite this perspective, the financing gap in the agricultural sector is estimated around 
EUR 251.4 million, and it mainly concerns small to medium-sized farms and long-term 
loans,  although  access  to  short-term  finance  in  the  form  of  credit  lines  may  also  be 
needed.24 

Cost and revenue structure of agricultural income (real prices in million EUR) in the Netherlands 

Crop output 

Agricultural services output 
Fertilisers 
Rents 
Entrepreneurial income 

Animal output 
Non-agricultural secondary 
Plant/animal protection 
Interest 

Product subsidies 
Seeds 
Feeding stuffs 

Taxes 

Source: EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01]   

2.3  Improve farmers’ position in the value chain 

Other subsidies 
Energy 

Labour 
Other costs 

Vegetables  and  horticulture,  dairy,  and  pig  meat  production  are  the  most  important 
sectors  in  terms  of  production  value  in  the  Netherlands  in  2019  (vegetables  and 
horticulture  (39%),  dairy  (20%)  and  pig  meat  (12%)25.  Farmers  are  well  engaged  in 
downstream  activities  (e.g.  vertical  integration,  development  of  new  products  with  a 
higher added value, innovation, new markets). 

The share of the value added in the food chain for primary producers hovers around 25% 
and since 2011 is slightly decreasing over time in the Netherlands. This share is roughly 
in  line  with  the  EU-average  of  27%26.  Retail  is  well  concentrated  as  in  other  Member 
States.  Producer  organisations  may  help  producers  to  balance  the  market  power  of 
concentrated retail trade. 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  number  of  recognised  producer  organisations  (including 
associations and trans-border organisations) is quite low (11) compared to the number of 
agricultural  cooperatives  (194)27  and  to  the  number  of  farmers  (56  000  in  2016). 
Traditionally,  the  level  of  organisations  of  farmers  is  high.  In  the  fruit  and  vegetables 
sector, the number of members of producer organisations is around 2 00028. However, in 
recent  years  the  level  of  organisation  of  farmers  (under  the  EU  Fruit  and  Vegetables 
scheme) in the Netherlands decreased, but it is still above the EU average (55% versus 
49%).  Among  the  11  recognised  producer  organisations,  8  are  specialised  in  fruit  and 
vegetable  production  (compared  to  15  in  2010).  Different  internal  factors  (i.e.  high 
degree of vertical integration) lead to a decline in interest in the EU support scheme for 
producer  organisation  in  the  fruit  and  vegetable  sector.  However,  the  sector  is  still 

12 

 
interested in the scheme. Nine interbranch organisations have been recognised so far in 
the Netherlands and contribute to vertical cooperation in the food chain.  

Recognising  existing  cooperatives  in  the  meat  sector,  eggs,  milk  and  dairy  sectors  as 
producer  organisations,  with  more  clear  derogation  to  competition  rules  and  the 
possibility  to  implement  operational  programmes  in  the  near  future  could  favour  the 
increase of added values in those sectors. 

In  the  Netherlands,  there  are  31  EU  protected  quality  signs  (protected  designations  of 
origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed), among 
which  11  are  registered  for  agricultural  products  and  foodstuff  other  than  wine,  spirit 
drinks and aromatised wines)29. Further development of EU quality schemes would allow 
strengthening farmers’ position in the value chain, and therefore generating more value 
added. 

The  Commission’s  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  calls  for  a  more  plant-based  diet  with  more 
focus  on  fruit  and  vegetables,  better  animal  welfare  and  protein  transition.  The 
Netherlands currently implements a range of policy measures to enable a dietary shift in 
line with national  guidelines, e.g. by providing information to consumers about healthy 
and more sustainable choices regarding diets and the sustainability of products. In 2019, 
products labelled with sustainable food traits account for a market share of 14%30. This 
includes  the  “Beter  leven”  label,  a  well-known  label  for  Dutch  consumers  indicating 
higher  levels  of  animal  welfare.  The  Netherlands  recognises  that  clear  and  reliable 
consumer  information  is  an  important  challenge31,  part  of  a  protein  transition.  The 
country can build on its relatively diverse arable and horticultural sector to expand plant-
based  production  into  new  markets,  especially  by  focusing  on  fruits  and  vegetables  for 
human consumption. 

There  is  no  national  legislation  in  place  on  unfair  trading  practices  in  the  Netherlands. 
However, actions to transpose the UTP Directive32 by May 2021 into national legislation 
are on track.  

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

Primary producers 
Food and beverage consumer services 

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

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

sustainable energy 

Greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions of the Dutch  agricultural  sector are primarily caused 
by  the  release  of  the  so-called  non-CO2  greenhouse  gases,  methane  (CH4)  and  nitrous 

13 

 
oxide (N2O) in livestock farming, while CO2 emissions are caused by burning fossil fuels 
in greenhouse horticulture. 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  total  emissions  of  greenhouse  gases  from  agriculture  decreased 
between 1990 and 2018 with 26.4% (-20.6% in EU-27). However, since 2003 emissions 
have  been  stable  and  slightly  increased  in  most  recent  years  (an  increase  of  5.63% 
between 2013 and 2016 and a subsequent decrease of 3.40% between 2017 and 2018)33, 
due to the abolition of milk quotas in 2015, which led to the growth of the dairy herd and, 
to a lesser extent, to an increased use of fertilisers. Overall, between 1990 and 2018 the 
reduction  of  greenhouse  gases  was  17.7%  from  livestock,  28.2%  from  manure 
management and 42.4% from agricultural soils34. Nevertheless, the Netherlands has the 
highest  emissions  of  greenhouse  gases  (CH4  and  N2O)  per  hectare  of  agricultural  area, 
more  than  four  times  the  EU-27  average.  In  2018,  12.08  Tg  CH4  originated  from 
livestock 
from  manure 
management).This reflects the higher levels of intensification of agricultural activities for 
the country35. 

fermentation  and  3.18  Tg 

from  enteric 

(8.27  Tg 

In 2018, 9.1% of total greenhouse gas emissions came from agriculture (EU-27 average 
10.1%): 29.3% from agricultural soils (EU-27 average 38.4%) and 70.5% from livestock 
considering both enteric fermentation and manure management (EU-27 average 57.9%). 
With regard to the latter, 25.1% of GHG emissions came from manure management (EU-
27 average 14.3%) and 64.3% from enteric fermentation (EU-27 average 43.8%). 

A significant share of farmland in the Netherlands is on peat land (coverage 15.6%, the 
fourth  in  EU-27  after  Finland,  Estonia  and  Ireland)36,  which  is  an  important  source  of 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  the  agricultural  sector.  Concerning  the  land  use,  land  use 
change  and  foresty  (LULUCF)  sectors,  besides  the  significant  role  of  forest  as  a  CO2 
sink,  where  agricultural  soils  are  concerned,  both  grasslands  and  croplands  add  to  the 
emissions.  However,  in  the  period  2013-2018,  there  has  been  a  reduction  in  emission 
from both cropland (-14.1% vs. 11.6% EU-27) and grassland (-9.9% vs. 9.4% EU-27)37.  

The share of forest area on the total territory of the Netherlands is 11%, well below the 
EU-27 share (39.8%). In the period 2000-2010, the area under forests increased by 3.9%, 
followed by a 2.3% reduction between 2011 and 2015, significantly due to selective cuts 
to  foster  natural  regeneration  of  ageing  Dutch  forests38  39  Since  then,  the  forest  cover 
slightly  increased,  but  in  order  to  promote  carbon  stock,  the  Climate  Agreement 
established  in  2019  envisages  the  reduction  of  deforestation  and  afforestation  of  new 
areas. 

The Netherlands have recognised the expected increase of extreme weather events, such 
as storms, heavy  rain, hail, drought,  extreme heat  and floods due to  climate change,  as 
major threats to crops and livestock production. A government-commissioned economic 
impact analysis estimated the economic impact of the 2018 drought on Dutch farmers to 
be in the range of EUR 375 million and EUR 1.9 billion40. 

Although  leaving  farmers  the  initiative  to  make  their  own  choices,  the  government 
supports knowledge development, targeted research (e.g. drought resistant cultivars) and 
subsidises insurance policies.  
The Dutch adaptation programme (Delta programme41) focuses on impacts of increased 
rainfall,  droughts,  sea  level  rise  and  heat.  Different  levels  of  government  are  working 
together  to  develop  strategies,  programmes  and  measures  to  make  agriculture  land  and 
rural  areas  more  resilient  to  these  impacts.  The  main  challenges  are  linked  to:  the 
restoration of the sponge functions of nature areas in combination with agricultural land 

14 

 
and rural areas; the need to change agricultural practices, such as grassland management 
to enhance carbon sequestration and appropriate use of lowland peatland/wetland and the 
of  risk  salinisation  of  delta  areas  due  to  sea  level  rise,  to  be  addressed  through  the 
development or enlargement of fresh water lenses.  

From an energy point of view, the direct use of energy in agriculture and forestry is far 
higher than the EU-27 average: 1 659 kg of oil equivalent per hectare of agricultural area 
and forestry vs. 150 kg. 

The Netherlands aims  to achieve 27% overall share of  renewable energy by  2030.  The 
current Dutch agricultural sector relies mostly on fossil fuels and is in a transition to bio-
based  renewable  energy  sources.  The  production  of  renewable  energy  from  agriculture 
and forestry is on the rise; the average annual growth rate between 2010 and 2015 was 
25.6%.  Renewable  energy  from  agriculture  in  2018  is  37%  of  the  total  production  of 
renewable  energy,  representing  the  highest  share  in  the  EU,  well  above  the  EU-27 
average  (12.1%).  On  the  other  side,  the  production  of  renewable  energy  from  forestry 
(23.7%)  is  considerably  below  EU-27  average  (41.4%).42  About  5%  of  the  energy 
consumption by agriculture and forestry comes from renewable energy sources. 
Currently,  almost  60%  of  renewable  energy  consumption  comes  from  biomass.43  As 
regards the direct use of energy in agriculture and forestry, these sectors cover 8.1% of 
the  total  final  energy  consumption  in  the  Netherlands,  the  highest  share  in  the  EU  and 
three times more than the 2.9% EU-27 average. Air pollution impacts should always be 
taken  into  due  account  when  assessing  the  use  of  biomass  combustion  for  energy 
(particulate matter emissions). Same for energy consumption in food processing, where 
the  Dutch  industry  has  again  the  highest  share:  4.8%,  same  as  Belgium,  compared  to 
2.9% for EU-27.44 

In terms of GHG emission, as regards agriculture, the projected emissions in 2030 should 
be 9.05% lower than in 201345, to be achieved through the following actions: reduction 
of methane emissions in livestock farming; reduction of peatland CO2 emissions and CO2 
storage  through  afforestation,  prevention  of  deforestation  and  sustainable  use  of  soils; 
reduction of food waste; increase sustainability of greenhouse horticulture. 

Total Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (including and excluding LULUCF) in 
the Netherlands (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] 

15 

 
 
2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air 

In Netherland, the share of agricultural area at risk of soil erosion was in 2012 less than 
1%  clearly  below  the  EU  average46.  The  Netherlands  has  an  average  soil  loss  rate  by 
water of 0.3 tonnes per hectare per  year compared to a European mean average of 2.46 
tonnes per hectare per year, which indicates soil erosion is low on average47. 

Nevertheless,  the  actual  soil  loss  rate  can  vary  strongly  within  the  Member  State 
depending on local  conditions. Water erosion occurs mainly in the loess areas in South 
Limburg  and  wind  erosion  in  the  Veenkoloniën,  sandy  areas  in  North  Brabant  and 
Drenthe and Bollenstreek48. 

In  addition,  in  2015,  the  mean  soil  organic  carbon  content  amounts  to  32.2  grams  per 
kilogram (on average 43.1 gram/kilogram at EU level)49. In 2016, 84%50 of tillable land 
was tilled conventionally, and more sustainable management of soil would be beneficial. 

As regards quantitative  aspect,  the land scarcity  is  a big issue in  Netherland due to  the 
high population density (more than four times the EU average of 118/km2). Soil sealing 
is becoming a concern while the Netherland ranked second highest in the EU according 
to 2015 Eurostat data, with 12.1% of artificial land51 

As  regards  water  issue,  in  terms  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  all 
groundwater  bodies  were  in  good  quantitative  status  and  13%  of  groundwater  bodies 
were  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status.  The  situation  is  worse  for  surface  waters 
where  all  surface  water  bodies  were  in  less  than  good  ecological  status  and  52%  of 
surface  waters  were  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status.  Diffuse  pollution  from 
agriculture is the most significant pressure on surface waters and second most significant 
pressure on groundwaters.  

The Netherlands has an action programme for the Nitrates Directive covering the whole 
territory. It has been granted a derogation (EU) 2020/1073 for nitrogen originating from 
livestock  manure  in  connection  with  an  action  programme,  on  the  basis  of  scientific 
evidence and on a number of conditions, including phosphate and nitrogen not exceeding 
the 2002 level respectively (172.9 million kg and 504 million Kg)52.  

As regards water quality and nutrients, the significant intensification of livestock farming 
activities  after  the  end  of  the  milk  quota  system  has  resulted  in  an  increase  in  cattle 
numbers,  representing  an  additional  challenge  to  the  management  of  nutrients  in  the 
country. This  has pushed phosphate levels  beyond the limits  in  2015 and in  2016, thus 
posing  additional  concerns  about  water  quality.  The  Netherlands  took  additional 
measures among which the implementation of phosphate reduction scheme in 2017 and 
the introduction of the phosphate production rights for dairy cattle as of 2018. 

After  a  downward  trend  recorded  from  1990  to  2005-2007,  the  nitrogen  surplus  has 
slightly increased and is still high for European standards (200 kilograms of nitrogen per 
hectare  per  year  in  2016  vs.  50  at  EU  level),  while  phosphorus  surplus  decreased 
substantially  over  time  from  30  to  less  than  3  Kg/ha/year53.  In  addition,  13.8%  of 
groundwater stations report poor quality in terms of Nitrogen concentration in excess of 
50 mg/l, mainly located on sandy soils54. Despite of some improvement, around 40-60% 
of the sites monitored are not yet in compliance with the Nitrate total water content55. 

16 

 
On  air  quality:  among  different  air  non-CO2  pollutant  sources,  agriculture  is  the  main 
source emission of ammonia (86% of total ammonia emissions). Ammonia emissions are 
stable or even increasing since 2010, after decreasing by almost 50% between 1990 and 
2000. The Netherlands are found to be at high risk of non-compliance with the ammonia 
emission  reduction  commitments  for  both  2020-2029  and  for  2030  and  beyond56.  It 
should also be noted that a relatively high share of other air pollutants in the Netherlands 
originate  from  agricultural  sources:    22%  of  the  total  reported  emissions  of  nitrogen 
oxides, 39% of the total reported emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds 
and 9% of the total fine particulate matter emissions. Both ammonia and nitrogen oxides 
emissions to air are of relevance for their contribution to nitrogen deposition to water and 
ecosystems. 

The nitrogen deposition in the Netherlands is still too high to ensure a good biodiversity 
protection57 (about 40% of deposition originates from agriculture). The critical nitrogen 
deposition  value,  which  is  the  limit  above  which  there  is  a  risk  that  the  quality  of  the 
habitat  will  be  significantly  affected,  is  exceeded  in  70%  of  nature  areas  in  2016.  The 
existing nitrogen problem in the Netherlands requires doing more for biodiversity both in 
nature  reserves  and  on  farmland.  Consequently,  possible  approaches  to  reduce  the 
nitrogen  deposition  value  under  the  critical  level  for  all  Natura-2000  areas  are 
suggested58. This can be achieved by both nature restoration in the Natura 2000 sites and 
by focussing on reducing NH3 emissions, with a territorial-based approach in the country 
given  their  more  direct  relationship  between  emission  and  deposition,  and  to  a  minor 
extend NOx emissions. Possible solutions in which emission reductions could be sought 
for agriculture are about reducing livestock numbers and supporting transition to circular 
agriculture,  as  well  as  technical  measures  such  as  investments  in  low-emission  stables 
and  reducing  the  nutrient  pollution  through  the  use  of  inorganic  fertilisers  and  animal 
feed. 

Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in the 
Netherlands 

Kg P/ha/year 

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

EU-27 Gross Nutrient Balance for Nitrogen 
Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year) 

Source: EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 

17 

 
 
2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

The Farmland Bird index  decreased over time, slightly stronger than the  EU average59. 
Between  2000  and  2017  the  average  decline  was  35%.  For  the  Netherlands,  this  index 
covers 27 species amongst which 21 species are declining. For example, populations of 
the oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), the black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) and 
the skylark (Alauda arvensis) have declined by more than 60% between 1990 and 2015. 
The latest 2013-2018 reporting on the status and trends of bird populations, particularly 
for wet meadow birds and farmland birds, while indicating very limited improvements, it 
also showed a higher proportion of decreasing long term trends (39% compared to 34% 
in  the  previous  2008-2012  report).  Of  major  concern  are  wet  meadow  birds  (such  as 
black-tailed godwit) and farmland birds (in particular turtle dove) that continue to decline 
mainly  due  to  intensive  agricultural  practices  (grassland  management,  drainage,  use  of 
fertilisers/chemicals) combined with the impacts of climate change. A decreasing trend is 
also  observed  for  the  population  of  bees  and  butterflies-species  associated  with 
agricultural landscape, with a decrease of 70% over a span of 20 years60.  
According to the latest report61 on the conservation status of habitats and species covered 
by the Habitats  Directive, only 11.54% of the  habitats' assessments  were favourable in 
2013-2018  (EU  27:  24.06%),  while  34.62%  are  considered  to  be  in  unfavourable– 
inadequate status (EU27: 39.73%),  53.85% are unfavourable – bad (EU27: 32.32%) and 
the remaining is unknown. In the Netherlands, all grassland habitats are reported as being 
in an unfavourable conversation status62. As for the species, 26.25% of the assessments 
were  favourable  in  2013-2018  (EU  27:  31.25%),  while  30%  are  considered  to  be  in 
unfavourable-inadequate  status  (EU27:  35.27%),  38.75%  unfavourable-bad  status 
(EU27: 19.64%) and the remaining is unknown.  

In addition, a low share of agricultural area (4%) is designated under Natura 2000, while 
the EU-27 average is 11%. The share of forest area under Natura 2000 is 37.4%. By early 
2018,  13.3%  of  the  national  land  area  of  the  Netherlands  was  covered  by  Natura  2000 
(EU  average  18.1%).  Special  areas  of  protection  (SPAs),  under  the  Birds  Directive, 
covered  11.5%  (EU  average  12.3%)  and  Sites  of  community  importance  (SCIs),  under 
the Habitats Directive, covered 8% (EU average 13.8%). Still certain situations of non-
compliance  exist  in  relation  to  the  insufficiency  of  the  network  (SPAs  and  SCIs)  and 
qualitative aspects of some management plans in place63.  

Another critical factor for biodiversity is desiccation which is present in over 90% of the 
area of groundwater dependent nature. About two thirds of nature reserves suffer from at 
least one pressure and mostly from a combination of nitrogen deposition and desiccation. 
This  is  already  acknowledged  by  the  Netherlands  in  the  Prioritised  Action  Framework 
(PAF) 2021-2027, where in addition to addressing the nitrogen issues also hydrological 
measures  appear.  To  date,  habitat  fragmentation,  atmospheric  nitrogen  deposition, 
desiccation  and  acidification  are  still  major  threats  to  terrestrial  biodiversity  in  the 
Netherlands. While spatial connectivity is improved and the natural area increased by the 
National  Ecological  Network  (which  includes  the  Natura  2000  sites  and  other  national 
nature networks), spatial requirements for some species will still not be met64.  

Only  23.6%  of  the  utilised  agricultural  land  is  defined  as  managed  with  low  input 
intensity,  25.6%  as  medium  and  51%  with  high  input  intensity.  None  of  the  utilised 

18 

 
agricultural  land  is  utilised  for  extensive  grazing65.  Among  other  concerns,  highly 
intensified  agriculture  across  the  country  creates  specific  challenges  to  be  addressed, 
such as drainage/desiccation.   

Estimates  show  that  about  3.4%  of  the  agricultural  area  in  the  Netherlands  is  covered 
with  landscape  features  like  grass  margins,  shrub  margins,  single  tree  bushes,  lines  of 
trees, hedges and ditches66. However, the Netherlands keep currently most of landscape 
features  outside  of  the  eligible  area  for  direct  payment  under  Pillar  I.  So  pending  the 
development  of  a  reliable  registration  system,  currently  only  few  landscape  features 
located  in  eligible  areas  are  known.67.  In  addition,  0.4%  of  agricultural  land  is  laying 
fallow in 2018. As the biodiversity strategy aims to have at least 10% of agricultural area 
under  high-diversity  landscape  features,  there  is  gap  to  bridge  up  to  2030.  The  EU 
average  of  some  elements  like  fallow  and  linear  elements  is  4.6%  in  total  with  4.1% 
fallow land and 0.5% linear landscape elements in agricultural area68. The Netherlands is 
one of the Member States where the number of Landscape Features activated in GAEC 
(7) is non-existing69 (and has not included hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, group of 
trees, isolated trees, fields margins, terraces or traditional stone walls in its notification 
for GAEC7), nor are hardly any landscape features activated under the Ecological Focus 
Areas for 2019. 

Ecological  Focus  Areas  in  the Netherlands  cover 218 399 hectares (out of 1.78 million 
hectares of agricultural area), and constitute mainly of 97.3% catch crops, 2.2% nitrogen 
fixing crops and very small share of landscape features (0.1%), bufferstrips/fieldmargins 
(0.3%), fallow land (0.04%) and others (0.07%)70.  

Permanent Grassland covers 42% (758 761 ha) of the Utilised agricultural area (UAA), 
of  which  59 925  ha  (3.3%  of  UAA)  is  situated  in  Natura  2000  areas  and  all  of  it 
designated as ESPG (environmental sensitive permanent grassland). This ratio has been 
stable over the last 4 years (data from 201971). 

The area covered under agro-environmental-climate measures under the second pillar is 
currently 4.3% or 86 065 hectares72 of the agricultural area, with a target value of 5.87% 
(112 250 ha);  these  measures  are  implemented  through  the  agrarian  collectives  which 
work  area-based  and  focus  mainly  on  maintaining  and  restoring  5  types  of  habitats  for 
enhancing  biodiversity  on  farmland.  This  model  of  collective  approach  aims  at  an 
optimisation  of  joined  efforts  for  nature  where  efficiency  gain  for  biodiversity  is 
highest73. 

The Farm to Fork strategy put forward  aspirational  targets to  improve sustainable food 
systems.  Based  on  the  targets  of  agricultural  area  under  organic  farming,  its  share  has 
been stable as percentage of the agricultural area between 2005 and 2015 after which it 
started to  increase steadily. The area under organic farming (3.2%) is  low compared to 
European standards (8% on average in 2018), however, the Netherlands do not use any 
CAP  support  to  stimulate  the  conversion  to  organic.  In  addition,  no  national  target  or 
strategy exists in the Netherlands to increase the area under organic farming. 

19 

 
 
Area under organic farming in the Netherlands 

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

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

Source: EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

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

Share of agricultural area covered by  
high-diversity landscape features  

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

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

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

Source: DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey. 
* Linear elements considered here: Grass margins, shrub margins, single trees bushes, lines of trees, hedges 
and ditches. This estimation is to be taken with caution because of methodological caveats. 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

The  number  of  farms  in  the  Netherland  is  steadily  decreasing,  with  an  average  annual 
reduction of 3% (2% decline EU average in 2013). As a result, between 2007 and 2016, 
the  total  number  of  farms  has  decreased  by  27%  for  the  Netherlands74.  Whilst  the 
numbers  of  very  small  and  small  farms  have  fallen  considerably  (-56%)  between  2010 
and  2017,  the  numbers  of  large  and  very  high  large  farms  increased  significantly  (+ 
53%)75. 

The Netherlands has a low share of farmers below 35 years in the total number of farm 
managers  (4.1%  in  2016)  compared  to  EU  average  (5.1%).  Whereas  the  EU-trend 
decreased between 2010 and 2016, an increase of the share of Dutch young farmers can 
be observed in between 2013 and 2016 (see figure below). Also only 7% of these young 
farm  managers  is  female.  This  is  larger  than  the  national  average  of  5.3%,  but  much 
lower than the EU average of 30.4% of female farm managers.76  

Young farmers are well educated in the Netherlands compared to the EU average (only 
20% with just practical experience). The average level of education of Dutch farmers is 
good: 72% have agricultural training and 28% have only practical experience. This is a 
good  result  compared  to  the  European  average,  where  71%  has  only  practical 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
experience.77 The share of farmers below the age of 35 with at least 2 years of training 
(full  agricultural  training)  is  higher  than  at  the  total  number  of  farmers  in  the 
Netherlands.78  The  high  level  of  education  among  young  rural  people  also  offers  job 
opportunities with a good income alternative outside the agricultural holding and this in a 
tight labour market. 

The agricultural income of young farmers exceeds by on average 9% the income of the 
other  Dutch  farmers  for  the  period  2014-2018.  The  average  agricultural  income  in  the 
Netherlands is amongst the highest in EU-28.79 

Some  sectors  have  a  stronger  attraction  to  young  farmers  than  to  Dutch  farmers  in 
general.    For  example,  67%  of  the  young  farmers  are  specialised  in  grazing  livestock 
against  53%  of  all  farmers.  Around  24%  of  the  young  farmers  are  specialised  in  field 
crops  whilst  17%  of  all  farmers  and  finally  only  1.4%  of  the  young  farmers  are 
specialised in horticulture against 14% of all farmers.80  

In  2016,  62%  of  the  Dutch  farm  managers  of  over  51  years  of  age  have  no  successor. 
This means that in the next 15 years approximately 20 000 farms will disappear or that 
the  farm  business  succession  will  be  organised  through  extra-family  business  takeover 
resulting in an increase of scale of the existing farm businesses. 81  

The transfer to the next generation of farmers, requires a large amount of finance to buy 
out the assets of the retiring generation. Access to sufficient capital to take over a farm in 
the  Netherlands  is  a  constraint  due  to  the  high  value  of  the  farmland.  The  limited 
availability  on  the  land  market  combined  with  demand  for  land  for  economies  of  scale 
and  the  demand  for  non-agricultural  functions,  represent  a  great  pressure  on  the  land 
price. The average land price in The Netherlands in 2018 was EUR 70 320 per hectare 
which  is  the  highest  within  the  EU.82  A  high  land  price  together  with  a  high  capital 
intensity and the increasing in scale result in a high market value of holdings (an average 
balance sheet value of EUR 3 million). In addition, the return on assets is low, 0,8% in 
2015 (1.3% EU-28).83  

The financing  gap  for The Netherlands primary  agriculture sector is  estimated between 
EUR  73  million  and  EUR  303  million,  of  which  about  22.3%  might  be  attributed  to 
young farmers. Young farmers and new entrants face difficulties in accessing finance due 
to insufficient own resources and collateral.84  

Several  support  systems  already  exist  in  the  Netherlands  to  favour  the  succession  of 
farms.  In  addition  to  a  favourable  tax  regime  for  family  farm  successions,  the  current 
government  encourages  the  farm  business  acquisitions  by  young  farmers  with  farm 
business  acquisitions  guarantee  fund  of  EUR  75  million  and  this  from  January  2020. 
There is  also the support within the CAP. Under Pillar II, the Netherlands chose not to 
support  young farmers (up to  40  years included) with  the installation  grant  but  with an 
investment  subsidy scheme. The amount granted was more than EUR 21 million at  the 
end of 2018. The total available budget for the entire period is EUR 35.76 million. The 
young farmers are also  eligible for a top-up on the per-hectare premium  under the first 
pillar of the CAP.  In 2018, the Netherlands dedicated EUR 13.76 million  to  the  young 
farmer payment to support 7 382 farmers or a bit more than 350 000 hectares (equal to 
1.94% of the total direct payment envelope).85 

In  the  Netherlands,  LEADER  is  the  tool  used  for  small  and  medium  business 
development.  In  the  current  programming  period,  319  new  projects  could  be  started 
under LEADER.86  

21 

 
The  financing  gap  of  the  Dutch  agri-food  sector  is  estimated  to  be  EUR  251  million. 
Small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  account  90%  of  the  financing  gap.  Long-
term loans hold the largest share of the gap. The financing gap is driven by the rejections 
of loans by start-ups and small-sized enterprises due to the lack of track records and the 
risk aversion by banks, in particular when it comes to financing innovations. There may 
be  possibilities  to  develop  new  financial  instruments  (including  under  the  EAFRD)  to 
support  access  to  credit  for  start-ups  and  innovative  projects,  for  which  banks  seem  to 
adopt a conservative approach and display a reluctance to provide finance.87 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in the Netherlands 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

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

Source: EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 

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

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

About  2%  of  the  area  in  the  Netherlands  is  rural  whereas  47%  of  the  surface  area 
classifies as intermediate in 2016. This is particularly lower than the EU average where 
45% of the area is rural and 46% is intermediate88. Moreover, according to the definition 
of  rural-urban  typology:  74.2%  of  the  Dutch  population  lives  in  urban  areas,  25.2%  in 
intermediate areas and only 0.6% of the population lives in these few rural areas89. The 
definition of rural population by degree of urbanisation (DEGRUBA), defines that 10.3% 
of the population lives in rural areas in 201990, and according to the same definition the 
rural territory is 34.3%. It illustrates the particular characteristics of the Netherlands as a 
very densely populated country in  which distances are relatively short and there are, in 
general,  not  many differences between employment  figures in  rural  and urban areas.  In 
fact, employment figures are slightly higher in rural areas (81.4% in 2019) than in urban 
areas (76.6%), and considerably higher than the average employment rate in rural areas 
in  the  EU-27  (68.4%).  The  rural  employment  rate  for  males  (85.9%  in  2019)  is  higher 
than for females (76.7%)91 whereas the youth unemployment in rural areas (aged 20-24) 
stood at 4.2% in 201992. On the other hand, the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita 
is  higher  in  urban  areas  (136,  measured  as  an  index  where  total  EU  GDP  equals  100) 
than  in  rural  areas  (111)  according  to  data  for  201693.  Thirdly,  the  poverty  rate  in  the 
rural  areas  is  lower  in  the  Netherlands  (12.8%)  compared  to  the  EU  (23.5%)94. 
Furthermore, the poverty rate in the Netherlands is higher in cities (19.8% in 2018), than 
in rural areas. 

Population  is  increasing  in  urban  areas  (+2.7%  between  2015  and  2019),  whereas  the 
rural population is slightly decreasing (-0.2%) in the same period95. Behind the averages, 
several  small,  rural  villages  are  at  risk  of  a  shrinking  population  in  the  Netherlands. 
These are mainly located in the Northern provinces and the province of Zeeland96. These 

22 

 
areas  or  “krimpregios”  are  characterised  by  an  aging  population  with  younger 
generations  and  higher-educated  people  moving  to  urban  areas.  In  addition,  public 
transport  availability  is  sometimes  limited  in  those  regions.  The  lack  of  jobs,  higher 
unemployment rate and lower education level in these lagging areas as compared to the 
Dutch  average  increases  the  risks  that  basic  services  will  disappear97.  Data  for  2015 
shows that participation in informal voluntary activities in rural areas (84.3%) or cultural 
or  sport  activities  (88.3%)  is  significantly  higher  in  the  Netherlands  than  elsewhere  in 
Europe (23.7% and 60.1% respectively)98. These strong community ties are important in 
the  small  rural  villages  in  the  Netherlands,  but  can  get  under  pressure  with  an  aging 
population.  Broadband  access  through  glass  fibre  can  be  an  important  pre-condition  to 
make  or  keep  rural  areas  attractive  for  start-ups.  In  this  regard,  next-generation 
broadband access in rural areas is almost completed with 96% of households covered in 
201999. 

The family farm model in Dutch agriculture is still dominant with 67% of the agricultural 
labour  force  being  family  labour.  26%  of  the  agricultural  labour  force  is  women, 
however,  only  5%  of  farm  managers  are  women  in  2016  (the  lowest  in  the  EU)100. 
Whereas  the  Dutch  agricultural  sector  is  among  the  largest  exporting  countries  in  the 
world,  only  2.0%  of  the  labour  force  works  in  the  agricultural  sector  in  2017  (coming 
from  2.7%  in  2010),  while  1.7%  is  employed  in  the  food  industry101.  The  high 
competitiveness, which builds upon economies of scale and mechanisation, stimulates an 
outflow  of  labour  from  the  sector.  Nevertheless,  the  greenhouse  horticulture  in  the 
Netherlands  producing  vegetables  and  flowers  is  labour  intensive,  relying  mostly  on 
seasonal labour from predominantly Central and Eastern Europe. About one fifth of them 
work at or below the minimum wage102. The bulk of unfair practices that affect migrant 
farmworkers in the Netherlands can be defined as “regulated precariousness” embedded 
in  migrant  workers’  high  degree  of  dependency  on  their  employers  and  shaped  by 
skewed power relations in the agri-food chain103. 
Agricultural land covers two-third of the total surface area in the Netherlands104. Despite 
the spatial coverage, the primary sector accounts for only 1.9% of the gross value added 
in 2018, slightly higher than the EU-average (1.6%)105. Even though the primary sector 
employs  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  total  labour  force,  the  agri-business  provides  a 
relatively large contribution to the Dutch economy. However, given the high population 
density and scarce land, urban spread, forestry and recreation put pressure on the area of 
agricultural  land  that  is  expected  to  continue  declining  in  the  future.  Given  the 
environmental challenges related to climate, the Netherlands must strike the right balance 
in the future between agriculture, renewable energy production, life, work and recreation 
in rural areas. 
With  respect  to  the  bio-economy  and  forestry  (covering  11%  of  the  area  in  2020106) in 
the Netherlands, both sectors are growing over time in terms of output. The bio-economy 
has a turnover around 115 billion per year, employing around 350 000 persons in 2015. 
Food and beverages take up the largest share in the total turnover (63% in 2015)107. 

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. 

Considering  the  actions  to  reduce  Antimicrobial  Resistance  (AMR)  in  the  Netherlands, 
one  of  the  relevant  primary  indicator  in  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  are  the  sales  of 
veterinary  antimicrobial  agents  in  food-producing  animals  in  the  Netherlands,  which  is 
57.5 mg/PCU (population correction unit based108 on the Tenth ESVAC report in 2018). 

23 

 
The sales follows a downward trend which flattened in recent years, at a level of 49% of 
the  EU  average  sales  (EU-27:  118.3  mg/PCU).  Clear  achievements  have  already  been 
made  in  this  respect  as  sales  reduced  by  61%  between  2010  and  2018  especially  as  a 
large  part  of  livestock  herd  consists  of  pigs  and  veal  calves.  Additional  secondary 
indicators assessing the progress in reducing AMR are the sales of antimicrobials that are 
most critical for public health, for which the latest national monitoring stated a reduction 
to an absolute minimum in livestock109. Furthermore, the prevalence of resistant E.coli’s 
in broilers further reduced, but remained status-quo in pigs, and was slightly increased in 
veal-calves.  The  Netherlands  should  continue  to  implement  measures  to  maintain  its 
downward trend for the  overall sales of antimicrobials to  contribute to  the EU  Farm to 
Fork  target  and  ensure  that  all  the  necessary  measures  are  in  place  for  a  smooth 
implementation  of  the  new  provisions  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/6  on  veterinary 
medicinal products applicable as from 2022. 

Linked to the intensive nature of the agricultural production in the Netherlands, the sales 
of plant protection products in active ingredient per hectare is one of the highest in the 
EU  on  arable  land110.  The  total  sales  of  pesticides  is  stable  around  10  to  11  million 
kilogrammes  of  active  ingredient,  though  a  10%  reduction  was  observed  in  2018.  The 
Harmonised  Risk  Indicator  1  (HRI1)  which  estimates  the  trends  in  risk  from  pesticide 
use  for  human  health  and  the  environment,  shows  a  downward  trend  of  minus  23%  in 
2018  compared  to  the  baseline  of  2011-2013.  Despite  this  reduction  in  risk  from 
pesticides  use,  further  efforts  are  needed  especially  as  regards  implementation  of  the 
Sustainable Use Directive, including the implementation of Integrated Pest Management 
on  arable  farming  systems111,  and  the  verification  of  its  proper  implementation  at  farm 
level. As alternative to toxic products such as neonicotinoids, only a limited number of 
low-risk products are available, but substantial effort is being undertaken to improve the 
situation.  In  addition,  the  Netherlands  has  developed  a  vision  for  the  future  of  crop 
protection in 2030, called “Towards resilient plant and cultivation systems”, which will 
be taken into account in the review of the national action plan. 

Animal welfare is another priority area for the Farm to Fork strategy, which is absolutely 
vital  for  the  sustainability  of  food  systems  and  increasingly  important  for  consumers 
when  making  their  food-choices.  In  relation  to  animal  welfare,  the  main  issue  in  the 
Netherlands  is  that  the  tail  docking  of  pigs  is  a  routine  practice,  although  this  is 
prohibited as a routine  measure by EU  rules. The percentage of pigs reared  with  intact 
tails has barely changed since 2016 and conditions on farm must improve if the number 
of  tail-docked  pigs  is  to  start  to  decrease.  Furthermore,  dairy  cows  live  on  average  for 
only  three  lactations  due  to  the  demands  of  high  milk  production,  leading  to    animal 
welfare  and  health  problems  on  farm.  The  Netherlands  reports  recent  improvements  in 
this area. 

Animal  welfare-friendly  produced  food  falls  generally  under  consumers’  demand  for 
“sustainable”  food  and  food  products,  which  encompasses  organic  food,  Fairtrade, 
Rainforest  Alliance and  many  others. The overweight  rates  reported in  the Netherlands 
currently  stand  at  47%,  compared  to  an  EU  average  of  52%.  Regarding  obesity  (BMI 
>30), the number stands at 12.7%, while the EU-average is 14.9%112. 

The Netherlands has a has a comparatively low burden from non-communicable diseases 
due to dietary risk factors expressed as Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALYs) per 100 
000 population attributable to diet113 Part of the Netherlands’ population is overweight or 
obese, while estimated consumption of red meat is high114 and consumption of fruits and 
vegetables  low115.  Efforts  should  focus  on  shifting  towards  healthy  sustainable  diets,  
more  plant-based  with  less  red  and  processed  meat,  more  fruits  and  vegetables,  whole 
grains, as well as nuts, seeds and pulses, in line with national dietary recommendations, 

24 

 
in  order  to  contribute  to  reducing  overweight  and  obesity  and  the  incidence  of  non-
communicable  diseases,  while  simultaneously  improving  the  overall  environmental 
impact of the food systems. 
Food  waste  in  the  Netherlands  is  estimated  between  105  and  145  kg/person116  and 
households (consumers) are responsible for a share of 27 to 39% in the total food waste 
cycle.  In  food  production  and  processing,  the  main  food  waste  is  attributed  to  losses 
during the process and in supermarkets with shelf life compliance. The Netherlands has 
committed  itself  to  the  Sustainable  Development  Goal  (SDG)  12.3  which  states  a  50% 
reduction of food losses and food waste by 2030 (baseline year 2015). To reach this very 
ambitious  target,  the  Dutch  government  will  focus  both  on  the  consumer  through 
campaigns, as well as on the food production and processing sector117.  

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

HRI 1 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

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

                Source: EUROSTAT [aei_hri] 

2.10   Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

The Dutch Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) operates very much 
at an international level and according to the OECD118, it is a global forerunning system. 
However, despite the substantial  financial resources invested in  it (“strong”), the  AKIS 
stays “fragmented” because the various types of AKIS actors collaborate insufficiently, 
as  well  as  the  different  levels  (national/regions).  This  is  the  result  of  long-term  public-
private  investments  and  the  collaboration  between  research,  industry  and  governments, 
creating a highly innovative and technologically advanced agricultural sector. However, 
this  approach  may  also  create  a  lack  of  local  and  publicly  available  knowledge  and 
farmers’ involvement, which is key to influence transitions in Dutch farms. 

While  more  large-scale  firms  and  intensification  provide  for  more  private  research  and 
innovation  investments,  public  funding  for  interactive  interventions  and  for  advice  has 
been  and  is  being  reduced.  Starting  in  the  1980s,  this  has  led  to  a  gradual  shift  from 
knowledge as a public good to knowledge as a marketable product119.  

In  2014-2020,  the  Netherlands  programmed  8.1%  of  their  total  rural  development 
envelope  (EU  financing  +  national  contribution)  under  the  measure  for  knowledge 
transfer  and  information  actions  and  co-operation/EIP.  This  is  far  above  the  EU-28 
average  of  3.3%.120  However,  by  August  2020  only  15%  of  the  funds  under  these 
measures  was  spent,  though  respectively  65%  and  81%  of  the  measures’  budget  was 
already committed in projects. The key issue for the future CAP will be to ensure uptake 
and effectiveness of the funding invested, and to make the measures/interventions more 
attractive and targeted to farmers’ needs. 

In 2016, the share of farm managers that attained at least a basic agricultural training was 
78%  (the  same  share  for  managers  under  35),  which  is  far  above  the  EU  average 

25 

 
 
(43%)121. In 2019; through rural development funding, 6534 training days were provided 
for a total of 6473 participants. 

Concerning the role of advisory services, privatisation has led to a disintegration of the 
knowledge distribution system and a lack of throughput of knowledge towards farmers. 
Currently,  there  are  no  public  advisors.  In  general,  Dutch  farmers  are  close  with  many 
advisors and have their own networks for obtaining the knowledge they need. However, 
this adds to the complexity of the Dutch AKIS system and creates barriers to SMEs that 
do not have the resources to pay for private advisory services122. The Netherlands do not 
make  use  of  rural  development  funding  to  support  advisory  services.  More  efforts  are 
needed on impartial advice for example related to societal challenges. 

The 2014-2020 EIP Operational Groups are a success and have involved Dutch farmers 
in the process of knowledge co-creation and innovation, strengthening knowledge flows 
within the projects and between the projects resulting in an effective impact on the field. 
Furthermore, their representatives also influence, inter alia, the Research & Development 
demand,  the  innovation  policy  and  educational  funding123.To  date,  there  are  202 
officially reported EIP Operational Groups in the Netherlands, exceeding its target of 90 
EIP  groups124.  The  main  themes  concern  plant  production  &  horticulture  and  animal 
husbandry & welfare, followed by farming/forestry competiveness & diversification.  

The  Netherlands’  planned  budget  for  the  national  rural  network  (NRN)  for  2014-2020 
amounts  to  only  EUR  1.7  million  (EU  average  is  EUR  12.1  million)125.  Due  to  the 
fragmentation  of  funding  between  the  provinces  for  the  EIP,  more  efforts  to  exchange 
knowledge  at  national  level,  for  example  through  the  CAP  network,  may  be  needed  to 
spread scientific outcomes publicly, and to exchange info on complementary or possible 
duplication of efforts. The NRN plays already an active role in dissemination of project 
results, connecting the people across the provinces and stimulating them in learning from 
each  other126.  This  experience  can  be  the  basis  for  the  future  national  CAP  network  to 
intensify such actions and play a key role in promoting synergies between the CAP and 
European  Research  Area.  The  best  way  to  do  so  is  to  keep  in  close  touch  with  the 
Horizon National Contact Points and to intensify the spreading of the information on the 
EIP  website.  Moreover,  by  collecting  and  disseminating  information,  the  CAP  can 
finance  interventions  that  help  to  make  use  of  up-to-date  scientific  information  for 
agricultural  practices,  for  instance  through  the  CAP  network  and  knowledge  platforms 
and  by  setting  up  advisory  back-offices  where  the  latest  knowledge  and  innovation  is 
collected and shared with the field advisors and the farmers.  

In the Netherlands, digitalisation of the primary sector is seen as an important accelerator 
with particular focus on smart farming (or precision farming) based on data-driven smart 
decision  making,  robotics/mechanisation  and  Internet  of  Things-solutions.  Regional 
initiatives  establish  platforms  bringing  together  farmers  and  other  actors  from  different 
sectors in an open innovation approach127. Moreover, there are several digital innovation 
hubs and public, public-private and private R&I networks and clusters in the Netherlands 
and many dissemination infrastructures and repositories exist.  

The  Netherlands  have  advanced  digital  infrastructure  and  technologies  in  agriculture. 
Looking  at  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI)  2020  ranking,  which 
considers rural and urban areas, the Netherlands ranks 4th out of 28 EU Member States, 
indicating  its  top  performance  and  solid  and  steady  digital  growth  in  terms  of 
connectivity, human capital, use of internet services, integration of digital technology and 
digital public services. It is among the top performers in connectivity, with near-complete 
fast broadband and 4G coverage in both urban and rural areas. The Netherlands has not 
yet  opted  for  the  use  of  satellite-based  means  to  monitor  CAP  implementation  but  is 

26 

 
currently  part  of  EU  projects  dealing  with  the  uptake  of  new  technologies  for  the 
modernisation  of  CAP  administrations,  CAP  controls  and  interactions  with  farmers. 
Concerning training, 81% of individuals living in cities and 77% of individuals living in 
rural areas have at least basic overall digital skills128. 

Source: European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. DESI individual indicators – 1b1 Fast 

Broadband coverage in the Netherlands 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

BB (NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc] 

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

Managers with 
full agricultural 
training 

Managers with 
basic agricultural 
training 
Full training EU 
average 

Basic training 
EU average 

Source: EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1   Algemene  Rekenkamer.  Aanpak  mestvervuiling  veehouderij.  Vervolgonderzoek  duurzaamheid 

veehouderij 2019. Den Haag, 2019. 

2   Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development, Building Stronger Agricultural Knowledge 
And  Innovation  Systems  (AKIS)  to  foster  advice,  knowledge  and  innovation  in  agriculture  and  rural 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
areas. 
fisheries/key_policies/documents/building-stronger-akis_en.pdf  

April 

2019 

3   Innovation support services are a new obligation in Art 13(4) 
4   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.25 Agricultural factor income. Based on EUROSTAT 
[aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06]. All the latest data 1sfor the context indicators is available 
on  the  EUROPA  website.  For  more  information  about  the  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation 
Framework (CMEF) to assess the performance of the Common Agricultural Policy is available here. 
5   European  Commission.  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. 

6  EUROSTAT.[ aact_eaa01] 
7   European Commission. CAP Indicator Dashboard CAP indicator dashboard:  Farming Income support  
8   Farm Accountancy Data Network. FADN Standard reports. Report YEAR.COUNTRY.TF14 
9   Wageningen  Univerity  and  Research.  Agrimatie  –  informatie  over  de  agrarische  sector.  Inkomen  uit 

bedrijf. Wageningen University and Research centre 

10   OECD.  Strengthening  Agricultural  Resilience  in  the  face  of  Multiple  Risks.  Chapter  8  Resilience  to 

animal and plant health in the Netherlands. OECDilibrary. 2020. 

11   OECD.  Producer  Incentives  in  Livestock  Disease  Management.  OECD  Publishing,  Paris,  2017. 

https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264279483-en. 

12   Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  ECORYS  and  Wageningen  Economic 
Research. Study on risk management in  EU agriculture. Publication Office of the EU, Brussels 2018. 
302 pages. 

13   Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development based on COMEXT 
14   Berkhout,  P.,  van  Doorn,  A.,  Geerling-Eiff,  F.,  van  der  Meulen,  H.,  Tacken,  G.,  Venema,  G.,  & 
Vogelzang, T. De landbouw en het landelijk gebied in Nederland in beeld – een houtskoolschets van de 
SWOT  voor  het  GLB.  Wageningen  Economic  Research,  Wageningen.  Rapport  2019-058.  103  pages. 
https://doi.org/10.18174/498882 

15   See note 14 
16   See note 14 
17   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.21  Livestock  units.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[ef_lsk_main], [ef_lsk_poultry], [ef_lsk_bovine] and [ef_lus_main]. 

18  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 

19   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.13  Employment  by  economic  activity.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfe2en2] 

20   Fi-compass. Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in The Netherlands. Study report, 
2020. 
pages. 
75 
https://www.ficompass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors
_Netherlands.pdf . 

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

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3gva] and [nama_10r_2gfcf] 

22   See note 14 
23   See note 14 
24   See note 20 
25   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01] 
26   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_03  Value  for 

primary producers in the food chain. 

27   European Commission. Producer and interbranch organisations, complemented by the Netherlands for 

2020 

28   European Commission - 2018 Dutch Annual report in the fruit and vegetables sector 

28 

 
 
                                                           
29   AND-International,  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  ECORYS.  Study  on 
economic  value  of  EU  quality  schemes,  geographical  indications  (GIs)  and  traditional  specialities 
guaranteed 
pages. 
of 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a7281794-7ebe-11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 

the  EU,  Brussels 

Publication  Office 

(TSGs). 

2020. 

144 

30   See note 14  
31   See note 14 
32   Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019. 

33   European  Environmental  Agency 

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

(EEA).  EEA 

greenhouse 

gas 

data 

viewer. 

34   See note 33 
35   EUROSTAT. Statistics explained – Archive: Agri-environmental indicator – greenhouse gas emissions. 

2017. 

36   International  Mire  Conservation  Group  and  International  Peat  Society  The  distribution  of  peatland  in 

Europe, Mires and Peat, Volume 1. ISSN 1819-754X2006. 2006. 

37   See note 33 
38   Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-
final  version.  November  2019.  170  pages. 

2030  –  The  Netherlands.  Version  0.4 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/nl_final_necp_main_en.pdf 

39   Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessment 
https://fra-
other  wooded 

– 
platform.herokuapp.com/NLD/assessment/fra2020/extentOfForest/ 

1a  Extent 

forest 

2020. 

land. 

FAO 

and 

40   Hussen, Karel van, Ilse van de Velde, Rianne Läkampen Susanne van der Kooij (2019).  Economische 

of 

schade door droogte in 2018. ECORYS, Rotterdam 

41   Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, Delta Programme 2019 Continuing the work on the 
delta: 
2018 
to 
the 
https://www.government.nl/topics/delta-programme 

Netherlands 

adapting 

climate 

change 

time. 

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

in 

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

43   See note 38 
44   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

45   See note 38 
46   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.42  Soil  erosion  by  water.  Original  source:  Joint 

Research Center https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/themes/indicators-soil-erosion 

47   See note 46 
48   See note 14 
49   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.41 Soil organic matter in arable land. Joint Research 

Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015 

50   EUROSTAT.  Statistics  explained  –  Archive:  Agri-environmental  indicator  –  tillage  practices.  ISSN 

2443-8219. 2020. 

51   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – The EU Environmental Implementation 
Review  2019  -  Country  Report  -  THE  NETHERLANDS.  SWD(2019)  133  final.  Brussels  2019. 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_nl_en.pdf 

52   See note 51 
53   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 
54   See note 53 
55   See note 14 
56   European Commission.  Report from the  Commission to the  European Parliament and the Council on 
the  progress  made  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  (EU)  2016/2284  on  the  reduction  of  national 
emissions  of  certain  atmospheric  pollutants.  COM(2020)  266  final.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1596794534116&uri=CELEX:52020DC0266. 

57   See note 14 
58   TNO. factsheet stikstofemissies en depositie in Nederland, 14 oktober 2019 https://www.tno.nl/nl/over-

tno/nieuws/2019/10/factsheet-stikstofemissie/. 

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

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

29 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
60   NEM, De Vlinderstichting, CBS, index 1992-2012 and Kleijn, D., R.J. Bink, C.J.F. ter Braak, R. van 
Grunsven,  W.A.  Ozinga,  I.  Roessink  en  T.  Zeegers.  Achteruitgang  insectenpopulaties  in  Nederland: 
trends, oorzaken en kennislacunes. 2018. 

61   See note 51 
62   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.36  Conservation  status  of  agricultural  habitats. 

Original source: European Environmental Agency 

63   See note 51 
64   Ministry of Economic Affairs. The convention for biodiversity – Fifth National Report of the Kingdom 

of the Netherlands. The Hague. April 2014. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/nl/nl-nr-05-en.pdf 

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

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification” 

66   See note 14 
67   Ecorys.  Study  Landscape  Elements.  final  report,  11  November  2019,  on  demand  of  Ministry  of 
Netherlands, 
Food 

Agriculture, 
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2019/11/11/studie-landschapselementen---
eindrapport 

quality, 

Nature 

and 

the 

68   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. 

69   Joint Research Centre. Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions. Database on implementation 
of GAEC standards https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/dg/agri/policy/direct_support/Pages/GAEC.aspx 

70   Member state notifications to the Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development. 2019. 
71   European  Commission,  Directorate-General  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  analysis  based  on 

Member States’ notifications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 

72   Member state notifications to the Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development. 
73   Regiebureau  POP.  The  Rural  Development  Program  2014-2020  in  the  Netherlands.  October  2016. 

https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/country/thenetherlands_en  

74   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 
75   See note 14 
76   See note 74 
77   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

78   See note 14 
79   See note 5 
80   See note 74 
81   See note 14 
82   EUROSTAT. [apri_lprc]. 
83   Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN). EU Farm Economics Overview based on 2015 (and 2016) 
FADN  data.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/eu-
farm-economics-overview-2015_en.pdf 

84   See note 20 
85   European Commission. CAP indicator dashboards – Data explorer. Output indicator OID_12 Payment 

for young farmers 

86   Member state notifications to the Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development. 2019. 
87   See note 20  
88   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.03 Territory. Based on EUROSTAT [reg_area3] and 

[urt_d3area] 

89   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.01  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[demo_r_gind3]. 

90   EUROSTAT. [ilc_lvho01]. 
91   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.05  Employment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_ergau] 

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

[lfst_r_lfu3rt] 

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

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp] 

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

indicator  C.01  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[demo_r_gind3].  

30 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
96   Copus, A., Kahila, P., Daz, T. Kovacs, K., Weber, R., Ortega-Reig, M., and Meredith, D. Interim report 
ESCAPE  European  Shrinking  Rural  Areas:  Challenges,  Actions  and  Perspectives  for  territorial 
Governance. ESPON Escape project. 2020. 60 pages. 

97   De eerstelijns. Creatieve oplossingen voor arbeidsmarktproblematiek in krimpregio’s. https://www.de-

eerstelijns.nl/2018/05/oplossingen-arbeidsmarktproblematiek-krimpregios/  

98   EUROSTAT. [ilc_scp20] and [ilc_scp02] 
99   European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. DESI individual indicators – 1b1 Fast BB 

(NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc]  

100  Franic, R. and Kovacicek, T. The professional status of rural women in the EU. European Parliament 

study 2019. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608868/IPOL_STU(2019)608868_EN.pdf  
101  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.11  Structure  of  the  employment.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3empers] 

102  Open Society Foundations. Are Agri-Food Workers Only Exploited in Southern Europe? Case Studies 
2020. 

July 
on  Migrant 
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/are-agri-food-workers-only-exploited-in-
southern-europe 

the  Netherlands, 

in  Germany, 

Sweden. 

Labour 

and 

103  Open Society Foundations. Are Agri-Food Workers Only Exploited in Southern Europe? Case Studies 

on Migrant Labour in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. July 2020. 

104  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.31  Land  cover.  Based  on  European  Environmental 

Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018 

105  EUROSTAT [urt_10r_3gva]  
106  Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessment 
https://fra-
other  wooded 

1a  Extent 

forest 

2020. 

FAO 

land. 

– 
platform.herokuapp.com/NLD/assessment/fra2020/extentOfFores. 
Jobs 

107  Joint  Research  Centre. 

and  Wealth 

and 

of 

in 

the  European  Union  Bioeconomy. 

https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html 

108  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. 

109  Wageningen  Bioveterinary  Research  (WBVR)  in  collaboration  with  the  Food  and  Consumer  Product 
Safety Authority (NVWA), the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and 
the  Netherlands  Veterinary  Medicines  Institute  (SDa).  MARAN  report  –  Monitoring  of  Antimicrobial 
Resistance 
2017. 
https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/7/b/0/5e568649-c674-420e-a2ca-acc8ca56f016_Maran%202018.pdf  

Antibiotic  Usage 

the  Netherlands 

Animals 

and 

in 

in 

in 

110  EUROSTAT [aei_fm_salpest09] for sales of pesticides and [apro_cpsh1] for the number of hectares 
111  European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for pesticides (HRI 1), by group of active substance. 

As in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51] 

112  EUROSTAT. [SDG_02_10]. 
113  Joint  Research  Centre,  Health  Knowledge  Gateway:  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-

gateway/societal-impacts/burden 

114  red  meat  being  defined  as  beef,  lamb  and  pork,  106,62  g/per  capita/d,    net  of  waste  in  the  EU  2010,  

GBD study 2017 

115  EUROSTAT. [hlth_ehis_fv3c]  
116  See note 14 
117  See note 14 
118  OECD.  Innovation,  Agricultural  Productivity  and  Sustainability  in  the  Netherland.  OECD  Food  and 
Agricultural reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238473-en   
119  Kania J., Vinohradnik K, Knierm A. PRO AKIS – Prospects for Farmers’ Support: Advisory Services 
in the European AKIS. AKIS in the EU: The inventory – Final Report Vol. II. Krakow, Poland, 2014. 
422 pages 
 https://430a.uni-
hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/430a/PRO_AKIS/Synthesis_Report/SYNTHESIS.REPORT.VO
L.2.FINAL_REPORT_08_07_2014_VOL_II.pdf 

120  European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  -  Data  explorer.  CAP  output  indicator  OIR_01  Total  public 

expenditure 

121  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24. Agricultural training of farm managers. Based on 
EUROSTAT  [ef_mp_training]  For  an  explanation  of  basic  and  full  agricultural  training,  see: 

31 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
 
 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/context-
indicator-fiches_en.pdf  

122  See note 119 
123  See note 119 
124  European Commission. EIP-AGRI – Projects – operational groups. 

 https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/eip-agri-projects/projects/operational-groups 

125  European  Network  for  Rural  Development  (ENRD).  Year  5  screening  on  NRN  programming  and 

action plans. January 2020. 
https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/y5_rdp_screening_nrns_summary_report.pdf 
126  Regiebureau POP. Jaarverslag 2019. https://regiebureau-pop.eu/verslagen-uitvoering-pop3 
127  Regiebureau POP. Jaarverslag 2019. https://regiebureau-pop.eu/verslagen-uitvoering-pop3  
127  EU SCAR  AKIS.  Preparing for Future AKIS in Europe. Brussels, European Commission, 2019. 375 
pages.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/report-
preparing-for-future-akis-in-europe_en.pdf  

128  Eurostat [isoc_sk_dskl_i] 

32