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

1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SWEDEN’S CAP STRATEGIC 
PLAN .......................................................................................................................... 2 

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

security ................................................................................................................ 2 

1.2  Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the 

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

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

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

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

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake ............................................ 4 

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

2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 

SWEDEN .................................................................................................................... 7 

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

enhance food security ......................................................................................... 7 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 
focus on research, technology and digitalisation ............................................. 8 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain .................................................. 9 

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

sustainable energy ............................................................................................ 10 

2.5  Foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural 

resources such as water, soil and air .............................................................. 12 

2.6  Contribute to the protection of biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes ............................................................ 14 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 16 

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

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry ...................... 18 

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 ............................................................................................................... 19 

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

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SWEDEN’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  Sweden.  The  recommendations  are  based  on  analysis  of  the 
state of play, the needs and the priorities for agriculture and rural areas in Sweden. 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 Sweden, 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 

Income per agricultural worker has been around 40% of the average wage in Sweden for 
the  last  decade.  Swedish  agriculture  is  highly  dependent  on  public  support:  direct 
payments  represent  over  half  of  agricultural  income  per  worker,  with  a  higher  level  of 
dependence  in  livestock  production  in  particular  and  in  areas  with  natural  constraints. 
Agricultural income in Sweden is also among the most volatile in the EU, while the use 
of tools to stabilise income and to manage income risks is relatively low.  

Sweden has a challenging climate and labour costs are high. Total factor productivity has 
increased more slowly in Swedish agriculture than in the EU on average, and the utilised 
agricultural  area  (UAA)  and  livestock  numbers  have  declined.  The  low  return  on  total 
capital  hampers  investment  in  modernisation,  innovation  and  productivity  and  makes 
generational renewal  less attractive.  In  addition,  CAP  support has shown a tendency to 
capitalise in land prices, making farm income support less efficient.  

Farmers  in  Sweden  are  well  organised,  with  several  large  cooperatives  that  have  a  big 
share  of  the  market  of  primary  agricultural  products,  particularly  dairy  and  arable 
products. Recognised producer organisations (POs) exist only in the fruit and vegetable 
sector, and agriculture’s share of value added is significantly lower than the EU average, 
having declined almost constantly since 2008. The three major retail chains control over 
80%  of  the  market.  Action  should  be  envisaged  –  specifically  for  small  and  medium 
sized farms - to increase the amount of value added captured by farmers along the food 
chain. 

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Swedish  agriculture  can  play  an  important  role  in  achieving  the  new  climate  and 
environmental  goals  established  by  the  European  Green  Deal:  Sweden  manages  a  very 
valuable  carbon  sink  at  EU  level,  with  significant  forest  cover  (the  second  highest 
forested area as a percentage of national land area in the EU) and very carbon-rich soils. 
Sweden  should  therefore  focus  on  preserving  these  carbon  sinks,  by  avoiding 
deforestation and preserving or restoring peat soils. 

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 

 
 
                                                           
Greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  from  agriculture  are  comparatively  low,  energy 
consumption by the agricultural and forestry sectors is below the EU average, and the use 
per  hectare  (ha)  of  fossil  energy  is  the  lowest  in  the  EU.  Almost  half  of  the  energy 
produced in Sweden comes from renewable sources, with forestry as the most important 
source.  Due  to  ammonia  emissions  from  agriculture,  Sweden  is  at  high  risk  of  non-
compliance with its ammonia emission reduction commitments for both 2020-2029 and 
for 2030 and beyond.  

The status of groundwater is mostly satisfactory but surface waters all fail to achieve a 
good chemical status and 62% of them have a less than good ecological status. Regarding 
the Green Deal target on nutrient loss, the gross nutrient balance in Sweden is better than 
the  EU  average,  with  regional  differences,  although  eutrophication  of  coastal  waters 
remaining a problem. Agriculture accounts for only a small part of water abstraction and 
the proportion of arable land with irrigation is relatively small.  

The soil quality of arable land is generally satisfactory in Sweden, with relatively good 
and stable organic matter content and no significant soil erosion. The presence of heavy 
metals, particularly cadmium, in agricultural soil in some regions is a possible concern, 
and may require action.  

Biodiversity,  one  of  the  Green  Deal  targets,  is  generally  deteriorating  in  Sweden.  The 
share of habitats in a good state of conservation has decreased and many types of forest 
and  most  grassland  have  an  unfavourable  or  bad  conservation  status,  though  with 
regional differences. The farmland bird index shows a significant drop since 1995, with 
only  a  very  modest  recovery  in  recent  years,  and  the  Natura  2000  network  coverage  is 
rather limited.  

According to the latest available data12, the main pressures identified for grasslands are 
changes  in  land  use  and  abandonment  of  agricultural  land.  Remaining  areas  of  semi-
natural  grassland are very  small and fragmented, and habitat  quality is  easily eroded in 
periods of abandonment or disadvantageous management. 

Organic farming, another of the Green Deal targets, is well established in Sweden, with 
20.3%  of  the  total  UAA  dedicated  to  organic  farming.  Sweden  should  continue  to 
support to farmers to maintain this level and increase it where possible.  

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

concerns 

Sweden  has  one  of  the  lowest  population  densities  among  EU  countries.  The  rural 
population is ageing more quickly than in urban and peri-urban areas, the average age of 
farmers is increasing and farmers depend on employment outside agriculture for adequate 
income and diversification.  It  is  not  easy  for  young farmers to  acquire land, which is a 
challenge for generational renewal. 

The employment, growth and social inclusion rates in rural areas are all higher than the 
EU average. The poverty rate has slightly increased in rural areas, and migrants living in 
rural areas run a significantly higher risk of poverty than natives.  

Sweden must take account of the specific needs of women in agriculture and rural areas 
to  deliver  on  gender  equality  and  close  the  gender  gaps  in  employment,  pay,  pensions, 
care and decision-making.  

3 

 
 
Protecting  agricultural  workers,  especially  those  in  precarious,  seasonal  or  undeclared 
jobs, will play a major role in respecting legal rights. This is an essential element of the 
fair EU food system envisaged by the Farm to Fork Strategy.  

The rural areas of Sweden have many small enterprises and a high share of new business 
start-ups per inhabitant. The LEADER-method is well established over the whole country 
and  has  helped  to  create  jobs.  However,  weaknesses  in  the  knowledge  and  innovation 
system in rural areas hinder innovation.  

The  bio-economy  in  Sweden  is  an  important  sector,  particularly  forestry,  with  its  high 
output of forest products and logging and high productivity3.  

Regarding the Green Deal targets on pesticides and antimicrobials, Sweden leads the EU 
in the sustainable use of veterinary antimicrobials and pesticides, and use of pesticides in 
the highest risk category has decreased. Monitoring of pests and controls on pesticide use 
are  generally  of  high  quality.  However,  Sweden  should  continue  to  promote  the 
sustainable  use  of  pesticides,  particularly  by  ensuring  the  uptake  of  integrated  pest 
management  practices.  It  should  also  make  an  effort  to  shift  towards  healthier,  more 
environmentally  sustainable  diets  as  it  has  a  high  consumption  of  red  meat  and  a  very 
low consumption of fruits and vegetables. 

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

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

Sweden  has  a  good  general  level  of  education,  including  for  farm  managers.  However, 
the  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS)  is  relatively  fragmented  and 
not  sufficiently  connected  to  all  AKIS-related  fields.  The  rate  of  innovation  is  also 
estimated  to  be  lower  in  agriculture  and  food  processing  than  in  other  sectors.  The 
current  rural  development  programme  for  Sweden  has,  until  now,  a  rather  low 
disbursement  of  funds  for  training  and  advice,  although  the  European  innovation 
partnership  (EIP)  has  contributed  to  innovation  networks  and  innovation  support 
services.  

There are few initiatives to connect research results with farming, little applied research 
on  agriculture  and  access  to  targeted  training  for  individual  farms/enterprises  differs 
between sectors and regions. Farm advisory services are also rather fragmented.  

Public expenditure on agricultural research is at a low level and has been decreasing for a 
long  time.  Enhancing  the  AKIS  would  lead  to  better  coordination  and  cooperation 
between its participants to strengthen the impact of EU and national/regional funding for 
agricultural research and innovation. 

It is essential to improve links between public and private advisors and to invest in their 
training  and  skills.  Advisors  should  be  supported  to  help  capture  individual  innovative 
grassroots ideas and to develop them. 

Sweden is highly digitalised and has a good broadband coverage although there is a gap 
between  rural  and  urban  areas.  To  achieve  the  Green  Deal  target  on  access  to  fast 
broadband  internet,  Sweden  needs  to  speed  up  its  roll-out  considerably  in  sparsely 
populated areas to close this gap.  

4 

 
 
 
1.5  Recommendations 

To  address  the  above  interconnected  economic,  environmental/climate  and  social 
challenges the Commission considers that the Swedish CAP strategic plan needs to focus 
its priorities and concentrate its interventions on the following points, while adequately 
taking into account the diversity of Swedish agriculture and rural areas, in particular the 
difference in needs between Southern and Northern Sweden. 

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

  Address  the  weak  increase  in  total  factor  productivity  and  the  decline  of 
agricultural  income  and  production,  in  particular  in  the  livestock  sectors,  by 
providing  appropriate  investment  support,  in  order  to  maintain  food  production 
and  ensure  attractiveness  of  farming.  Improving  the  targeting  of  direct  income 
support,  by  applying,  for  example,  the  complementary  redistributive  income 
support for sustainability and the reduction of payments. 

  Maintain and boost the value added captured by the farmers along the food 
chain,  focussing 
innovation,  knowledge,  and 
strengthening  the  framework  for  farmers’  cooperation,  including  POs.  Support 
investments and advice to stimulate production of niche products and marketing 
via contemporary business channels to capture a growing consumer interest. 

the  support  on  research, 

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

  Contribute  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  nutrient  loss  by  supporting 
targeted operations to  improve the  nitrogen and phosphorus management  and to 
reduce  losses  to  air  and  water,  as  well  as  improving  grassland  management  in 
areas with the highest cattle density. 

  Contribute  to  sustainable  energy  by  increasing  renewable  energy  production 
and  use  on  farms.  Investment  interventions  could  be  envisaged  among  other 
support tools. 

  Promote  climate  change  mitigation  and  GHG  emissions  reduction  by 
restoring, preserving, improving the carbon sinks on forest land (e.g. by fostering 
sustainable forest management) and carbon-rich soils (e.g. peatland and wetland 
conservation).  Suitable  tools  could  include  conditionality,  eco-schemes,  rural 
development interventions and targeted investments. Reduce methane emissions 
in line with the Methane Strategy (e.g. with biogas production). 

  Promote climate change adaptation, by, in particular, conserving and restoring 
existing  grasslands  (for  carbon  sequestration  and  overall  resilience  of  these 
ecosystems.). 

  Contribute to the EU Green Deal targets by establishing and maintaining high 
diversity  landscape  features  as  well  as  by  preserving  and  increasing 
biodiversity  and  improving  the  status  of  protected  habitats,  in  line  with  the 
Prioritised  Action  Framework  for  CAP  funding.  Attention,  considering  regional 
differences,  should  be  given  to  grasslands  with  high  biodiversity  value  both 
within and outside Natura 2000 areas, to reverse the decline in farmland birds and 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
wild  pollinators.  Appropriate  tools  could  include  result-based  eco-schemes  or 
agri-environmental  management  commitments  and  non-productive  investments, 
among others. The schemes that encourage voluntary set a side of areas with high 
values for biodiversity in the forestry sector should also be maintained. 

  Increase  land  with  high  ecological  value  and  make  use  of  appropriate  CAP 
instruments to ensure its conservation and enhance its ecological functionality.  

  Foster  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 
on forests. Improving prevention measures against abiotic and biotic damages. 

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

  Promote  generational  renewal  in  farming  by  facilitating  access  to  start-up 
capital  and  land,  in  particular  with  CAP  support  to  young  farmers  starting  up  a 
farm. 

  Boost job creation and social inclusion in rural areas by facilitating innovation 

for rural businesses creation and development, by strengthening knowledge 
transfer and cooperation between research and rural businesses, and developing 
further the bio economy, in synergy with funding from other funds. 

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

  Increase  financing  and  strengthening  of  a  coherent  and  coordinated 
organisation  of  the  knowledge  and  innovation  system,  including  for  a 
sustainable  agriculture  production  with  a  special  focus  on  greenhouse  gas 
emissions  reduction  and  use  of  biomass.  Invest  in  a  better  integration  of  all 
advisors within the AKIS, so that they can cover all sustainability dimensions and 
up-to-date knowledge and innovation.  

  Promote local development in rural areas and contribute to the Green Deal 
target on access to fast broadband internet by speeding up installation of next 
generation  access  (NGA  broadband  capacity)  in  rural  areas,  in  particular  in 
sparsely  populated  areas  and  to  end  users.  In  doing  so  it  will  be  important  to 
ensure synergies with other EU and national funds. 

6 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

SWEDEN 

The agricultural sector in Sweden operates in a Nordic climate with a limited number of 
crops and a large dairy sector. There are significant differences in production conditions 
and types between southern and Northern Sweden. The food supply chain up to the level 
of retail is largely controlled by the farmers via cooperatives except for meats and sugar. 
Due  to  geographical  and  climate  constraints  for  farming,  long  distances  within  and 
between  farms  outside  the  main  production  areas,  costs  for  production,  such  as  labour 
and inputs, are high. The high national standards for animal welfare and environmental 
add to these costs, which are not fully compensated by productivity gains. The level of 
investments in particular for the animal husbandry sectors is low. The overall situation is 
characterized  by  a  falling  agricultural  output,  in  particular  for  animal  products,  lack  of 
interest for young farmer start-ups, and a strongly negative trade balance for food. Rural 
areas in Sweden are in a comparable situation with urban areas in terms of employment, 
growth and social inclusion, though a digital gap is visible between (in particular remote) 
rural and urban centres. Furthermore, the innovation capacity is relatively weak in rural 
areas in comparison with urban areas, and lower in agriculture and food processing than 
in other sectors of the economy. 

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

enhance food security 

The Swedish agricultural income/worker was 43% of the average wage in the economy 
from  2005-2019,  which  is  around  the  EU  average.  Regarding  resilience,  years  with 
difficult  weather,  such  as  dry  conditions  in  2009  and  2018  are  sticking  out  with  lower 
incomes.4 The agricultural factor income per worker is above average, for field crops and 
granivores, around average for dairy producers but considerably below average for cattle 
farms. The agricultural factor income per worker for the horticulture production has been 
on an upwards trend since 2009 and in 2017 was considerably above average5.  

A majority of the  farmers combine farming with other economic activities.  Income per 
worker  from  agricultural  activities  increases  with  farm  size,  with  the  exception  of  the 
smallest farm size class.6 Approximately half of the agricultural area is denominated as 
area facing natural  or specific constraints  (ANC).  Incomes are lower in  the ANC areas 
and in particular in the areas defined as mountainous.7 

The  dependency  of  direct  payments  is  high  in  Sweden.  Agricultural  factor  income  was 
EUR 21 636  per  worker  in  2018  whereof  direct  payments  represented  54%,  or 
EUR 12 590 per worker compared to EUR 6 660 as EU average8. The payments falling 
under the second pillar are relatively high and have a significant contribution to farmers’ 
income, in particular for the livestock production.  

Sweden  does  not  apply  the  redistributive  payment.  In  2016,  60%  of  the  beneficiaries 
received  less  than  EUR 5 000  of  direct  payments.9  The  highest  direct  payments  per 
hectare are in the livestock farms.10 In 2018, 20% of beneficiaries received 73% of direct 
payments.  The  share  has  been  stable  between  2015  and2018.  In  2018,  20%  of  farmers 
held  68% of the land.11 Sweden  applies a reduction of payments of 5% for amounts in 
excess of EUR 150 000.12 

In Sweden in 2018, 13% of direct payments was paid as voluntary coupled support and it 
was as a bovine premium.13  

7 

 
 
The farm income variability (measured through the coefficient of variation over sectors 
between 2007 and 2013 equals 1.64, which is one of the highest in the EU (EU average 
0.93). Less than 25% of farms have agricultural crop insurance systems covering climatic 
risks.  The  number  of  farmers  taking  agricultural  livestock  income  insurance  systems  is 
less than 1%14. 

The  use  of  the  income  stabilisation  tools  is  low,  however  the  fiscal  legislation  allow 
farmers’  to  balance  income  between  years  with  a  similar  impact.  Several,  in  particular 
larger, cereals, oilseed and protein crop farms use forward- and futures contracts to hedge 
prices.  The  availability  of  hedging  tools  adapted  to  be  used  at  the  level  of  individual 
farmers is relatively good and provided by cooperatives, traders and banks. There are no 
agricultural mutual funds.1516 

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

Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms  

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy  

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

Source: DG AGRI based on EUROSTAT17 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

According  to  the  Farm  Structure  Survey  (2016),  there  were  62 900  farms  in  Sweden 
whereof 15 500 could be classified as employing at least one person. A consolidation of 
the structure has  taken place over time and the number has fallen by  -17% since 2005. 
The  average  size  has  in  the  same  period  increased  from  42  ha  to  48  ha18. The  Utilised 
Agricultural  Area  declined  in  the  same  period  from  3,2  m  ha  to  3,02  m  ha  while  the 
number of livestock units declined from 1,84m  LU to 1,7 m LU19. Sweden has granted 
coupled support for cattle aged above 1 year since 2007 (13% of the envelope for direct 
payments)20. 

The Total Factor Productivity (TFP) increased by 0,7% on an annual basis from 2007 to 
2017  which  is  below  EU  average  (+0,9%)21.  The  labour  productivity  increased  faster 
while the land-, and in particular, the capital productivity increased at a slower pace. The 
strong increase in the labour productivity can be explained by an outflow of labour from 
the  sector  due  to  a  relatively  fast  consolidation  and  an  ongoing  modernisation  where 
labour is replaced by capital (i.e. voluntary milking systems). The relatively high living 
standard in Sweden and the structure of the labour market results in relatively expensive 
basic skilled labour. Sectors outside farming have had a stronger increase of the TFP and 
in relative terms, the agricultural sector has lost competitiveness22. 

8 

 
 
 
Despite an increased TPF in farming and a TFP in Swedish farming, the return on total 
capital is low which has an impact on the ability to offer competitive salaries and attract 
skilled  labour.  The  gross  fixed  capital  formation  increased  from  1995  to  2008  but 
stagnated  after  that.  Due  to  low  return  on  total  capital,  investments  for  modernisation, 
innovation and productivity are less attractive. Financing of such investments, including 
generational renewal, is more challenging when return on investment is low. The policy 
on land transfer and rents is, compared to many other Member States, in relative terms, 
less  regulated23.  The  decoupled  CAP  support  measures  are  therefore  possibly  largely 
capitalised. This is a challenge for the generational renewal and necessary investments to 
increase productivity.24 

Sweden has a negative trade balance in agri-food products since long. The trade deficit 
has grown from around EUR 4000 million to more than EUR 6000 million in 2018. The 
trade balance with  third  countries turned positive in  2012 with spirits (vodka)  as a key 
export  product.  However,  the  deficit  with  intra-EU  trade  is  considerable  and  has  been 
growing over time25. 

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

Total factor productivity 

Land productivity 

Labour productivity 

Capital productivity 

Intermediate costs productivity 

TFP EU-27 

Source: EUROSTAT for TFP and DG AGRI for partial productivity 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

The  cooperatives  have  a  large  market  share  in  marketing  the  primary  agricultural 
production  (in  particular  on  dairy  and  arable  products)  and  supplying  with  agricultural 
inputs,  such  as  machinery,  fertiliser,  seed  and  feed.  The  cooperatives  are  also  active  in 
processing,  the  largest  dairy  cooperative  with  a  market  share  of  65%  and  the  largest 
cereal  cooperative  with  a  market  share  of  65%26.  The  cooperatives  are  in  general  not 
recognised as POs. 

There  are  five  recognised  POs  in  Sweden  marketing  43%  of  the  Fruit  and  Vegetables 
production, though this varies annually due to harvest quantities and market prices. The 
market share is slightly lower than the EU average at 49% for the sector. However, the 
proportionately  important  production  of  strawberries  has  only  few  producers  that  are 
member of a PO. There are no recognised POs in the dairy or the meat sector27. A target 
of  60%  of  the  production  to  be  marketed  through  recognised  POs  has  been  set  in  the 
national  strategy  for  the  food  chain  for  fruit  and  vegetables28.  No  interbranch 
organisation (IBOs) has been recognised so far in Sweden. 

Furthermore, the Swedish primary production is focused on commodities for processing 
and  the  share  of  products  suitable  for  business  to  consumer  sale  or,  for  on  farm 
processing, (such as fruit and vegetables, wine and olive oil) is relatively low. Partly due 

9 

 
 
to this, the market for business to consumer sales (on-farm and other local food sales) is 
of relatively minor importance.  

The  wholesale  and  retail  stage  of  the  chain  is  highly  concentrated,  with  three  retail 
groups  controlling  a  market  share  of  86%,  which  is  higher  than  the  EU  average.  In 
northern  Sweden,  the  market  share  of  the  three  main  retailers  is  99%29.  The  high 
concentration in the retail stage is to a certain extent balanced by a high consolidation in 
the processing stage, in some cases by cooperatives under the control of the farmers. The 
functioning of the food supply chain in general is assessed as relatively good. 

The share of the value added captured by the agricultural sector in Sweden is lower than 
the EU-average (14% in 2017 vs. EU average at just above 20%). The share has declined 
slightly since 200830. The amount of agriculture produce sold as unprocessed via direct 
sales  on  farm,  through  a  short  supply  chain  concept  or  on  open-air  markets  is  minor. 
Further, the production of typical products suitable for unprocessed direct sales, e.g. fruit 
and vegetables is relatively low. This structure of the food chain makes the share of value 
added  captured  by  the  farmer  low  but  the  farmer  can  focus  on  producing  commodities 
and produce a bigger volume and capture a higher value added in absolute terms. 

Eleven  products  are  registered  under  the  EU  quality  schemes  whereof  three  in  the 
category  of  spirit  drinks  and  two  cheeses.  There  is  no  support  measure  on  EU  quality 
schemes under the rural development program31. 

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

Primary production 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 

% for primary producers (right axis) 
Source: EUROSTAT 

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

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

sustainable energy 

In  2018,  non-CO2  agricultural  emissions  of  greenhouse  gasses  (GHG)  in  Sweden 
amounted to 6.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents, down 8.3% since 2000, representing 
about  12.4%32  of  total  GHG  emissions  in  Sweden  (above  the  EU  average)  and  about 
1.7% of the total EU GHG emissions from agriculture. In Sweden, 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 42 million tonnes mainly resulting from the large total forest area with 
an increase of sink by 8.3% from 2000.  At the same time, emissions from cropland were 
4 million tonnes of CO2 with an increase of 20% from 2000. Grassland was a net sink of 
0,11 million tonnes of CO2 with an increase of 33 % since 200033.  

10 

 
 
OECD  reports  that  the  main  agricultural  GHG  emissions  are  CH4  emissions  due  to  the 
fermentation  in  ruminant  digestive  systems  (37%),  followed  by  the  use  of  mineral 
fertilisers (17%), manure management and cultivation of organic soils (14% each). From 
1995 to 2014, total agricultural GHG emissions decreased constantly, while agricultural 
production has varied widely between years. Overall, the carbon productivity – measured 
as agricultural production per unit of CO2 emitted – of Swedish agriculture has improved, 
as  GHG  emissions  decreased  at  a  higher  rate  than  agricultural  production.  The  main 
drivers of this trend are a decline in the livestock population, particularly for pigs, cattle 
and dairy cows, and reduced use of fertilisers and animal manure34. On the other hand, in 
terms  of  carbon  sinks,  Sweden  has  the  fourth  highest  mean  organic  carbon  content  in 
soils in the EU35 and, with nearly 16%, the third highest percentage of peat soils in the 
EU when including peat soils in the forest areas and in the alpine region36. In addition, 
69% of the territory of the country is covered by forest37.  

Energy consumption in Swedish agriculture and forestry in relation the total final energy 
consumption of the Member State (1.9%) is  below the EU average (2.9%)38. Moreover 
the  use  per  hectare,  with  19.7  kg/ha  is  the  lowest  of  the  EU.  The  percentage  of  use  of 
energy  in  the  food  processing  industry  in  Sweden  (1.1%)  is  below  the  EU  average  of 
2.9%39. The challenge for Sweden will be to keep these positive indicators. 

As regards the National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change, Sweden has made a 
good start with climate adaptation and there is both political will and finances available 
for this purpose. The Swedish Government recently adopted its first national adaptation 
strategy,  which  outlines  mechanisms  for  coordination,  monitoring,  evaluation  and 
review.  Sweden’s  adaptation  work  is  divided  over  different  levels  of  administration, 
where each actor is responsible for adaptation within its sector or area of responsibility. 
Adaptation  progress  is  generally  positive,  but  an  important  step  is  now  to  move  into 
concrete  implementation,  especially  at  the  municipal  level,  where  much  of  the 
responsibility lies, including for physical planning40.  

The 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme (RDP) for Sweden spent around 1% of 
its budget on priority 5 promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a 
low carbon and climate resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sector.Around 
half of is  spent on investments  in  renewable  energy  and the other half on reduction on 
investments  in  livestock  management  in  view  of  reducing  GHG  and/or  ammonia 
emissions. The execution of the RDP specifically designed for climate measures is low in 
general and in particular for biogas.  By the end of 2019, less than 40% of the target for 
renewable  energy  set  for  2023  had  been  realised  while  the  target  for  reducing  GHG 
and/or  ammonia  emissions  by  investments  in  livestock  management  had  realised  by 
slightly over 55% of its 2023 target value41. An evaluation from 2018 pointed at various 
reasons and proposed adaptations42. Furthermore, many of the measures under priority 4 
“Restoring,  preserving  and  enhancing  ecosystems  related  to  agriculture  and  forestry” 
with  its  total  share  of  around  60%  of  the  total  EAFRD  budget  contribute  as  secondary 
effect  to  a  reduction  of  emissions,  increasing  resource  efficiency  and  fostering  carbon 
sequestration.  This  includes  knowledge  transfer,  investments,  agri-environment  and 
climate measures and support for organic farming43. The National Strategy for Forests in 
Sweden takes the  form  of a strategy  for Sweden’s National  Forest  Programme adopted 
on May 2018, followed by an action plan adopted in July 2018. The strategy focuses on 
five  main  areas:  (1)  sustainable  forest  management  with  greater  climate  benefits,  (2) 
multiple  uses  of  forest  resources  for  more  jobs  and  sustainable  growth  throughout  the 
country, (3) world-class innovation and processed forest products, (4) sustainable use and 
conservation of forests as a profile issue in Sweden’s international cooperation and (5) a 
knowledge leap to ensure the sustainable use and conservation of forests44. 

11 

 
 
The country is generating 48.5% of their renewable energy production from agriculture 
and forestry as share of total energy production (EU-27 average of 41.4%). Almost 50% 
of renewable energy production in Sweden comes from  forestry (with a slight decrease 
from  2015  to  2018).  The  share  of  agriculture  in  renewable  energy  grew  from  0.9%  in 
2015 to 2.4% in 2018 which is still well below the EU average of 12% and could hence 
be boosted45. 

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

The gross nutrient balance has been fluctuating between 30 and 42 Kg N/ha/y until 2017 
and had a sharp increase to 60 Kg N/ha/y in 201846. The potential surplus of nitrogen is 
in average 34 kg N/ha/y during 2012-2017 (< EU-27 average of 46.5% kg/N/ha/y), with 
a  national  surplus.  The  nitrogen  load  in  southern  Sweden  is  somewhat  higher  than  in 
other  parts  of  the  country,  but  the  differences  between  regions  are  otherwise  not 
remarkable.47  The  potential  surplus  of  phosphorus  on  agricultural  land  is  on  average 
0.5Kg P/ha/year, which  is  the same as the EU average. The phosphorus surpluses have 
decreased  over  time  and  regional  differences  are  noticeable,  with  deficits  in  the  plains 
where  more  crops  are  cultivated  but  the  density  of  livestock  and  granivores  is  low  on 
average.  However,  around  half  of  the  nitrates  and  phosphorous  loads  attributable  to 
human activities are of agricultural origin. In this context, special attention is to be paid 
to the Baltic Sea, where eutrophication is a long lasting environmental pressure. 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  status48.  100% of  the  open  sea  and  82%  the  coastal 
waters of Sweden given  as area and proportion by status class for the open sea and the 
coastal waters for whole Baltic Sea (HELCOM  area) have a not  good status  regards to 
eutrophication49.  

Under  the  WFD  62%  of  surface  waters  are  in  less  than  good  ecological  status  with  all 
surface  waters  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status50  due  to  high  natural  levels  of 
12 

 
 
 
 
mercury  in  the  bedrock.  For  groundwater  the  majority  of  water  bodies  are  in  good 
quantitative  status  (99.7%)  and  the  same  for  chemical  status  (98%)51.  In  terms  of 
pressures on surface waters diffuse agricultural pollution was not the most significant but 
was reported to affect 8% of surface water bodies and affected 5% of groundwater bodies 
also.  

In general, water availability and resources are not an issue in Sweden, except in some 
regions  where scarcity can have a considerable effect  on agriculture. Of the total  water 
abstraction in Sweden 3% is used by agriculture (one third for animals and two thirds for 
irrigation).  Only  6%  of  the  arable  land  has  access  to  irrigation,  but  not  all  of  this  land 
needs irrigation in a given year.52 There are considerable regional and annual differences, 
where  agriculture  in  South  of  Sweden  uses  about  67%  of  the  water  abstraction  for 
irrigation of the whole country (in total 111 052 560m3 in 2010)53.  

Soil  organic  carbon  (SOC)  in  arable  land  in  Sweden  is  in  total  551  mega  ton  and  the 
mean is 48 g/kg (mean EU: 43.1 g/kg), which is overall satisfactory and stable or slightly 
increasing  over  time54  but  with  some  regional  differences.  At  the  national  average,  the 
area  at  risk  of  soil  erosion  in  2016  in  Sweden  is  0.4  t  ha-1  yr-1,  well  below  the  EU-
average.  In  addition,  the  area  under  severe  erosion  in  Sweden  is  only  0.3%.  There  are 
slight regional differences, but there is no general erosion problem in Sweden55. In 2018, 
10% of agriculture land in Sweden is under contracts to improve soil management, which 
is  slightly  below  the  EU  average  of  12%56.  In  2016,  75%  of  tillable  area  was  tilled 
conventionally  and  increasing  conservation/zero  tillage  would  be  beneficial  to  increase 
carbon sequestration and reduce carbon loss of soils57. 

As for soil quality, heavy metals, primarily cadmium, originating from the bedrock, air, 
mineral  fertilizers  and  liming  material  are  also  threatening  sustainable  management  of 
arable land as a natural resource. Cadmium is more frequent in the plains in the south and 
middle Sweden58 due to the natural composition of the bedrock. 

The impact of soil management practices in Sweden may be further increased by linking 
the 
them 
forthcoming Horizon Europe Mission on soil health. 

innovation  and  demonstration  activities  available  under 

to  research, 

Air quality: There is a downward trend in the total ammonia emission from agriculture in 
Sweden  since  2005,  with  an  increase  between  2013  and  2015,  followed  by  a  slight 
decrease again as of 2016 (for the contribution of the RDP in this respect see point 2.4. 
above). A similar trend is visible in the EU. Overall, 87% of the total reported ammonia 
emissions  in  Sweden  come  from  agricultural  sources  (2018  data)59.  In  the  south  of 
Sweden,  the  NH3  emissions  are  higher  compared  to  the  north  because  most  of  the 
agricultural land is located in the South and the temperatures are higher. Emissions per 
hectare are below the EU-average. However Sweden is found to be at high-risk of non-
compliance with the emission reduction commitments for NH3 for both 2020-2029 and 
for 2030 and beyond60.as established by the NEC Directive.  

13 

 
 
 
Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Sweden 

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: EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

the  unfavourable–bad  grasslands  are 

According  to  the  report  recently  submitted  by  Sweden  on  the  conservation  status  of 
habitats and species covered by the Habitats  Directive for the period 2013-2018 (EEA, 
2020),  the  share  of  habitats  in  good  conservation  status  has  decreased  compared  to  the 
previous reporting period (2007-2012). In Sweden 84% of grassland has an unfavourable 
or  bad  conservation  status.  The  more  favourable  areas  are  located  in  the  northwest  of 
the  south61. 
Sweden,  whereas 
Importantly, all permanent grasslands in Swedish Natura 2000 sites have been designated 
as environmentally sensitive permanent  grasslands. Conservation status  of all grassland 
habitats is still unfavourable, although the use of agri-environmental schemes to support 
the  conservation  of  grasslands  seems  to  be  yielding  results62.  The  agri-environmental 
schemes  make  up  a  substantial  part  of  the  Swedish  Rural  Development  Program. 
Sweden’s  score  in  the  Farmland  birds  index  decreased  from  120.5  in  1995  to  71.7  in 
201463, but went slightly up to 74.3 in 201864. The 2015 Swedish Red List65 showed that 
the  rate  of  biodiversity  loss  had  neither  increased  nor  decreased  over  a  15  year  period. 
Logging in old forests and overgrowth of grasslands, forests and wetlands were identified 
as the main threats to species.  

located 

in 

The Rural Development Program of Sweden 2014-2020 allocate over 60% of its budget 
to  the  priority  “Restoring,  preserving  and  enhancing  ecosystems  related  to  agriculture 
and  forestry”.  By  the  end  of  2019,  Sweden  had  almost  achieved  its  target  for  2023  of 
19.2% of agriculture area (UAA) under management contacts contributing to biodiversity 
and /or landscape features66.  

The  conservation  status  of  many  forest  types  also  remains  inadequate  and  many  forest 
species are threatened.67 Sweden indicates as main objective as to health and vitality of 
forests to maintain and improve the resistance of forests to abiotic and biotic risks68. In 
addition,  pursuing  monitoring  efforts  to  complement  this  information  for  the  forest 
habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive that are in an unknown condition 
is essential (53,293 km² in unknown habitat condition out of the 61,735 km² of forests in 
total  in  the  three  biogeographical  regions  of  Sweden)69.  As  indicated  by  Sweden,  the 
reported  main  pressures  on  habitats  are  agriculture  or  the  disappearance  of  agricultural 

14 

 
 
 
activity, natural  systems  modification, forestry  and natural  biotic/abiotic processes.  The 
number  of  landscape  elements  as  %  in  UAA  is  somewhat  higher  (1.7%)  then  the  EU 
average (0,5%)70. 5.4% of UAA was  fallow land in  Sweden in  2018, which was  above 
the EU average of 4.1%. Since 1975 there is a trend of fewer farming enterprises using 
more land or having bigger herds, which means that the farms are present in fewer places 
and leads to land abandonment. This ultimately is a threat for biodiversity; so agriculture 
is needed in the whole country.71 

Regarding farming intensity72 it may be relevant to point at regional variations in Sweden 
as  slightly  over  30%  of  farming  land  is  intensely  used,  mainly  on  plains  in  south  of 
Sweden and around the big lakes, where land and climate conditions are favourable for 
farming and where  yields tend to be high. Approximately 24% of UAA is classified as 
High Nature Value (HNV) farmland. HNV in Sweden are comprised primarily of semi-
natural pastures and meadows that contain trees, bushes or other landscape features. The 
main  challenge  for  HNV  is  abandonment,  which  leads  to  overgrowth  of  scrub  and 
eventually  forest73.  Around  34%  of  total  Utilised Agricultural  Area  (UAA)  is  managed 
by  farms  with  low  input  intensity  per  ha  and  around  35%  is  managed  by  farms  with 
medium  input  intensity  per  ha.  The  Swedish  average  input  expenditure  per  ha  is  357 
EUR  per  ha  in  constant  input  prices,  which  is  below  the  EU-2874  average  of  EUR 417 
/ha.  Over  half  of  the  land  of  total  UAA  in  Sweden  are  areas  of  extensive  grazing 
(primarily in the northern parts of Sweden), which is above the EU average. Here as well 
regional differences are significant in Sweden; with extensive grazing on 78% of the area 
of UAA in the northern parts of Sweden and 35% in the south.  

In 2019, around 12% of the Swedish territory is under Natura 2000's network (i.e. below 
EU-27  average  of  almost  18%)75,  4%  of  its  Agricultural  area  (including  natural 
grassland)  and  almost  9%  of  Forest  area  (including  transitional  woodland  shrub)  are 
Natura  2000  areas,  which  are  both  well  below  the  EU  averages  of  11%  and  31% 
respectively.76.  Sweden  has  an  extensive  program,  with  a  significant  uptake,  for 
voluntary set a side of forest areas with high nature values. Voluntary set aside of such 
forest  areas  is  a  precondition  for  participation  in  commercial  certification  schemes  for 
forestry and is often commercially interesting for forest owners.  

According  to  the  latest  available  data  (draft  Prioritised  Action  Framework),  the  main 
pressures identified for grasslands are land use changes and abandonment of agricultural 
land77.  It  notes especially  that remaining areas of semi-natural  grassland are very small 
and  fragmented,  and  that  habitat  quality  is  easily  eroded  in  periods  of  abandonment  or 
disadvantageous management. Abandonment of agricultural land and changes in land use 
are also key threats to Swedish heathlands and scrub habitats.  

In  Natura  2000,  the  draft  PAF  identifies  needs  to  support  active  and  recurring 
management of grassland habitat types, of heathland and scrub habitat types and of three 
rocky habitats, dunes, and sparsely vegetated lands habitat types (6110, 8230, and 8240). 
Also management of problematic native species and control of problematic alien species; 
Restoration  measures  to  increase  the  area  in  favourable  conservation  status  (including 
restoration of pastures and meadows and restoration of forests to Fennoscandian wooded 
pastures (9070)). In terms of governance/administrative capacity/training, the draft PAF 
notes a need for more measures directed to farmers, such as information on management 
methods  and  expected  results  for  biodiversity,  considering  the  generally  poor  and 
deteriorating state of grassland habitats. 

The  total  area  under  organic  farming  (certified  and  under  conversion)  has  doubled  in 
Sweden  between  2008  and  2018,  covering  608 754  hectares  in  201878.  This  type  of 

15 

 
 
farming has grown with around 1% yearly in 2007-2018, with a few exceptions79. With 
20.3%  of  the  total  utilized  agricultural  area  under  certified  organic  farming  in  2018, 
Sweden is above the EU average (8%). There are notable regional differences, with 20% 
of  total  UAA  under  organic  farming  in  the  north  of  Sweden  and  13%  in  the  south80. 
There  is  still,  however,  room  to  reach  the  Green  Deal  target  of  25%  of  the  UAA 
converted  by  2030.  The  number  of  organic  producers  slightly  increased  from  5600  in 
2012 to 5800 in 2017. The share of animals held by organic farmers increased from 2013 
to 2018 for sheep and to lesser extent cattle81. The challenge for Sweden will be to step 
up efforts to meet the Farm to Fork targets. 

Area under organic farming in Sweden 

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

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

Source: EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

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

Share of agricultural area covered by  
high-diversity landscape features  

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

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

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

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

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

Population  in  rural  regions  has  declined  in  most  Member  States,  but  grown  in  Sweden 
between 2014 and 2019 which also recorded the highest population growth rates, with an 
increase above 10.0 per 1 000 persons in 201882. However, in several counties, primarily 
16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
in more remote areas of northern Sweden the population diminished83. In Sweden 32.7% 
of farmer managers is +65 years (EU average 32.8%)84 and the average age of the farmer 
has  increased  during  2005-2016  and  the  age  of  >64  years  has  gone  up  from  20%  to 
30%85,  while  the  ratio  of  young  /elderly  farmers  is  slightly  under  the  EU  average  (SE: 
30.9%, EU average 32.5% in 2016)86. Around 5% of the total number of farm managers 
in Sweden are young farmers87 under the age of 35 years (close to EU average) and 10% 
are  under  the  age  of  40  years  (slightly  below  the  EU  average  of  10,7%).  There  are 
significant  regional  differences.  Whereas  the  EU-trend  is  downward  between  2010  and 
2016,  Sweden  shows  an  upward  trend  between  2013  and  2016.  Around  21%  of  young 
farm managers are female in Sweden in 2017 (compared to 13% of the age group of >65 
year old). Younger farmers have in average a higher education than older colleagues88. In 
Sweden almost 37% of farm managers under the age of 40 years have a full agriculture 
training compared to the EU average of 19%89. 

The  average  land  price  for  arable  land  and  pastureland  has  increased  significantly  in 
recent decades, even faster than inflation, which has affected the demand for finance for 
the  purchase  of  land.  For  the  year  2017,  land  prices  increased  by  an  average  of  10% 
throughout the country.90  It is not easy for young farmers to get access to land91. Young 
farmers and new entrants require substantial start-up capital in order to access land and 
face  particular  difficulties  in  accessing  finance.  The  demand  for  finance  is,  therefore, 
higher for this group. Based on the results of the fi-compass survey, the unmet financing 
demand for the agriculture sector in Sweden is estimated at EUR 148 million.  

Most  of  the  investment  support  from  the  Rural  Development  Programme  (RDP)  was 
used for investments in new or modernised stables and farmers below 44 years old have 
benefited  from  almost  40%  of  the  support.  Support  to  young  farmers  gives  them  a 
smoother start to their new business operations, but in some regions, the budget for such 
support has run out. Young beef and dairy producers benefit most from the EAFRD start-
up  support.92  Young  farmers  in  Sweden  received  1.4%  of  the  Pillar  I  support  (same  as 
EU average) in 201893. 

The rural areas of Sweden have many small enterprises and a high share of new business 
start-ups per inhabitant. The frequency of start-ups is similar in rural and urban areas and 
the  self-employment  is  in  many  places  stronger  in  the  rural  areas  than  in  the  urban 
agglomerations94.  However,  a  relatively  weak  AKIS95,  diminishing  access  to  educated 
people and limited research competence in rural areas is hindering innovation.96. 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Sweden 

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

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

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

Source: EUROSTAT 

17 

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

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

Sweden  is  one  of  the  EU  countries  with  the  lowest  population  density  (less  than  one 
fourth  of  the  EU  average  of  109  inhabitants/km2)  and  even  lower  if  considering  rural 
areas (SE 9 inh/km2, EU 51 inh/km2)97, but the regional differences are considerable. The 
Swedish  rural  areas  are  well  below  the  EU  average  (SE  24%,  EU  45%)  but  the 
intermediate areas considerably above (SE 68%, EU 46%)9899. Only 9% of the Swedish 
population live in rural areas which is less than half of the EU average  of almost 21%; 
most Swedes live in intermediate areas (SE 51%, EU 39%) and almost 40% live in urban 
areas  (close  to  EU  average)100.  The  rural-urban  population  divide  in  Sweden  has  been 
rather stable between 2005 and 2019 with a slight population increase in urban areas. In 
Sweden, rural population has aged more quickly than in urban and peri-urban areas, but 
if  you  look  at  the  population  younger  than  15  years  there  is  only  a  slight  difference 
between urban (18.3%)  and rural  population  (16.9%) in  2018101. Sweden has  a slightly 
higher share of younger people in rural areas than the EU average102. However, in several 
the  population 
counties,  primarily 
diminished103  and  they  are  listed  among  the  rural  regions  with  shrinking  future 
demographic  trends.  However,  for  the  projected  old-age  dependency  ratio  in  2070  (i.e. 
ratio of the number of people aged 65 or over, compared to the number of people aged 
20-64  years  old),  Sweden  is  one  of  the  EU  countries  with  the  lowest  projected  rate  (< 
53.7%)104.  

in  more  remote  areas  of  northern  Sweden 

The employment (men and women)105 and social  inclusion106 rates in  rural  areas  are in 
general following the rates in other areas of Sweden and these are all higher than the EU 
average. However, youth unemployment in rural areas in Sweden is higher than the EU 
average  (SE  17.4%,  EU  14.6%).  The  Swedish  GDP/capita  is  above  the  EU  average  in 
total  and  in  rural  areas107,  however  there  is  a  strong  urban  rural  gap  of  almost  50 
percentage  points  which  is  similar  to  the  EU  average108.  15%  of  farm  managers  in 
Sweden are women, which is nearly half of the EU average of 28% in 2016. The poverty 
rate has in 2018 slightly increased in rural areas (20.4%) compared to total rate (17%)109 
and  migrants  living  in  rural  areas  run  a  significantly  bigger  risk  of  poverty  than 
natives110. As for tourism, the majority of bed places are located in rural areas, although 
the total number of bed places in rural areas decreased by 0.1% between 2012 and 2017. 
Tourism  is  important  for  the  diversification  of  the  service  sector  outside  agriculture 
sector in rural areas111 and Sweden is well above the EU average regarding bed places in 
rural  areas  (SE  56%,  EU  45%112).  Between  2005  and  2016  the  number  of  very  small 
farms  (<EUR  2000  standard  output)  has  been  steadily  decreasing  (from  approximately 
13% to about 7%) and the number of small farms (<EUR 8000 standard output) has been 
marginally decreasing (from slightly above to slightly under 40% of farms). In terms of 
hectares, the very small farms represent only a few percentage points and the small farms 
less than 10%113. 

Local  development:  Almost  8%  of  the  current  Rural  Development  Programme  is  spent 
on local development and a majority of rural population (over 57%) is covered by local 
development  strategies  (including  LEADER,  basic  services  and  other).  Sweden  is 
thereby exceeding the target (of 52.20%) set for 2023. The LEADER-method is a well-
established  tool  for  rural  development  all  over  the  country  and  has  contributed  to  job 
creation.  Territorial  instruments  such  as  Community  Lead  Local  Development  with 
multi-fund support contribute to strengthening the socio-economic fabric of rural areas. 

18 

 
 
 
Rural infrastructure and services:  In Sweden there is barely a difference between urban 
and rural areas regarding the financial burden of health care, and it is  less of a problem 
than in other EU countries. In Sweden, rural areas are to a lower degree than urban areas 
and  towns  and  suburbs  self-reporting  unmet  needs  for  medical  examination.  Rural  and 
urban  areas  spend  about  the  same  share  of  consumption  expenditure  on  food  and  non-
alcoholic drinks, but people in rural areas spend about 1/3 more on transport than people 
do  in  cities.  In  Sweden  (in  2016)  the  main  reason  for  not  meeting  needs  for  formal 
childcare  services  was  that  it  is  not  available  (and  not  because  of  distance  or  financial 
reasons). The rural areas in Sweden have a higher rate for crime, violence or vandalism 
measured by degree of urbanisation than the EU average, but lower than the rate of cities, 
towns and suburbs in Sweden and it is following the same trend. Overcrowding rate by 
degree  of  urbanisation  (of  total  population)  is  not  an  issue  for  Swedish  rural  areas, 
compared to non-rural areas in Sweden and to the EU average in 2012-2018114. 

Bio-economy115  counts  for  7%  of  the  GDP,  11%  of  the  total  turnover  and  23%  of  the 
total export of goods. Almost 350 000 persons are employed in the bio-economy sector 
(i.e. 7% of the total employment)116. From 2008 to 2015, the employment numbers have 
slightly decreased while the turnover slightly increased, with yearly variations. The turn 
over  per  person  employed  in  the  bio-economy  in  Sweden  has  remained  double  the  EU 
average figures in this period117.The most important sectors are bio-based textile, paper 
and wood products and furniture which together contributed to half of the bio-economy 
sector in terms of turnover in Sweden in 2015118. 

In Sweden 69.6% of the total area is forestry area (30 505 000 ha)119. The forestry sector 
employs  0.5%  (i.e.  27 300  persons)  of  the  population  employed  in  Sweden,  agriculture 
1.1% (57 200 persons), food industry 0.9% (44 400 persons) and tourism 3.2% (164 300 
persons). The Swedish forestry employment is slightly above EU average (0.3%) while 
the  other  sectors  are  below  EU  average  (agriculture  4%,  food  sector  2.4%  and  tourism 
4.8%). The labour productivity in the forestry sector in 2017 was slightly above the EU-
27 average, similar relation also for the years 2015-2017120.  In the EU (in 2017) Sweden 
had the highest output of forestry and logging (over EUR 9000 million) and gross fixed 
capital formation in forestry121, the second highest score as regards productivity and third 
highest in terms of employment122. 

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 
Sweden,  the  distribution  of  antimicrobial  veterinary  medicine  products  (VMPs)  is  only 
on  prescription  through  pharmacies.  Feed  mills  may  only  mix  antimicrobial  VMPs  in 
feed if they are controlled and authorised by the Swedish Board of Agriculture. Sales of 
medicated feed to farmers are only allowed on prescription (i.e. the farmer presents the 
prescription  to  the  feed  mill).  Mixing  of  antimicrobials  in  feed  may  also  take  place  on 
farms, provided that the Swedish Board of Agriculture has controlled and authorised the 
establishment  for  this  purpose.  All  pharmacies,  feed  mills  and  farms  authorised  to  mix 
medicated  feed  in  Sweden  are  required  to  provide  sales  statistics  to  a  central  database. 
The tenth ESVAC Report in 2020 states that the use of antimicrobial VMPs in Sweden 
with 12.5 mg/PCU (2018) is the lowest of the EU (average of 118.3mg/PCU)123.  

19 

 
 
 
Animal welfare is another priority area for the Farm to Fork strategy. The Commission 
has already stressed that adequate resources should be devoted to implementing EU rules 
in  the  above  areas124.  The  present  Swedish  strategy  is  based  on  prevention  of  animal 
welfare  problems  through  compliance  with  the  national  legislation,  which  in  many 
regards  is  stricter  than  the  relevant  EU  requirements.  The  Board  of  Agriculture  has  in 
turn set objectives to ensure good- risk based and fair controls and uses its Multi-Annual 
National  Control  Plan  operational  objectives  to  monitor  the  performance125.  The  Rural 
Development  Programme  for  Sweden  for  2014-2020  devotes  approximately  3.6% 
(around EUR 140 million) of its total public expenditure budget to animal welfare126 and 
has  almost  reached  its  target  for  2023127.  An  evaluation  from  2019  shows  that  the 
measure has worked well in general and should be maintained128.  

Sweden has had action programmes to reduce the use of plant protection products since 
the 1980s. The risks to human health and the environment associated with pesticides in 
Sweden are low by historic standards, and remain stable against a backdrop of increasing 
use  in  recent  years.  The  current  National  Action  Plan  focuses  on  reducing  the  risks 
associated  with,  and  dependency  on,  pesticides.  It  establishes  clear  objectives,  with 
specific  targets  in  some  cases.  The  Competent  Authorities  have  taken  a  range  of 
measures to implement the Directive on sustainable use of pesticides. In relation to this 
area, the main issues in Sweden are about inspection of pesticide application equipment 
in  use,  derogations  granted  in  relation  to  inspection  of  certain  pesticide  application 
equipment  and  (while  Commission  past  audits  highlighted  a  number  of  good  practices, 
such as an extensive pest monitoring system129) effective controls on the implementation 
of the general principles of IPM130. Figures published by the Swedish authorities show a 
significant  decrease of more than 44% since the 2011-2013 baseline of the harmonised 
risk  indicator  (HRI)  1  indicating  the  use  and  risks  of  pesticides.  For  the  calculation  of 
HRIs, the active substances are divided into Groups 1-4 (Categories A-G are subgroups 
within  Groups  1-4.  Category  1  (low-risk  active  substances)  shows  a  big  increase  but 
categories  2  and  3  remain  stable.  HRI  2  shows  a  decrease  of  the  use  of  most  risky 
products  by  derogation  from  the  standard  prohibition.  Increasing  resilience  of  the 
agricultural  and  forestry  sectors  by  improving  the  uptake  by  farmers  of  integrated  pest 
management  principles  (such  as  crop  pest  management,  using  more  resistant  varieties 
and species, using risk management tools (such as insurance) etc.) is however important 
in Sweden too.  

According  to  studies,  Swedish  diets  are  often  unbalanced,  lacking  in  fruits  and 
vegetables131, but  with  a high  estimated consumption of red meat.  Efforts  should  focus 
on shifting towards healthy sustainable diets, in line with national recommendations, in 
order  to  contribute  to  reducing  the  incidence  of  non-communicable  diseases  while 
simultaneously  improving  the  overall  environmental  impact  of  the  food  system.  This 
would include moving to a more plant based diet with less red meat and more fruits and 
vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds. Further efforts as regards addressing 
food  waste  and  loss  are  expected  in  the  forthcoming  national  food  waste  prevention 
programme,  as  required  by  Article  29(2a)  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive 
2008/98/EC. 

20 

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

HRI 1 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

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

      Source: EUROSTAT [aei_hri]

2.10 Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

The  public  sector  continues  to  be  the  main  source  of  funding  for  agriculture  R&D  and 
business investment in R&D is normally driven by market demand, but governments also 
provide different kinds of incentives. The intensity of public expenditures on agricultural 
research  is  low  and  variable132.  The  research  intensity  of  budget  expenditure  on 
agricultural  R&D  –  expenditure  expressed  as  a  share  of  agricultural  gross  value  added 
(GVA) – was 0.9% in 2015 (and equal to economy-wide research intensity) compared to 
0.5%  in  1981  and  1.8%  in  2005.  Compared  to  neighbouring  countries,  public  research 
intensity  for  agricultural  R&D  is  much  lower  in  Sweden133.  The  Swedish  (public) 
financing of research and development in the agriculture sector has declined from EUR 
52,9 million in 2013 to EUR 42,8 million in 2018 (UN Sustainable Development Goal 2 
SDG2)134. 

In  the  Rural  Development  Program  Sweden  spends  relatively  much  on  knowledge 
transfer, advisory services and EIP cooperation. Sweden programmed 7.85 % or their RD 
envelope to these areas, compared to 3.6% as EU average. However, by the end of 2019 
Sweden had realised less  than 25% of its  target  set  for these measures135 (as it has had 
difficulties  to  get  started  with  advisory  services  and  knowledge  transfer  in  other  areas 
than the already earlier established ones addressing agri-environment and climate issues) 
and reduced the expenditure in these fields in 2020136. By the end of 2019, the Swedish 
Rural  Development  Program  support for EIP had exceeded its target  of establishing 80 
EIP Operational Groups while less than half of the target of total number of cooperation 
operations (supported under the cooperation measure) had been achieved137. 

The  agriculture  and  food  sector  has  a  relatively  diversified  and  fragmented  knowledge 
and  innovation  system138,  which  is  weaker  in  comparison  with  that  of  other  economic 
sectors. This might be explained by the fact that many SMEs in the sector have limited 
resources for own innovations and marketing of new products139.  In addition, there are 
rather  few  initiatives  to  connect  research  results  with  farms,  little  applied  research 
concerning  the  agriculture  sector  and  varying  access  possibilities  to  training  for 
individual  farms/enterprises140.  The  Swedish  farm  advisory  has  been  considered 
relatively fragmented141.  In the current programming period, the National Rural Network 
had a specific objective to foster innovation and had among their tasks the networking of 
advisors  and  operational  groups,  and  the  facilitation  of  knowledge  and  exchange.  The 
Swedish National Rural Network has been among the most active ones among different 
national  networks  during  the  current  programming  period142.  Almost  all  households 

21 

 
 
 
  
(96%) in Sweden have access to broadband, 85% of households to NGA broadband but 
there  is  a  digital  gap  with  rural  areas  since  only  40%  have  NGA  access143.  In  areas 
outside the agglomerations, the cable capacity is often lower144. The roll-out in sparsely 
populated areas needs to speed up as to close the rural-urban divide. Nearly 12% of the 
2014-2020 Rural Development Program (RDP) for Sweden is spent on ICT (broadband)  
and the commitments exceeded 100% at the end of 2019. However, the achievement of 
the target set for 2023 has been rather low for various reasons; the projects are rather big, 
with several connections, lengthy project design and the difficulty to install broadband in 
rural areas has often been underestimated145. 

Sweden  ranks  2nd  amongst  EU  Member  States  in  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society 
Index  (DESI)  2020  and  in  the  Connectivity  dimension  (score:  64.4,  against  50.1  EU 
average),  having  77%  household  coverage  with  Fixed  Very  High  Capacity  Network 
coverage in 2020 (EU average: 44%)146. In the 5G readiness index, Sweden scores 22%, 
compared to  an EU average of 21%147. People in  rural  areas in  Sweden have relatively 
high digital skills (i.e. it would be expected that there is a good basis for innovation and 
digitalisation). Sweden has not yet opted for the use of satellite-based means to monitor 
CAP implementation.  

Swedish farm managers are relatively well trained - the proportion of farm managers in 
Sweden with “full agricultural training” is significantly higher than the EU average (33% 
of the total farm managers attained basic or full agricultural training in 2016. This share 
is rather stable over time)148. 

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

Managers with 
full agricultural 
training 

Managers with 
basic agricultural 
training 

Full training EU 
average 

Basic training 
EU average 

Source: EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

22 

 
 
 
 
Broadband coverage in Sweden 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

Source : DESI report 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
1   Swedish  Environmental  Protection  Agency.  Prioritised  Action  Framework  (PAF)  for  Natura  2000  in 
Sweden. Draft version from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to the Swedish Ministry of 
the Environment and Energy. First version: 14/12/2018, revised 26/09/2019 
https://naturvardsverket.se/upload/miljoarbete-i-samhallet/miljoarbete-i-
sverige/regeringsuppdrag/2018/PAF-EN-Sweden-NV-v3-20181214a.pdf  

3  European  Commission  JRC.  DATAM  bio  economy.  Jobs  and  Wealth  in  the  European  Union 

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

4   European  Commission  .  CAP  context  indicator  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 Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 

to 2018). 

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

to 2018). 

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

calculations (up to 2018) 

8   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Result indicator RPI_ 01 Share of direct 

support in agricultural income. 

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

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

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

Accountancy Data Network) data (2015) 

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

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

12   European  Commission.  Direct  Payments:  Financial  mechanisms 

the  new 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/direct-
payments-financial-mechanisms-jun2016_en.pdf 

in 

system. 

13  European Commission. Direct payments 2015-2020 Decisions taken by Member States: State of play as 

from December 2018, Information note.   
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/key_policies/documents/simplementation-decisions-ms-2018_en.pdf 

14   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. 

15   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. 

16   Fi-compass.  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in  Sweden.  2020.  94  pages.  

https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Sweden.pdf 
17   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.25 Agricultural factor income. Based on EUROSTAT 
indicator  C.26  Agricultural 
[aact_eaa04],  [aact_ali01]  and  [aact_eaa06]  and  CAP  context 
entrepreneurial  income.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [aact_eaa04]  and  [aact_ali01]  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. 

18   Eurostat.  Farm  structure  (ef).  National  Reference  Metadata  in  ESS  Standard  for  Quality  Reports 

Structure. [FSS_ESQRS_A]. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/EN/ef_esqrs_se.htm#stat_pres1521799740438 

19   Eurostat.  Farm  structure  (ef).  National  Reference  Metadata  in  ESS  Standard  for  Quality  Reports 

Structure. [FSS_ESQRS_A]. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/EN/ef_esqrs_se.htm#stat_pres1521799740438 

20   European Commission. Direct payments 2015-2020 Decisions taken by Member States: State of play as 

from December 2018, Information note.   

   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

fisheries/key_policies/documents/simplementation-decisions-ms-2018_en.pdf 

21   European Commission. Dashboard: Productivity (EU27).  

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Productivity.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 

24 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
22   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 

23   An important instrument in the policy regulating acquisition of land is that legal persons are in principle 

not allowed to net acquire agriculture and forestry land. 

24   Jordbruksverket,  SWOT  analysis  Sweden,  Förutsättningar  för  den  gemensamma  jordbrukspolitiken 

2021–2027 
https://www.regeringen.se/sakrad/2019/09/sakrad-om-den-strategiska-planen-for-den-framtida-
gemensamma-jordbrukspolitiken/ 

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

26   Arla and Lantmännen, DG Agri estimations 
27   European Commission. Dashboard: Adding Value (EU27). 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/AddingValue.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
28  Jordbruksverket  (2018).  Nationell  strategi  för  producentorganisationer  inom  sektorn  för  frukt  och 

grönsaker. Rapport 2017:19 reviderad 2018.  

29   Jordbruksverket,  SWOT  analysis  Sweden,  Förutsättningar  för  den  gemensamma  jordbrukspolitiken 
https://www.regeringen.se/sakrad/2019/09/sakrad-om-den-strategiska-planen-for-den-

2021–2027 
framtida-gemensamma-jordbrukspolitiken/ 
Sweden Delfi, DLF och HUI, Dagligvarukartan 2019 
https://www.dlf.se/rapporter/dagligvarukartan-2019/ 

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

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

31   European  Commission. 

geographical 

eAmbrosia 

register. 

the 

32   European Environmental Agency (EEA). Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector. [env_air_gge] 
33   European Environmental Agency (EEA). Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector.  [env_air_gge]  
34   OECD  Food  and  Agricultural  Reviews  Innovation,  Agricultural  Productivity  and  Sustainability  in 

Sweden (2018) 

35   European Commission. CAP indicators. Dashboard, 2016: 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DataPortal/cmef_indicators.html 

36   ESDAC, 2006;  

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

37   European Commission. CAP Context Indicators – 2019 update.  

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

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

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s] 

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

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s]  

40   European  Commission.    EU  Adaptation  Strategy,  Adaptation  preparedness  scoreboard:  summary  for 
Sweden. :https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/adaptation/what/docs/summary_fiche_se_en.pdf 
41   Annual  Implementation  Report  (AIR)  of  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Sweden,  2019.    T17  has 
been achieved by 55.03% and the target indicator expressing % of  LU concerned by investments (by 
measure 6.4) in livestock management in view of reducing GHG and /or ammonia emissions has been 
realised almost 67% 

42   Jordbruksverket,  Programmen  och  pengarna  2018  -Resultat 

landsbygdsprogrammet  om 
energieffektivisering,  förnybar  energi  och  minskade  utsläpp  av  växthusgaser  och  ammoniak  2018 
(https://webbutiken.jordbruksverket.se/sv/artiklar/utv191.html ) 

från 

43   Rural Development Programme for Sweden for 2014-2020, version 7.0 
44   Ministry  of  Enterprise  and  Innovation.  Sweden’s  National  Forest  Programme:  November  2018. 
https://www.government.se/48f05c/contentassets/859bb18d50494ec9b5b988a28ef99ae8/fact-sheet-
swedens-national-forest-programme 

25 

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

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

46   EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb]  

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/aei_pr_gnb/default/table?lang=en   

47   Jordbruksverket,  SWOT  analysis  Sweden,  Förutsättningar  för  den  gemensamma  jordbrukspolitiken 

2021–2027 
https://www.regeringen.se/sakrad/2019/09/sakrad-om-den-strategiska-planen-for-den-framtida-
gemensamma-jordbrukspolitiken/ 

48   Eutrophication  HELCOM  thematic  assessment  of  eutrophication  2011-2016.  Supplementary  report  to 

the ‘State of the Baltic Sea’ report. 

49   Eutrophication  HELCOM  thematic  assessment  of  eutrophication  2011-2016.  Supplementary  report  to 

the ‘State of the Baltic Sea’ report. 

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

– Member State: Sweden SWD(2019) 57 final, p. 84 

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

– Member State: Sweden SWD(2019) 57 final, p. 95 

52   Statistikmyndigheten SCB/Statistics Sweden (2017) vattenanvändning  i Sverige 2015. 
53   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.39  Water  abstraction:  in  agriculture.  Based  on 
EUROSTAT [env_wat_abs] (In even further detail: the regional differences are ranging from 990 000 
m3  in  one  of  the  northern  regions  (Mellersta  Norrland)  to  over  44 000 000  m3  in  south  Sweden 
(Sydsverige). 

54   European Commission. CAP indicator – Data explorer 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Soil.html  

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

Research Center 

56   European Commission. CAP indicator – Data explorer 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Soil.html  

57   Eurostat. [ef_mp_prac] and [ef_lus_main]. 

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

58   SLU (2019) Mark och grödoinventeringen.  
59  European Environmental Agency (EEA).  EEA, National Emission Ceilings Directive emissions  - data 
viewer 1990-2018, https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-directive-data-viewer-3 
60   European  Commission:  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT 
AND THE COUNCIL on the progress made on the implementation of Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the 
reduction  of  national  emissions  of  certain  atmospheric  pollutants.  COM(2020)  266  final,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1596794534116&uri=CELEX:52020DC0266  

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

Original source: European Environmental Agency 

62   European  Commission.  The  EU  Environmental  Implementation  Review  2019      Country  Report  - 

SWEDEN. SWD(2019) 117 final  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_se_en.pdf  

63   EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands: the European Bird Census  Council (EBCC) and its Pan-

European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS) 

64   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.35  Farmland  birds  index  (FBI).  Based  on 

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

65   SLU, Swedish Species Information Centre. The Swedish 2015 Red List Summary. Last updated April 
2017. (https://www.artdatabanken.se/en/the-red-list/the-2015-red-list---summary/#share-box-header)  

66   Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of the Rural Development Program of Sweden, 2019, p.7. 
67   European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA).  Conservation  status  of  forest  habitat  types  by  region.  May 

2015. The habitats referred to are those covered by Annex I of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/conservation-status-forest-habitat-types#tab-chart_1  
68   Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, FOREST EUROPE  Report on State of 

Europe’s Forests, p. 107 
https://www.foresteurope.org/docs/fullsoef2015.pdf  

69   European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA).  Proportion  of  habitats  area  in  good  or  not good  condition. 
2019. Based on Member States’ 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  condition  category. 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/state-of-nature-in-the-eu/article-17-national-summary-
dashboards/condition-of-habitat . 

70   European Commission, DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey. 

26 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
71   Jordbruksverket. Jordbrukets utveckling. 

http://sverigesmiljomal.se/miljomalen/ett-rikt-odlingslandskap/jordbrukets-utveckling/  

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

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification”. 

73   Keenleyside  et  al.  High  Nature  Value  farming  throughout  EU-27  and  is  financial  support  under  the 
CAP.  Report  prepared  for  DG  Environment,  Contract  No  ENV  B.1/ETU/2012/20035,  Institute  for 
European Environmental Policy, London. 2014. 

74   No data available for EU-27.  
75   European Environmental Agency. Natura 2000 Barometer. May 2008. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-

and-maps/dashboards/natura-2000-barometer  

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

Barometer and European Environmental Agency, Corine Land Cover 2018 

77   Swedish  Environmental  Protection  Agency.  Prioritised  Action  Framework  (PAF)  for  Natura  2000  in 
Sweden. Draft version from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to the Swedish Ministry of 
the Environment and Energy. First version: 14/12/2018, revised: 26/09/2019. 
https://naturvardsverket.se/upload/miljoarbete-i-samhallet/miljoarbete-i-
sverige/regeringsuppdrag/2018/PAF-EN-Sweden-NV-v3-20181214a.pdf 

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

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

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

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

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

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar]] 

81   European Commission. CAP indicator – Data explorer.   
   https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DataPortal/cmef_indicators.html 
82   European Commission. Commission Staff Working document on Additional figures, maps and tables on 
the key aspects of demographic change and its impact, Accompanying the document Report from the 
Commission on the impact of demographic change (COM(2020) 241 final). 

83   Statistikmyndigheten  SCB  (Statistics  Sweden).  Befolkningen  ökar  svagt  på  landsbygden.  June  2018.  

https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/artiklar/2018/befolkningen-okar-svagt-pa-landsbygden/ 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

87   Even  though  the  CAP  considers  someone  a  young  farmer  when  the  person  is  below  40  years, 

EUROSTAT, up to 2013, split up the age class at 35 years 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

90   European Commission and European Investment Bank. Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food 

sectors in Sweden. FI compass study. June 2020. 
https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Sweden.pdf  
91   Jordbruksverket.  Förutsättningar för den gemensamma  jordbrukspolitiken 2021-2027  – SWOT-analys 
(https://www.regeringen.se/4a7081/contentassets/d4e9ac5e331e4f129e3d637681ce34c8/bilaga-1-
forutsattningar-for-den-gemensamma-jordbrukspolitiken-2021-2027-utkast-till-swot.pdf ) 

92   European Commission and European Investment Bank. FI compass study. June 2020. Financial needs 

in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Sweden. 
https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Sweden.pdf 
93   European Commission. CAP Indicator - Data explorer. CAP Output/result indicator financing + direct 

payment expenditure.  
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Financing.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  
94   OECD.  Food and Agriculture Review (2018) Innovation, Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability 

in Sweden. 2018.  

27 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
95   Knierim, A. (University of Hohenheim, Germany), Prager, K. (James Hutton Institute, Scotland).  Pro-
AKIS  study.  PRO  AKIS,  funded  by  the  European  Commission  7th  Framework  Programme  project, 
2015.  

96   Jordbruksverket,  Förutsättningar för den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken 2021-2027  – SWOT-analys 

https://www.regeringen.se/4a7081/contentassets/d4e9ac5e331e4f129e3d637681ce34c8/bilaga-1-
forutsattningar-for-den-gemensamma-jordbrukspolitiken-2021-2027-utkast-till-swot.pdf  

97   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.04  Population  density.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[demo_r_d3dens] and [urt_d3dens] 

98   Please note that there are different ways to define “rural areas”. The text above is based on the so-called 
“urban-rural  typology”  in  line  with  the  CAP  common  context  indicators.  However,  according  to  the 
definition based on the  “degree of urbanisation typology”, in Sweden 64.2% of the territory are rural 
areas and 20% of the population live in rural areas. Source: Eurostat. 

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

[urt_d3area] 

100  Please note that there are different ways to define “rural areas”. The text above is based on the so-called 
“urban-rural  typology”  in  line  with  the  CAP  common  context  indicators.  According  to  the  definition 
based on the  “degree of  urbanisation typology”, in Sweden 64.2% of the  territory are rural areas and 
20% of the population live in rural areas. Source: Eurostat. 

101  European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.02  Age  structure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[demo_r_pjanaggr3]  CAP  Context  Indicator  C.  02  shows  that  population  of  +65  has  increased  with 
1,4% in rural areas and with 0,8% in urban areas. Moreover, ca 23% of rural inhabitants are +65 while 
it is ca 18% in urban areas in 2018.  
102  European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.02  Age  structure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[demo_r_pjanaggr3] In Sweden 16.9% of the population in rural areas are under 15 compared to the EU 
average of 15.2%  

103  Statistikmyndigheten SCB Hitta statistik / Befolkningen ökar svagt på landsbygden. 

https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/artiklar/2018/befolkningen-okar-svagt-pa-landsbygden/ 

104  European Commission, Staff Working Document on the demography report (SWD(2020) 109 final). 
105  The employment rate for 20-64 year old in Sweden is in total is 82% (84% for men, 80% for women) 
compared to EU average of 73% (79% for  men, 67%  for  women) and 83% in rural areas in Sweden 
compared to 73% EU average. 

106  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.09 Poverty rate. Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps11] 
The poverty rate is 18% in total in Sweden compared to EU average of 21.6%, and 20.4% in rural areas 
in Sweden vs EU average of 23.6% in rural areas.  

107  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.08.  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[nama_10r_3gdp]  and  [nama_10r_3popgdp].  GDP/capita  expressed  as  index  PPS  in  2018  was  in 
Sweden  121  compared  to  the  EU  average  of  100  and  in  rural  areas  (in  2016)  104  compared  to  EU 
average of 71.] 

108  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[nama_10r_3gdp]  and  [nama_10r_3popgdp].  Figures  for  GDP  in  total  refer  to  2018  and  for  the 
rural/intermediary/urban divide to 2016.  

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

[nama_10r_3gva]  

110  Natale, F., Kalantaryan, S., Scipioni, M., Alessandrini, A. and Pasa, A., Migration in EU Rural Areas, 
the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  2019. 
EUR  29779  EN,  Publications  Office  of 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC116919/migration_in_eu_rural_areas.pdf  
111  Jordbruksverket, Förutsättningar för den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken 2021-2027 – SWOT-analys. 

https://www.regeringen.se/4a7081/contentassets/d4e9ac5e331e4f129e3d637681ce34c8/bilaga-1-
forutsattningar-for-den-gemensamma-jordbrukspolitiken-2021-2027-utkast-till-swot.pdf 

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

[tour_cap_nuts2d] 

113  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.17  Agricultural  holdings  (farms).  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg] 

114  European Commission. EUROSTAT EU-SILC survey [ilc_lvho05d] 
115  Tillväxtanalys  (2016).  Den  svenska  bioekonomins  utveckling  –  statistik  och  analys.  Svar  Direkt 
2016:12. The analysis by Tillväxtanalys (2016) sets that the concept of bio-economy  has been based 
on  the  national  accounts  and  Swedish  Standard  Industrial  Classification  (  SNI-codes).  This  involves 
subjective assessment of the extent to which  certain SNI-code relate to bioeconomy.  

116  Tillväxtanalys  (2016).  Den  svenska  bioekonomins  utveckling  –  statistik  och  analys.  Svar  Direkt 

2016:12. 

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
 
https://www.tillvaxtanalys.se/download/18.62dd45451715a00666f1c6ca/1586366168312/svardirekt_20
16_23_Den%20svenska%20bioekonomins%20utveckling%20–%20Statistik%20och%20analys.pdf   
117  European  Commission,  JRC.  DATAM  bio  economy.  Jobs  and  Wealth  in  the  European  Union 
Bioeconomy.  In  2008:  SE  €207 927,  EU  €97 000,  in  2015:  SE  €255  997  and  EU  €119 000. 
https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html  

118  European  Commission,  JRC.  DATAM  bio  economy.  Jobs  and  Wealth  in  the  European  Union 

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

119  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.29 Forest and other wooded land (FOWL). Based on 

EUROSTAT [for_area], original source FAO, Forest Europe and Unece. 

120  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.15  Labour  productivity  in  forestry.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [for_eco_cp] and [for_awu] 

121  EUROSTAT [nama_10_a64] 
122  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.29 Forest and other wooded land (FOWL). Based on 

EUROSTAT [for_area], original source FAO, Forest Europe and Unece. 

123  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. 

124  Letter to Sweden from Commissioner Kyriakides, 20/05/2020 
125  European Commission, DG SANTE, FVO report (2019): 

https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=4209 

126  Rural Development Programme for Sweden for 2014-2020, version 7.0, including the indicative public 
support  to  animal  welfare  of  approximately  136  million,  corresponding  to  3.41%  of  the  RDP  total 
public expenditure) 

127  Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Sweden, 2019. By the end 
of 2019 Sweden had realised 16.8% of the target for animal welfare which is 17.4% to be achieved by 
2023 (indicator T25 showing % of LU covered by M14). 

128  Swedish  Board  of  Agriculture,  Evaluation  of  animal  welfare  payments  (2019)  Jordbruksverkets 

Utvärdering av djurvälfärdsersättningar (2019)  

129  More 

details 

in  European  Commission,  DG  SANTE,  FVO  Audit  Report, 

2017: 

https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=3909 

130  Letter to Sweden from Commissioner Kyriakides 20/05/2020. 
131  Eurostat.  https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=hlth_ehis_fv3c&lang=en  .  Defined 
as: consumption of ≥ 5 portions is below EU27 average and one of the 2 additional criteria is met: a) 1-
4 portions below EU27 average, b) 0 portions above EU27 average. 

132  OECD. Food and Agriculture Review (2018). Innovation, Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability 

in Sweden, 2018. 

133  OECD. Food and Agriculture Review (2018). Innovation, Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability 

in Sweden, 2018. 

134  Eurostat.  Government  support  to  agricultural  research  and  development  [Code:  sdg_02_30] 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=sdg_02_30&plugin
=1  )   

135  Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Sweden, 2019. (T1 target 
for 2023 is 8,03 while uptake at the end of 2019 was 24,78%). In the 6th program amendment (adopted 
on 16 September 2020) Sweden reduced the expenditure in this area. 

136  European  Commission.  Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  16  September  2020  approving  the 
amendment  of  the  rural  development  programme  of  Sweden  for  support  from  the  European 
Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  amending  Implementing  Decision  C(2015)3485, 
C(2020)6441). 

137  Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Sweden, 2019, p. 4 and p.1 
138  Knierim, A. (University of Hohenheim, Germany), and Prager, K. (James Hutton Institute, Scotland). 
Pro-AKIS study. PRO AKIS, funded by the European Commission 7th Framework Programme project 
(2015). 

139  Jordbruksverket. Förutsättningar för den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken 2021-2027 – SWOT-analys. 

https://www.regeringen.se/4a7081/contentassets/d4e9ac5e331e4f129e3d637681ce34c8/bilaga-1-
forutsattningar-for-den-gemensamma-jordbrukspolitiken-2021-2027-utkast-till-swot.pdf 

140  Statens Offentliga Utredningar SOU 2015:15 Slutbetänkande av Konkurrenskraftsutredningen. 2015. 
141  OECD. Food and Agriculture Review (2018) Innovation, Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability 

in Sweden. 2018. 

142  European 

action 
https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/y5_rdp_screening_nrns_summary_report.pdf  

Commission. 

screening 

ENRD 

NRN 

of 

plans2020. 

29 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
 
143  European  Commission.  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI)  2020.  Report  DESI  2020 

Connectivity. p.8 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/connectivity   

144  Jordbruksverket, Förutsättningar för den gemensamma jordbrukspolitiken 2021-2027 – SWOT-analys. 

https://www.regeringen.se/4a7081/contentassets/d4e9ac5e331e4f129e3d637681ce34c8/bilaga-1-
forutsattningar-for-den-gemensamma-jordbrukspolitiken-2021-2027-utkast-till-swot.pdf  

145  Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Sweden, 2019. By the end 
of  2019  Sweden  had  realised  10.08%  of  the  target  for  2023  (T24)  percentage  of  rural  population 
benefitting from new or improved services/infrastructures (ICT), i.e. 0.49% realised of the set target of 
4.86%. The budget had however been fully committed and almost 1/3 of it had been paid. 

146  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020  Sweden 
147  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020  Sweden 
148  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers. Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

30