COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission’s recommendations for Finland’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU strategy, Finland, 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) 376 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission’s recommendations for Finland’s CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy {COM(2020) 846 final} - {SWD(2020) 367 final} - {SWD(2020) 368 final} - {SWD(2020) 369 final} - {SWD(2020) 370 final} - {SWD(2020) 371 final} - {SWD(2020) 372 final} - {SWD(2020) 373 final} - {SWD(2020) 374 final} - {SWD(2020) 375 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

COMMISSION’S  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  FINLAND’S 
CAP STRATEGIC PLAN .............................................................................. 2 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

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

Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and 
contribute  to  the  environmental-  and  climate-related 
objectives of the Union ...................................................................... 3 

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

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

1.5 

Recommendations .............................................................................. 5 

2. 

ASSESSMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  AREAS  IN 
FINLAND ......................................................................................................... 7 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

2.8 

2.9 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attract 
and 
development in rural areas ............................................................. 18 

facilitate 

business 

farmers 

young 

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

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

2.10 

 Cross-cutting  objective  on  knowledge,  innovation  and 
digitalisation ..................................................................................... 21 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION’S  RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR 

FINLAND’S  CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN 

In  the  framework  of  the  structured  dialogue  for  the  preparation  of  the  common 
agricultural policy (CAP) strategic plan, this document contains the recommendations for 
the  CAP  strategic  plan  of  Finland.  The  recommendations  are  based  on  analysis  of  the 
state of play, the needs and the priorities for agriculture and rural areas in Finland. The 
recommendations address the specific economic, environmental and social objectives of 
the  future  CAP  and  in  particular  the  ambition  and  specific  targets  of  the  Farm  to  Fork 
Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. As stated in the Farm to Fork Strategy, 
the Commission invites Finland, 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 

Agriculture  in  the  EU’s  northernmost  regions  is  costly,  and  characterised  by  low 
profitability  and  a  limited  variety  of  crops.  Structural  problems  linked  to  unfavourable 
growing conditions and long distances lead to higher production costs, and consequently 
the agricultural sector is heavily dependent on public support. 

The  CAP  and  national  support  schemes  play  a  fundamental  role  in  Finland;  without 
income  support,  the  average  income  per  worker  would  be  negative.  Contrary  to  the 
positive  trend  on  average  at  EU  level,  agricultural  income  per  worker  is  decreasing  in 
Finland. To  ensure food production, therefore, the agricultural  sector  continues to  need 
strong and targeted income support that takes into account regional differences.  

Increasing the profitability of agriculture and stimulating farm income and productivity 
are key issues. Even though farm investment is more significant in Finland as compared 
to  other  Member  States,  the  annual  downward  trend  in  labour  productivity  requires 
attention. Export markets are difficult to find due to the long distances to markets, a lack 
of sufficient and stable supply of volumes and poor price competitiveness.  

The  sector  needs  to  overcome  such  hurdles  through  investments  that  stimulate 
productivity and add value to food products. Considering the structural  development of 
livestock  and  dairy  farming,  investments  are  needed  especially  in  grassland  and  feed 
production.  Investing  in  processing  and  marketing  would  help  offsetting,  at  least 
partially, the high primary production costs.  

Some  of  the  key  factors  to  promote  and  export  could  be  related  to  the  innovative 
solutions,  assisted  by  research  and  cooperation.  Finland  could  also  make  use  of  the 
advantages  the  country  enjoys  such  as  pure  natural  environment,  the  low  use  of 
pesticides in agriculture, low use of antimicrobials and higher animal welfare standards. 
Awareness  raising  of  these  typical  advantages  of  Finnish  agriculture    related  to  the 
sustainable  production  could  be  considered.  In  this  context,  EU  quality  labelling  could 
play a role. 

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 

 
                                                 
Finland  should  promote  access  to  finance  for  farmers.  This  could  include  the  use  of 
financial  instruments  for  medium-sized  enterprises,  which  sometimes  face  obstacles  in 
accessing finance for investments to add value. Medium-sized farms represent the largest 
group of farms in Finland and can lead the future development of the sector, so it is vital 
that they secure access to finance.  

The food supply chain is characterised by the strong presence of farmers’ cooperatives in 
the primary production and processing of milk and meat. Concentration of supply is low 
in other primary production sectors, though. In contrast, producer organisations (POs) are 
rare  and  cover  so  far  only  a  part  of  the  fruit  and  vegetable  sector.  The  wholesale  and 
retail  sectors  are  strongly  concentrated,  and  have  increased  their  share  of  value  in  the 
food chain in recent  years at the expense of primary producers. Finland could therefore 
explore how to foster POs, particularly in sectors with a low presence of cooperatives.  

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Although  Finland  performs  well  according  to  many  environmental  indicators,  there  is 
still  room  for  improvement,  especially  on  ammonia  emissions,  biodiversity  and  water 
quality. Indeed, taking both the National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP) and  
projected  emissions  into  account,  Finland  is  at  high  risk  of  not  reaching  its  ammonia 
emission  reduction  commitments  for  2020-2029.  To  achieve  the  Green  Deal  targets, 
Finland  should  step  up  its  efforts  in  certain  areas.  Given  the  sensitive  sub-arctic  and 
arctic nature, the environmental care is of utmost importance.  

Certain  biodiversity  targets  show  unfavourable  trends:  in  particular,  the  Farmland  Bird 
Index  shows  a  decrease.  Similarly,  Finnish  national  assessments  of  bird  species 
associated with agricultural habitats show a downward trend, although less severe.  The 
CAP can play an important role in achieving the EU’s Biodiversity targets, in line with 
the Prioritized Action Framework for CAP funding.  

Keeping water bodies in good status and reducing coastal water pollution is a priority for 
Finland through maintenance of buffer zones to reduce eutrophication and improvement 
of habitats.  Further investments are needed to protect wetlands, peatlands and grassland, 
and  for  manure  management  (particularly  to  reduce  ammonia  emissions).  It  is  also 
essential to maintain open areas to promote biodiversity and carbon capture.  

The  indicators  for  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation  are  rather  positive  in 
Finland.  However,  agriculture’s  share  of  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  (including 
cropland and grassland) in relation to the rest of the economy remains at a significantly 
higher level than the EU average.  

Finland  manages  a  very  valuable  carbon  sink  at  EU  level,  thanks  to  its  considerable 
forestry  sector  and  forest  cover  (the  highest  forested  area  in  the  EU  as  a  percentage  of 
total  land  area),  as  well  as  its  carbon-rich  soils.  The  country  should  therefore  focus  on 
maintaining this carbon sink.  

Peatlands, which cover roughly a third of Finland’s land area, are a major source of GHG 
emissions,  and  emissions  from  cropland  and  wetlands  are  increasing  although  slowing 
down in the last 10 years.  

3 

 
 
For land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF), Finland should explore different 
interventions to reduce emissions, for example, through carbon farming approaches that 
remunerate rewetting of peatlands, or adequate and climate adapted production methods 
on organic soils.  

While organic farming has been developing positively in recent years, there is still some 
way to go to achieve the Farm to Fork target. 

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

concerns 

Finland has vast rural, sparsely populated areas with long distances. Managing the strong 
existing depopulation trend and improving the vitality of rural areas as attractive places 
to  live  require  investments  in  rural  infrastructure  services  and  livelihoods  outside 
farming. Efforts to promote generational renewal should be strengthened including better 
access  to  financing  and  the  low  number  of  female  farm  managers.  Addressing  youth 
unemployment and inactivity in rural areas in  general is important as well to tackle the 
depopulation challenge.  

Protecting  agricultural  workers,  especially  in  precarious,  seasonal  and  undeclared  jobs, 
will play a major role in delivering on the respect of rights enshrined in legislation which 
is  an  essential  element  of  the  fair  EU  food  system  envisaged  by  the  Farm  to  Fork 
Strategy. 

Compared to the EU average, the situation in Finland regarding animal welfare practices 
and the use of antimicrobials is  rather positive.  Finland has taken significant  initiatives 
on  these  issues  and  the  indicators  reflect  this  positive  situation,  which  needs  to  be 
maintained, and where possible, further improved. There has been a significant increase 
in the overall use of pesticides (as measured by HRI1), due to the use of urea in forests. 
However,  there  is  a  decreasing  trend  in  HRI1  for  agricultural  use.  Promotion  of 
sustainable  use  of  pesticides,  in  particular  ensuring  the  uptake  of  integrated  pest 
management, is needed to meet the Green Deal target.   

Finland should also make an effort to shift towards healthier diets, as it has a very high 
incidence of non-communicable diseases due to dietary risk factors.  

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

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

Finland  is  an  innovative  and  knowledge-oriented  society  with  a  strong  emphasis  on 
digitalisation  and  research.  However,  the  distances  are  long  due  to  low  population 
densities. This may be the reason why the Finnish agricultural knowledge and innovation 
system  (AKIS)  is  relatively  fragmented  although  strong.  Finland  should  strengthen 
coordination,  cooperation  and  interactions between  AKIS  stakeholders.  A  particular 
focus should be on links between public and private advisors, on their training and skills 
and  on  advisors  providing  innovation  support  services.  Ensuring  knowledge  flows 
between  all  AKIS  actors  by  capturing  individual  innovative  ideas  would  support  the 
setting  up  and  implementation  of  individual  European  Innovation  Partnership  (EIP) 
innovation projects and speed up innovation.  

4 

 
Finland is characterised by large, sparsely populated areas and  Next Generation Access 
(NGA)  broadband  connection  in  rural  areas  is  very  low.  Public  support  is  therefore 
necessary to attain the Green Deal target of 100% fast broadband coverage by 2025.  

1.5  Recommendations 

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

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

  Increasing  the  income  and  profitability  of  the  farming  sector  by  promoting 
productivity-increasing 
financing  gaps. 
investments  and  addressing 
Improving  the  targeting  of  direct  income  support,  by  applying,  for  example, 
the  complementarity  redistributive  income  support  for  sustainability  and  the 
reduction of payments. 

the 

  Enhancing the value-added of agricultural production, for example by better 
promotion  of the intrinsic product  qualities and fostering the use of organic and 
(EU) quality labelling and highlighting sustainable production methods. 

  Fostering  cooperation  to  innovate,  and  to  add  value  to  products  through 
investments  and  promotion  of  Producer  Organisations  in  sectors  with  low  PO 
presence. 

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

  Improving  biodiversity,  in  line  with  the  new  actions  of  the  Biodiversity 
Strategy, in particular the status of habitats and protected species, farmland birds 
and  wild  pollinators  by  enhancing  the  conservation  of  habitats,  such  as 
grasslands, peatlands and other wetlands through protective measures in line with 
the Prioritized Action Framework for CAP funding.  

  Strengthening  the  efforts  in  reducing  ammonia  emissions,  in  particular  from 
the livestock sector, to  meet  the national  emissions  reduction commitment.  This 
could be tackled, in particular, through investments in manure management and in 
the development and application of appropriate technologies.  

  Increasing  the  area  under  organic  farming,  contributing  to  the  EU  Green 
Deal target by promoting consumption and uptake of organic production, as well 
as by addressing needs in research and innovation for organic production.  

  Promoting  climate  change  mitigation:  special  focus  should  be  on  forests  and 
carbon-rich soils (peatland and cropland), in order to enhance the current carbon 
sinks  and  reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  Further  attention  is  also  needed 
for  reducing  methane  emissions  in  line  with  the  Methane  Strategy,  for 
example, by promoting biogas production. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Promoting  climate  adaptation  and  increase  resilience  via  targeted  investment 

and improved management.  

  Increasing  nutrient  use  efficiency  in  line  with  the  related  EU  Green  Deal 
target,  and  limiting  the  leaching  of  nutrients  affecting  coastal  areas  and  Baltic 
Sea. 

  Fostering  sustainable  forest  management,  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. 

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

  Promoting  the  diversification  of  the  rural  economy  and  infrastructural 
development in rural areas, making use of increased coordination of knowledge 
and innovation and a further strengthened integration of the related actors.  

  Continuing  efforts  in  promoting  the  generational  renewal,  including  the 
current CAP support to young farmers, and stepping up the access to finance and 
land by further developing adequate support measures.  

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

  Promoting  and  investing  in  the  expansion  of  NGA  broadband  in  rural  and 
remote areas, in line with the EU Green Deal  target of 100% fast broadband 
coverage by 2025. In doing so it will be important to ensure synergies with other 
EU and national funds.  

  Enhancing  the  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Innovation System  by  sustained 
investment in coordination and cooperation between its actors and organisations. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AREAS IN FINLAND 

The  agricultural  sector  in  Finland  is  characterised  by  the  use  of  modern  technology, 
environmental and animal welfare standards and practises above the EU average but also 
by  significant  profitability  challenges.  The  growing  season  is  short,  costs  are  high, 
distances  long  and  the  variety  of  crops  very  limited.  The  income  would  be  negative 
without public support. Contrary to the average European trend, the agricultural income 
per  worker  is  decreasing.  Finland  has  a  strongly  negative  trade  balance  for  food.  The 
total  labour  force  engaged  in  agriculture  is  declining  much  faster  than  the  EU  average. 
The number of farms is also declining.   

Sparsely populated Finland is one of the most rural countries in Europe and rural areas 
are facing an increasing depopulation. Adequate services and infrastructures, such as the 
NGA broadband, should be ensured.  

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

enhance food security 

Finland  has  the  most  northern  agricultural  production,  the  shortest  growing  season  and 
the lowest population density in the EU1 combined with long distances.  The sub-arctic 
and arctic production conditions result in low yields, high production costs and a limited 
variety of crops suitable for the Finnish growing conditions.  

In  this  context,  CAP  and  national  support  are  of  key  importance  for  farm  income  in 
Finland. The CAP support, together with the national support play a significantly more 
important role in realising an income comparable to the EU averages: total CAP support 
forms  58%  of  the  agricultural  factor  income  in  Finland2,  of  which  direct  payments  are 
about  34%  of  the  agricultural  factor  income  in  Finland  in  2018  while  the  European 
average  is  around  24%3.  In  addition,  the  rural  development  payments  (especially  the 
payment  for  Areas  facing  Natural  Constraints  (ANCs)  paid  throughout  the  entire 
territory) play a key role. Without income support, average income per worker would be 
negative4 at EUR -11 368 per full time worker. Even with support, the income per worker 
in agriculture remains at 42% of the average income in the economy5. The annual return 
on assets has been negative between 2000 and 20186 leaving the farmer with an average 
hourly salary of EUR 5.4 and the farms having on average EUR 28 000 negative balance 
after  deducting  the  costs  of  production  that  have  been  growing.  The  entrepreneurial 
income reaches 33% of the target7.  

Between 2010 and 2015, the agricultural income per worker followed a downward trend 
in  Finland,  contrary  to  the  European  average.  In  2019,  agricultural  factor  income  per 
worker in real terms was approximately EUR 23 000 (equal to 48% of the average wage 
in the whole economy8), whereas in most similar economies (in terms of GDP per capita) 
the agricultural factor income tends to be higher9. Between 2010 and 2018, the income of 
farm households has decreased, whereas it has increased in households relying on non-
agricultural  entrepreneurial  income  or  salaried  employment10.  76%  of  farmers  have 
experienced difficulties related to the costs of production and 34% to access to land11. 

The income per worker is above the national average for pig and poultry farms. Income 
fluctuates  around  the  Finnish  average  for  dairy,  arable  and  livestock  farms.  Except  for 
horticultural  farms,  CAP  support  is  essential  to  provide  farmers  a  positive  income12 
19.2% of direct payments are used to provide coupled support to certain sectors13. 

7 

 
Income  per  worker  is  increasing  with  farm  size14  with  on  average,  income  being  the 
lowest  for  farms  between  10  and  30  hectares.  In  the  category  smaller  farms  (5-10 
hectares), 16 % of farms are owned by farmers of more than 65 years of age, with a very 
limited turnover15. At the EU level,  in  2017, the 20% biggest  beneficiaries (in amount) 
still receive about 80% of total direct payments16. In Finland, the direct payments are less 
concentrated with a ratio of 57% of direct payments being received by 20% of farmers17. 
However, physically smaller farms (below the national average) receive slightly less than 
the average direct payment per hectare in Finland18.  

The  income  variability  is  high  in  arable  crops  and  in  mixed  livestock.  Phyto-sanitary 
losses  are  compensated  in  Finland  from  the  state  budget19.  Risk  management  measures 
under Rural Development Programme are not being implemented in Finland20. However, 
the  high  level  of  cooperation  between  farmers  strengthens  their  market  position  and 
facilitates an adaptation to changed business conditions such as weather or markets.  

Farm income compared to the rest of the economy (average 2016-2018) 

Operating  subsidies  per  worker  (including 
support  covering  possible  negative  market 
income) 

Market income (without support) per worker 

Gross  wages  and  salaries  in  the  total 
economy (in current prices) 

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

8 

 
 
 
 
2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

The  particular  characteristics  of  the  Finnish  agricultural  sector  and  its  Nordic  location 
brings a number of constraints with it that do not allow Finnish farmers to compete with 
other European countries based on quantity. The climatic conditions and shorter growing 
seasons  result  in  a  higher  production  costs  and  the  need  to  compete  based  on  quality 
through  high  value  added  products  and  innovation.  The  low  use  of  antimicrobials  and 
high animal welfare standards are examples that contribute to a higher value added.  

Because of its dependence on imports, the Finnish agri-food trade balance is negative and 
this  negative  balance  is  even  increasing  further  over  time.  Based  on  data  for  2018, 
slightly  more  than  50%  of  the  total  agri-food  imports  come  from  the  Netherlands, 
Germany,  Sweden  and  Denmark.  Its  agri-food  trade  balance  with  countries  outside  the 
EU is  slightly positive, mainly due to  exports of raw hides, skins and furs (37% of the 
total  agri-food exports value in  2018)21, followed by milk  powder (which  form  another 
11%). The main export destinations are Sweden and China (forming 25% of total exports 
in value)22. 

With 30% of the total agricultural output, dairy is the most important sector in Finland, 
followed by fruit and vegetables production, cereals and cattle (each around 12% of total 
agricultural  output  in  value)23.  Despite  the  importance  of  cereal  production,  crop 
production  is  not  very  competitive  in  the  international  market.  Finland’s  main 
competitive  advantage  are  in  efficient  livestock  production  and  greenhouse  production. 
However, only circa 15% of protein crops used for animal feed are grown in Finland24. 
Improving this ratio could improve the productivity and competitiveness of farming.  

Increasing productivity is important to boost the competitiveness of the sector. The total 
factor  productivity,  measuring  the  efficiency  of  inputs  and  output,  stagnated  in  Finland 
and even decreased between 2009 and 2013 but follows a positive trend since 2013. The 
total factor productivity in 2018, measured as a 3-year moving average index where the 
EU value in 2005 equals 100, is higher in Finland (117) than the EU average (110)25. In 
terms of cost and revenue structure, the total agricultural output has decreased in Finland 
with 20% between 2012 and 2018, while the costs have only reduced by 10%, reducing 
the total entrepreneurial income received by the sector26. 

The  agricultural  labour  force  expressed  in  full  time  working  units  has  decreased 
significantly in recent years. The labour force decreased by 39% between 2005 and 2019, 
and most importantly the trend accelerated in more recent years (-23% between 2014 and 
2019 (versus -7% at EU-27 average)27. The decline in the labour force is also reflected in 
the decline in the number of farms in Finland, which between 2005 and 2016 decreased 
from  about  70 600  to  49 700  farms.  At  the  same  time,  the  average  farm  size  increased 
from 32 hectares in 2005 to 46 hectares in 201628. Labour productivity is about equal in 
Finland to the EU average between 2017 and 2019 (98% of the EU average). However, 
the annual growth rate of the labour productivity is negative in Finland between 2012 and 
2017 with 1.1%, whereas at EU level it is increasing with 3.1% per year during the same 
period29. The total factor productivity in poultry, pig and greenhouse farms is higher than 
average in Finland30. 

Investments  are  essential  to  boost  productivity  in  the  sector.  In  terms  of  farm 
investments, there is a slight decrease in investments from EUR 1.1 billion to EUR 970 
million between 2012 and 2018. Nonetheless, farm  investments, measured by the gross 

9 

 
fixed capital formation, still equal 87% of the gross value added in agriculture, which is 
considerably  higher  than  the  EU-27  average  (31%)31.  Most  investments  are  made  on 
livestock  farms  and  dairy  farms  in  the  west  of  Finland.  Under  the  current  Rural 
Development  Programme,  7.3%  of  holdings  have  received  support  for  investment  in 
restructuring and modernisation, which is the one of the highest in the EU32. 

Nevertheless, a lack of financing of between EUR 47 million and EUR 162 million was 
identified for the Finnish agriculture sector. This is low compared to other EU Member 
States.  Mainly  medium-sized  farms  between  20  and  100  hectares  face  difficulties 
accessing  finance.  This  financing  gap  is  concentrated  on  medium  and  long-term 
investment lending33.  

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

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] 

Other subsidies 
Energy 

Labour 

Other costs 

2.3  Improve farmers’ position in the value chain 

In the Finnish dairy and meat sector, most farms are organised through cooperatives. The 
largest cooperative collects 80% of the milk and the second largest 9.5%34. In the meat 
sector, the two largest  cooperatives together have between 60 and 80%  market  share35. 
There  are  five  cereal  cooperatives,  but  their  market  share  is  relatively  small36.  Since 
animal  husbandry  represents  62.5%  of  the  value  of  primary  agricultural  production  in 
Finland37, the role of the cooperatives in Finnish agriculture is of pivotal importance. 

None of the cooperatives has a recognised PO status; they could be encouraged to seek 
recognition.  There are only four  recognised producer organisations accounting for 19% 
of the marketed value in the Fruit & Vegetable sector (50% at EU level). Altogether, the 
recognised POs represented 2% of the total value of the agricultural production in 201638. 
No  IBO  (Interbranch  Organisation)  has  been  recognised  so  far.  Only  few  products  are 
under EU quality schemes39. 

10 

 
 
 
In  2018,  Finland  had  1  744  food  and  drink  processing  companies.  Most  of  them  were 
small,  1  634  small  enterprises  employing  less  than  50  people  and  the  vast  majority 
employing less than five people. Nevertheless, a small number of large or medium sized 
companies dominate the production structure. The 20 largest companies represented circa 
50% of the EUR 9 912 million turnover in 2018. The milk and meat processing were the 
most concentrated with one milk and two meat processing cooperatives dominating their 
respective markets.  In 2017, 46% of the turnover of the food industry  was in  milk  and 
meat  processing.  Hence,  these  cooperatives  have  a  strong  position  in  the  Finnish  food 
industry as a whole 40. 

Against the differentiated processing industry stands a concentrated retail structure. The 
two  major  retail  groups  had  an  82.5%  market  share  in  2018.  The  third  group  has  been 
present in Finland since 2002, and had a market share of 9.6% in 2018. The increasing 
market share of private labels of these retailers has reinforced their market power vis-à-
vis  the  large  food  processing  companies41.  The  share  of  value  added  in  the  food  chain 
captured by the retailers has increased from 2008-201742.  

The share of the value added in the food chain for primary producers is decreasing over 
time  in  Finland  (from  32%  in  2009  to  26%  in  2017),  but  still  slightly  above  the  EU 
average  of  23%43.  As  the  share  of  processing  has  remained  relatively  stable  or  slightly 
decreased, the share of the food and beverage distribution (retail) has increased44.  

The use of EU quality labels scheme in view of improving the position of farmers in the 
value chain and of responding to consumers’ demand for high quality products should be 
further explored.  

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

Primary producers 
Food and beverage consumer services 

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

Food and beverage distribution 

% for primary producers – EU-27 

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

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

sustainable energy 

In  2018,  agricultural  emissions  of  greenhouse  gasses  (GHG)  (excluding  cropland  and 
grassland)  in  Finland  amounted  to  6.5  million  tonnes  of  CO2  equivalents,  representing 

11 

 
 
 
about 11.2% of total GHG emissions in Finland (EU 27 average 10%) and around 1.7% 
of the total EU GHG emissions from agriculture. Emissions from agriculture decreased 
by 12.5% between 1990 and 2018, which is under EU average of 20.6%.  However, since 
2013 no further reduction has been recorded.45  

The  most  important  source  of  GHG  emissions  in  non-CO2  agriculture  in  Finland  is 
agricultural  soils  (54.4%)  followed  by  ruminant  enteric  fermentation  (31.7%)  while 
emissions from manure management account for 11.1% of emissions in this sector.46  

In Finland, the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector is of particular 
importance  not  only  in  terms  of  carbon  sinks  but  also  in  terms  of  emissions.  In  2018, 
LULUCF sector as a whole was a net CO2 sink of 10.3 million tonnes mainly resulting 
from  the  large  total forest  area. At  the  same  time,  emissions  from  cropland  (mainly 
drained  organic  soils/peatland)  amounted  to  8.1  million  tonnes  of  CO2,  an  increase  of 
48.5% since 1990. During the same period emissions from grassland have decreased by 
18.7%  to  0.73  million  tonnes  and  from  wetland  increased  by 58.8%  to  2.1  million 
tonnes.47 These  changes  show  the  importance  of  land  use  management  to  control 
emissions.  

When including the LULUCF sector, emissions from high organic soil content peatland 
fields  are over 50% of total agriculture emissions, with  fields  cleared in  forestland (i.e. 
deforested  land)  having  the  highest  emissions.  The  cleared  peatland  area  has  increased 
circa  2.5%  between  2000  and  2018,  mostly  for  the  use  of  cattle  farming  in  Northern 
Finland.  Therefore,  particular  attention  to  the  land  use  patterns  related  to  animal 
husbandry are a key component in the emissions reduction strategy48. On the other hand, 
in terms of carbon sinks Finland has the second highest mean organic carbon content in 
soils in the EU49 and, with nearly 30%, the highest percentage of peat soils in the EU50. 
Finland has the highest share of forests and other wooded areas in the EU51, 76% of the 
Finnish  territory  is  forest  and  other  wooded  land  while  the  EU  27-average  is  45%52. 
Since  potential  sequestration  is  limited  by  this  already  high  level  of  storage,  efforts  to 
limit carbon loss, preserve below ground stocks and improve above ground carbon sinks 
(including materials) should therefore be targeted. 

The  share  of  agriculture  in  the  production  of  total  renewable  energy  in  Finland  is  low 
(2.7%), well below the EU-28 average (12.1%). However the share of renewable energy 
production from forestry is considerable (74.1%, well above the EU average of 40.3%), 
thus bringing the share of agriculture and forestry in total renewable energy production to 
about  76.8%53.  However,  the  biogas  production  from  anaerobic  fermentation  (animal 
slurries  and  of  waste  in  abattoirs,  breweries  and  other  agro-food  industries)  is  0.98 
gigajoule per LSU which is much lower than EU average of 3.93 gigajoules per LSU54. 

Energy  consumption  in  agriculture  and  forestry  in  relation  to  the  total  final  energy 
consumption in Finland is equal to the EU average (2.7%). However, the use per hectare, 
with  28.1  kilograms  of  oil  equivalent  per  hectare  is  the  fourth  lowest  of  the  EU.  The 
percentage of use of energy in  the food processing industry in  Finland (1.7%) is below 
the EU average of 2.9%55.  

Finland's  Climate  Act  (approved  in  2015)  stipulates  that  the  Government  approves  a 
national  plan  on  adaptation  at  least  every  ten  years.  The  National  Climate  Change 
Adaptation Plan 2022 was published in 2014 replacing the National Adaptation Strategy 

12 

 
 
from  2005.  Many  sectors  have  climate  change  adaptation  plans  and  actions,  the  water 
sector being the most advanced56. In the current  Governmental Programme Finland has 
set a target of carbon neutrality by 2035. The measures for the reduction of emissions on 
swamps  and  peatlands  and  the  increase  of  the  carbon  sinks  are  included  in  the 
programme57.  Finland’s  National  Forest  Strategy,  adopted  by  the  Government  in 
February  2015  and  updated  in  2019,  specifies  the  main  objectives  for  forest-based 
business and activities until 202558. 

Climate change is expected to lengthen the growing season and possibilities to cultivate 
certain crops in more northern altitude. However, climate change brings also challenges 
in  relation  to  droughts,  new  pests,  plant  diseases  and  adverse  weather  effects  with  the 
related side-effects in agriculture59. 

The Finnish forestry resources are growing. Roughly half of the CO2 emissions from the 
fossil-based  energy  production  are  sequestrated  by  forests  and  wood  products.  Climate 
change  is  lengthening  the  growing  season  and  the  growing  forests  sequestrate  more 
carbon. However, the climate change is also bringing more pests, new species, changing 
the forest compositions and damages caused by storms60. 

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

Grassland 
Cropland 
Agriculture 
% of agriculture in total GHG emissions (exc. LULUCF) 
% of agriculture (incl. emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 
EU-27 % of agriculture (incl. Emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 
Source: European Environmental Agency. As in EUROSTAT [env_air_gge] 

2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air 

According  to  many  international  rankings,  Finland  performs  well  regarding  the 
sustainable  development  and  the  management  of  natural  resources.  For  example, 
according to some studies, Finland counts first on the World’s cleanest air6162.  

Finland’s landscape is characterized by forests and lakes. Circa 76% of the Finnish land 
is covered by forests and other wooded land, having the largest forest coverage in Europe 
63.  7.5%  of  the  Finnish  territory  is  of  wilderness  reserve64.  Finland  ranks  amongst  the 
most  water  rich  in  the  World65  and  counts  on  168  000  lakes  (minimum  of  500  m2)66. 
Livestock density is rather low compared to the European average (0.5 per hectare)67 68.  

13 

 
 
Concerning air, agriculture causes 89.5% of ammonia (NH3) emissions in Finland from 
which  livestock  causes  a  major  part  (87.9%  of  agriculture)69.  Cattle  forms  the  largest 
source (56.4%) of ammonia emissions in agriculture70.  

The ammonia emissions from agriculture have decreased in recent years71. Finland has a 
moderately low emission of NH3 per hectare compared to the rest of the EU in the South 
of Finland, and around EU-average in the rest of Finland72. However, based on a detailed 
Commission assessment of the National Air Pollution Control Programme (NAPCP) and  
projected  emissions73,  Finland  is  found  to  be  at  high  risk  of  non-compliance  with  its 
ammonia  emission  reduction  commitments  for  2020-2029  and  also  at  medium  risk  of 
non-compliance with the ammonia reduction commitment for 2030 and beyond74.  

As regards soil in Finland, the soil has a total organic carbon in arable land of 636 Mega 
tonnes, which is one of the highest in the EU. The mean soil organic carbon content is 61 
g/kg in 201575. However, the carbon content has diminished in mineral soils since mid-
1970’s.  This  is  partly  due  to  the  relatively  young  age  of  the  fields,  but  changes  in 
agricultural practices have also contributed76. 

In  2018,  70%  of  agricultural  land  is  under  commitments  to  improve  soil  under  Rural 
Development  Programme  which  is  one  of  the  highest  in  the  EU  (EU  average  12%  in 
2018)77. There is no severe risk of soil erosion by water in Finland78. However, 23% of 
arable land is left bare during winter79.  

Finland could share experience and good soil management practices and their associated 
benefits as well as lighthouse examples with other EU countries through participation in 
research,  innovation  and  demonstration  activities  available  under  the  forthcoming 
Horizon Europe Mission on soil health. 

As  to  water,  ground  water  quality  is  one  of  the  best  ones  in  the  EU  with  98.8%  of 
monitored water stations reporting high quality regarding nitrates concentration and 1.2% 
being  of  poor  quality  in  2015-201780.  Nitrates  in  groundwater  are  one  of  the  Europe’s 
lowest  (0.6  mg/l  of  annual  mean  concentration  in  2000-2017)  while  the  EU  average  is 
18.8  mg/l81.  Finland  has  the  second  best  situation  in  the  EU  as  regards  nitrates  in 
freshwater  -surface  waters  with  98.2%  being  of  high  quality  in  2015-201782.  The 
potential surplus of nitrogen on agricultural land has been at the EU average of 49 kg in 
201583. In rivers, the nitrate level for 2000-2017 is 0.3 mg/l while the European average 
is  1.72  mg/l84.  In  general,  the  state  of  lakes  and  rivers  is  stable  but  the  state  of  coastal 
waters has deteriorated85. The phosphorus levels are more than 80% lower than in 1990, 
and are stable between 3.6 and 4.0 kilograms per hectare. In 2019, 68% of the rivers and 
87% of lakes are in excellent or good condition but only 13% of the coastal waters86.  

In  terms  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD),  not  all  water  bodies  are  in  good 
status  yet and agriculture is identified as the second biggest pressure. Better integration 
of  water  objectives  in  other  policy  areas  such  as  agriculture,  is  needed  to  achieve  the 
requirements of the WFD and synergies should be optimised with polices including the 
CAP87. 

In this context, a special attention is to be paid to the Baltic Sea. Eutrophication is among 
the most influential and long lasting environmental pressures in the Baltic Sea. At least 
97% of the region was assessed to be below good eutrophication status, including all of 
the open sea area and 86% of the coastal waters. Indicators reflecting nutrient levels were 
generally  furthest  away  from  good  status.  Long  term  trends  shows  signs  towards 

14 

 
improved  eutrophication  status  in  the  westernmost  Baltic  Sea.  Although  signs  of 
improvement  are  seen  in  some  areas,  effects  of  past  and  current  nutrient  inputs  still 
influence the overall status88. 

The nitrogen and phosphorous emissions have decreased significantly over past 30 years. 
However,  this  trend  has  recently  discontinued.  Regional  differences  occur  as  livestock 
and crop productions are concentrated in different areas89. 

The share of agricultural land under Rural Development commitments to improve water 
management is 83%, which is one of the highest in the EU (EU average 12% in 2018)90. 
Agriculture puts pressure on water quality and several measures have been recommended 
by the Commission to reduce the pollution from nutrients and pesticides originating from 
agriculture91. More than half of nutrients originating from human action and ending up in 
waters  are  from  agriculture.  Especially  challenging  is  the  period  outside  of  growing 
season92. 

There are no particular problems with respect to water stress conditions in Finland. Only 
0.4%  of  the  total  agricultural  areas  is  irrigated  (EU-27  average  6.5%  in  2016)93.  The 
water  exploitation  index  (WEI+),  which  estimates  the  total  water  use  relative  to  the 
renewable  freshwater  resources,  is  under  0.5%  in  most  areas  in  Finland.  In  the 
Kokemäenjoki-Archipelago  Sea-Bothnian  Sea  river  basin,  the  index  was  5.55%  in 
201594. This indicates that there is no water stress in Finland as the exploitation remains 
below 20%. 

Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Finland 

Kg P/ha/year 

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

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

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

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

Different indicators provide an understanding of the status and past trend for biodiversity 
in  agricultural  land.  These  indicators  sketch  different  trends,  for  which  some  are 
unfavourable for biodiversity.  

15 

 
 
 
For example, the farmland bird index has declined over time being 79 in 2018 (2000 = 
100), where the long-term trend is less steep than the EU28-average (81 in 2018)95, the 
farmland  bird  index  shows  a  steep  decrease  in  recent  years  from  102  in  2015  to  79  in 
201896. Similarly, a downward trend, although less severe, is shown in Finnish national 
assessments  of  bird  species  associated  with  agricultural  habitats,  although  showing  a 
slight  increase  in  202097.  Moreover,  in  terms  of  conservation  status  of  agricultural 
grassland habitats, 25% of habitats are in favourable status. However, 66.7% classifies as 
unfavourable-bad during 2013-2018. This is a small improvement compared to the period 
2007-2012  when  69.2%  of  habitats  were  classified  as  unfavourable-bad98.  Terrestrial 
Natura  2000  area  in  Finland  (in  2019)  covers  13%  of  total  land  area.99.  Most  of  the 
grassland  habitats  have  been  assessed  as  requiring  additional  efforts  to  optimize  their 
management regime. 75% of the grassland habitats are reported to be affected by one or 
more agriculture-related pressure or threat100. 

However, the share of permanent  grassland and meadows is  only 1%, being one of the 
lowest  in  the  EU  (EU  average  31%)101.  This  is  obviously  due  to  climate  conditions. 
Nonetheless, the total grassland area has increased from circa 400 000 hectares in 1990 to 
over 600 000 hectares in 2018102. The continuation of agriculture is essential in Finland 
for  maintaining  an  open  landscape,  and  an  evaluation  has  pointed  out  the  particular 
importance of grassland maintenance to maintain and improve biodiversity103. 

Moreover,  different  landscape  features  have  a  positive  effect  on  biodiversity.  A  JRC 
study performed in 2015 estimated a coverage of agricultural land by landscape features 
equal  to  5.3%  of  the  agricultural  area  in  Finland,  which  is  the  highest  in  the  EU  (on 
average 0.6%). In addition, 11.2% of the agricultural areas is fallow land in 2018, which 
is the second highest in the EU where it is on average 4.1%104.  

The  current  CAP  period  2014-2020  contains  different  measures  that  can  contribute  to 
improving biodiversity. With this respect, under the current greening obligations around 
25 000 hectares fall under the ecological focus area obligation in Finland. 78.6% of the 
ecological  focus  area  is  land  laying  fallow,  while  the  other  21.4%  are  nitrogen-fixing 
crops105.  In  addition,  14%  of  agricultural  land  is  under  commitments  supporting 
biodiversity and/or landscapes under Rural Development, which is slightly lower than the 
EU average 15%106. 

Organic management practices can also be beneficial for soils and biodiversity. The share 
of  organic  farming  area  in  Finland  equals  13.1%  of  the  total  agricultural  area  in  2018 
(EU average 8.0%). The share of organic  area shows a positive trend107.  In  2019, circa 
280  000  hectares  were  under  organic  production  commitments  and  the  Rural  
Development Programme 2014-2020 budget allocation had been overcommitted. About 
one third of commitments are in animal production. Despite the increase, the programme 
target  of  355  000  ha  will  not  be  reached108.  The  number  of  organic  producers  slightly 
increased  from  4  316  in  2012  to  4  665  in  2017,  but  the  area  increased.  The  share  of 
animals held by organic farmers increased from 2013 to 2018, mainly for sheep and to a 
lesser  extent  also  for  cattle109.  The  Finnish  Government  has  decided  to  update  the 
national strategy on organic production110. 

Besides  agricultural  land,  forestry  plays  a  very  important  role  in  Finland.  76%  of  the 
territory is forest or other wooded area111. The growing stock of wood is growing steadily 
in the Finnish forests112. The share of forest area (including transitional woodland-shrub) 
that  is  protected  under  Natura  2000  in  2018  is  8.1%  (EU  average  30.4%)113.  Protected 
forests constitute 2.9 million hectares (13% of forests)114. Finland has the biggest share 

16 

 
of strictly protected forests (class 1.1 - no active intervention) counting 9% of forest and 
other wooded land whereas the EU-28 average is 2.2%115.  

Compared to the other regions, the conservation status of forest habitat types as listed in 
Annex  I  of  the  Habitats  Directive  is  worse  in  the  Boreal  region,  with  82.4%  of  the  17 
habitat  types  reported  for  in  the  region  in  unfavourable-bad  condition  and  17.6%  is  in 
unfavourable-inadequate  condition116.  Finland  reports  on  11  Annex  I  habitats  for  the 
Boreal region and 5 for the Alpine region, covering an area of approximately 45 000 km² 
of  which  40.74%  is  in  unknown  condition  and  28.31%  is  in  a  condition  that  is  not 
good117. Pursuing  monitoring efforts  to  complement  this data set  is  essential.  However, 
there  is  a  considerable  potential  for  restoration  of  the  approximately  11 000 km²  of 
Annex  I  forest  habitats  that  are  currently  reported  in  bad  condition  and  part  of  the 
15 800 km²  in  unknown  condition118.  In  particular,  restoration  measures  targeting  such 
peat rich habitats as western taiga (habitat 9010, 1 000 to 3 000 km² in bad condition) and 
bog  woodland  (habitat  91D0,  at  least  6 000 km²  in  bad  condition)  would  in  addition 
contribute to climate-related targets119. 

Area under organic farming in Finland 

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

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

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

Share of agricultural area covered by  
high-diversity landscape features  

20

15

10

5

0

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

7
2
U
E

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

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

Source: Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Based on EUROSTAT for land 
laying fallow and Joint Research Centre based on LUCAS survey for estimation of landscape elements. 
* Linear elements considered here: Grass margins, shrub margins, single trees bushes, lines of trees, 
hedges and ditches. This estimation is to be taken with caution because of methodological caveats. 

17 

 
 
 
2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

Only 4% of farm managers is below 35 years old in 2016 after a decline from around 9% 
between 2005 and 2013). This is considerably below the EU average of 5.1%. Moreover, 
the  share  of  women  in  the  total  number  of  farm  managers  below  35  years  is  9%  in 
Finland, the 4th lowest in the EU (figures from 2016)120. This shows a worsening trend in 
farmer ages in recent years in Finland121. 

The  share  of  farm  managers  below  35  years  of  age  with  at  least  a  basic  level  of 
agricultural  training  (50%)  is  higher  than  the  share  of  total  farm  managers  in  Finland 
(45%), with both figures being higher than the EU-average level. However, the share of 
young farm managers with full agricultural training in Finland is below the EU average. 
The general tendency of increasing average economic farm size over time in Finland is 
more pronounced in holdings with farm managers between 25 and 34 years old, which, in 
2016, have on average the highest economic farm size122. 

Section  2.2  already  mentioned  the  financing  gap  in  the  Finnish  agricultural  sector. 
Although  the  overall  gap  is  low  compared  to  the  EU-27,  access  to  finance  for  some 
viable  farming  enterprises  in  Finland  might  still  be  a  challenge123.  This  counts  in 
particular for young farmers, whose debt burden is often higher than that of other farmers 
due to the loans taken to finance taking over the exploitation.124.  

Due  to  weak  the  profitability  perspectives  and  improved  employment  opportunities  in 
other sectors agriculture has not attracted young people125. 

The business demography, expressed in the birth rate of enterprises in rural areas is with 
6% the lowest among the Member States for which data is available126 . 

CAP  support  can  contribute  to  reduce  the  entry  barriers  to  the  sector,  in  particular  for 
new  entrants.  7.6%  of  farmers  receive  direct  payments  top  up  for  young  farmers.  The 
total Rural Development Programme funding in Finland was EUR 145.9 million for the 
setting up of around 2 700 young farmers in the period 2014-2020. This objective would 
result in a rather high share compared to other EU MS (4.6% of agricultural holdings)127, 
but at the end of 2019 there were 1 519 farmers with approved financing for setting up. 
This  means  that  the  target  will  not  be  reached  before  the  end  of  the  programming 
period128.  

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Finland 

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] 

18 

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

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

Finland has among the highest share of rural areas in the EU, covering 82% of the total 
territory. Rural areas host 39.5% of the population (2019), with a downward trend (-1.1% 
between  2015  and  2019)129.  In  the  Degree  of  urbanisation  (DEGURBA)  classification 
Finland shows the lowest figures in the EU in terms of area under urban centres (0.1%) 
and  the  urban  clusters  (0.7%).  The  area  under  rural  grids  is  the  highest  (99.3%)130. 
Shrinking  regions  are  located  more  in  the  east  and  north  of  the  country,  whereas  some 
rural  areas  around  urban  agglomerations  continue  to  grow131.The  old-age  dependency 
ratio is one of the highest in the EU: in 2019 the ratio is 38.4% in Finland (with less than 
three working age people for every person aged 65 or over)132.  

The  employment  rate  in  Finland  increased  over  time  and  was  73.2%  (age  group  15-64 
yr.) in 2019 in rural areas (68.4% at EU-27), which is close to the total employment rate 
in  Finland133.  However,  the  unemployment  rate  for  young  people  (age  15-24)  in  rural 
areas  is  considerably  higher  (16.1%  in  2019)  than  the  Finnish  average  (5.8%  in  rural 
areas  for  the  age  group  15-74)134.  The  age  structure  in  rural  areas  is  unfavourable  in 
terms  of  dependency  ratio.  Rural  areas  count  for  37%  of  employment  in  Finland; 
although  this  figure  is  slightly  decreasing,  it  is  still  rather  stable,  as  well  as  the 
employment in the primary sector, which counts for 7.3% of the jobs (2016)135. In fact, 
the  agriculture  sector  is  one  of  the  least  recruiting  sectors  in  the  economy136.  Other 
business activity than farming is an essential income source to many farmers, of whom 
29%  engaged  in  business  activities  outside  farming  in  2018,  not  counting  salaried 
employment137. This percentage has decreased slightly from 2013.  

The GDP per inhabitant in purchasing power standard in rural and intermediate areas is 
well beyond the EU-27 average. While the GDP per capita in the whole of Finland (EU-
28=100, average 2013-2015) is 110.9%, the rural areas record 94.2%138. 

The poverty  rate, i.e. the rate of people at  risk of poverty or social  exclusion, does not 
differ  much  between  rural  and  urban  areas139  (the  poverty  rate  is  17%  in  rural  areas  in 
2018 (24% at EU-27),) but remains generally stable over time140 141.  

Availability  of  public  and  private  services  is  also  under  pressure  in  many  rural  areas, 
including the transport network and services142.  

Under  the  two  current  Rural  Development  Programmes  for  Finland  (Mainland  and 
Åland), 70% of the rural population is covered by local development strategies. By this, 
Finland  exceeds  the  targets  initially  set  (around  48%  of  the  population)143.  Community 
Lead Local Development (LEADER) -groups operate in all rural areas144. 

With the highest share of forests and other wooded land in land cover in the EU-27, the 
forest  sector  plays  an  important  role  in  ecological  and  economic  terms.  Whereas  the 
sector  demonstrates  stable  figures  as  to  employment,  the  productivity  increased 
significantly  between  2005  and  2017,  being  now  the  highest  in  EU-27145.  Already  in 
2012, the Finnish bio-economy had a share of 12% (EUR 23.5 billion) of the value added 
of the national economy, build up mainly by the forestry and the agri-food sector (36% 
and  16.6%  thereof  respectively).  There  are  17  849  operating  business  units  listed  as 
engaged in bio-economy, of which 3 147 in agriculture146.  

19 

 
Finland  has  a  dedicated  bio-economy  strategy,  with  defined  goals  to  generate  new 
economic growth and new jobs from an increase in the bio-economy business and from 
high  added-value  products  and  services  while  securing  the  operating  conditions  for  the 
nature’s  ecosystems.  Furthermore,  the  strategy  shall  push  the  Finnish  bio-economy 
output up to EUR 100 billion by 2025 (from EUR 60 billion in 2011) and create 100 000 
new  jobs147.  The  government  has  earmarking  funding  for  bio-industry  development, 
including  research,  pilot  projects  and  investment  support148.  The  update  of  the  Finnish 
bio-economy strategy is scheduled to be completed in 2021149. 

Development of sectorial turnover in the bioeconomy (Finland, 2008-2017) 
(million EUR) 

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

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

Antimicrobial  resistance  (AMR)  is  a  priority  area  for  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy.  In 
Finland,  all  veterinary  medicinal  products  (VMPs),  that  contain  antimicrobials,  are 
prescription-only medicines, which are available either from pharmacies on veterinarian 
prescription  or  directly  from  veterinarians.  Veterinarians  are  allowed  to  dispense 
medicines  for  the  treatment  of  animals  under  their  care.  The  tenth  ESVAC  Report  in 
2020 states that the use of VMPs in Finland with 18.7 mg/PCU (2018) is well below the 
EU average of 118.3 mg/PCU150.  

Medicated  feeds  may  either  be  produced  by  feed  mills  or  imported  into  Finland,  but 
always require a prescription from  a veterinarian. Production and imports of  medicated 
feeds must be reported to the Finnish Food Authority in accordance with the Decree on 
Medicated Feeds (10/EEO/2008).  

Animal welfare  is  another priority  area for the Farm to  Fork strategy,  and essential for 
the sustainability of food systems. It is critical, therefore, that Finland devotes adequate 
resources to implementing EU rules in the above areas. As regards implementation of the 
EU legislation, the Finnish competent authority has a strategic approach to enforcement 

20 

 
 
of the EU requirements, makes efficient use of resources and supports a high degree of 
consistency  in  inspections.  The  competent  authority  has  also  established  certain  animal 
welfare indicators in its official controls151.  

Ensuring the safety and proper use of pesticides and its controls on their use is integral to 
sustainable  food  production.  Figures  published  by  EUROSTAT  show  an  upward  trend 
for HRI 1 indicating the use and risks of pesticides (plus 44%) for 2011-2018, the highest 
among Member States and compared to minus 17% EU average. However, this trend is 
due  to  the  use  of  urea  in  forestry152  with  a  decreased  trend  for  the  indicator  in 
agriculture153. Finland will need to meet the Green Deal targets against this background. 

Finland has very high overweight and obesity rates154 and has a high burden from non-
communicable  diseases  due  to  dietary  risk  factors  expressed  as  disability-adjusted  life 
year (DALYs) per 100,000 population  attributable to  diet155, which are influenced by a 
number  of  dietary  factors.  Furthermore,  Finland  has  a  low  consumption  of  fruits  and 
vegetables156. Efforts  should focus  on shifting towards healthy sustainable diets, in  line 
with national recommendations in order to contribute to reducing overweight and obesity 
rates  and  the  incidence  of  non-communicable  diseases  while  simultaneously  improving 
the  overall  environmental  impact  of  the  food  system.  This  would  include  focus  on 
moving  to  a  more  plant  based  diet  with  less  red  meat  and  more  fruits  and  vegetables, 
whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds. 

The  Finnish  waste  prevention  programme  (2017-2023)157  gives  some  attention  to  food 
loss  and  waste  occurring  at  the  primary  production  level  and  the  early  stages  of  the 
supply  chain.  Further  efforts  are  expected  in  the  upcoming  national  food  waste 
prevention programme, as required by Article 29(2a) of the Waste Framework Directive 
2008/98/EC.  

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU in Finland 

EU-27 

HRI 1 in Finland 

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 

Finland  has  been  investing  in  knowledge  and  innovation  with  an  aim  to  be  a  leading 
innovative  country158.  Finland  ranks  amongst  the  best  in  various  international  rankings 
measuring  innovations159  and  education160  Finland  scores  also  highest  in  the  Digital 
Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI)  2020  of  the  European  Commission161.  Finnish 
farmers have a higher level of education than the EU average. In 2016, 45% of the total 
farm managers attained basic or full agricultural training. This share, however, decreased 
compared to 2013. The difference between EU and Finland is bigger in the group with at 
least basic level of agricultural training (34.4% compared to 22.7% in EU-27), whereas 

21 

 
compared  to  the  EU,  the  share  of  farmers  that  attained  full  agricultural  training162  is 
almost similar to the EU-average (11.4% compared to 9%, 2016)163. Whereas in Finland 
the  share  of  farm  managers  below  35  years  of  age  with  at  least  a  basic  level  of 
agricultural  training  (50%)  is  higher  than  the  share  of  total  farm  managers  (45%),  it 
should be noted that the share of 'young' farm managers with full agricultural training in 
Finland is lower compared to the EU average164[see section 2.7]. 

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

Managers  with 
full 
agricultural 
training 
Managers  with 
basic  agricultural 
training 

training  EU 

Full 
average 

training 

Basic 
EU average 

Source: EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

During the current programming period, several European Innovation Partnership (EIP) 
Operational  groups  were  set  up  in  Finland  focussing  on  various  aspects  of  cereal 
production and storage, cattle feed, forestry and digitalisation (10 EIP groups in total)165. 
The budget programmed on training, advice and cooperation projects (EIP) in relation to 
the  total  public  spending  under  EAFRD  is  slightly  higher  than  the  EU  28  average,  but 
also decreased during the programming period166.  

While  Finland  has  a  high  coverage  of  mobile  broadband  subscriptions,167  one  of  the 
highest  4G  coverages168,  including  the  rural  mobile  4G  broadband  coverage169  and  the 
share  of  individuals  with  at  least  basic  digital  skills  in  rural  areas170  tackling  the  NGA 
broadband  coverage  in  rural  areas  (below  EU  average)  remains  a  challenge.  The  rural 
NGA  coverage/availability  is  9.12%  in  households  in  2019  while  the  EU  average  is 
59.3%171.  The  lack  of  incentive  for  market  players  to  invest  in  the  sparsely  populated 
areas is evident.  

Finnish  AKIS  is  strong  but  relatively  fragmented172.  As  regards  advisers,  in  January 
2019,  765  farm  advisers  and  199  service  provider  organisations  were  registered  in  the 
farm adviser register of the Finnish Food Authority173.  

In  2019,  a  major  part  of  advice  as  given  under  the  RDP  2014-2020  concerned  animal 
welfare.174 Farmers have been mainly satisfied with the provided under the RDP  2014-
2020.  In  the  future  programming  period  the  research  and  advice  should  be  better 
interlinked in order to disseminate faster new information175. 

The National Rural Network (NRN) is active and well organised in Finland. Numerous 
events  are  taking  place  with  different  themes.  Network  is  positively  considered  by  the 
persons working on the implementation of the RDP176. 

22 

 
 
Broadband coverage in Finland 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

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

23 

 
 
 
 
1   EUROSTAT. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20171206-1  
2   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Share  of  direct  payments  and  total 

subsidies in agricultural factor income (2014-2018 average).  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-expenditure-
graph5_en.pdf 

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

5   Directorate General for Agricultural and Rural Development, based on EUROSTAT data [aact_eaa01], 

[nama_10_a10], [nama_10_a10_e] 

6   Natural 

Resources 

Institute 

Finland 

(LUKE). 

https://portal.mtt.fi/portal/page/portal/economydoctor/total_calculation/timeline/financial_ratios   
7   Natural  Resources  Institute  Finland  (LUKE).  https://www.luke.fi/uutinen/maatalouden-kannattavuus-

heikkenee-vuonna-2019/  

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

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

[aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06] 

10   Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/til/tjt/2018/06/tjt_2018_06_2020-03-12_kat_002_fi.html  
11   Fi-compass. Survey on financial needs and access to finance of EU agricultural enterprises. 2020. 72 

pages. 
https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/Survey_on_financial_needs_and_access_to_finance_of_EU
_agricultural_enterprises_0.pdf  

12   Farm Accountancy Data Network. FADN Standard reports. Report YEAR.COUNTRY.TF14 
13   Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. https://mmm.fi/eu-n-suorat-tuet  
14   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 

to 2018) 

15   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 
16   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 

to 2017) 

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

to 2017) and CATS data (up to 2017) 

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

to 2018). 

19   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. 

20   Rural Development Programme, mainland Finland, 2014-2020.  
21   Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development based on COMEXT  
22  COMEXT. [DS-058342 - EU trade since 1995 by CN sections] 
23   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01]   
24   Natural  Resources  Institute  Finland  (LUKE).  Eläinten  rehut  ja  ruokinta.  https://www.luke.fi/tietoa-

luonnonvaroista/maatalous-ja-maaseutu/elainten-ruokinta/  

25   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 

26   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01]   
27   EUROSTAT. [aact_ali01] 
28   EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 

24 

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

EUROSTAT [aact_eaa01] and [aact_ali01] 

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

[aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06] 

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

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3gva] and [nama_10r_2gfcf] 

32   Vuotuinen 

täytäntöönpanokertomus,  Manner-Suomen  maaseudun  kehittämisohjelma  2014-2020. 

https://www.maaseutu.fi/uploads/Implementation-report_2014FI06RDRP001_2019_0_fi.pdf  

33   Fi-compass. Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Finland. Study report, 2020. 73 

pages. 
https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Finland.pdf  

34   Suomalaisen maitosektorin rakenteet ja niiden muutokset vuosina 1995–2018, PTT 2019 
35   Support for Farmers’ Cooperatives. Country report Finland 2012, Wageningen UR 
36   Support for Farmers’ Cooperatives. Country report Finland 2012, Wageningen UR 
37   EUROSTAT. [AACT_EAA01] 
38  Study  of  the  best  ways  for  producer  organisations  to  be  formed,  carry  out  their  activities  and  be 
supported.  Final  report.  European  Commission  2019  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/2c31a562-eef5-11e9-a32c-01aa75ed71a  

39   European Commission. CAP Indicator Dashboard. Adding value.   
40   365 ruoan päivää: Elintarviketeollisuuden toimialaraportti. Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö, Helsinki 2019. 
41   Agriculture  and  food  sector  in  Finland  2019.  Natural  resources  and  bioeconomy  studies  37/2019. 

https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/544349 

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

primary producers in the food chain. 

43   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on EUROSTAT:[ 

aact_eaa01] [sbs_na_ind_r2] [sbs_na_dt_r2] [sbs_na_1a_se_r2]  

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

primary producers in the food chain. 
45   European Environmental Agency (EEA). 

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

46   European Environmental Agency (EEA). 

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

(EEA).  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-

47   European  Environmental  Agency 
viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

48   Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE). Maankäytön päästöt, nielut ja haasteet nautataloudessa. 
Power  Point  Presentation.  2020.  https://www.slideshare.net/LukeFinland/maankytn-pstt-nielut-ja-
haasteet-nautataloudessa-kristiina-regina-tutkimusprofessori-luke  

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

Centre (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015 

50   European 

51   EUROSTAT. 

Joint 

Commission, 

ESDAC, 
https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/octop/Resources/Peatland_Per_Country.pdf  
2019 

and 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/10317767/KS-FK-19-001-EN-N.pdf/742d3fd2-961e-
68c1-47d0-11cf30b11489  (page 88, Figure 5.1.1: Forest and other wooded land, 2015 (% share of total 
land area) 

Agriculture, 

statistics. 

Research 

forestry 

edition. 

Centre. 

fishery 

2006. 

52   Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO):  

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

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

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

54   European Commission. DG AGRI calculations based on EUROSTAT [nrg_cb_rw]  
55   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

56   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Adaptation  preparedness  scoreboard 

Country fiches. SWD(2018) 460 final. 
Government. 

57  Finnish 

https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/marin/government-programme/carbon-neutral-

finland-that-protects-biodiversity  

58   Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. https://mmm.fi/kms  

25 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
59   Natural  Resources  Institute  Finland  (LUKE).  https://www.luke.fi/tietoa-luonnonvaroista/maatalous-ja-

maaseutu/maatalous-ja-ilmastonmuutos  

60   Natural  Resources Institute Finland (LUKE).  https://www.luke.fi/tietoa-luonnonvaroista/metsa/metsat-

ja-ilmastonmuutos/  

61   Environmental Performance Index. https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/component/air 
62   Finnish Meteorological Institute. https://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/tiedote/524194286  
63   Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 

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

64   Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_alue_en.html  
65   Lawrence, P., Meigh, J. & Sullivan, C. The Water Poverty Index: an International Comparison. Keele 
Economics  Research  Papers.  2002/19.  24  pages.  https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-
wp/dev/papers/0211/0211003.pdf  

66   National  Land  Survey  of  Finland.  https://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/ajankohtaista/suomi-57-000-168-

000-jarven-maa  

67   EUROSTAT. Agri-environmental indicator - livestock patterns. [ef_lsk_main], [ef_lus_main].  
68   EUROSTAT.  Agri-environmental 

indicator  -  consumption  of  pesticides.  [aei_fm_salpest09].  

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

69   European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA).  Air  pollutant  emissions  data  viewer  (Gothenburg  Protocol, 

LRTAP Convention) 1990-2018. 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-pollutant-emissions-data-viewer-3 

70   Valtioneuvosto. Maatalouden ammoniakkipäästöjen vähentäminen. Viljelijäopas.  

https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161984/MMM_Viljelijaopas_Maatalouden_a
mmoniakkipaastojen_vahentaminen_FINAL.pdf?sequence=7&isAllowed=y  

71   EUROSTAT. [sdg_02_60].  
72   DG  AGRI.  Agriculture  and  environment.  Page  27.  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-

farming-fisheries/farming/documents/agriculture-environment_en.pdf 

73   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=1593765728744&uri=CELEX:52020DC0266 

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

Centre (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015 

76   Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE). Maankäytön päästöt, nielut ja haasteet nautataloudessa. 
Power  Point  Presentation.  2020.    https://www.slideshare.net/LukeFinland/maankytn-pstt-nielut-ja-
haasteet-nautataloudessa-kristiina-regina-tutkimusprofessori-luke 

77   European Commission. CAP Indicator Dashboard Soil Quality 
78   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.42  Soil  erosion  by  water.  Original  source:  Joint 

Research Centre 

79   EUROSTAT.  Agri-environmental 

[ef_lus_main]. 
- 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_soil_cover  
80   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 

[ef_mp_soil], 

indicator 

cover. 

soil 

81   European Environmental Agency (EEA). Nitrate in groundwater in Europe. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/nitrate-in-groundwater-1#tab-chart_1 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/nutrients-in-freshwater/nutrients-in-freshwater-
assessment-published-9  

& 

82   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 

83   EUROSTAT. [T2020_RN310].  
84   European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA).  Nitrate  in  rivers  in  Europe.  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-

and-maps/indicators/nutrients-in-freshwater/nutrients-in-freshwater-assessment-published-9  

85   Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE). 

https://www.syke.fi/fi-FI/Ajankohtaista/Tiedotteet/Suomen_vesien_tilaarvio_Jarvien_ja_jokie(51384)  

86   Environment.fi – Joint website of Finland’s environmental administration. 

26 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
https://www.environment.fi/fi-
FI/Vesi/Pintavesien_tila/Pintavesien_ekologinen_ja_kemiallinen_ti(17776)  

87   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. Second River Basins Management Plans 

– Member State: Finland. SWD(2019)46final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:46:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN  
88   State of the Baltic Baltic Sea – Second HELCOM holistic assessment 2011–2016. 
http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/pressures-and-their-status/eutrophication 

89   Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE). 

https://www.luke.fi/ruokafakta/peltomaan_kasvit/typpi_ja_fosforitaseet/  

90   European Commission. CAP Indicator Dashboard Water Quality & Availability 
91   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Second  River  Basins  Management 

Plans - Member State: Finland. SWD(2019) 46 final. 

92   Environment.fi – Joint website of Finland’s environmental administration. 

https://www.environment.fi/fi-FI/Vesi/Vesiensuojelu/Maatalous  

93   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.20 Irrigated land. Based on EUROSTAT [ef_poirrig] 

and [ef_m_farmleg] 

(1990-2015). 
index-for-river-2 

94   European Environmental Agency (EEA). Water exploitation index plus (WEI+) for river basin districts 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/explore-interactive-maps/water-exploitation-

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

[env_bio2], original source: EBCC, BirdLife, RSPB and CSO 
96   European Commission. CAP Indicator Dashboard Biodiversity 
97   Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE). https://stat.luke.fi/en/indicator/farmland-birds 
98   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.36  Conservation  status  of  agricultural  habitats. 

Original source: European Environmental Agency 

99   EUROSTAT. Biodiversity statistics. [env_bio].  
100  Member State reported data on pressures and threats of habitat types and species.  Article 17, Habitats 
Directive  92/43/EEC  https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/state-of-nature-in-the-eu/article-
17-national-summary-dashboards/main-pressures-and-threats  

101  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.18  Agricultural  area.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[apro_cpsh1] 

102  Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE). Maankäytön päästöt, nielut ja haasteet nautataloudessa. 
Power  Point  Presentation.  2020.    https://www.slideshare.net/LukeFinland/maankytn-pstt-nielut-ja-
haasteet-nautataloudessa-kristiina-regina-tutkimusprofessori-luke 

103  Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE). 

https://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/545599/luke_luobio_12_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowe
d=y  

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

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

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

notifications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 

106  European Commission. CAP Indicator Dashboard Biodiversity 
107  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.19 Agricultural area under organic farming. Based on 

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

108  Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Finland,  2019: 133 pages. 

https://www.maaseutu.fi/uploads/Implementation-report_2014FI06RDRP001_2019_0_fi.pdf  

109  European Commission. CAP Indicator Dashboard Organic Production 
110  Finnish Government. Government Programme. 3.4.2 Agriculture.  

https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/marin/government-programme/agriculture  

111  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 

112  FOREST 

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

Europe’s 
https://www.foresteurope.org/docs/fullsoef2015.pdf  

EUROPE. 

Forests 

2015. 

State 

2015. 

314 

pages. 

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

Barometer and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018 

114  Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE). https://stat.luke.fi/metsien-suojelu-112019_fi  
115  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.38  Protected  forest.  Original  source:  Forest 
Europe/Unece/FAO - State of Europe's Forests 2015 Report (SoEF 2015), tables A4.14 and A4.15 

27 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
116  European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA).  Conservation  status  of  forest  habitat  types  by  region. 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/conservation-status-forest-habitat-types#tab-chart_1 
117  European Environmental Agency (EEA) based on Member State data on conservation status of habitat 
types  and  species  2013  -  2018  (Article  17,  Habitat  Directive  92/43/EEC).  Proportion  of  habitat  area 
reported with good, not-good and unknown habitat condition. 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/state-of-nature-in-the-eu/article-17-national-summary-
dashboards/condition-of-habitat 

118  European Environmental Agency (EEA) based on Member State data on conservation status of habitat 
types and species 2013 - 2018 (Article 17, Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC). Total area of habitat (km²) in 
each 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/state-of-nature-in-the-
eu/article-17-national-summary-dashboards/condition-of-habitat 

condition 

category. 

119  European Environmental Agency (EEA) based on Member State data on conservation status of habitat 
92/43/EEC). 

17,  Habitat  Directive 

(Article 

types 
http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/fi/eu/art17/envxtxaya 

species 

2013 

2018 

and 

- 

120  EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang]. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/EF_M_FARMANG__custom_187839/default/table?lan
g=en   

121  European  Commission.  Evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  CAP  on  generational  renewal,  local 

development and jobs in rural areas, 2019, P. 42.  

122  EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 
123  Fi-compass. Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Finland. Study report, 2020. 73 

pages. 
https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Finland.pdf 

124  Maatalouden 

2019. 
https://www.ptt.fi/julkaisut-ja-hankkeet/kaikki-julkaisut/maatalouden-asema-rahoitusmarkkinoilla.html 
125  Annual  Implementation  Report  (AIR)  of  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Finland,  2019: 

rahoitusmarkkinoilla. 

200,  Helsinki 

työpapereita 

asema 

PTT 

https://www.maaseutu.fi/uploads/PDF/Vuosiraportti-2019.pdf   

126  EUROSTAT. [urt_bd_hgn2] 
127  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Aland/Finland,  2014-2020,  Version  6.1  and  Rural  Development 

Programme of Mainland/Finland, 2014-2020, Version 7.1 .  

128  Annual  Implementation  Report  (AIR)  of  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Finland,  2019: 

https://www.maaseutu.fi/uploads/PDF/Vuosiraportti-2019.pdf   

129  EUROSTAT [urt_gind3] 
130  EUROSTAT, GISCO. Based on 2011 population grid, LAU 2018 delineation and NUTS 2016. Degree 

of urbanisation (DEGURBA) classification.  

131  Copus et al. (2020). Interim report ESCAPE European Shrinking Rural Areas: Challenges, Actions and 
Perspectives  for 
territorial  Governance.  ESPON  Escape  project  and  European  Commission. 
Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  additional  figures,  maps  and  tables  on  the  key  aspects  of 
demographic change and its impact,, SWD(2020) 109 final 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-staff-working-document-impact-demographic-
change-17june2020_en.pdf  

132  European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – additional figures, maps and tables on 

the key aspects of demographic change and its impact, SWD(2020) 109 final 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-staff-working-document-impact-demographic-
change-17june2020_en.pdf  
133  EUROSTAT. [lfst_r_ergau].  
134  EUROSTAT. [lfst_r_urgau]. 
135  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.11  Structure  of  the  employment.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3empers] 

136  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  and  Employment  of  Finland.  Minne  uudet  työpaikat  syntyivät  vuonna 

2018? 2020. 75 pages. 
http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/162127/Minne%20uudet%20työpaikat%20syn
tyivät%20vuonna%202018.pdf  

137  Natural  Resources  Institute  Finland  (LUKE).  https://stat.luke.fi/maatalous-ja-puutarhayritysten-muu-

yritystoiminta-2016_fi-0  

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

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp] 

28 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
139  European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – Additional figures, maps and tables on 

the key aspects of demographic change and its impact. SWD(2020) 109 final. Page 56. 

140  European Commission. CAP Indicator Dashboard Jobs and growth in rural areas 
141  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.09 Poverty rate. Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps11] 
142  OECD  Rural  Policy  Reviews:  Finland  2008.https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-

development/oecd-rural-policy-reviews-finland-2008_9789264041950-en#page77  

143  Annual  Implementation  Report  (AIR)  of  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Mainland/Finland,  2019 
and Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Aland/Finland, 2019 

144  Leader-Suomi. https://www.leadersuomi.fi/fi/leader-ryhmat.  
145  EUROSTAT [for_awu] and EUROSTAT [for_eco_cp] 
146  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  and  Employment  of  Finland.    Minne  uudet  työpaikat  syntyivät  vuonna 

2018? 2020. 75 pages. 
https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/162127/Minne%20uudet%20työpaikat%20sy
ntyivät%20vuonna%202018.pdf  

147  European Commission. The bioeconomy in different countries. 

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

148  idem 
149  Bioeconomy. Updated Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy aims to promote sustainable growth and climate 
https://www.bioeconomy.fi/updated-finnish-bioeconomy-strategy-aims-to-promote-

objectives. 
sustainable-growth-and-climate-objectives-2   

150  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. 

151  European  Commission,  DG 

SANTE, 
https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=4180 

Food 

and  Veterinary  Office  Report 

2019: 

152  Urea  is  considered  as  a  potential  low  risk  pesticide  in  the  Commission  Notice  2018/C  265/02.  The 

status of urea will be re-assessed as from 01/09/2021 

153  Finnish  Safety  and  Chemicals  Agency  (TUKES):  https://tukes.fi/en/safe-use-of-plant-protection-

products/harmonised-risk-indicators  

154  EUROSTAT [SDG_02_10]  
155  Joint Research Centre. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden  
156  EUROSTAT [hlth_ehis_fv3c]  
157  Valtioneuvosto. From recycling to a circular economy: National waste plan to 2023 

http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/160889/SY_01en_18_WEB.pdf?sequence=1&
isAllowed=y 
158  SITRA.  Suomi 

kärkimaaksi.  Kilpailukykyinen 

innovaatiotoiminnan 

innovaatioympäristö 

-

kehittämisohjelman loppuraportti. 2005. https://media.sitra.fi/2017/02/27173347/Inno1-2.pdf  

159  Global Innovation Index. https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/Home  
160  OECD. Better Life Index. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/  
161  European  Commission.  The  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI).  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-

single-market/en/desi  

162  Full agricultural training  here  means any training course  continuing  for the equivalent of at least two 
years full time training after the end of compulsory education and completed at an agricultural college, 
university or other institute of higher education in agriculture. EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]. 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training].  

164  Idem 
165  European 

Commission. 
projects/projects/operational-
groups?search_api_views_fulltext_op=OR&search_api_views_fulltext=&field_proj_geographical_area
%5B%5D=97  

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

EIP-AGRI. 

166  Regional  Rural  Development  Programmes  of  Finland  2014-2020,  latest  adopted  version  as  of 

November 2020 
167  OECD.  Mobile 

broadband 

subscriptions. 

https://data.oecd.org/broadband/mobile-broadband-

subscriptions.htm#indicator-chart  

168  European Commission. 4 G mobile broadband (LTE) coverage (as a % of households). Year 2019.  
169  European  Commission.  Rural  4G  mobile  broadband  (LTE)  coverage  (as  a  %  of  households).  Year 

2019.  

29 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
170  European Commission. Individuals with at least basic skills, by individuals living in sparsely populated 

area.  

171  European Commission. Rural NGA broadband coverage/availability (as a %of households). 2019.  
172  4th  Report  of  the  Strategic  Working  Group  on  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Innovation  Systems 
(AKIS),  Standing  Committee  on  Agricultural  Research  (SCAR),  2019.  Referral  to    Diversity  of 
European AKISs in 2014 (Knierim and Prager, 2015) 

173  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Forestry.  Maaseutuohjelma  2014-2020.  Neuvontatoimenpiteen  arviointi. 

Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön julkaisuja, 2019:12. 
https://www.maaseutu.fi/uploads/mmm_12_2019_maaseutuohjelma-
2014_2020_neuvontatoimenpiteen-arviointi.pdf  

174  Annual  Implementation  Report  (AIR)  of  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Finland,  2019: 

https://www.maaseutu.fi/uploads/PDF/Vuosiraportti-2019.pdf  

175  Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Maaseutuohjelma  2014-2020  – neuvontatoimenpiteen arviointi. 

2019. 
https://www.maaseutu.fi/uploads/mmm_12_2019_maaseutuohjelma-
2014_2020_neuvontatoimenpiteen-arviointi.pdf  

176  Maaseutu.fi. Maaseutuverkoston arviointi.  

https://www.maaseutu.fi/maaseutuverkosto/vaikutukset/arviointi/maaseutuverkoston-arviointi  

30