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

1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SLOVENIA’ 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 ......................................... 5 

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

2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 

SLOVENIA ................................................................................................................ 8 

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

enhance food security ...................................................................................... 8 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including 

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

2.3 

Improve farmers' position in the value chain ............................................. 11 

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

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

2.5  Foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural 

resources such as water, soil and air ............................................................ 14 

2.6  Contribute to the protection of biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes .......................................................... 17 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas . 
   ........................................................................................................................ 19 

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

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry .................... 20 

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. ............................................................................................................ 22 

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

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR 

SLOVENIA’ 

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 Slovenia. The recommendations are based on analysis of the 
state of play, the needs and the priorities for agriculture and rural areas in Slovenia. 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 Slovenia, in its CAP Strategic Plan, to set explicit national values 
for  the  Green  Deal  targets1,  taking  into  account  its  specific  situation  and  these 
recommendations.” 

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

security 

The  agricultural  sector  in  Slovenia  consists  of  a  very  high  share  of  small-sized,  semi-
subsistent  and  small-scale  commercial  farms  and  has  one  the  lowest  incomes  from 
agriculture in  the EU. This  is  in  mainly due to  geological  and other natural  conditions, 
implying  additional  costs  and  income  forsaken  for  agricultural  production  on  roughly 
three quarters of agricultural land. In part, the structure of Slovenian agricultural sector is 
conditioned  also  by  the  economic  development  of  Slovenia  in  recent  decades,  with 
opportunities for low-paid jobs outside agriculture. Low income from agriculture is also 
due  to  moderate  factor  productivity  (which  is  slightly  below  EU  average)  and  the  low 
bargaining  power  of  farmers  in  the  food  chain  despite  a  recognised  tradition  of 
cooperation in several sectors Moreover, Slovenia has one of the lowest levels of vertical 
and horizontal integration within the agri-food supply chain in the EU.  

Apart from the unfavourable farm structure and low bargaining power of farmers, turning 
the  agricultural  sector  into  a  smart,  resilient  and  diversified  sector  capable  of  ensuring 
food security is held back by a number of factors. These include limited access to finance 
for small farms and to long-term financing, limited access to advice adapted to increased 
competition,  digitalisation,  the  need  for  market  orientation  of  agriculture  and  overall 
economy,  and  income  instability  related  to  production  affected  by  adverse  climatic 
events.  

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Biodiversity  is  in  a  pronounced  decline.  This  is  reflected  in  its  farmland  bird  index, 
which is below the EU average, and in the “unfavourable-bad” conservation status of half 
its  grassland  habitats.  The  low  surface  of  agricultural  area  covered  with  landscape 
features risks to  undermine the ecosystems  health and connectivity  among  habitats.  All 
this requires better farmland management to better protect grassland habitats, including in 
accordance  with  the  prioritised  action  framework  (PAF),  and  to  reverse  the  loss  of 
landscape features. The CAP,  with  its  various instruments of green architecture, has an 

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 

 
 
 
                                                           
important role to play in this given how agriculture contributes to the current situation of 
biodiversity in Slovenia.  

As not all water bodies have achieved good status yet, with agriculture identified as one 
of  the  main  pressures,  there  is  a  further  need  to  boost  the  synergies  between  EU  water 
objectives (Water Framework Directive) and the CAP instruments’ implementation and 
to make them more efficient. Use of nitrogen is managed efficiently, with the surplus in 
the range of the average value for the EU between 2012 and 2015, despite inter-annual 
variations and some local hotspots with significant nitrogen excess. However, the surplus 
of phosphorus is much higher than the EU average and should be reduced.  

To improve the targeting and assessment of the impacts of environmental-related actions, 
Slovenia would need to set up a system for monitoring soil quality and adapt the system 
for monitoring water quality to instruments used to improve water quality. Synergies can 
be  created  with  the  forthcoming  EU  mission  on  soil  health  to  coordinate  and  scale  up 
soil-related activities and soil monitoring. 

In recent years, Slovenia has gradually increased organically farmed land to a level that is 
above  the  EU  average.  However,  since  the  vast  majority  of  farmland  under  organic 
farming contracts  supported by the rural  development programme is  for  grasslands and 
since  related  organically  reared  animals  are  mostly  sold  as  if  they  were  conventionally 
produced,  organic  production  is  not  properly  valorised.  Improving  the  valorisation  of 
organic  products  across  the  value  chain  and  further  expanding  into  other  crops  would 
enable Slovenia to further increase organically farmed land, producing multiple benefits 
for the environment and providing business opportunities for farmers.  

Climate change is expected to alter rainfall patterns, induce more and longer heatwaves 
and  cause  water  scarcity  in  coastal  regions  and  the  Continental  Region.  However,  the 
share  of  land  equipped  with  irrigation  systems  is  very  limited.  The  exposure  of  soil  to 
extreme  weather  events  is  also  expected  to  further  exacerbate  the  soil  erosion  problem 
which already results in the highest annual loss of soil per hectare in the EU. 

In recent  years Slovenia has seen its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (non-CO2) from 
agriculture increase much more than the EU average. A slight upward trend in ammonia 
emissions  was  also  observed  recently.  The  main  source  of  GHG  emissions  from 
agriculture is enteric fermentation. This provides opportunities to develop businesses for 
biogas production, while the main source of ammonia is livestock manure management. 
Slovenia has one of the  highest  shares of land covered by  forest  in  the  EU, albeit  with 
significant  decreases  in  the  CO2  sink  due  to  ageing  and  natural  disturbances.  This 
provides  an  opportunity  to  preserve  and  boost  carbon  storage.  By  remunerating 
ecosystem  services  (e.g.  via  carbon  farming  approaches)  and  improving  a  very  poor 
transformation rate of wood harvested into materials, Slovenia could add value to forest 
products and create jobs in rural areas.  

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

concerns 

Gross domestic product (GDP) in rural areas of Slovenia is significantly lower than in the 
EU.  One  out  of  three  sub-regions  in  intermediary  areas  is  at  a  similar  level  of 
development as rural areas, with GDP also lower than in rural areas of the EU. Although 
rural  areas  cover  almost  three  quarters  of  Slovenian  territory,  account  for  58%  of  the 
population and 58% of employment, they create only 49% of the economy’s gross value 
added.  

3 

 
 
The  unfavourable  economic  situation  in  rural  areas  co-exists  with  the  predominantly 
small-scale farm structure in Slovenia. These structural challenges are associated with the 
two-pronged  aspect  of  an  unfavourable  age  structure  in  the  farming  sector  in  Slovenia 
and rapidly ageing population in rural areas. 

The  rural  economy  is  therefore  in  need  of  upward  economic  convergence.  Boosting 
investment is needed to further improve the potential for growth and productivity in rural 
areas. Inhabitants of rural areas and farm family members need more and better jobs. For 
this to happen, the country needs to develop existing businesses and create of start-ups, 
together  with  appropriate  protection  of  agricultural  workers,  especially  those  in 
precarious, seasonal and undeclared employment. There are new economic opportunities 
for  farmers  especially  in  the  bioeconomy  and  in  forestry.  The  strengths  of  rural  areas 
include  a  high  share  of  employed  people,  a  low  share  of  unemployed  people,  and  an 
engaged active population.  

With the share of farmers younger than 35 years at only 4.6% and with age categories of 
farmers  skewed  towards  older  categories,  the  age  structure  in  the  farming  sector  in 
Slovenia  continues  to  be  unfavourable.  The  farming  sector  is  therefore  in  need  of 
effective generational renewal.  

Effective  generational  renewal  goes  hand  in  hand  with  vibrant  rural  areas.  Relevant 
services  such  as  child  care,  education,  medical  and  transport  services  and  adequate 
infrastructure  are  therefore  needed  in  rural  areas.  Facilitating  access  to  good  quality 
services in rural areas is particularly relevant to women and would help them participate 
more in the workforce, with the goal of closing the gender gap in employment. The CAP 
tools must work in synergy with other EU and national funds to ensure better services in 
rural areas for the benefit of the rural population.  

The CAP post-2020 introduces a new specific objective that will allow it to contribute to 
addressing  societal  concerns  over  general  health  and  food,  fully  in  line  with  the 
objectives of the Farm to Fork strategy. While achieving a shift in people’s diets towards 
healthier, more sustainable options is mainly down to national policies and public/private 
initiatives,  the  CAP  can  complement  this  action  through  appropriate  instruments  that 
Member States  are recommended to  choose in  their strategic plans, such as support for 
producer  organisations  to  increase  fruit  and  vegetable  consumption.  Slovenia  faces 
important  challenges  in  encouraging  consumption  that  is  more  in  line  with  national 
dietary  recommendations,  moving  towards  more  plant-based  diets  with  lower  red  meat 
consumption, a higher intake of fruit and vegetables, and also a reduction in food waste.  

When it comes to the use of antimicrobials, the agricultural sector in Slovenia is one of 
the best performers in Europe. Its use of antimicrobials is well below the EU average and 
also  below  the  target  foreseen  by  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy.  However,  a  significant 
improvement  is  needed  in  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides.  Further  efforts  are 
encouraged  also  when  it  comes  to  animal  welfare  and  farm  biosecurity,  particularly  in 
view of an increased risk of African Swine Fever.  

4 

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

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake  

The  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS)  in  Slovenia  is  considered 
medium  to  strong  and  is  positioned  halfway  along  the  scale  between  ‘fragmented’  and 
‘integrated’. 

There is potential to make more and better use of EU support for knowledge exchange, 
training, information, and interactive innovation  projects under the CAP  plans. A well-
functioning  AKIS  (covering  not  only  the  agricultural  sector,  but  also  any  farming  and 
rural activity related to it) will be key to structuring knowledge flows in order to respond 
to  the  growing  information  needs  of  farmers,  provide  faster  innovation  and  also  better 
valorisation of existing knowledge to achieve all CAP objectives. 

The public advisory service is already actively involved in preparing and disseminating 
of innovation projects, which marks a positive shift towards innovation support services. 
Some  effort  remains  to  be  made  to  move  towards  more  inclusive  advisory  services, 
improving links between public and private advisors.  

Slovenia  faces  important  challenges  in  in  terms  of  connectivity  and  digital  skills.  On 
connectivity,  the  roll-out  of  fast  broadband  needs  to  be  improved,  in  particular  in  rural 
areas to bridge the remaining rural-national divide.  Digital skills need to be improved in 
general  in  Slovenia,  in  particular  in  sparsely  populated  and  rural  areas  where  an 
important share of the population seems to be excluded from digital services also due to 
the lack of some certain basic digital skills.   

1.5  Recommendations 

To  address  the  above  interconnected  economic,  environmental/climate  and  social 
challenges,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  Slovenian  CAP  strategic  plan  needs  to 
focus its priorities and concentrate its interventions on the following points: 

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

  Mitigating  disadvantageous  farm  structure  by  significantly  strengthening  the 
cooperation between producers and producer organisations, by increasing market 
orientation  of  production  and  by  supporting  the  primary  sector  in  capturing  a 
higher share of the value added in the value chain by diversifying to higher value 
added products, such as organic products. 

  Improving the viability of farms by improving the targeting and distribution of 
direct  payments,  notably  by  taking  into  specific  consideration  small-sized  farms 
and  semi-subsistence  farms  (by  applying,  for  example,  the  complementary 
redistributive  income  support  for  sustainability  and  the  reduction  of  payments) 
and areas with natural or other specific restrictions, as well as by advancing in the 
internal convergence process. Other means need also to be taken into account for 
the maintenance of the essential farming activity to preserve the natural features. 

  Addressing  the  large  financing  gap  identified  for  agriculture,  and  to  a  lesser 
extent  for  the  agro-food  sector,  through  appropriate  instruments,  including 
through  investment  in  processing  capacity  of  agricultural  products,  and 
supporting  resilience  of  agriculture  by  improving  stability  of  agricultural 
incomes affected by frequent and severe extreme weather events and by exposure 

5 

 
 
of  agricultural  production  to  volatile  prices  of  agricultural  products  through 
developing appropriate risk management tools. 

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

  Improving biodiversity status  of protected habitats and species, including wild 
pollinators,  by  promoting  adequate  management  of  agricultural  areas, 
through  the  support  for  management  practices  aimed  at  the  maintenance  or 
restoration  of  the  habitats  and  species’  favourable  conservation  status  and  an 
improvement  to  the  size  of  agricultural  area  under  high  diversity  landscape 
features,  thus  contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  minimum  area 
under high diversity landscape features. Further enhancing the  environmental 
and climate commitments developed and supported by the CAP through the use 
of  various  instruments  to  improve  their  efficiency  and  in  accordance  with  the 
needs identified in the prioritized action framework (PAF).  

  Fostering  sustainable  forest  management  of  forestry 

land,  enhancing 
multifunctionality,  forest  protection  and  restoration  of  forests  ecosystems,  in 
particular  after  catastrophic  events,  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. 

  Encouraging  farming  practices  aimed  at  improving  nutrient  (nitrogen, 
phosphorous,  potassium  etc.)  management,  such  as  reduced  and  improved 
fertilisation (including through precision farming) and adequate livestock manure 
that  of 
management, 
phosphorous, to contribute to the EU Green Deal target on reducing nutrient 
losses.  Adapting  the  water  quality  monitoring  system  to  the  CAP  instruments 
used  for  improving  water  quality  to  enable  more  complete  assessment  of  their 
impacts.  

in  view  of  reducing  nutrient  surpluses, 

including 

  Sustaining  current  trend  in  organic  production  while  improving  support  to 
promote  further  uptake  of  organic  farming  methods  and  practices  by  drawing 
lessons from implementation of the current CAP to contribute to the EU Green 
Deal  target  on  achieving  25 %  of  the  EU  agricultural  area  under  organic 
farming. Achieving the Farm to Fork objective of sustainable food systems will 
require  adequate  and  adapted  strategy  on  increasing  the  demand  for  and  the 
supply  of  organic  foods,  to  which  the  CAP  can  contribute.  This  should  include 
developing  of  local  organic  food  production  and  strengthening  food  chain 
structures  as  well  as  disseminating  innovative  approaches  and  information  on 
organic farming.  

  Increasing  resilience  to  climate  change  by  stepping  up  climate  adaptation 
measures  to  address  the  drought  and  hail  risks  and  severe  soil  erosion,  while 
preserving  the  status  of  water  resources.  Measures  should  include  capacity 
building on climate change adaptation, support for practices enhancing soil health 
and setting up system for monitoring soil quality as well as investments in more 
drought-resistant crops and the efficiency of irrigation infrastructure.   

  Mitigating the recent trend of increased GHG emissions from agriculture by 
targeting main sources of GHG and strengthen the long-term capacity of forests to 

6 

 
 
act as carbon sinks, in particular by: investing in adequate forest preservation and 
harvested  wood  products,  timely  replanting  of  forest,  taking  into  account  the 
projected  climate  trends  for  appropriate  species  selection,  and  implementing  the 
capacities for wood processing.  

  Strengthening the efforts to reduce ammonia and methane  emissions in line 
with the Methane Strategy, in particular from the livestock sector, including by 
improving the livestock manure management.  

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

  Improving  potential  for  growth  in  rural  areas  by  fostering  development  of 
existing  businesses  and  creation  of  start-ups  in  rural  areas,  including  by 
developing the potential  of the bio-economy  and  forestry.  In doing so  it  will be 
important to ensure synergies with other EU and national funds. 

  Targeting  effective  generational  renewal  in  the  agricultural  sector  through 
measures aimed at improving business and financial skills, access to finance and 
accompanying advice on the transfer and succession of farms.  

  Making  significant  efforts  to  decrease  the  use  and  the  risk  of  chemical 
pesticides  to  contribute  to  the  relevant  Green  Deal  target  by  promoting  low 
pesticide-input  pest  management  and  strengthening  the  implementation  of 
Integrated Pest Management by professional users.  

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

  Tackling  underinvestment  in  AKIS  and  strengthening  its  integration  and 
overall performance by providing adequate support to accelerate the knowledge 
exchange, 
include 
structuring and strengthening the existing connections among research-education-
advice-farming,  ensuring  access  to  qualified  advice  and  providing  innovation 
support across the farming community.  

innovative  projects.  These 

information,  and 

training, 

  Accelerating  current  initiatives  and  taking  new  actions  to  improve  fast 
broadband  coverage  in  line  with  the  Farm  to  Fork  target  on  broadband, 
including  reducing  the  gap  between  rural  and  urban  areas,  and  support  to 
strengthen digital skills. In doing so it will be important to ensure synergies with 
other EU and national funds. 

7 

 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

SLOVENIA 

In  2019,  the  primary  sector  in  Slovenia  created  2.4%  of  gross  value  added  of  the 
Slovenian economy. Of the Slovenian territory, 61% is covered with forest, while 36% is 
agricultural land. High altitudes and steepness have favoured a type of farming base on 
grassland on 58 % of agricultural land. Arable farming is frequent only in the flat parts of 
the  country,  representing  34%  of  agricultural  land.  Underlying  natural  resources  which 
are  the  main  allays  of  agricultural  production  are  preserved  in  a  varying  degree,  with 
water in a better condition than soil. Biodiversity is also quite damaged. At the same time 
climate has been changing and putting agricultural production and incomes at risk.  

Rural areas cover almost three quarters of Slovenia and create 49% of gross value added 
of  the  Slovenian  economy.  Despite  a  low  level  of  gross  domestic  product/inhabitant  in 
rural areas, the rural population in 2019 was roughly the same as in 2005. However, rural 
areas are aging, with the category of people older than 65 years increasing very rapidly 
while the category of people between 15 and 65 years old decreased significantly. This 
represents a major challenge and calls for population renewal. Low broadband coverage 
and  lacking  business  opportunities  in  rural  areas  stand  in  the  way  to  such  a  process  of 
renewal. 

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

enhance food security 

In Slovenia, the agricultural income per worker is on average 22% of the average wage in 
the  whole  economy  between  2005  and  20191.  In  terms  of  development  in  agricultural 
income, the gap in Slovenia seems to be stable over time.  

Agricultural  factor income is  rather stable in  Slovenia since 2007, with  only rare small 
peaks. Slovenia belongs to a group of Member States with the lowest factor income from 
agriculture2.  This  is  due  to  the  large  number  of  smaller  non-specialist  farms  producing 
predominately for self-consumption. In 2016, 57% of the farms utilised more than 50% 
of the final production for self-consumption3. Many of these farms also have other non-
agricultural  sources  of  income  that  allow  the  survival  of  holdings  despite  their 
agricultural income levels.  

The average economic size, measured in terms of standard economic output, is far behind 
the EU average. The factor income per worker is lower for smaller farms and increases 
with  farm  size  (both  physical  and  economic  size).  It  is  generally  above  average  for 
farmers of field crops, granivores, wine and milk farms, whilst on average it is lower in 
the livestock sectors (for which payments for areas facing natural constraints (ANC) are 
of  utmost  importance)4.  Factor  income  in  ANC  is  between  a  third  and  a  half  of  the 
average outside ANC areas.  

Direct  payments  play  an  important  role  in  Slovenia,  with  direct  payments  on  average 
29%  of  the  agricultural  factor  income  in  the  past  6  years5.  An  estimated  81%  of  the 
holdings  receive  direct  payments.  Direct  payments  per  worker  tend  to  increase  with 
physical economical farm size in the so-called “professional farms”6, though it is highly 
relevant  to  take  into  consideration  that  Slovenia  belongs  to  the  circle  of  countries  with 
the  smallest  average  size  of  agricultural  holdings7.  In  consequence,  these  very  small 
farms  may  not  have  been  included  in  the  analysis8.  Slovenia  has  not  applied  a 
redistributive payment. Farms below the average physical farm size in Slovenia receive a 
direct  payment  that  is  only  about  85%  of  the  average  direct  payment  received  in 

8 

 
 
Slovenia. Slovenia has implemented the Small Farmers Scheme (SFS), though the share 
of small farmers in the total number of farmers eligible for decoupled direct payments in 
2018  was  only  1.32%.  Between  2015  and  2018,  there  has  been  a  drop  of  60%  in  the 
beneficiaries  under  the  SFS,  given  beneficiaries  could  receive  higher  payments  by 
applying to the standard direct payment schemes9. 

In  terms  of  concentration,  the  20%  biggest  beneficiaries  in  2018  received  65%  of  all 
direct  payments10.  Slovenia  has  seen  a  moderate  reduction  in  the  number  of  farms. 
However,  the  agricultural  area  being  farmed  has  been  maintained,  as  the  reduction  is 
caused  by  a  decline  in  permanent  grassland.  The  concentration  process  varies  greatly 
between  the  types  of  farming,  with  some  experimenting  a  pronounced  reduction  (e.g. 
specialist grazing livestock), whilst others are growing.   

The use of risk management tools is currently limited to insurance schemes designed and 
provided by private insurance companies and subsidized by the Slovenian budget. These 
tools are for agricultural production affected by adverse climatic events and illnesses of 
animals but are not widely used. No evidence of risk management tools for agricultural 
production exposure to market has been found.  

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

Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms in Slovenia 

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy  

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

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

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation  

In  Slovenia,  agriculture  employs  about  38 400  persons,  corresponding  to  3.9%  of  the 
labour  force11.  Slovenia  belongs  to  countries  with  the  smallest  average  size  of 
agricultural holdings with 6.8 ha of utilised agricultural area (UAA) per holding in 2016, 
which  remains  almost  the  same  (6.6  ha  in  2005)12.  In  the  same  period,  the  number  of 
farms  decreased  continuously,  but  moderately  from  77 170  to  69 90013.  Family  farms 
dominate the agriculture structure, out of which 57% use most of the production for their 
own  consumption14.  Compared  to  the  EU  average,  Slovenia  has  higher  agricultural 
9 

 
 
 
employment  and,  at  the  same  time,  much  lower  labour  productivity  in  agriculture  of 
37%15.  The  share  of  arable  land  (36%)  is  significantly  lower  than  the  EU27  (61.2%), 
whilst  the permanent  grassland is  much higher (58% compared to  31% in  the EU27)16. 
However,  extensive  livestock  production  (grazing  below  1  LU/ha  of  forage  area) 
represents only 26% of the total area or around 44% of the permanent grassland17. 

Although the labour and agricultural land productivity slightly increased and the labour 
input decreased by 13 % compared to its 2005 level, the total factor productivity was still 
below the EU average in 2017 (105 compared to 110 EU average)18. Slovenia has high 
agricultural  gross  fixed  capital  formation  of  49.17%.  It  sharply  decreased  with  the 
financial crisis between 2008 and 2011, but remains stable since 2012 and approaches the 
pre-crises levels19. However the capital productivity decreased to 86.1% compared to its 
2005 level. Investments are made predominantly in machinery and equipment (30%) and 
agricultural  non-residential  buildings  (50%)20.  Between  2015  and  2019,  over  EUR  190 
million  was  provided  for  investment  in  agriculture  and  start-up  aid  for  young  farmers, 
mostly to farms of size above 20 ha. Still the financing gap for agriculture was estimated 
at  EUR  952  million.  It  mainly  concerns  small  size  farms  and  access  to  long-term 
financing21.  

To a lesser extent, similar difficulties with access to finance have been identified in the 
agro-food sector with a gap estimated to EUR 127 million. In 2017, the Slovenian agro-
food  processing  industry  contributed  approximately  1.5%  to  the  total  added  value  and 
1.7% to  total  employment  of the national  economy. The production value of the sector 
reached EUR 2.2 billion in 2018. The ten largest companies account for at least half of 
the  revenues  of  the  sector,  while  98%  of  the  agro-food  companies  are  small-sized 
companies with less than 50 employees. 22 

Concerning AKIS, in 2018, the level of R&D spending in agriculture amounted to EUR 
22.32 million and EUR 10.8 per capita, compared to EU-28 EUR 3.2 billion and 6.3 per 
capita. 

Slovenia does not cover domestic needs through its food production. The self-sufficiency 
is higher for animal products (128% for milk) than for plant products (estimated to 48% 
for  fruit  or  29%  for  vegetables)23.  Overall  the  agri-food  trade  balance  in  Slovenia  is 
negative, but stable between 2008 and 201824.   

10 

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

Crop output 

Agricultural services output 

Fertilisers 

Rents 
Entrepreneurial income 

Animal output 

Non-agricultural secondary 

Plant/animal protection 

Interest 

Product subsidies 

Seeds 

Feeding stuffs 

Taxes 

EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01] 

Other subsidies 

Energy 

Labour 

Other costs 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain  

Slovenian  farmers  have  limited  bargaining  power  within  the  food  chain,  due  to  a 
structure  of  many  small  farms  and  ineffective  or,  depending  on  the  sector,  absent 
cooperative structures, which means that strong fluctuations in agricultural prices are not 
fully passed on to the final retail prices25. 

The value added for the whole food chain has been increasing over time in Slovenia. The 
value added for primary producers has increased likewise, resulting in a share in the food 
chain  relatively  stable  (around  30-31%,  although  with  a  low  figure  of  28%  in  2017), 
which is above the EU-average (23% in 2016)  26. However, the increase of added value 
for primary producers has been lower than for both distribution (with the highest share) 
and  manufacturing27;  this  stems  from  the  increase  of  input  costs  and  the  limited 
possibilities  for  farmers  to  add  value  to  their  products  (mainly  due  to  the  small  size  of 
agricultural  holdings  and  fragmentation  of  the  agricultural  land)28.  Forage  plants,  milk, 
wine  and  cattle  are  the  most  important  sectors  in  terms  of  production  value29.  Some 
sectors, such as sheep and goats, potatoes,  cereals, pigs, and vegetables, show potential 
for  increasing  their  production  volumes  and  entering  into  the  food  chain,  raising 
therefore their value added too30. 

Despite  small  size  of  farms,  the  level  of  cooperation  between  farmers  is  weak  in 
Slovenia, which finds itself among the EU countries with lowest levels of both vertical 
and horizontal economic integration within the agri-food supply chain31. It is one of the 
very few EU countries with almost no recognised Producers Organisations (PO), just two 
in the milk sector and one for fruits and vegetables, and no national strategy in place to 
develop  them  and/or  allow  for  the  preparation  of  operational  programmes  and  the 
financing of operational funds of potential PO32. However, although there are around 90 
agricultural  and  forestry  cooperatives  in  Slovenia,  there  is  considerable  potential  for 
adding value through cooperative processing and sale33. Particularly the development of 
EU  quality  schemes  can  strengthen  cooperation  between  producers,  increase  their 
bargaining position in the value chain and therefore allow farms to obtain a bigger share 

11 

 
 
 
of the added value. Producers may also establish groups of producers, and a total of ten 
in different sectors have been recognised so far34. No interbranch organisation (IBO) has 
been recognised so far in Slovenia. 

While  10%  of  farmers  have  opted  for  the  organic  production  method,  many  of  their 
products, especially meat and dairy products, are sold as conventional products. This is 
due to a combination of two reasons. There is a mismatch between consumer demand for 
non-meat  products  and  the  fact  that  82%  of  organically  managed  land  and  supported 
from  the  Rural  Development  Programme  is  grassland35.  Besides,  there  is  little 
cooperation  and  organisation  between  the  farmers  cultivating  grassland  and  rearing 
animals organically to bring the products on the market as organic products.  

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

Primary producers 

Food and beverage consumer services 
Food and beverage manufacturing 

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

Food and beverage distribution 

% for primary producers – EU-27 

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

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

sustainable energy 

Agriculture  is  the  third  main  contributor  of  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  after 
transport  sector  and  energy  production.  In  2018,  agricultural  emissions  of  GHG  in 
Slovenia amounted to 1.72 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents. The share of agriculture in 
total GHG emissions in Slovenia was 9.8% in 2018. In the long run, between 1990 and 
2018,  emissions  from  the  agricultural  sector  decreased  by  7.21%.  Between  2005  and 
2018 GHG emissions in agriculture in Slovenia decreased marginally by 0.6%. However, 
recently  between  2013  and  2018  Slovenia  increased  its  GHG  (non-CO2)  emissions  in 
agriculture  by  4.62%  (compared  to  the  EU-27  trend  of  1.8 %).  Nevertheless,  Slovene 
emissions from agriculture accounted to only 0.4% of the total EU GHG emissions from 
agriculture in 2018. The most important source of GHG emissions in agriculture in 2018 
in  Slovenia  was  ruminant  enteric  fermentation  (53.9%),  followed  by  emissions  from 
agricultural  soils  (25.5%),  emissions  of  N2O  from  livestock  manure  (19.4%),  while 
emissions from application of urea are not relevant36. Peatlands cover only 0.4% of soils 
in Slovenia37. 

Slovenia is among the most forested countries in Europe after Finland and Sweden with 
61.5% of land in Slovenia38 covered with forests and 36% consisting of agricultural land. 

12 

 
 
 
Permanent grassland accounted to 58% of agricultural land in Slovenia (compared to the 
EU-27  average  of  31%).  Since  2014,  natural  disasters  (ice  sleet,  bark-beetle,  wind)  in 
Slovenia  damaged  roughly  240 000  hectares  (ha)  of  forests  and  reduced  the  forest 
potential of these areas by at least 20%. This has lead also to a significant carbon stock 
loss and in fact, what is unusual, forest land became net emitter between 2014 and 2018 
due to natural disasters.  

As regards the importance of renewable energy production from agriculture and forestry 
in  total  primary  energy  production,  it  was  quite  limited  and  accounted  for  about  18%. 
The share of agricultural sector in the production of total renewable energy in Slovenia in 
2018 was low (1.9%) and remained below the EU-27 average (12.1%)39. Over half of the 
renewable  energy  production  (51.8 %)  came  from  forestry  sector.  Moreover,  the 
production  of  renewable  energy  from  agriculture  and  forestry  decreased  by  11.17% 
between  2013  and  2015  compared  to  the  EU-27  average  trend,  which  was  slightly 
upward  (0.13%).  As  regards  the  importance  of  renewable  energy  production  from 
agriculture  and  forestry  in  total  primary  energy  production,  it  was  quite  limited  and 
accounted for about 18 %. 

Regarding energy use in agriculture and forestry Slovenia belongs to the member states 
with the lowest share of agriculture and forestry in total final energy consumption (1.5%) 
compared  to  the  EU  average  of  2.9%.  Between  2009  and  2018  energy  consumption  in 
agriculture  and  forestry  went  up  by  4.6%  compared  to  the  EU-27  average  increase  of 
almost 8 %. The direct use of energy in food industry amounted to 1.6% of the total final 
energy consumption, again below the EU average of 2.9%. 

The  average  air  temperature  rose  in  Slovenia  by  1.7°C  in  the  period  1961-2010  and 
according to the projections made by the Slovenian Environment Agency air temperature 
could by the end of the century rise, depending on the assumption on the amount of GHG 
emissions,  by  1.3°C  to  4.1°C.  Projections  are  that  there  will  be  more  and  longer 
heatwaves. The amount of yearly precipitation in the period 1961-2010 shrunk by 15% in 
Western Slovenia and by 10 % in Eastern Slovenia, and mostly it shrunk in spring and in 
summer. The projections are that by the end of the century the precipitation could likely 
rise  by  20%  yearly,  however  with  very  wet  winters  and  very  dry  summers40.  The 
frequency, intensity  and  severity of droughts  has increased since 200941. Two droughts 
have  been  particularly  damaging  in  recent  history,  2003  and  2017,  affecting  vineyards, 
maize, and grasslands and leading to fodder shortages for the livestock sector. 

The main negative impacts of climate change on Slovenian agriculture are expected to be 
as follows: increased pest and disease occurrence, increase in extreme weather events, in 
particular  droughts,  hailstorms,  and  late  frosts.  Changing  rainfall  patters  (increased 
intense  rainfall  and  reduction  of  rainfall)  will  increase  water  logging  and  risks  of 
flooding, on the one hand, and lead to water shortages on the other. Moreover, heat stress 
on livestock will affect productivity. Water scarcity is projected to increase in particular 
in  the  Mediterranean  region  (coastal  region)  and  continental  region,  which  is 
characterized by permanent crops (olives) and horticulture. Negative impacts on forests 
are expected from increased frequency of extreme events, such as ice storms, windstorms 
and droughts, as well as rising summer temperatures and increase in pests and diseases.  

In terms of adaptation to climate change, species and varieties of agricultural plants will 
need to be adapted, taking account of modern crop rotation guidelines and implementing 
modern technological solutions. This, in turn, will change the practice of many farms to 
date  and  have  an  impact  also  on  the  market  situation.  Moreover,  the  irrigation  systems 
will need to be updated to be more resource efficient.  

13 

 
 
Among  the  instruments  available  to  Member  States  in  the  2014-2020  CAP,  Slovenia 
chose,  under  greening,  a  national  approach  to  the  permanent  grassland  ratio  obligation 
and to consider grassland “permanent” if ploughed within a period of five years. Slovenia 
offered three Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) options (land laying fallow, catch crops and 
greens  cover,  and  nitrogen  fixing  crops).42  Voluntary  Coupled  Support  is  available  for 
two climate-relevant sectors: beef and veal as well as milk and milk products from dairy 
cows.  In  Pillar  2,  Measure  13  (areas  of  natural  constraints)  and  Measure  10  (agri-
environment-climate) are the main measures through which climate action is delivered. 

According to the National Energy and Climate Action Plan (NECP) adopted in February 
2020,  agriculture  in  Slovenia  should  reduce  its  GHG  emissions  in  2030  by  -1 % 
compared to 200543. NECP identifies the following measures for agriculture: improving 
livestock  production  and  restructuring,  as  livestock  production  is  among  the  largest 
sources  of  GHG  emissions,  reduction  of  intensive  livestock  production  and  related 
intensive agriculture with measures to promote pasture, promotion of sustainable organic 
farming,  introducing  new  (green)  technologies,  encouraging  investments  to  improve 
overall  efficiency  of  farm,  promoting  precision  farming  and  providing  collection  of 
agricultural biomass (crop residues, slurry, etc.) at the locations of major biogas plants.  

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

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 

Ammonia  emissions  from  agriculture  in  Slovenia  decreased  between  1995  and  2013 
from 17.9 ktonnes to 16.6 ktonnes with a slight increase or stagnation since then to reach 
17.1 ktonnes in 201844). However, the slight upward trend can be noted as of 2013. As 
other  sectors  have  diminished  their  contribution  to  NH3  emissions,  the  contribution  by 
agriculture to the overall NH3 emissions is now higher than in the past reaching in 2018 
14 

 
 
 
 
92.24%, slightly below the figure for the EU-28: 92.88%. Livestock farming is by far the 
main source of the NH3 emissions in the Slovenian context (90%) compared with 10% 
coming from crops. These figures differ significantly from the situation in EU-28 where 
livestock farming makes 73% (crops – 23%) in agricultural sources of NH3. Non-dairy 
and dairy cattle are the main sources of the emissions (15.4 % and 12.4% respectively) 
followed by the emissions from the use of inorganic fertilisers responsible for 8.3%45 of 
the  agriculture-related  NH3  emissions.  Emissions  from  livestock  are  mainly  stemming 
from  livestock  manure  management  (45%),  followed  by  emissions  from  livestock 
housing and pasturage (33%) and emissions from manure storages (13%)46.  

Slovenia's  emission  reduction  commitment  is  to  reduce  ammonia  emissions  by  1%  in 
2020 and 15% by 2030 compared to 2005. Slovenia is considered to be at medium risk of 
non-compliance  with  ammonia  emission  reduction  commitments  for  the  period  2020-
2029, and at high risk of non-compliance for 2030 and beyond. 

The  state  of  soil  in  Slovenia  raises  some  challenges  for  agriculture.  On  one  hand,  the 
quality of the soil expressed in the soil organic carbon (SOC) content is relatively good: 
mean  SOC  content  in  arable  land  is  40.8  g/kg  compared  to  43.1g/kg  for  EU-28. 
However,  Slovenia  suffers  from  a  very  high  erosion  rate47  .  While  more  than  42 %  of 
agricultural area is affected by moderate to severe water erosion (compared to 6.6 % in 
the  EU-28),  Slovenia  also  loses  7.5  tonnes  of  soil  per  ha  per  year  compared  to  the 
average 2.5 tonnes/ha/year in the EU-2848. The soil loss rate is the highest in the south-
western regions of Slovenia.  

Accelerated  soil  loss  is  due  to  topography  and  very  high  rainfall  erosivity  but  is  also 
associated  with  inappropriate  farm  management  practices  and  excessive  grazing49.  In 
2018,  88%50  of  tillable  UAA  was  under  conventional  tillage,  and  23%51  of  arable  land 
was left  bare during the  winter months. Modifying these practices by introducing more 
sustainable  agricultural  management  practices  would  help  contribute  to  addressing  soil 
erosion problem. 

For  these  reasons  52%52  of  agricultural  land  in  Slovenia  has  been  under  rural 
development  contracts  to  improve  soil  management  (in  2017).  According  to  the 
evaluation on the impacts of these contracts53, there is no systematic monitoring and data 
collection on soil and soil quality and therefore the impact of these contracts could not be 
fully  assessed.  The  evaluation  recommended  to  establish  a  single  system  for  soil 
monitoring.   

15 

 
 
Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Slovenia 

Kg P/ha/year 

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

EU-27 GNB for Nitrogen 

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

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

As  the  above  graph  demonstrates,  the  nitrogen  surplus  in  Slovenia  shows  a  fluctuating 
tendency  over  time  with  an  important  increase  in  2017  from  42  to  65  kg/N/ha/year 
between  2016-201754.  The  phosphorus  surplus  follows  a  rather  decreasing  trend  with, 
however, an important increase in 2017: from 1 to 5 kg/P/ha/year in the same period.   

Due  to  the  fluctuating  trends,  in  particular  as  regards  nitrogen  surplus,  the  4-year 
averages  might  provide  a  more  complete  picture.  Based  on  CAP  context  indicator  on 
water quality55, the average for surplus of nitrogen in Slovenia reached 49 kg/N/ha/year 
and  is  slightly  higher  than  the  figure  for  EU-27:  46.5  kg/N/ha/year.  In  case  of 
phosphorous, the 4-year average for Slovenia reached 2.3 kg/P/ha/year and is almost four 
times  higher  than  in  the  EU-27  (0.5  kg/P/ha/year).  The  application  of  manure  and  of 
inorganic  fertilisers  are  main  sources  of  phosphorous  input  in  Slovenia.  As  Slovenia 
displays one of the highest rates of vulnerable soil (pronounced erosion) in the EU and a 
high  phosphorus  balance  surplus,  these  two  factors  combined  increase  the  risk  of 
phosphorus losses56. 

With  regard  to  the  issue  of  water  pollution  by  nitrates,  11.6%  of  the  ground  water 
stations  in  Slovenia  exceeded  the  maximum  level  of  50  mg/l  nitrates57.  These  figures 
shows  a  better  status  of  groundwater  in  terms  of  nitrates  content  that  the  averages  for 
EU-28.  

One  of  the  main  reasons  for  water  pollution  is  the  improper  management  of  manure 
followed  by  the  use  of  fertilisers  and  plant  protection  products58.  In  this  context,  it  is 
worth  noticing  that  the  Slovenian  agriculture  is  characterized  by  the  relatively  high 
livestock  density  per  ha:  1.07  LU/ha  of  UAA  which  is  the  9th  highest  in  the  EU-2759. 
Although, based on the information from the Commission report on the implementation 
of  Nitrates  Directive60,  in  Slovenia  the  average  use  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorous 
originating from animal manure decreased between 2012 and 2014 by more than 5%.  

In relation to the Water Framework Directive (WFD), 38% of surface water bodies are in 
less  than  good  ecological  status  and  approximately  98%  are  failing  to  achieve  good 
chemical  status61.  For  groundwater,  all  groundwater  bodies  are  in  good  quantitative 
status  but  around  14 %  are  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status.  Diffuse  agriculture 
(chemical,  organic  and  nutrient  pollution  with  nitrate  being  the  top  pollutant)  is  one  of 
the most significant pressures causing the failure to achieve water-related objectives.  

16 

 
 
 
 
In order to address the problem of water quality, 50% of agricultural land in Slovenia has 
been  under  rural  development  contracts  to  improve  water  management  in  201762. 
According to the evaluation of these contracts’ impacts63, the monitoring of water quality 
is not adapted to the Rural Development Programme (RDP) implementation leading to an 
incomplete  assessment  of  these  contracts’  impact  on  the  water  quality.  The  evaluation 
has recommended to determine sites relevant for measuring the impacts of such contracts 
and to monitor water quality with a view to determine the impacts quantitatively.  

The share of irrigated area is very limited compared to the EU-27 average and reached in 
2016  0.72%  of  the  Slovenian  UAA  compared  to  the  average  of  6.5%  for  EU-2764. 
However, this  figure for  Slovenia  demonstrates  a  significant  increase: between 2010  and 
2016  the  share  of  irrigated  area  in  Slovenia  has  increased  by  178%,  the  third  highest 
increase  in  the  EU65.  More  than  half  of  this  area  (63%)  was  arable  land  and  kitchen 
gardens66, irrigation in agriculture represents only 0.4% in the total water abstraction67.  

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

Biodiversity  in  Slovenia  is  characterised  by  its  richness  reflected  in  above  the  average 
size  of  Natura  2000  network  and  high  nature  value  farming  as  well  as  important 
landscape  diversity.  The  dominance  of  farming  with  low  input  intensity  and  the 
increasing  area  under  organic  farming  are  contributing  factors.  However,  the  status  of 
biodiversity in  terms  of bird indicators and habitats  conservation are unsatisfactory and 
show a downward trend.  

The  farmland  bird  index  decreased  from  95.1  in  2009  to  78.3  in  2018  in  Slovenia  (for 
EU-27 in 2017: 82.5)68. In the period between 2008 and 2019, the sharpest decline was 
recorded  for  meadow  birds  which  declined  by  37.8%69.  In  2019,  the  Commission 
launched  an  infringement  procedure  against  Slovenia  concerning  the  decline  of  the 
population of grassland birds and the False Ringlet butterfly and the deterioration of their 
habitats70. 

The  status  of  valuable  habitats  protected  under  Habitats  Directive  is  expressed  in  the 
context  indicator  “conservation  status  of  agricultural  habitats  (grassland)  (C.36).  In 
Slovenia,  half  (50%)  of  grassland  habitats  are  in  unfavourable-bad  status,  22%  in 
unfavourable-inadequate and 28% in favourable conservation status71. With regard to the 
situation  of  forest  habitats,  77%  of  such  habitats  is  in  a  good  condition  while  the 
remaining 23% in a non-good condition72.  

According  to  the  Slovenian  Prioritized  Action  Framework  (PAF)  the  main  agriculture-
related  threats  to  biodiversity  are  intensification  of  agricultural  use  (fertilisation, 
intensification  of  mowing  regime),  conversion  into  arable  land,  abandonment  of 
traditional  management  systems,  inappropriate  techniques  or  timing  of  mowing 
grasslands, inappropriate application of natural or inorganic fertilisers as well as drainage 
of land73.  

As  far  as  the  situation  with  landscape  features  in  Slovenia  is  concerned,  the  surface  of 
agricultural  area covered with  linear landscape elements is  well below the EU average. 
Fallow land also occupies much smaller part of agricultural area in Slovenia compared to 
the EU average (0.2% of utilised agricultural area and 4.1% respectively)74. On the other 
hand, based on the 2012 Lucas survey, Slovenia had the high landscape diversity index 
between  0.75  and  0.8  -  above  the  EU  average  (0.7)75.  Also  the  variations  in  landscape 
features diversity between regions were one of the smallest in the EU.  

17 

 
 
Slovenia  activated  a  majority  of  possible  landscape  features  in  the  context  of  cross-
compliance GAEC rules under the system for direct payments, which allows to maintain 
them. The landscape features thus supported include hedges, ponds, trees in line, groups of 
trees,  isolated  trees,  terraces  and  traditional  stone  walls.  In  contrast,  Slovenia  did  not 
activate any landscape features for the purpose of Ecological Focus Area obligation under 
greening. 

In the Slovenian context in 2017, more agricultural area was managed by farms with low 
input  intensity  than  with  high  input  intensity  per  hectare:  35.5%  against  30% 
respectively.  The  area  managed  by  farms  with  low  input  intensity  is  increasing.  These 
figures  differ  from  the  EU-27  averages:  36%  for  high  input  and  27%  for  low  input 
intensity76.  

The size of the agricultural area covered by high nature value farming in 2012 was much 
higher in Slovenia than the average for the EU-28: High Nature Value made up to 75.6% 
of the Slovenian agricultural area while it was only 32.3% for the EU-2877. Slovenia has 
an extensive network of NATURA 2000 sites which occupy almost 38 % of its territory 
(compared  to  the  EU  average  of  20%).  These  sites  represent  45.5%  of  the  Slovenian 
forest area and 23% of agricultural area (while the averages for the EU are 30% and 11% 
respectively).  To  improve  biodiversity,  56%  of  land  is  under  contracts  to  improve 
biodiversity  and/or  landscapes  in  Slovenia  in  2017  compared  with  15%  for  the  entire 
EU78. 

The total  area under organic farming is  increasing in Slovenia, covering  almost  50 000 
hectares  in  201979.  With  more  than  10 %  of  the  total  utilized  agricultural  area  under 
organic  farming  in  2019,  the  share  of  agricultural  land  under  organic  farming  is  above 
the  EU-average  in  2018  (8%).  However,  the  area  under  conversion  to  organic  farming 
has  decreased  in  recent  years  which  affects  the  potential  for  a  substantial  increase  to 
happen. 

Area under organic farming in Slovenia 

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

% of agricultural area under organic farming in Slovenia 

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

18 

 
 
 
 
 
With  208 000  beehives  and  11 349  beekeepers80,  Slovenia  engages  within  United 
Nations  to  raise  awareness  about  pollination  services  and  bees  and  promotes  the 
management practices reversing the bee decline. Slovenian programme for improving the 
production  and  marketing  of  apiculture  products  supports  activities  for  improving  bee 
health81.  

Share of agricultural area covered by  
high-diversity landscape features  

18
16
14

12
10
8

6
4
2

0

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

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

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

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

The  age  structure  in  farming  has  remained  practically  unchanged  since  2005  and  is 
markedly skewed towards categories of farm managers with more than 45 years. In 2016, 
3 230 or 4.6% of farm managers are younger than 35 years (compared with 5.1% in EU). 
Between 2005 and 2016, the share of farmers 35 years old or less oscillates between the 
lowest share of 4.0 % (in 2007) and the highest share of 4.8% (in 2013). For every farm 
manager younger than 35 years, there are approximately 8 farm managers between 35-54 
years old and 12 farm managers older than 55 years. The share of female farm managers 
younger than 35 years shrunk from 0.9% to 0.7% between 2005 and 2016 (in comparison 
with share of female farm managers that shrunk from 26% in 2005 to 20% in 2016)82.  

The transfers of farms are delayed to late ages or do not occur due to challenges of small-
scale and semi-subsistence agriculture. Most of farmers start their agricultural activities 
by way of a transfer of assets and of the managerial function within a family and many 
young  farmers  set  up  with  the  support  of  the  Rural  Development  Programmes  (RDP). 
Young  farmers  have  access  to  advisory  service  for  the  preparation  of  the  application 
forms for the support from the RDP as well as access to other types of advice targeting 
entire  farmer  population  (e.g.  on  organic  farming  and  on  animal  welfare).  A  one-stop 
shop advisory service on transfer of farms and its consequences on family revues, tax and 
inheritance obligations is not available. 

The development of farms, including farms of young farmers, is hampered by a limited 
participation of farmers on financial market, especially of farms with less than 20 ha of 
land.  In  addition,  market  fails  to  provide  guarantees  and  loans  at  preferable  conditions 

19 

 
 
 
and  accessible  lending  costs.  Many  young  farmers  not  only  lack  experience  with  prior 
business and possession  of a record of the credit history but also  report not to consider 
themselves  to  be  sufficiently  literate  in  finance  and  business  skills  to  present  loan 
applications83.  

Agronomic  knowledge  obtainable  in  certified  programmes  and  support  of  advisory 
service are accessible to young farmers, yet there is little evidence that programmes and 
services  are  well  adapted  to  the  need  for  knowledge  and  skills  about  financing  and 
market  orientation  of  the  sector.  Attained  levels  of  agricultural  education  significantly 
increased between 2005 and 2016 across all age categories and especially for farmers 35 
years old or less. In 2016, 30% of young farmers In Slovenia attained basic and 29% full 
agricultural education in 2016, which is a way above EU attainments (i.e. with 21% for 
basic and 22% with full education)84. 

The RDP 2007-2013 transferred 64 491 of agricultural and forestry land85 and the RDP 
2014-2020  so  far  transferred  7 410  ha  of  forestry  and  26 681  of  agricultural  land86. 
According to the 2019 Report of the Farmland and Forestry Fund, roughly 54 000 ha of 
state owned agricultural land have been leased without a reference to a possible priority 
access for young farmers87.  

Between  2007  and  2019,  3 761  young  farmers  were  supported  for  setting  up  from  the 
RDPs88.  In  terms  of  direct  payments,  Slovenia  has  seen  an  increase  of  15.73%  in  the 
number  of  farmers  eligible  for  the  young  farmers’  payment  between  2015  and  201889. 
Even  though  there  has  also  been  an  increase  of  8%  in  the  number  of  hectares  held  by 
young  farmers  between  these  years,  the  payment  per  hectare  has  suffered  a  negative 
variation of -6%90 for this specific payment.   

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Slovenia 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

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

Share of farm managers <35 years by gender, EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 

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

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

Rural areas cover 73.8% of the territory of Slovenia (in comparison to 45.0% of the EU-
27)91, house 58.2% of people living in Slovenia (in 2019) (in comparison to 20.8% of the 
EU-27)92,  account  for  57.7%  of  employed  people  in  Slovenia  (in  2018)93  and  create 
48.9% of gross value added created by Slovenian economy (in 2016)94 and have 51.0% 

20 

 
 
 
 
of  bed  places  in  tourist  accommodations  in  Slovenia  (in  2016)95.  The  rest  of  the 
Slovenian territory are intermediary areas.  

Gross domestic product (GDP) in rural areas is 16 343 EUR/inhabitant (in comparison to 
EUR  19 302  EUR/inhabitant  in  rural  areas  EU-27)  (in  2016).  However,  within 
intermediary  areas  there  are  significant  disparities:  one  sub-region  out  of  there  sub-
regions  has  GDP  higher  than  rural  areas  but  lower  than  in  rural  areas  EU-27  (i.e. 
Gorenjska with 17 200 EUR/inhabitant) whereas Osrednjeslovenska and Primorska sub-
regions  with  respectively  27 700  EUR/inhabitant  and  with  19 500  EUR/inhabitant  are 
above GDP in rural areas EU-27)  96.  Rural areas also lag markedly behind intermediate 
areas in purchasing power standard (PPS) compared to EU average (with respectively 72 
index points and 106 index points in 2017). In comparison to 2005, the PPS in 2017 in 
rural areas and in intermediate areas shrunk respectively by 2 and by 6 index points97.  

the 

In  2016,  there  were  on  average  67  non-financial  businesses  per  1000  inhabitants  in 
Slovenia.  However,  sub-regional  differences  in  Slovenia  are  significant:  rural  sub-
regions  Pomurska  and  Zasavska  with  respectively  39.5  and  41.6  businesses  per  1000 
inhabitants  are  on 
intermediary  sub-regions 
lower  end  of  spectrum  and 
Osrednjeslovenska region and Primorska with respectively 79.2 and 77.1 businesses per 
1000  inhabitants  are  on  its  upper  end.  In  2017,  94.1%  of  businesses  in  Slovenia  were 
micro, 4.8% were small businesses, 0.9% were medium-sized businesses and 0.2% were 
large companies. On average, a Slovenian enterprise employs 4.5 people. The processing 
industry created in 2017 by far the largest share of value added in Slovenia, i.e. 35.8% of 
value  added  (in  comparison  with  32.25%  in  Slovenia  in  2010  and  in  comparison  with 
23.6% in EU in 2016)98.  

The economy of rural areas has been marked by a structural and economic dependency 
from  the  primary  sector.  With  11.4%  share  of  employed  in  primary  sector  in  2016  (in 
comparison with 3.6% share of employed in the primary sector in the intermediary areas) 
primary  sector  continues  to  play  an  important  role  in  the  structure  of  the  economy  in 
rural areas99.  

In  Slovenia,  41 120  (i.e.  59%  of  all  farms)  generate  standard  output  of  less  than  EUR 
8 000 (in 2016)100. This means that most of Slovenian farms rely on income from non-
agricultural  sources.  Some  farms  sustain  themselves  with  diversification  related  to 
agriculture and some of the family income of Slovenian farms comes from sources other 
than agriculture and diversification.  

Overall, rural  areas  were not  depopulated but  have been  associated  with  rapid  aging of 
population. Between 2005 and 2019 the share of people older than 65 years in rural areas 
grew by 33% whereas the share of people between 15 and 65 years old shrunk by 8%. In 
contrast to zero population growth in rural areas, the population in the intermediary areas 
grew  by  10%  between  2005  and  2019  and  had  7-times  the  net  migration  of  the  rural 
areas101.  

In 2019, employed persons as a share of total population 15-64 years old people in rural 
areas  was  71.7%  (compared  to  68.4%  in  rural  areas  EU-27).  The  employment  rate  in 
rural areas has been steadily increasing with the recovery from the 2008 crisis. In 2018, 
74.8%  of  men  and  66.8%  of  women  in  the  population  15-64  years  old  people  in  rural 
areas  were  employed102.  Compared  to  the  EU  average  of  4.0%,  Slovenia  has  3.9% 
agricultural  employment  in  the  total  employment  (in  2019).  In  2016,  43.4%  of  farm 
regular work force women103.  

21 

 
 
In  2018,  share  of  unemployed  persons  as  a  share  of  total  population  15-74  years  old 
people in  rural  areas was 4.6% (compared to  6.3% in  rural  EU-27).  In 2018, the  youth 
unemployment  rate  of  15-24  years  old  people  in  rural  areas  was  7.7%  (compared  to 
14.6%  in  rural  EU-27)104.  The  unemployment  rate  in  rural  areas  has  been  steadily 
decreasing  since  the  recovery  from  the  2008  crisis  for  all  age  categories105.  In  2018, 
poverty rate in rural areas was 16.6% (in comparison with 23.6% in rural areas EU-27)106 
and has been steadily decreasing since 2013 when 21.7% of people in rural areas were at 
risk of poverty107. 

In 2018, female unemployment in rural areas for age categories 20 to 24 years and from 
25  to  49  years  was  about  roughly  3  percentage  points  higher  than  male  unemployment 
rate in the same age categories108.  

Regarding  the  employment  opportunities,  significant  disparities  between  cities/urban 
centres  and  smaller  towns/rural  areas  are  notable.  Socio-economic  indicators  show  a 
major  divide  between  the  growing  capital  that  alone  attracts  skilled  people  in  higher 
value-added  sectors  and  the  rest  of  the  country  where  gains  in  employment  are 
concentrated  in  lower-value-added  sectors109.  In  addition,  the  female  (un)employment 
rate in rural areas might be related also with unmet needs for institutional care or home 
care110 and formal childcare services111.  

To  build  up  the  resilience  of  local  communities,  three  European  Structural  and 
Investment Funds support community led local development in Slovenia covering entire 
Slovenian territory. This engages 37 partnerships build in framework of 37 local action 
groups which predominantly promote projects cantered on basic services and job creation 
and to a lesser extent as well on environmental protection and social inclusion112.  

The share of forest area is 61.5% (in comparison with 39.8% in EU-27)113. Gross value 
added/forest  area  available  for  food  supply  is  234  EUR/ha  (in  comparison  with  200 
EUR/ha  in  the  EU)  and  has  increased  by  236 %  between  2005  and  2017114.  Forestry 
sector provides 0,4 % of employment as a share of total population (in comparison with 
0.3%  in  EU-27)115.  The  increment  of  the  growing  stock  was  due  to  low  intensity 
harvesting,  which  was  in  line  with  strategic  forest  management  objectives.  During  the 
period  2007-2012,  the  increment  was  about  8.1  Mio.  y-1,  while  the  annual  cut  was 
roughly 4 Mio. m³ 116. Most of harvested timber is exported as round wood117. Harvesting 
and management of forests are hampered by the large number of forest owners and small 
and fragmented tenure.118 

In 2017, 113 700 people are employed in the bio-economy and the employment in bio-
economy has decreased by 17.4% between 2008 and 2017. In 2017, the turnover is EUR 
7  billion  and  has  been  slightly  increasing  since  2009,  however  it  is  below  EUR  7.3 
billion in 2008. In terms of added value the largest bio-based sectors in 2017 are food & 
beverage, agricultural, forestry, wood products and bio-based chemicals119. 

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. 

Improving the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and health pursues 
the  same  objectives  as  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy,  in  particular  when  it  comes  to  the 
targets set on reducing the use of inputs, such as pesticides and antimicrobials, as well as 
objectives  on  animal  welfare,  sustainable  food  consumption  and  addressing  food 
loss/waste.  The  need  for  the  transformation  of  the  food  system  in  Slovenia  to  address 

22 

 
 
societal concerns, and to contribute to sustainable diets, is particularly relevant in view of 
the issues addressed below.  

The challenge of stimulating the shift to healthy  and sustainable food consumption is a 
common  EU  challenge,  considering  its  health  and  also  environmental  impacts.  The 
estimated average prevalence of overweight among adults in the EU is around 52%.120 In 
addition,  more than one-third (36.9%) of the EU population  is  pre-obese with  a further 
14.9% being obese. A significant part of the Slovenian population is overweight (52.5%) 
or obese (16.2%) 121. Slovenia is among the countries with currently high consumption of 
red meat122. Furthermore, Slovenia has a high burden from non-communicable diseases 
due  to  dietary  risk  factors  expressed  as  Disability  Adjusted  Life  Year  (DALYs)  per 
100 000  population  attributable  to  diet.  Therefore,  Slovenia  should  facilitate  a  shift 
towards healthy sustainable diets, more plant-based with less red and processed meat and 
more fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, in line with national 
dietary recommendations in order to contribute to reducing overweight and obesity rates 
and  the  incidence  of  non-communicable  diseases  while  simultaneously  improving  the 
overall  environmental  impact  of  the  food  system.  The  CAP  can  complement  national 
policies and private initiatives that are needed to meet this goal. 

The sales in veterinary antimicrobial agents show a very positive result and have reduced 
over time in Slovenia, although a reversal of this trend seems to appear according to the 
latest available data. However, sales stand well below the EU average. Namely, between 
2010 and 2018 Slovenia registered a drop in  sales of 8%. The total  volume of sales  of 
veterinary antimicrobial agents in 2018 was 7.8 tonnes or 43.2 mg/PCU. As pointed out, 
this reduction trend is uneven, with the lowest level registered in 2013 at 22.4 mg/PCU, 
followed by a subsequent increase to 33.4 mg/PCU in 2014 and finally to 43.2 mg/PCU 
in 2018.123 This is nevertheless well below the EU average of 118.3 mg/PCU and in line 
with  the  Green  Deal  target  to  reduce  the  overall  EU  sales  of  antimicrobials  for  farmed 
animals and in aquaculture by 50% by 2030.  

A  DG  SANTE  report124  from  2016  concludes  that  several  mostly  voluntary  policy 
initiatives aimed at avoiding the need for antimicrobials in animals and encouraging their 
prudent use has contributed to the relatively low sales  of antimicrobials  compared with 
other Member States. Various aspects of these could serve as examples of good practices 
for other Member States. The further development of policies to promote the prudent use 
of  antimicrobials  is  part  of  the  revised  national  strategy  for  combatting  AMR  which 
encompasses both human and veterinary issues in a “One Health” approach. 

In relation to animal welfare, the main concerns are twofold. First, tail docking of pigs is 
a  routine  practice,  although  this  is  prohibited  as  a  routine  measure  by  EU  rules.  The 
percentage of pigs reared with intact tails has barely changed since 2016 and conditions 
on farm must improve if the number of tail-docked pigs is to start to decrease. Second, 
the approval and inspection of livestock vessels does not guarantee the compliance of the 
ship  with  the  requirements  in  Regulation  1/2005  and  therefore  does  not  adequately 
minimise  the  risks  for  the  welfare  of  the  animals.125  Furthermore,  farm  biosecurity  is 
another challenge. Slovenia is not among the countries affected by African Swine Fever 
(ASF) but it is in the higher risk category which requires prevention against the spread of 
the disease.   

In terms of quantities, 1 171 tones of active substances in plant protection products were 
sold  in  Slovenia  in  2018.126  The majority  (72%) of plant protection products sold  were 
fungicides  and  bactericides,  22%  were  sold  from  the  herbicide  group  and  5%  were 
insecticides  and  acaricides.  Out  of  total  volume  of  fungicides  sold,  more  than  half  are 

23 

 
 
products  based  on  copper  and  sulphur,  which  are  allowed  to  be  used  in  organic 
production.127 

Based on the harmonised risk indicator 1 (HRI 1) calculated under the Sustainable Use 
Directive,  the  use  and  risk  from  pesticides  increased  by  9%  in  Slovenia  between  2011 
and 2018, compared to a 17% decline in the EU. This is the sixth highest increase among 
Member States. Slovenia is listed as the ninth most intensive user of pesticides in the EU 
based on the kg of active substances sold128 per hectare of Utilisable Agricultural Area. 
In  2018,  there  were  2.5  kg  of  pesticide  active  substances  sold  per  hectare  of  Utilisable 
Agricultural  Area  in  Slovenia,  compared  to  an  average  of  2.3  kg/hectare  for  the  EU, 
although  pesticides  are  also  sold  intended  for  use  in  other  sectors  than  agriculture. 
Namely,  the  statistical  survey  performed  in  Slovenia  in  2017  showed  that  the  use  of 
pesticides in agriculture was only a half of the total sale of pesticides in that year (out of 
1,087 tons of active substances in plant protection products sold in 2017, 510 tons were 
consumed in agriculture)129.  

Food waste is a growing problem in Slovenia, particularly in terms of food waste that is 
still edible. The issue of food losses and waste is multi-faceted and takes place in all links 
of the food supply chain. As in previous years, in 2018 more than half of food waste was 
generated in households (52% or almost 73 200 tonnes). One third of food waste (almost 
42 100 tonnes) was created in catering and other activities in which food is served, e.g. 
schools,  kindergartens,  hospitals,  people’s  homes.  One  tenth  of  the  food  waste  (around 
13 800 tonnes) was generated in distribution and grocery stores. Little less than one tenth 
(about  10 800  tonnes)  of  food  waste  has  been  generated  in  food  production  (including 
primary food production).130 

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

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

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

HRI 1 in Slovenia 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

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. 

European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for 
pesticides (HRI 1), by group of active substance. As in 
EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51] 

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

The  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Innovation  Systems  (AKIS)131  132  in  Slovenia  is 
classified as ‘medium strong’.Cooperation between agricultural universities, farmers and 
local  advisors  has  increased  in  recent  years  through  roughly  EUR  20  million  of  public 
support allocated for this purpose in the rural development programme. Still, according 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
to  the  Pro-AKIS  study  carried  out  at  EU  level,  Slovenia  is  positioned  half  way  on  the 
scale from ‘fragmented’ towards ‘integrated’. While key participants are involved in the 
system, resources are available and farmers can access relevant knowledge, the level of 
their  interactions  (e.g.  between  research  and  advisers  which  is  a  key  for  establishing 
knowledge flows) is still limited. 

Flows  of  knowledge  from  research  to  practice  and  back133  134  135  include  connections 
between  research  and  practice,  existing  interactive  platforms,  translation  of  research 
results into a practical  language understandable for farmers  and communicated through 
the trusted media channels. The high level of integration into the EU research area (ERA) 
affects  the  national  AKIS  favourably.  There  are  good  examples  of  European  policies 
working in synergy (Horizon 2020 and CAP) aimed at connecting actors from research 
and practice and at disseminating knowledge.  

In  Slovenia,  advisors  are  a  key  pillar  of  the  implementation  of  AKIS.  Concretely,  they 
take  the  initiative  for  possible  projects  initiated  by  farmers,  they  draft  agricultural 
projects  and  facilitate  operational  groups,  and  help  fasten  the  implementation  of 
innovations. In Slovenia the public side of advisory services is quite well established but 
some effort needs to be made to move towards a more inclusive system in terms of wider 
scope of topics.    

Under  the  Rural  Development  Programme  2014-2020,  3.91%  of  total  public  allocation 
was  initially  programmed  for  knowledge  exchange,  advisory  services  and  innovation 
actions  but  the  subsequent  reprogramming  led  to  current  level  of  allocation  of  2.85% 
which  is  considerably  below  the  EU-28  average  of  3.8%.  The  actual  spending  for 
training  and  cooperation  is  lagging  behind  (with  respectively  26.6%  and  7.4%  of  the 
allocation). 

The  Slovenian  Rural  Network  (SRN)  136  has  the  objective  of  fostering  innovation  in 
agriculture,  food  production,  and  forestry  and  connect  rural  areas.  Its  communication 
tools  include  newsletters,  audio-visual  library,  social  networks  and  organisation  of 
workshops and events. 

As regards human resources related to National Rural Networks (NRN) less than 5 Full 
Time Equivalent (FTE) employees support the operation in the 32 network support units 
across the EU in Slovenia which is in the low number of employees range. Despite this, 
the  NRN  has  been  an  important  and  proven  facilitator  of  knowledge  and  innovation 
exchange.137  Its  facilitating  role  was  especially  prominent  in  initial  phase  of  when 
relevant  stakeholders  have  been  animated  for  the  implementation  of  the  innovation 
cooperation projects in Slovenia.  Currently its main role is to support the “EIP I Know 
point”,  i.e.  a  one-stop  shop  with  information  for  interested  parties  in  various  types  of 
innovative  cooperation.  Once  the  projects  are  implemented  it  is  expected  it  would 
facilitate also the dissemination of the outcomes of projects. This experience can provide 
a  good  basis  for  the  future  national  CAP  Network  for  collecting  information  –  e.g. 
through  knowledge  platforms  –  and  thus  facilitate  the  implementation  of  relevant 
research and innovation results. 

Until  2020,  32  operational  groups  have  been  launched  under  the  European  Innovation 
Partnership  (EIP-AGRI).  The  innovation  fields  are  diverse,  stretching  from  inventing 
new  diversification  activities  on  farms,  to  experimenting  in  digitalisation  of  forest 
management  and  forestry  sector  and  improving  the  resource  efficiency  and  production 
techniques  in  agriculture.  According  to  the  Rural  Development  Programme  in  total  60 
different forms of cooperation are planned to be supported by the end of the period.  

25 

 
 
In 2016, at least 50 % of farm managers in Slovenia had basic or full agricultural training 
(in  comparison  with  32 %  in  EU-28)  138  139  140.  The  share  of  farm  managers  with  full 
training  (i.e.  14.48%)  in  Slovenia  are  well  above  the  EU  average  of  8.9%  of  total 
managers.  This  share  has  been  steadily  increasing  since  2005.  The  share  of  managers 
with  basic  agricultural  training  is  35.41%.  Slovenia  has  a  well  developed  agricultural 
education system. Under the Rural Development Programme, transfer of knowledge was 
so  far  provided  through  the  training  during  639  training  days  to  59,840  participants 
(workshops/training/study visits) and through advice to 19,774 beneficiaries. 

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

Managers with full 
agricultural 
training 

Managers with 
basic agricultural 
training 

Full training EU 
average 

Basic training EU 
average 

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

In  2019,  37.7%  of  rural  households  had  no  access  to  Next  Generation  Access  (NGA) 
broadband  infrastructure  (in  comparison  to  40.7 %  in  rural  areas  in  the  EU  and  13.1% 
nationally)  and  4.5%  of  rural  households  had  no  access  to  standard  broadband 
infrastructure141.  The  rolling  out  of  broadband  is  hampered  by  a  dispersed  settlement 
pattern  and  hilly  and  mountainous  landscape.  Under  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment Funds 2014-2020 roughly EUR 32 million for developing NGA in Slovenia 
have  been  allocated.  According  to  the  explanations  the  Slovenian  authorities  gave  in 
annual meetings, the construction of most of the lacking broadband infrastructure has not 
yet  started  due  to  delays  in  awarding  construction  works.  Further,  27.2%  of  the 
population living in sparsely populated areas have low level of digital skills (i.e. missing 
some  type  of  basic  digital  skills)  (compared  to  31.7%  in  rural  areas  in  the  EU)142. 
Regarding the digital  skills as a whole, overall 55% of all inhabitants  in  Slovenia have 
basic or above basic digital skills (in comparison with 56% in EU-27).143  

In  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI)  144  which  considers  5  dimensions, 
namely  connectivity,  human  capital,  use  of  internet  services,  integration  of  digital 
technologies and digital public services, the country ranks below EU average performing 
particularly weak as it regard the use of internet services.  

Slovenia  has  so  far  not  opted  for  the  use  of  satellite-based  means  to  monitor  CAP 
implementation but intends to do so in 2021. 

26 

 
 
 
There are four operational Digital Innovation Hubs in Slovenia related to digitalisation of 
agricultural  holdings  for  forest  management  planning;  digital  forest  inventory;  organic 
food  supply  chains;  agricultural  production  system  for  forestry,  in  a  total  of  142  hubs 
amongst EU members145 which aim to assist the sector to take up innovative approaches 
and thus to improve competitiveness through the use of digital technologies. 

Broadband coverage in Slovenia 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

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

27 

 
 
 
1   European  Commission.  Common  Agriculture  Policy  context 

indicator  C.26  Agricultural 
entrepreneurial  income. Income  based  on  EUROSTAT  [aact_eaa04],  [aact_ali01]  and  [aact_eaa06], 
adding  back  the  compensation  of  employees  to  the  entrepreneurial  income  and  divided  by  the  total 
number of annual working units. Note: 2019 data estimated. The Average wage in the economy based 
on  EUROSTAT  [nama_10_a10_e]  thousand  hours  worked  using  employees’  domestic  concept  and 
[2019 
salaries.  
All the latest data for the context indicators is available on the EUROPA website. For more information 
about  the  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  (CMEF)  to  assess  the  performance  of  the 
Common Agricultural Policy is available here.  

nama_10_a10], 

wages 

item 

and 

2   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development.  CAP context indicator C.25 Agricultural 

factor income. Based on EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06] 

3   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.SIZ6  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018) 

4   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.SIZ6  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018) 

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

support in agricultural income. 

6   European Commission.  Directorate  General  for  Agriculture and  Rural Development own calculations 
based  on  FADN  (Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network)  data  (2015)  and  CATS  (Clearance  of  Accounts 
Trailing System) data (up to 2017) 

7   European Commission. Directorate  General  for  Agriculture and  Rural Development own calculations 

based on FADN data (up to 2018) 

8   FADN  does  not  take  into  account  very  small  farms.  The  small  physical  size  farms  considered  in  the 

analysis may have a higher income compared to the average with all small physical size farms. 

year 

9   European Commission. Summary report on the implementation of direct payments [except greening]  - 
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

Claim 
fisheries/key_policies/documents/summary-report-implementation-direct-payements-claim-2018.pdf] 
10   European Commission. Directorate  General  for  Agriculture and  Rural Development own calculations 
based  on  FADN  (Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network)  data  (up  to  2018)  and  CATS  (Clearance  of 
Accounts Trailing System)  data (up to 2018) 

2018 

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

EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfe2en2]. 

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

[apro_cpsh1]. 

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg] 

14   Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. SWOT analysis for the specific No.2 

of the CAP Strategic Plan. November 2020. 

15   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.16 Labour productivity in the food industry. Based on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10_a64] and [lfsa_egan22d] 

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

[apro_cpsh1] 

17   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.21  Livestock  units.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

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

18   European Commission. CAP result indicators C.27, Total factor productivity in agriculture. Based on 
EUROSTAT [aact_eaa05], [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01], [apro_cpsh1] and [ef_mptenure] and FADN. 
19   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.28  Gross  fixed  capital  formation.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3gva] and [nama_10r_2gfcf]. 

20   Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. SWOT analysis for the specific No.2 

of the CAP Strategic Plan. November 2020. 

21   European  Commission.  European  Investment  Bank.  (2020).  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and 

agri-food sectors in Slovenia. 

22   European  Commission.  European  Investment  Bank.  (2020).  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and 

agri-food sectors in Slovenia. 

23   Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. SWOT analysis for the specific No.2 

of the CAP Strategic Plan. November 2020. 

24   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer.  CAP Impact indicator I.06, Agricultural trade 

balance, based on EUROSTAT Comext. 

28 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
25   Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. SWOT analysis for the specific No.3 

of the CAP Strategic Plan. November 2020.   

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

primary producers in the food chain. 

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

primary producers in the food chain. 

28   Slovenia’s SWOT – SO3 
29   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_03  Value  for 

primary producers in the food chain. 

30   Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. SWOT analysis for the specific No.3 

of the CAP Strategic Plan. November 2020.   

31   Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. SWOT analysis for the specific No.3 

of the CAP Strategic Plan. November 2020.  

32   European Commission. (2019). Study of the best ways for producer organisations to be formed, carry 

out their activities and be supported. 

33   Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. SWOT analysis for the specific No.3 

of the CAP Strategic Plan. November 2020.   

34   Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. SWOT analysis for the specific No.3 

of the CAP Strategic Plan. November 2020.   

35   Annual implementation Report of Rural Development Programme of Slovenia, 2019. 
36   European  Environmental  Agency 

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

(EEA).  EEA 

greenhouse 

gas 

data 

viewer. 

37   Joint  Research  Center  (JRC).  Relative  cover  (%)  of  peat  soils  (0–30cm),  per  country. 

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

38   FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment  

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

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

and forestry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_c] 
related 

data 

climate 

to 

40   All 

change 

and 

projections 

from: 

http://meteo.arso.gov.si/uploads/probase/www/climate/text/sl/publications/OPS21_Porocilo.pdf 

41   Sušnik,  A.  New  approaches  to  better  drought  management  in  Slovenia  and  Danube  region  -  2nd 
Workshop  of  the  Water  platform  of  the  Alpine  Convention  on  Drought  Risk  Management  in  Alps. 
Vienna, 
2018. 
https://www.alpconv.org/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/downloads_en/2_organisation_en/organisat
ion_thematicworkingbodies_en/Water_Management_in_the_Alps/2nd_Workshop_on_Drought_Risk_
Management_in_the_Alps/8_drought_management_Slovenia.pdf 

42   European  Commission.  Directorate-General  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  analysis  based  on 

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

43   National  Renewable  Energy  Action  Plan  2010-2020 

(NREAP).  Ljubljana, 

July  2010 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/renewable-energy/national-renewable-energy-action-plans-2020_en 

44   European 

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

Environmental  Agency 

emissions 

pollutant 

Air 

viewer, 

45   European Commission. CAP context indicator C45 Emissions from agriculture. Based on EUROSTAT 
(UNFCC_v22), 

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

Environmental 

original 

Agency 

source 

46   Report 

on 

the 

Environment 

in 

the 

Republic 

of 

Slovenia 

2017.  

http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/pomembni_dokumenti/porocilo_o_okolju_2
017.pdf        

47   According  to  the  study  conducted  in  2020  by  the  Slovenian  National  Institute  for  Agriculture,  the 
average soil erosion rate in Slovenia is 3.18 t/ha per year. To take into account a very varied relief in 
the topography of Slovenia, the study also looked at the erosion rate for the areas outside of the areas 
with a slope> 50% which represents 345,624 ha of the Slovenia territory. Based on this methodology, 
an average annual loss of soil due to erosion in Slovenia is 2.63 t/ha per year.  

48   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C42  Soil  erosion  by  water.  Original  source:  Joint 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

Research 
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

Center 

49   European Commission. CAP specific objectives explained - Brief No. 5 on Efficient Soil Management. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/cap-specific-
objectives-brief-5-soil_en.pdf  

29 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
50   EUROSTAT. [ef_mp_prac].  
51   EUROSTAT. [ef_mp_soil].  
52   European  Commission.  Agri-food  data  portal 

–  CAP 

indicators  on 

Soil  quality. 

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

53   Annual implementation report of Rural Development Programme of Slovenia, 2018 
54   EUROSTAT.[aei_pr_gnb].   
55   European Commission, CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 
and European Environmental Agency as in Waterbase – Water Quality, CSI020, based on data reported 
to  EIONET    https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-
context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf   

56   EUROSTAT. 

indicator 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-
_risk_of_pollution_by_phosphorus#Analysis_at_EU_level  

Agri-environmental 

pollution 

risk 

by 

of 

- 

phosphorus. 

57   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Accompanying  the  Report  from  the 
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Directive 
91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural 
sources based on Member State reports for the period 2012-2015. SWD(2018) 246 final.  

58   Report on the Environment in the Republic of Slovenia 2017. 
59   European  Commission.  Agri-food  data  portal  –  CAP  indicators  on  Water  Quality  and  Availability. 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/WaterQuality.html?select=EU27_FLAG,
1 

60   European Commission.  Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on 
the  implementation  of  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against 
pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources  based on Member State  reports for the  period 
2012–2015. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0257 

COM(2018) 

final. 

257 

61   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document, Second River Basin Management Plans 
– Member State: Slovenia Accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament 
and the Council on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods 
Directive  (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans. 
SWD(2019) 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
final. 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:55:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN  

55 

62  https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/WaterQuality.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
63   Annual implementation Report of Rural Development Programme of Slovenia, 2018. 
64  https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/WaterQuality.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
65   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.20 Irrigated land. Based on EUROSTAT [ef_poirrig] 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

and 
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-indicators-doc-c20_2018_en.pdf 

[ef_m_farmleg] 

66   Statistical  Office  of 

the  Republic  of  Slovenia. 

Irrigation  area,  Slovenia,  2018.  Https: 

//www.stat.si/StatWeb/News/Index/8097 

67   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.39  Water  abstraction  in  agriculture.  Based  on 

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

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

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

69   Monitoring  of  widespread  bird  species  to  determine  the  Slovenian  index  of  birds  in  the  agricultural 
2019. 

landscape 
https://www.ptice.si/wpcontent/uploads/2019/01/2020_5_2_SIPKK_2019_poročilo_v2.pdf  

partial 

report 

for 

70   A letter of formal notice to Slovenia sent in July 2019 (Infringement No. 2019/4058) 
71   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.36  Conservation  status  of  agricultural  habitats. 

- 

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

72   European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA).  Proportion  of  habitats  area  in  good  or  not good  condition. 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/state-of-nature-in-the-eu/article-17-national-summary-
dashboards/condition-of-habitat  

73   The 

Slovenian 

Prioritised 

Action 

Framework 

(PAF). 

http://www.natura2000.si/fileadmin/user_upload/IP_PAF_Slovenia_final.pdf  

74   DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey. 

30 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
 
 
75   EUROSTAT. Landscape diversity expressed by the Shannon evenness index, by NUTS 2 regions, 2012. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=File:Landscape_diversity_expressed_by_the_Shannon_evenness_index,_by_
NUTS_2_regions,_2012_(index,_range_%3D_0%E2%80%931)_RYB14.png  

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

environmental indicator “Intensification/Extensification” 

77   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.37 HNV (High Nature Value) farming.  
78   European  Commission.  Agri-food 

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

indicators 

–  CAP 

portal 

data 

79   EUROSTAT. [org_cropar]. 
80   Based  on  data  submitted  by  Slovenia  to  the  European  Commission  according  to  Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1368 of 6 August 2015 laying down rules for the application of 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to aid in the 
apiculture sector. 

81   Decree on the implementation of the Action Programme for Beekeeping in the Republic of Slovenia for 

2020-2022 of 19 December 2019.  

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

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang]. 

83   EIB. Financial needs in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Slovenia (2020). 
84   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]. 

85   Annual implementation report of Rural Development Programme of Slovenia, 2015. P 31. 
86   Annual implementation report of Rural Development Programme of Slovenia, 2019. P. 22. 
87   Sklad  kmetijskih  zemljišč  in  gozdov  Republike  Slovenije.  Poročilo  o  delu  in  zaključni  račun  Sklada 

kmetijskih zemljišč in gozdov Republike Slovenije za leto2019. 2020. P. 29.  

88   Annual  Implementation  Report  of  Rural  Development  Programme  of  Slovenia,  2015.  Annual 

Implementation Report of Rural Development Programme of Slovenia, 2020.  

89   This takes  into consideration  farmers  who  would have been eligible for the Young Farmers Payment 

(YFP) and have decided to opt in for the Small Farm Scheme. 

90   European Commission. Directorate  General  for  Agriculture and  Rural Development own calculations 

based on CATS (Clearance of Accounts Trailing System) data (2015-2018). 

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

[urt_d3area]. 

92   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.01  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[demo_r_gind3].  

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

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3empers] 

94   EUROSTAT. [urt_10r_3gva]. 
95   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.30  Tourism  infrastructure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[tour_cap_nuts2d] 

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

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp]. 

97   EUROSTAT [urt_10r_3gdp]. 
98   Močnik,  D.,  Duh  D.,  in  Crnogaj  K..  Slovenska  podjetniška  demografija  in  prenos  podjetij.  Slovenski 
podjetniški observatorij 2018. Univerzitetna založba Univerze v Mariboru. 2020. P 17, 21, 23, 44. 
99   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.11  Structure  of  the  employment.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [nama_10r_3empers] 

100  EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmleg].  
101  European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.01  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[demo_r_gind3]. 

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

[lfst_r_ergau]. 

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

EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfe2en2]. 

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

[lfst_r_lfu3rt]. 

105  EUROSTAT. [lfst_r_ergau].  
106  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.09 Poverty rate. Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps11] 
107  EUROSTAT. [ilc_peps13]. 
108  EUROSTAT. [lfst_r_urgau]. 

31 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
109  European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Country  Report  Slovenia  2019.  

SWD(2019) 1023 final. P 9. 

110  European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Country  Report  Slovenia  2019.  

SWD(2019) 1023 final. P 21. 

111  EUROSTAT. [ilc_ats04]. 
112  Annual implementation report of Rural Development Programme of Slovenia, 2019. 
113  FAO 2020 Global Forest Resources Assessment. 

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

114  EUROSTAT. [nama_10a64, for_eco_cp and for_area]. 
115  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.13  Employment  by  economic  activity.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfe2en2] 

116  Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food.  National Forestry Accounting Plan 

for Slovenia. 2019. P.15. 

117  Exported  round  wood  in  2017  and  2019  was  roughly  3  million  m3  and  2  million  m3  respectively: 
and 

https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/News/Index/7660 

Office 

Statistical 
https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/News/Index/9083. 

Slovenia 

of 

118  Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. National Forestry Accounting Plan 

for Slovenia. 2019. P.19. 

119  https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html 
120  EUROSTAT. [sdg_02_10]. overweight rates are above EU27 average 
121  EUROSTAT. [sdg_02_10]. overweight rates are above EU27 average 
122  defined as beef, lamb and pork, 151,40g/per capita/d,  net of waste in the EU 2010,  GBD study 2017 

and M. Springmann, personal communication 

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  DG 

SANTE 

audit 

report 

(2016), 

https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-

analysis/audit_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=3771&rep_inspection_ref=xxx 

125  Letter Commissioner Kyriakides to the Member States  
126  Statistical  office  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia.  https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/9050 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/aei_fm_salpest09/default/table?lang=en 
127  Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/News/Index/7617 
128  Please note that the pesticide sales statistics are not split by sector. Pesticides can be use in other sectors 

than agriculture, such as in forestry and in public areas. 

129  Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/8014  
130  Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/News/Index/8433  
131  European Commission PRO-AKIS Overview Preparing for future AKIS in Europe, 2019 
132  European Commission EU SCAR AKIS Preparing for future AKIS in Europe, 2019 
133  European Commission Slovenia Horizon 2020 country profile  
134  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]. 

135  European Commission EIP-AGRI Operational Groups 
136  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training]. 

137  Annual Implementation Report of the Rural Development Programme of Slovenia 2019.   
138  European Commission CAP  context indicator C24, 2019 Based on EUROSTAT 
139  European Commission Digital scoreboard, key indicators 
140  Annual implementation report of Rural Development Programme of Slovenia, 2019. 
141  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. DESI individual indicators – 1b1 Fast BB 

(NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc]  

142  EUROSTAT. [isoc_sk_dskl_i]. 
143  European  Commission.  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index.  DESI  individual  indicators  –  ict-skills  

based on [isoc_sk_dskl_i]  

144  European Commission Digital Economy and Society Index DESI by components 
145  European Commission Smart Specialisation Platform 

32