Analysis of actual land availability in the EU; trends in unused, abandoned and degraded (non-)agricultural land and use for energy and other non-food crops : final report.
Date: 2022-12-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy
Subjects: EU energy policy, abandoned land, agricultural land, biomass, circular economy, energy production, land productivity, renewable energy, report

ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND 
AVAILABILITY IN THE EU;  
TRENDS IN UNUSED,  
ABANDONED AND DEGRADED  
(NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND 
USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER 
NON-FOOD CROPS 

Final report 

Written by: B. Elbersen; K. Hart; M. Koper; M. van Eupen; C. Keenleyside; S Verzandvoort; K. Kort; A. Cormont; 
A. Giadrossi and D. Baldock 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Prepared for the European Commission, DG ENER,  
under service contract N° ENER/C2/2018-440/ SI2.806597 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Energy 
Directorate B - Just Transition, Consumers, Energy Efficiency and Innovation 
Unit ENER.B5 - Innovation, Research, Digitalisation, Competitiveness 

Contact: Szilvia Bozsoki 

E-mail: szilvia.bozsoki@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Authors:  

Berien Elbersen; Wageningen Environmental Research, Berien.elbersen@wur.nl 
Kaley Hart; Institute for European Environmental Policy 
Michele Koper; Energy | Navigant, a Guidehouse Company  
Michiel van Eupen; Wageningen Environmental Research 
Clunie Keenleyside; Institute for European Environmental Policy 
Simone Verzandvoort; Wageningen Environmental Research 
Kajan Kort; Energy | Navigant, a Guidehouse Company 
Anouk Cormont; Wageningen Environmental Research 
Anastasia Giadrossi; Institute for European Environmental Policy 
David Baldock; Institute for European Environmental Policy  

Manuscript completed: November 2020 

First edition: December 2022 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and do not 
necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not  guarantee  the  accuracy  of  the  data 
included  in  this  assessment.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  any  person  acting  on  the  Commission’s  behalf  may  be  held 
responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is 
available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

EN PDF    

  ISBN  978-92-76-27531-2      

  doi:10.2833/609071   

  MJ-04-20-105-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 

© European Union, 2022  

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  12 
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of 
licence 
this  document 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any 
changes are indicated. 

is  authorised  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0 

(CC-BY  4.0) 

International 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought 
directly from the respective rightholders. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND 
AVAILABILITY IN THE EU;  
TRENDS IN UNUSED, 
ABANDONED AND DEGRADED  
(NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND 
USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER 
NON-FOOD CROPS  

Final report 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ................................................................................................. 5 

LIST OF REGIONAL CASE STUDY REPORTS ................................................... 9 

List of Tables ...................................................................................................... 10 

List of Figures ..................................................................................................... 12 

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ 14 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. 15 

Executive summary ............................................................................................ 17 

RÉSUMÉ .............................................................................................................. 23 

1. 

INTRODUCTION, SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ...................... 30 

1.1.  Study scope and objectives ................................................................... 30 

1.2.  Study background .................................................................................. 34 

1.3.  Selection of case studies ....................................................................... 36 

1.4.  Overview of this report ........................................................................... 37 

2.  Defining and quantifying the actual UAA and changes in UAA since 1975 
in EU regions ...................................................................................................... 38 

2.1. 

Introduction and approach ..................................................................... 38 

2.2.  Definitions of utilised agricultural area (UAA) ......................................... 38 

2.2.1. 
2.2.2. 
2.2.3. 

UAA and eligible farmland for CAP Pillar I payments ................................40 
UAA definition and registration in FSS differs per country and over time ..44 
Definitions of UAA in other EU and international data sources ..................46 

2.3.  Overview of EU-wide data sources used in this study to determine actual 
UAA  47 

2.3.1. 
2.3.2. 

Statistical data ..........................................................................................47 
Spatial data ...............................................................................................48 

2.4.  Results: actual UAA ............................................................................... 49 

2.4.1. 
2.4.2. 
2.4.3. 
2.4.4. 

Approach to detecting actual UAA ............................................................49 
Actual UAA ...............................................................................................49 
Evidence of changes in UAA in national data compared to FSS ...............53 
Results from agricultural land use flows based on Corine Land Cover ......54 

2.5.  Results: changes in UAA since 1975 ..................................................... 55 

2.5.1. 

National overview .....................................................................................55 

5 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

2.5.2. 

Regional overview: hotspot regions of declines in UAA.............................56 

2.6.  Data on unused, abandoned and degraded lands in data sources ........ 59 

2.7.  Conclusions ........................................................................................... 61 

3.  Factors that lead to an increase of agricultural lands becoming unused, 
abandoned and degraded .................................................................................. 64 

3.1. 

Introduction and approach ..................................................................... 64 

3.1.1. 
3.1.2. 

Identifying types of unused, abandoned and degraded lands ...................64 
Historical context and abandonment .........................................................68 

3.2.  Main drivers of land becoming unused, abandoned and degraded in the 
EU 

69 

3.2.1. 
3.2.2. 

Drivers from policy ....................................................................................74 
Combinations of drivers ............................................................................76 

3.3.  Evidence from the case studies for drivers of land becoming unused, 
abandoned and degraded in the case study regions ........................................ 77 

Scale, type and location of land abandoned..............................................77 
3.3.1. 
3.3.2.  Main drivers for agricultural land abandonment ........................................79 

3.4.  Conclusions: classification of hotspot regions according to main drivers 
that lead to lands becoming unused, abandoned and degraded ...................... 83 

4.  ROLE OF POLICY IN MAINTAINING LAND UNDER AGRICULTURAL 
PRODUCTION, BRINGING IT BACK INTO ACTIVE USE AND STIMULATING 
BIOMASS CROPPING FOR NON-FOOD PURPOSES ....................................... 86 

4.1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................ 86 

4.2.  Role of EU and national policies in countering land degradation and land 
abandonment .................................................................................................... 87 

4.3.  Role of policy in maintaining land under agricultural use ....................... 88 

4.3.1. 
4.3.2. 

The Common Agricultural Policy ...............................................................89 
National policy measures ..........................................................................95 

4.4.  Role of policy in stimulating land to be brought back into agricultural 
production ......................................................................................................... 99 

4.4.1. 
4.4.2. 

The Common Agricultural Policy ............................................................. 100 
National policies ..................................................................................... 101 

4.5.  Role of policy in incentivising biomass production on agricultural land  102 

4.5.1. 

Types of policy support for growing energy crops ................................... 104 

4.6.  Conclusions ......................................................................................... 107 

5.  NON-AGRICULTURAL AREAS AND OPTIONS FOR BIOMASS CROPPING

109 

5.1.  General introduction and approach ...................................................... 109 

5.2.  Non-agricultural land use categories .................................................... 110 

5.3.  Opportunity and barrier analysis .......................................................... 112 

6 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

5.4.  Case studies: three promising types of non-agricultural land use ........ 113 

5.4.1. 
5.4.2. 
5.4.3. 

Case study 1: Bioenergy crops on airport land ........................................ 113 
Case study: energy crops in utility scale PV systems .............................. 118 
Case study: energy crops on closed landfills .......................................... 122 

6.  MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................. 127 

6.1. 

Introduction .......................................................................................... 127 

6.2.  Actual UAA and changes in UAA since 1975 ....................................... 127 

6.3.  Main drivers for land abandonment in agricultural lands in EU-28 ....... 129 

6.4.  Data gaps and data needs for detecting land abandonment ................ 130 

6.5.  Barriers and opportunities for growing biomass crops for energy and 
other non-food uses in unused, abandoned and degraded agricultural lands  132 

6.6.  Key characteristics of non-agricultural lands suitable for crops for energy 
and other non-food uses ................................................................................. 134 

6.7.  Main recommendations for filling data gaps on UAA and unused, 
abandoned and degraded lands ..................................................................... 135 

6.8.  Main conclusions and recommendations on policy improvements for 
maintaining land under agricultural production and bringing it back into active 
use 

136 

6.9.  Main conclusions and policy recommendations for stimulating biomass 
cropping for energy and other non-food purposes on previously unused, 
abandoned and degraded lands ..................................................................... 138 

6.10.  Policy improvements to incentivise biomass cropping for energy and non-
food uses on non-agricultural land .................................................................. 139 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 141 

7.  Annex I Overview of statistical and spatial data sources on farmland at 
EU-wide level .................................................................................................... 162 

8.  Annex II Actual UAA in EU countries and changes in time based on FSS 
and FAO data sources ..................................................................................... 168 

9.  Annex III Land cover flow analysis change (LEAC) to detect signs of 
land abandonment in EU regions ................................................................... 174 

10.  Annex IV Country fact sheets on actual UAA from Eurostat-FSS and 
national sources compared ............................................................................. 182 

11.  Annex V Data sources that register unused or abandoned land .......... 200 

12.  Annex VI Mapping drivers of abandonment at regional level and case 
study selection ................................................................................................. 206 

13.  Annex VII Summary of barriers and opportunities for bringing unused, 
abandoned and degraded lands back into use .............................................. 220 

14.  Annex VIII Case study data collection protocol ..................................... 225 
7 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

15.  Annex IX Policy overview ......................................................................... 226 

16.  Annex X Non-agricultural land ................................................................. 231 

17.  Annex XI Expert interview Lists for non-agricultural land case study 
analysis ............................................................................................................. 236 

18.  Annex XII Area details on airports ........................................................... 238 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

LIST OF REGIONAL CASE STUDY REPORTS 

Case 

Authors 

Blagoevgrad region (Bulgaria) 

Vyara  Stefanova,  Yanka  Kazakova  and  Boris 
Lagdinov 

Latgale (Latvia) 

Romualdas Zemeckis 

Basse-Normandie (France) 

Élodie Liénard, Alice Devot and Thierry Clement 

Sicily (Italy) 

Brasov (Romania) 

Daniela Russi 

Mark Redman 

Észak-Magyarország region (Hungary) 

Katalin Balázs 

Guarda region (Portugal) 

Eloi Carvahlo Ribeiro 

Kontinentalna Hrvatska region (Croatia) 

Željka Fištrek & Biljana Kulišić 

Soria (Spain) 

Pilar Ciria, Marina Sanz and Paloma Perez 

The reports of these case studies have been delivered to DG-ENER as final products of this 
study. They are however not published. All relevant material collected in these case studies 
is presented in this report. These case studies were a very important source of information. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table  1  Definitions  of  arable  land,  permanent  grassland,  permanent  crops  and  kitchen 
gardens in FSS and according to CAP regulations ...................................................... 40 

Table 2 Choice for including permanent grasslands in the UAA based on ‘established local 
practices’ since the 2013 CAP reform ......................................................................... 44 

Table 3 Common land (km2) recorded in FSS before 2010 and after 2010 according to new 
common land registration rules introduced in 2010 (see also Annex I) ...................... 45 

Table 4 Minimum values for area size, tree crown cover and tree height  per Member State 
for the definition of forest ............................................................................................ 46 

Table 5 AA, UAA and FA and subcategories (km2) 2005-2016 for EU-28 ....................... 50 

Table 6 Category 1  -  Natural  constraints and land degradation limiting the suitability for 
agricultural uses ........................................................................................................... 71 

Table 7 Category 2 - Socio-economic drivers at farm level ................................................ 71 

Table 8 Category 3 - Broader socio-economic drivers ........................................................ 72 

Table 9 Category 4 - Drivers for agricultural land abandonment from policy at the EU level
 ..................................................................................................................................... 75 

Table  10.  Summary  of  categories  of  unused  and  abandoned  land  used  in  this  review  in 
relation to drivers ......................................................................................................... 76 

Table 11 List of identified non-agricultural land categories suitable for biomass cropping for 
energy and other non-food uses, and scale of area available in the EU .................... 111 

Table 12 Summary of opportunities and barriers for non-agricultural land categories..... 113 

Table 13 Minimum farm and farm area coverage for registration in  FSS before and after 
2007 ........................................................................................................................... 163 

Table 14 Different ways common land is registered in FSS ............................................. 164 

Table 15 FADN includes farms which exceed a certain economic size and are defined as 
commercial.  Because  of  the  different  farm  structures  in  the  European  Union,  it  is 
necessary to specify separate thresholds for each Member State. ............................. 165 

Table 16 Main spatial data sources providing information on agricultural land ............... 166 

Table 17 UAA (Km2) 2005-2016 for EU28 Member States ............................................ 168 

Table 18 Permanent grassland and rough grazing (Km2) registered in FSS for 2005, 2013 
and 2016 for EU28 Member States ........................................................................... 169 

Table 19Relative change in the area 2005-2016 in UAA, AA, Farmland, arable, permanent 
grassland and permanent crops. Source: FSS data .................................................... 170 

10 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 20 UAA and NUAA in 2005 and 2016 ................................................................... 171 

Table 21 Development of UAA 1975-1990, 1991-2005, 2005-2016 & 1975-2016 ......... 172 

Table 22 Grouped conversions from agricultural land based on the LEAC system  used to 
detect changes between 2000 and 2018 ..................................................................... 174 

Table 23 Overview of relative landcover flows per EU country 2000-2018 with reference to 
agricultural area in 2000.  Data source: CLC 2000 and CLC 2018........................... 180 

Table  24  UAA  (km2)  reported  in  Eurostat-FSS  and  national  data  sources    and  relative 
differences for UAA data published by Eurostat and national sources ..................... 182 

Table 25 Top 10 of regions with the largest unused and abandoned land resource (in km2) 
in the EU according to LUCAS 2012 and 2015 ........................................................ 203 

Table 26 Statistical data registering unused, abandoned and degraded lands in the nine case 
study regions. ............................................................................................................. 204 

Table 27  Land area share (% of agricultural area)* of total and 6 clusters of biophysical 
constraints making up marginal lands for EU-28 (total) and per Environmental zone 
(Source: MAGIC – Elbersen et al., 2018) ................................................................. 210 

Table 28 Combined scores for drivers of abandonment and other EU stratification factors 
for the nine selected regional case study regions ...................................................... 219 

Table 29 Summary of main barriers and opportunities for land conversions to biomass crops 
for energy and other non-food uses ........................................................................... 220 

Table 30 Number (nr) of respondents in case studies according to stakeholder type. ...... 225 

Table  31    Number  (nr)  of  respondents  in  case  studies  per  country  and  for  questions  on 
occurrence of land types, drivers of abandonment/non-use and degradation............ 225 

Table 32 EU policies with the potential to influence land transitions in and out of agricultural 
use .............................................................................................................................. 226 

Table  33  Longlist  of  non-agricultural  land  categories  and  reasoning  for  inclusion  or 
exclusion from shortlist. ............................................................................................ 231 

Table 34 Details of barriers and opportunities for shortlist non-agricultural land categories 
(green indicates opportunity and red indicates barrier). ............................................ 233 

Table  35  Overview  of  total  land  area  of  airports  per  EU  country  and  average 
imperviousness*. ....................................................................................................... 238 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

LIST OF FIGURES  

Figure 1 ................................................................................................................................ 31 

Figure 2 Eurostat overview of what is included in UAA, AA and FA................................ 39 

Figure 3 Relation between UAA and eligible area for CAP- Pillar I payments .................. 43 

Figure 4 UAA, AA and FA 2005-2016 for EU-28 .............................................................. 50 

Figure 5 UAA, AA and FA 2005-2016 for EU-28 Member States (km2)........................... 51 

Figure 6 Relative difference between UAA, AA and FA 2016 (FA=100%) ...................... 52 

Figure  7  Relative  distribution  of  the  UAA  over  arable,  permanent  grassland,  permanent 
crops and kitchen garden per EU Member State in 2016 ............................................ 53 

Figure 8 Change in UAA 1975-2019 .................................................................................. 56 

Figure 9 Long-term change in UAA (1975-2016) with reference to the UAA in 1975 (left) 
and recent change in UAA (2005-2016) with reference to the UAA in 2005 (right).. 58 

Figure  10  Parcels  in  Albacete,  Spain  from  SIGPAC  (Spanish  LPIS),  showing  parcels  in 
yellow with no management for five consecutive years.............................................. 60 

Figure 11 Agricultural land use transitions ......................................................................... 65 

Figure 12 Estimated percentage of agricultural land affected by abandonment or left unused 
in case study regions according to definitions of Keenleyside and Tucker (2010) ..... 77 

Figure  13  Drivers  for  agricultural  land  abandonment  reported  in  case  studies:  main 
categories ..................................................................................................................... 79 

Figure  14  Broader  socio-economic  drivers  for  agricultural  land  abandonment  reported  in 
case studies .................................................................................................................. 81 

Figure 15 Boundaries and status of transformation of (former) agricultural land............. 109 

Figure  16  Airport  farming  can  lower  air  temperature  on  hot  days.  Adelaide  Airport, 
Australia. ................................................................................................................... 115 

Figure 17 Configuration of PV arrays in APV Research Plant in Heggelbach, Germany (left).
 ................................................................................................................................... 119 

Figure  18  Raspberry  farm  with  PV  arrays  as  protective  roof.  Babberich,  the  Netherlands 
(right). ........................................................................................................................ 119 

Figure 19 FCC Environment reaps energy from landfill sites........................................... 124 

Figure 20 Land conversions with signs of shifts to land abandonment in 2018  with reference 
to agricultural area in 2000 (lcf61 & lcf62). .............................................................. 176 

Figure 21 Land conversions from  cropping to  set-aside, fallow and pasture (lcf41) 2000-
2018 with reference to agricultural area in 2000. ...................................................... 177 
12 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure  22  Land  conversions  from  agricultural  to  urban  2000-2018    with  reference  to 
agricultural area in 2000 ............................................................................................ 178 

Figure 23 Land conversions from agricultural to forest (lcf 61 Abandonment of agriculture 
with forest formation) 2000-2018 with reference to agricultural area in 2000. ........ 179 

Figure 24 Unused and abandoned land area in relation to other land use (km2). ............. 201 

Figure 25 Relative share of unused and abandoned lands of the total land area (%). ....... 202 

Figure  26  Criteria  for  the  identification  and  classification  of  regions  with  regard  to  land 
abandonment (based on the review presented in chapter 3 of main report). ............. 207 

Figure 27 Marginal land in agricultural area. .................................................................... 212 

Figure 28 Share of farm holders aged >65 in 2016 (%). ................................................... 213 

Figure  29  Average  change  in  population  density  over  the  period  2011-2017  (persons  per 
km2). .......................................................................................................................... 214 

Figure 30 Change in the number of rural households in the period 2000-2018 (% of total 
households). ............................................................................................................... 215 

Figure 31 Regional (NUTS 2 level) a) agricultural land prices (euro/ha) in the EU, 2016 b) 
a) The United Kingdom at NUTS 1 level; b) Italy 2015. .......................................... 216 

Figure 32 Environmental Stratification of Europe ............................................................ 217 

Figure 33 Preliminary selection of case study regions with farmland abandonment. ....... 218 

13 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The  authors  thank  Kyriakos  Maniatis  and  Eric  Fee  for  the  excellent  collaboration  and 
support during the implementation of the project and the writing of the report and to Szilvia 
Bozsoki during the publication of the report.    

We thank all the experts that wrote the nine regional case study reports: 

•  Vyara Stefanova, Yanka Kazakova and Boris Lagdinov: case study Blagoevgrad 

region (Bulgaria) 

•  Romualdas Zemeckis: case study Latgale (Latvia) 
•  Élodie Liénard, Alice Devot and Thierry Clement: case study Basse-Normandie 

(France) 

•  Daniela Russi: case study Sicily (Italy) 
•  Mark Redman: case study Brasov (Romania) 
•  Katalin Balázs: case study Észak-Magyarország region (Hungary) 
•  Eloi Carvahlo Ribeiro: case study Guarda region (Portugal) 
•  Željka Fištrek & Biljana Kulišić: case study Kontinentalna Hrvatska region (Croatia) 
•  Pilar Ciria, Marina Sanz and Paloma Perez: case study Soria (Spain) 

Special thanks go to Adam Houlbrook for the editing the draft version of this report, and to 
Anne Maréchal for the translation of the executive summary to French.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  

Abbreviation 
AA 
AECM 
AGFORWARD 
ANC 
APV 
BPS 
CAP 
CEE 
CEEC 
CF 
CHP 
CLC 
DA 
DG-AGRI 
DG-ENER 
EAFRD 
EAGGF 
EASA 
ECA 
EC 
EEA 
EFA 
EIA 
EIP  
ENRD 
ERDF 
ESF 
ESR 
ETC-SIA 
EU 
EU-28 

FA 
FAA 
FADN 
FAO 
FAOSTAT 
FOD 
FSS 
GD 
GHG 
GIS 
H2020 
HNV 
IACS 
ICT 
ILUC 
JLS 
KET 
LAG 
LAI 

Explanation 
agricultural area 
Agri-environment-climate Measures 
AGroFORestry that Will Advance Rural Development 
Areas facing Natural Constraints  
agrophotovoltaics 
Basic Payment Scheme 
Common Agricultural Policy  
Central and Eastern European 
Central and Eastern European countries 
Cohesion Fund 
combined heat and power  
CORINE Land Cover  
determined area 
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
Directorate-General for Energy 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development  
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) 
European Aviation Safety Agency  
European Court of Auditors  
European Commission 
European Environment Agency  
Ecological Focus Areas  
Environmental Impact Assessment  
European Innovation Partnerships 
European Network for Rural Development  
European Regional Development Fund 
European Social Fund 
Effort Sharing Regulation 
European Topic Centre for Spatial information and Analysis 
European Union 
memberships of the European Union in the period 1 July 2013 - 31 
January 2020 
Farm area  
USA Federal Aviation Administration  
Farm Accountancy Data Network 
Food and Agriculture Organization 
statistics of the Food and Agriculture Organization 
Foreign Object Debris  
Farm Structural Survey  
Green Deal 
Greenhouse gas 
Geographic Information Systems 
Horizon 2020 
High Nature Value 
Integrated Administration and Control System  
Information and communications technology 
Indirect Land Use Change 
local self-government units (Croatian abbreviation)  
Key Enabling Technology 
local action groups 
leaf area index 

15 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

LAU 
Lcf 
LCOE 
LEAC 
LPIS 
LSU 
LUCAS 
LULUCF 
MAGIC 
MS 
N2000 
NCFF 
NDVI 
NECP 
NMR 
NUAA 
NUTS 
OECD 
OVAM 
PEA 
PG 
PV 
RDP 
RED II 
SAA 
SDG 
SAPS 
SGM 
SOC 
SRC 
UAA 
UK 
UNECE 
USSR 
VCS 
WA 
WFD 

Local Administrative Units 
land cover flows 
levelized cost of energy  
Land Cover Accounts 
Land Parcel Identification System 
livestock unit  
Land Use and Coverage Area frame Survey 
land use, land-use change and forestry 
Marginal Lands for Growing Industrial Crops 
Member State of the European Union 
Natura 2000 
Natural Capital Financing Facility 
normalized difference vegetation index 
National Energy and Climate Plan 
National ... registration 
Unutilised agricultural area as defined by Eurostat 
Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
Public Waste Agency of Flanders  
Potentially eligible area 
Permanent grassland 
Photovoltaic  
Rural Development policy 
Revised Renewable Energy Directive 2018/2001/EU 
Special holding areas  
Sustainable Development Goal 
Single Area Payment Scheme  
Standard gross margin  
Soil Organic Carbon 
Woody perennial crops in short rotation systems 
Utilised agricultural area  
United Kingdom 
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
Voluntary Coupled Support  
Wooded area  
Water Framework Directive 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

Over  recent  decades  two  diverging  trends  in  the  use  of  agricultural  land  are  apparent  - 
intensification  and  specialisation  on 
land  with  greater  production  potential  and 
abandonment and degradation of more economically marginal land. At the same time, the 
ambition to move towards a more circular and bio-based economy is leading to increased 
demand for biomass to replace fossil resources with renewable resources, such as for the 
conversion to  bio-based  products  and  energy.  Biomass  resources  can  come  from  trees, 
agricultural  crops  and  their  residues.  To  avoid  putting  additional  pressure  on  land  and 
competing with food production, it is preferable to grow agricultural biomass crops on land 
that is no longer used, has become abandoned and/or degraded, as long as this  can be 
done sustainably.  This study examines the potential availability of land (excluding forest 
areas) to be used for the sustainable production of cropped biomass for energy or other 
non-food purposes through:   

1. 

2. 

3. 

Providing  data  on  the  trends  in  the  utilised  agricultural  area  (UAA)  since 
1975,  current  UAA  and  reasons  why  agricultural  land  has  become  unused, 
abandoned and degraded.  
Proposing  policy  measures  that  can  reverse  this  trend  towards  unused, 
abandoned and degraded agricultural land and that can encourage their use for 
biomass production for energy and other non-food uses. 
Identifying  types  of  non-agricultural  land  that  could  be  used  for  biomass 
production for energy and other non-food uses, alongside policy measures to 
stimulate this. 

Actual UAA and changes in UAA in all EU Member States since 1975 

Member States report data to Eurostat on  total farm area (FA), agricultural area (AA), 
and UAA through the Farm Structural Survey (FSS). UAA is the smallest of these areas, 
defined as ‘the total area taken up by arable land, permanent grassland, permanent crops 
and kitchen gardens used by the holding, regardless of the type of tenure or of whether it is 
used as  a  part  of common  land’.  AA  consists  of the  UAA  plus  non-utilised  agricultural 
area (NUAA) and special holding areas (SAA). The largest area is the FA which consists 
of  AA  plus  wooded  areas  (WA),  which  also  includes  areas  of  short  rotation  coppice 
(SRC) and other land, which is farmland occupied by buildings, farmyards, tracks, ponds. 

The long-term analysis of UAA trends between 1975 and 2016 showed a total decline for 
all EU-28 Member States of almost 360,000 km2, equivalent to 18% of the UAA in 1975, 
with a levelling off since 2005. Declines were seen in all Member States, but the largest 
occurred  in  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Estonia,  Greece,  Spain,  Croatia,  Italy,  Cyprus,  Latvia, 
Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. 

More recent data show that between 2005 and 2016 actual UAA for the EU-28 remained 
relatively stable, with an average of 1,737,200 km2, peaking in 2010 at 1,758,150 km2. The 
FA and AA showed a slight decline in this period (-2% and -1%, respectively). The difference 
between the UAA and AA suggests that around 5% of farmland is unused. The FA is around 
15% larger than the AA. 

Despite this stable picture for the EU-28, there were significant changes in UAA in certain 
Member States or regions over this period. The largest declines in UAA occurred in Cyprus 
and Austria. The largest increases were in Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Croatia and 
Latvia.  Looking  in  more  detail  at  the  actual  land  uses,  arable  and  permanent  cropland 
declined at EU-28 level in both absolute and relative terms, while the area of permanent 
grassland increased, at least until 2010.  

17 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

The 2010 peak in permanent grassland in the EU-28 and in many EU Member States does 
not  necessarily  reflect  a  real  increase  in  permanent  grassland,  but  results  from  a  2010 
adjustment in recording method for common land in the FSS. Comparing data since 2010 
is likely to be more reliable therefore.  

Main drivers affecting the abandonment of agricultural land in the EU-28 

Literature shows that it is a combination of drivers that cause transitions in agricultural land 
use  and  these  have  different  effects  depending  on  the  historical,  geopolitical  and  socio-
economic  context.  The  most  widespread  drivers  of  agricultural  land  abandonment  are 
unfavourable agro-ecological conditions and socio-economic drivers operating both at farm 
and  regional  level.  Mountain  areas  are  particularly  sensitive  to  agricultural  land 
abandonment. Declines in rural populations also lead to agricultural land abandonment in 
many parts of the EU, driven by better employment opportunities in more urban settings as 
well as declining rural infrastructure. Nonetheless, socio-cultural motivations can lead to the 
maintenance of agricultural activities in regions where it is not economically viable. In other 
cases land continues to be registered as agricultural but is not actively managed, something 
that can be characterised as ‘hidden abandonment’. Policy is a less prominent driver of land 
abandonment,  although  issues  with  eligibility  for  Common  Agriculture  Policy  (CAP) 
payments can have an effect. 

Nine regional case studies confirmed many of the findings from the literature, such as the 
fact that the main drivers for agricultural land becoming unused or abandoned are socio-
economic  in  nature.  The  most  important  drivers  identified  at  the  farm  level  were  the 
profitability of holdings, the productivity of the land for crops and livestock, production costs, 
fragmentation of farmland and issues with land tenure and ownership. The decline in the 
profitability of agriculture, seen in all case study regions, has enhanced the trend of young 
people leaving rural areas, leaving behind an ageing farming population.  

In contrast to the  literature,  natural  constraints  were  not  identified as the  most  important 
drivers of agricultural land abandonment in the case study regions, although mentioned in 
all.  In  some  regions,  they  reinforced  the  socio-economic  drivers,  or  were  expected  to 
become more relevant in the future as a result of the changing climate. In some regions 
land degradation was reported to be induced by management practices and in only a few 
regions was agricultural land abandonment itself reported to lead to land degradation, in the 
form  of  wildfires  and  soil  erosion.  Although  policy  was  not  considered  a  main  driver  of 
abandonment of agricultural land in the case study regions, the combination of CAP and 
national  policies  was  not  enough  to  keep  all  agricultural  land  in  active  use.  Surveys  in 
several regions also mentioned poor or incomplete land administration or cadastral systems 
as a reason for agricultural use converting to other uses.  

Data gaps and data needs for measuring UAA and detecting land abandonment 

Despite the changes in definitions and rules for recording of data on UAA over time, and 
the  variations  Member  States  are  permitted  for  recording  certain  agricultural  land 
categories, the  FSS database remains  the best relatively  uniform source  for  determining 
the UAA for Member States and regions as well as trends over time. The two main issues 
to  be  aware  of  in  relation  to  changes  in  UAA  between  years  are:  first,  the  2010  change 
relating  to  the  registration  of  common  land;  and  second,  inconsistencies  in  reporting  by 
national statistical offices, leading to issues in distinguishing between agricultural and forest 
areas and identifying agroforestry.  

There are no statistical and spatial data that record unused, abandoned or degraded lands. 
There is some information in LUCAS (Land cover/use statistics, Eurostat), which identifies 
‘fallow and abandoned land’ as a separate land cover class, but the precise location of these 

18 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

areas  is  not  mapped.  Unused  and  abandoned  land  that  remains  out  of  production  for 
multiple  years  loses  its  agricultural  land  status  and  is  therefore  no  longer  recorded  in 
agricultural statistics. Furthermore, land abandonment involves a  gradual process, which 
makes it difficult to determine if and when land has become completely abandoned. 

Despite  this,  there  are  ways  to  improve  the  detection  and  recording  of  abandoned  and 
unused land (e.g. through high spatial and temporal resolution information from satellites to 
measure in-field vegetation development and management activity or lack of it, for example 
using the Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)). In the last few years, much 
progress has been made with identifying crop types and land management through remote 
sensing and aerial photographic interpretation which would enable the identification of in-
parcel management or the lack thereof.  

Barriers and opportunities for growing biomass crops for energy and other non-food 
uses on unused, abandoned and degraded agricultural lands  

Literature  showed  that  the  introduction  of  biomass  crops  on  unused,  abandoned  and 
degraded  land can  provide  a  range  of socio-economic  opportunities,  including  additional 
income and the creation of new employment. It may also help diversify farmers’ income and 
create local access to new and clean energy resources. The case studies confirmed the 
need  for  alternative  land  use  activities  within  and  outside  agriculture.  However,  experts 
differed on whether it was realistic to bring unused, abandoned and degraded agricultural 
land back into use for this purpose. A key reason for the diverging views is the uncertainty 
regarding the financial return of non-food crops, particularly because the market demand is 
generally not (yet) well developed. This specifically concerns lignocellulosic biomass crops, 
most  suited  for  cultivation  on  abandoned  and  degraded  lands.  Furthermore,  there  are 
technical challenges to restore the suitability of the land for agricultural use. 

In terms of environmental risks and opportunities, the analysis shows that there are more 
co-benefits with perennial crops and agroforestry systems. On bare unused, abandoned or 
degraded lands, the establishment of any crop that creates soil cover will help stabilise the 
soil. However, perennial crops are more effective than annual crops in reducing soil erosion, 
building up soil carbon and reducing nutrient leaching. The same applies for agroforestry 
systems,  particularly  those  that  combine  trees  with  permanent  crops  and  permanent 
grassland. Many agroforestry systems are better at erosion control and overall maintenance 
of soil fertility than conventional forestry, cropping or pasture systems.  

The  soil  carbon  effect  of  perennial  biomass  crops  and  agroforestry  systems  very  much 
depends on the previous land use. The clearing and tillage of grasslands, long abandoned 
lands  with  dense  shrub  and/or  forest  vegetation  cover  or  wetlands  for  the  purpose  of 
cultivating perennial biomass crops results in serious declines in carbon (both above and 
below soil), with variable restoration periods. The potential effects on biodiversity depend 
on the landscape and habitat context. For example, a shift from vegetated abandoned land 
to rotational arable land will diminish shelter and breeding opportunities for mammals and 
birds as well as floristic diversity.  

The role of policy in maintaining land under agricultural production, bringing it back 
into  active  use  and  stimulating  biomass  cropping  for  energy  and  other  non-food 
purposes 

Policy  can  play  an  important  role  in  reversing  the  abandonment  and  degradation  of 
agricultural  land  and  restoring  active  production.  The  CAP,  in  conjunction  with  some 
national policies (taxes, financial instruments, spatial planning policies and processes for 
land registration and to address land structure and tenure issues), was found to have the 
greatest influence.  

19 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Land degradation or land abandonment is not generally the primary target of these policy 
instruments. Instead, they address these issues indirectly through supporting the viability of 
the  agricultural  sector  as  a  whole  and  maintaining  the  diversity  of  farming  types  and 
structures. In some cases, they seek to maintain specific forms of production and address 
issues  of  generational  renewal  and  land  tenure.  Policy  instruments  such  as  CAP  rarely 
target hotspots of abandonment or the cultivation of feedstocks for energy and other non-
food purposes. Yet, where they coincide, they may help counter the socio-economic drivers 
affecting abandonment. National policies have evolved to address the specific issues faced 
nationally, regionally and locally. A particular set of policies were identified in the central 
and eastern European case studies, designed to address the special circumstances around 
land  structure  and  tenure  issues  arising  from  the  process  of  land  restitution,  including 
addressing  issues  of  land  registration.  Except  for  some  of  the  CAP’s  environmental 
the  sustainable 
measures 
management of agricultural land is not a key consideration of the majority of policy tools 
identified.  

(the  agri-environment-climate  measure, 

for  example), 

In practice, the current policy mix is often insufficient to counter the broader socio-economic 
drivers of land abandonment, such as those leading to rural depopulation. These wider rural 
issues deserve more attention alongside support at the farm level and attempts to address 
farm structure and tenure issues if the most socio-economically vulnerable farming systems 
are to be maintained. The extent to which this is possible will vary regionally and depend 
on  the  relative  economic  buoyancy  of  the  economy  more  generally.  Nonetheless,  some 
policy measures (CAP direct payments and ANC measures) help maintain large areas of 
land in agricultural use that would otherwise move out of production, but they do not secure 
the sustainable management of these areas. It is also clear that processes are limited for 
determining  the  climate  and  environmental  implications  of  bringing  land  back  into 
production.  Finally,  policy  plays  only  a  limited  role  in  decisions  about  whether  to  plant 
biomass crops for energy or other non-food purposes on land brought back into production. 
These rest with the land manager and are influenced by a range of factors, primarily market 
related.  The  key  role  of  policy  should  be  to  ensure  that  the  way  crops  are  grown  is 
sustainable,  protecting  natural  resources  and  biodiversity,  and  delivering  a  mix  of 
ecosystem services. 

Non-agricultural lands suitable for dedicated biomass cropping 

Looking at the potential  of non-agricultural land suitable for biomass cropping, a number of  
categories were evaluated to identify the barriers and opportunities of using them for this 
purpose. For the three most interesting categories (based on size, feasibility for conversion, 
financial viability, competing uses), more detailed investigation was carried out: airport land, 
agrophotovoltaics (APV) which involves biomass cropping combined with PV systems; and 
closed landfills.  

For biomass cropping on airport land, the main barriers identified were that farming activities 
can pose an additional risk to aviation activities and cropping activities may attract certain 
biodiversity  (e.g.  birds  and  mammals)  that  may  increase  collision  risks  with  airplanes. 
However, airport farming could generate additional financial income, thereby increasing the 
economic viability of the land since it is comparatively large in extent and easily accessible. 
Crops  on  airports  could  remediate  noise  and  chemical  pollution  and  could  dampen  the 
negative  effects  of  extreme  weather  events  (high  temperatures).  Effective  wildlife 
management at airports is a minimum requirement.  

For APV, the main barrier identified was the level of investment costs, which are significantly 
higher  than those for  utility  scale  PV  systems.  Electricity from  APV  is  currently  not  price 
competitive, although there could be a potential benefit to bridge this from the additional 
income generated from biomass crops. Uncertainty about the ownership of land can also 
hinder implementation. The potential area that could be used for APV in the EU is significant 

20 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

at around 500,000 ha. APV could be used to restore degraded soils on arid or semi-arid 
land  and  the  PV-arrays  can  protect  crops  from  weather  and  climate  impacts  (e.g.  direct 
sunlight,  drought,  heat,  hail  and  rain),  thus  reducing  the  farmer’s  risks  of  crop  failure. 
Vegetation cooling the PV arrays from behind can also improve PV efficiency. 

For biomass cropping on closed landfills the main barriers identified were that soil pollutants 
and poor soil quality could lead to low yields or biomass quality issues and that operational 
costs are expected to be relatively high due to the smaller and sub-optimal geometry of the 
patches  and  the  necessary  soil  fertility  treatment.  However,  biomass  crop  production  on 
closed landfills was identified as a useful temporary use until permanent solutions are found 
for remediation, even providing options for soil remediation or reduction of environmental 
risks associated with leakage. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Although, little evidence exists in EU literature, statistics and in this study’s case studies for 
setting up new cropping activities in unused, abandoned or degraded lands, there is some 
potential to bring land back into agricultural production. This could be (former) agricultural 
land that is abandoned and/or degraded and where the establishment of crops would deliver 
multiple  ecosystem  services.  This  could  also  be  certain  non-agricultural  land  types 
presented  in  this  study.  There  could  be  societal  resistance  to  the  use  of  some  non-
agricultural lands related to potential loss of vegetation and issues of ecological integration 
or  landscape  impacts.  In  other  areas,  greening  (urban)  non-agricultural  lands  through 
bioenergy crops can contribute to ongoing initiatives to green European cities. Bioenergy 
crop production is a valuable and suitable activity for short and long term land use and can 
therefore be an option for cases where land is only temporarily available. 

Three requirements need to be met for non-food biomass production to effectively reduce 
land abandonment and degradation or return abandoned and degraded land to production 
in a sustainable way. Firstly, a market demand for biomass needs to be in place to provide 
consistent market signals that instill confidence to produce crops for energy and other non-
food  uses.  Secondly,  data  and  understanding  needs  to  be  created  of  which  areas  are 
abandoned and degraded and which are at risk of becoming unused, abandoned and/or 
degraded and where and how it is most appropriate to create multiple ecosystem services 
through  agricultural  use  or  through  other  purposes  (e.g.  afforestation,  rewilding,  eco-
tourism,  hunting).  Thirdly,  policies  need  to  be  put  in  place to stimulate  the  production  of 
biomass for food and non-food purposes where it leads to the sustainable management of 
land  and,  where  it  is  needed,  to  enable  environmentally  and  climate  beneficial  land  use 
change that takes advantage of new markets such as agroforestry and perennial crops in 
marginal areas. The following specific recommendations result from this study.  

Recommendations for data improvements: 

•  Differences  in definitions  to  distinguish  between agricultural  and  forest  areas  and 
identifying  agroforestry  lead  to  inconsistencies  in  FSS  data  reported  by  Member 
States. Establishing greater uniformity in the rules for Member States on tree cover 
levels  and  clarifying  the  definition  of  agroforestry  areas  for  reporting  to  Eurostat 
would help resolve these issues.  
It would be useful to register the absence of management for several years in a row 
for land in the agricultural domain, as well as areas that are unused for a long time 
and  lose  their  official  agricultural  land  use  status.  A  good  indirect  indicator  of 
marginality and land degradation in arable lands is yield. Detailed annual recording 
of yields per hectare at regional level (preferably at LAU level) are very informative 

• 

21 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

and can help identify regions where agricultural marginalisation may lead to (further) 
abandonment. Degraded land both on agricultural and other land uses should be 
recorded in statistical or spatial data sources.   

Policy recommendations 

•  To  improve  the  way  the  CAP  responds  to  issues  of  land  abandonment,  Member 
States  should  identify  the  drivers  of  land  abandonment  in  the  SWOT  and  needs 
analyses of their CAP Strategic Plans and carry out analysis to identify which areas 
at risk it is most appropriate to maintain in agricultural use. Member States should 
use this to choose, design, tailor and target the appropriate mix of CAP interventions 
to support the sustainable management of land in combination with addressing the 
wider societal issues of poverty and social exclusion in rural areas. Better integration 
of  the  CAP  with  funding  from  the  Structural  Funds  as  well  as  national  measures 
could help reduce the level of resources required to address the issues. 

•  There is considerable interest in agroforestry systems as a source of biomass for 
non-food  purposes,  particularly  since  it  has  the  potential  to  deliver  multiple 
ecosystem services. However, a relatively small amount of CAP support is provided 
currently  by  Member  States.  In  the  future,  payments  and  advisory  support  for 
sustainable  new  agroforestry  and 
the  restoration/maintenance  of  existing 
agroforestry  systems  should  be  competitive  with  afforestation  support  at  Member 
State level.  
Incomplete systems of land registration were identified as an issue in some Member 
States. Addressing this should be a priority so that it is clear who owns each parcel 
of land and that where issues of degradation, under-management and abandonment 
occur, owners can be contacted to address the issues. 

• 

There should be better coherence between the different layers of renewable energy and 
climate policy and the CAP and Structural Funds. Additionally, bioenergy crop production 
on non-agricultural land often requires cooperation between several industries or sectors 
that do not commonly interact. Policies enhancing sector collaboration would be expected 
to help the use of these types of land for bioenergy purposes. This could include financial 
benefits  for  consortia  of  companies  from  different  sectors  that  cooperate  to  use  land  for 
multiple  functions,  or  the  development  of  legislative  guidance  for  arranging  (model) 
contracts  for  multiple  uses  of  the  same  area.  European  certification  for  bioenergy  crop 
production from (previously) non-agricultural lands could help in differentiating the biomass 
produced in these areas which could be a benefit in the market for green fuels.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

RÉSUMÉ  

Au cours des dernières décennies, deux tendances divergentes dans l'utilisation des terres 
agricoles  ont  émergé :  l'intensification et  la  spécialisation des  terres  à  potentiel  élevé  de 
production et l'abandon et la dégradation de terres économiquement plus marginales. Dans 
le même temps, l'ambition d'évoluer vers une économie plus circulaire et biologique conduit 
à  une  demande  accrue  de  biomasse  pour  remplacer  les  ressources  fossiles  par  des 
ressources  renouvelables,  comme  la  production  de  produits  et  d’énergie  biosourcés.  La 
biomasse peut provenir des arbres, des cultures agricoles et de leurs résidus. Pour éviter 
d'exercer  une  pression  supplémentaire  sur  les  terres  et  de  concurrencer  la  production 
alimentaire, il est préférable de cultiver des cultures de biomasse agricole sur des terres 
qui ne sont plus utilisées, qui ont été abandonnées et / ou dégradées, pour autant que cela 
puisse être fait de manière durable. Cette étude examine la disponibilité potentielle de terres 
(à l'exclusion des zones forestières) en vue de leur utilisation pour la production durable de 
biomasse cultivée à des fins énergétiques ou à d'autres fins non alimentaires, en:  

1. 

2. 

3. 

fournissant des données sur les tendances de la superficie agricole utilisée 
(SAU)  depuis  1975,  la  SAU  actuelle  et  les raisons  pour  lesquelles  les  terres 
agricoles sont devenues inutilisées, abandonnées et dégradées. 
proposant des mesures politiques qui peuvent inverser cette tendance vers les 
terres  agricoles  inutilisées,  abandonnées  et  dégradées  et  qui  peuvent 
encourager  leur  utilisation  pour  la  production  de  biomasse  à  des  fins 
énergétiques et autres utilisations non alimentaires. 
identifiant les types de terres non agricoles qui pourraient être utilisées pour la 
production  de  biomasse  à  des  fins  énergétiques  et  autres  utilisations  non 
alimentaires, ainsi que des mesures politiques pour en encourager l’utilisation. 

SAU réelle et évolution de la SAU dans tous les États membres de l'UE depuis 1975 

Les  États  membres  communiquent  à  Eurostat  des  données  sur  la  superficie  de 
l’exploitation  agricole  (‘total  farm  area’,  FA),  la  superficie  agricole  (‘agricultural  area’, 
AA) et la SAU par le biais de l'enquête sur la structure des exploitations (Farm Structural 
Survey, FSS). La SAU est la plus petite de ces superficies, définie comme « la superficie 
totale couverte par les terres arables, les prairies permanentes, les cultures permanentes 
et  les  jardins  potagers  utilisés  par  l'exploitation  agricole,  indépendamment  du  type  de 
possession ou du fait que les terres soient utilisées comme une partie de terre commune 
». L'AA comprend la SAU plus la superficie agricole non utilisée (non-utilised agricultural 
area,  NUAA)  et  la  superficie  de  production  agricole  spéciale  (special  holding  areas, 
SAA). La plus grande zone est la FA qui se compose de AA plus des superficies boisées 
(wooded areas, WA), qui comprend également les superficies de taillis à rotation rapide 
(short rotation coppice, SRC) et d'autres terres, qui sont les terres agricoles occupées par 
les bâtiments, cours de ferme, chemins, étangs. 

L'analyse à long terme des tendances de la SAU entre 1975 et 2016 a montré une baisse 
totale pour tous les États membres de l'UE-28 de près de 360 000 km2, soit 18% de la SAU 
en  1975,  avec  une  stabilisation  depuis  2005.  Des  baisses  ont  été  observées  dans  tous 
États membres, mais les plus importantes ont eu lieu en Bulgarie, en Tchéquie, en Estonie, 
en Grèce, en Espagne, en Croatie, en Italie, à Chypre, en Lettonie, en Hongrie, en Pologne, 
en Slovénie et en Slovaquie. 

Des données plus récentes montrent qu'entre 2005 et 2016, la SAU réelle pour l'UE-28 est 
restée relativement stable, avec une moyenne de 1 737 200 km2, avec un pic en 2010 à 1 
758 150  km2.  La  FA  et  l'AA  ont  connu  une  légère baisse  sur cette  période  (-2%  et  -1%, 

23 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

respectivement).  La  différence  entre  la  SAU  et  l’AA  suggère  qu'environ  5%  des  terres 
agricoles sont inutilisées. La FA est environ 15% plus grande que l'AA. 

Malgré  ce  tableau  stable  pour  l'UE-28,  des  changements  significatifs  de  la  SAU  ont  été 
observés dans certains États membres ou régions au cours de cette période. Les baisses 
les plus importantes de la SAU ont eu lieu à Chypre et en Autriche. Les augmentations les 
plus  importantes  ont  été  enregistrées  en  Bulgarie,  en  Estonie,  en  Irlande,  en  Grèce,  en 
Croatie et en Lettonie. En examinant plus en détail les utilisations réelles des terres, les 
terres  arables  et  les  terres  cultivées  permanentes  ont  diminué  au  niveau  de  l'UE-28  en 
termes absolus et relatifs, tandis que la superficie des prairies permanentes a augmenté, 
au moins jusqu'en 2010. 

Le pic de 2010 des prairies permanentes dans l'UE-28 et dans de nombreux États membres 
ne  reflète  pas  nécessairement  une  augmentation  réelle  des  surfaces,  mais  résulte  d'un 
ajustement en 2010 de la méthode d'enregistrement des terres communes dans le FSS. La 
comparaison des données à partir de 2010 devrait donc être plus fiable. 

Principaux facteurs affectant l'abandon des terres agricoles dans l'UE-28 

La littérature montre que les changements dans l'utilisation des terres agricoles résultent 
d’une  combinaison  de  facteurs  dont  les  effets  diffèrent  selon  le  contexte  historique, 
géopolitique et socio-économique. Les facteurs les plus répandus sont des conditions agro-
écologiques défavorables et des facteurs socio-économiques opérant à la fois au niveau 
des  exploitations  et  au  niveau  régional.  Les  zones  de  montagne  sont  particulièrement 
sensibles  à  l'abandon  des  terres  agricoles.  Le  déclin  des  populations  rurales  conduit 
également à l'abandon des terres agricoles dans de nombreuses régions de l'UE, en raison 
de meilleures opportunités d'emploi dans des zones plus urbaines ainsi que du déclin des 
infrastructures rurales. Néanmoins, des motivations socioculturelles peuvent conduire au 
maintien des activités agricoles dans des régions où elles ne sont pas économiquement 
viables. Dans d’autres cas, les terres continuent d’être enregistrées comme étant agricoles 
mais ne sont pas gérées activement, ce qui peut être qualifié d ’« abandon caché ». Les 
politiques publiques sont un facteur moins important d'abandon des terres, bien que des 
problèmes d'éligibilité aux paiements de la politique agricole commune (PAC) puissent 
avoir un effet. 

Les neuf études de cas régionales conduites dans le cadre de cette étude ont confirmé bon 
nombre des conclusions de la littérature, comme le fait que les principaux facteurs de non-
utilisation ou d'abandon des terres agricoles sont de nature socio-économique. Les facteurs 
les  plus  importants  identifiés  au  niveau  des  exploitations  étaient  la  rentabilité  des 
exploitations, la productivité des terres pour les cultures et le bétail, les coûts de production, 
la fragmentation des terres agricoles et les problèmes de régime foncier et de propriété. La 
baisse  de  la  rentabilité  de  l'agriculture,  observée  dans  toutes  les  régions  étudiées,  a 
renforcé  la  tendance  des  jeunes  à  quitter  les  zones  rurales,  laissant  derrière  eux  une 
population agricole vieillissante. 

Contrairement à la littérature, les contraintes naturelles n'ont pas été identifiées comme les 
principaux facteurs d'abandon des terres agricoles dans les régions étudiées, bien qu'elles 
soient  mentionnées  dans  toutes.  Dans  certaines  régions,  elles  ont  renforcé  les  facteurs 
socio-économiques  ou  devraient  devenir  plus  importantes  à  l'avenir  en  raison  du 
changement climatique. Dans certaines régions, la dégradation des terres a pu être induite 
par  des  pratiques  de  gestion  et  dans  quelques  régions  seulement,  c’est  l'abandon  des 
terres  agricoles  lui-même  qui  a  pu  entraîner  la  dégradation  des  terres,  sous  forme 
d'incendies  de  forêt  et  d'érosion  des  sols.  Bien  que  la  politique  n'ait  pas  été  considérée 

24 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

comme le principal facteur de l'abandon des terres agricoles dans les régions étudiées, la 
combinaison  de  la  PAC  et  des  politiques  nationales  n'a  pas  été  pas  suffisante  pour 
maintenir  toutes  les  terres  agricoles  en  activité.  Des  enquêtes  menées  dans  plusieurs 
régions ont également mentionné une administration foncière ou des systèmes cadastraux 
médiocres  ou  incomplets  comme  raisons  de  la  conversion  des  utilisations  agricoles  à 
d'autres utilisations. 

Lacunes et besoins en données pour mesurer la SAU et détecter l'abandon des terres 

Malgré les changements dans les définitions et les règles d'enregistrement des données 
sur  la  SAU  au  fil  du  temps,  et  les  variations  autorisées  pour  les  États  membres  pour 
certaines catégories de terres agricoles, la base de données du FSS reste la source la plus 
uniforme  disponible  pour  déterminer  la  SAU  nationales,  régionales  ainsi  que  pour  les 
tendances. Les deux principaux problèmes à prendre en compte en ce qui concerne les 
changements  de  SAU  entre  les  années  sont  :  le  changement  de  2010  relatif  à 
l'enregistrement des terres communes, et des incohérences dans les rapports des offices 
nationaux  de  statistique,  qui  entraînent  des  problèmes  de  distinction  entre  les  zones 
agricoles et forestières et l'identification de l'agroforesterie. 

Il  n'y  a  pas  de  données  statistiques  et  spatiales  qui  enregistrent  les  terres  inutilisées, 
abandonnées  ou  dégradées.  Il  y  a  des  informations  dans  LUCAS  (statistiques  sur 
l’occupation  et  l’utilisation  des  sols  d’Eurostat),  qui  identifie  «les  terres  en  jachère  et 
abandonnées»  comme  une  classe  de  couverture  terrestre  distincte,  mais  l'emplacement 
précis  de  ces  zones  n'est  pas  cartographié.  Les  terres  inutilisées  et  abandonnées  qui 
restent hors de production pendant plusieurs années perdent leur statut de terres agricoles 
et ne sont donc plus enregistrées dans les statistiques agricoles. De plus, l'abandon des 
terres  implique  un  processus  graduel,  ce  qui  rend  difficile  de  déterminer  si  et  quand  les 
terres sont complètement abandonnées. 

Malgré  cela,  il  existe  des  moyens  d'améliorer  la  détection  et  l'enregistrement  des  terres 
abandonnées et inutilisées (par exemple grâce aux informations à haute résolution spatiale 
et temporelle provenant des satellites pour mesurer le développement de la végétation sur 
le  terrain  et  les  activités  (ou  absence  d’activité)  de  gestion  des  terres,  par  exemple  en 
utilisant l’Indice de Végétation à Différence Normalisée (NDVI). Au cours des dernières 
années, de nombreux progrès ont été accomplis dans l'identification des types de cultures 
et  la  gestion  des  terres  grâce  à  la  télédétection  et  à  l'interprétation  de  photographies 
aériennes qui permettraient d'identifier la gestion, ou l’absence de gestion, au niveau de la 
parcelle. 

Obstacles  et  opportunités  pour  la  culture  de  biomasse  à  des  fins  énergétiques  et 
autres  utilisations  non-alimentaires  sur  des 
inutilisées, 
abandonnées et dégradées 

terres  agricoles 

La  littérature  a  montré  que  l'introduction  de  cultures  pour  la  biomasse  sur  des  terres 
inutilisées,  abandonnées  et  dégradées  peut  offrir  un  éventail  d'opportunités  socio-
économiques, y compris des revenus supplémentaires et la création de nouveaux emplois. 
Cultiver de la biomasse peut également aider à diversifier les revenus des agriculteurs et à 
créer un accès local à des ressources énergétiques nouvelles et propres. Les études de 
cas ont confirmé la nécessité  d’utilisations  alternatives des terres au sein mais  aussi  en 
dehors  de  leur  usage  agricole.  Cependant,  les  experts  divergent  sur  s'il  est  réaliste  de 
remettre en service des terres agricoles inutilisées, abandonnées et dégradées à cette fin. 
L'une des principales raisons de ces divergences est l'incertitude concernant le rendement 
financier des cultures non-alimentaires, notamment parce que la demande du marché n'est 

25 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

généralement pas (encore) bien développée. Cela concerne spécifiquement les cultures de 
biomasse lignocellulosique, les plus adaptées à la culture sur des terres abandonnées et 
dégradées.  En  outre,  il  existe  des  défis  techniques  pour  la  restauration  des  terres  pour 
permettre un usage agricole. 

En termes de risques et d'opportunités environnementaux, l'analyse montre qu'il y a plus 
de co-bénéfices avec les cultures pérennes et les systèmes agroforestiers. Sur des terres 
nues inutilisées, abandonnées ou dégradées, la mise en place de toute culture créant une 
couverture  du  sol  aide  à  stabiliser  le  sol.  Cependant,  les  cultures  pérennes  sont  plus 
efficaces que les cultures annuelles pour réduire l'érosion des sols, accumuler du carbone 
dans  le  sol  et  réduire  le  lessivage  des  nutriments.  Il  en  va  de  même  pour  les  systèmes 
agroforestiers, en particulier ceux qui combinent des arbres avec des cultures permanentes 
et des prairies permanentes. De nombreux systèmes agroforestiers sont meilleurs pour le 
contrôle  de  l'érosion  et  le  maintien  global  de  la  fertilité  du  sol  que  les  systèmes 
conventionnels de foresterie, de culture ou de pâturage. 

L'effet carbone du sol des cultures de biomasse pérennes et des systèmes agroforestiers 
dépend beaucoup de l'utilisation antérieure des terres. Le défrichage et le travail du sol des 
prairies,  des  terres  abandonnées  depuis  longtemps  avec  un  couvert  végétal  dense 
d'arbustes et/ou forestiers ou des zones humides dans le but de cultiver des cultures de 
biomasse pérennes entraînent de graves baisses de carbone (au-dessus et au-dessous du 
sol), avec des périodes de restauration variables. Les effets potentiels sur la biodiversité 
dépendent  du  paysage  et  du  contexte  de  l'habitat.  Par  exemple,  le  passage  des  terres 
végétalisées abandonnées aux terres arables en rotation diminuera les possibilités d'abris 
et de reproduction pour les mammifères et les oiseaux ainsi que la diversité floristique. 

Le  rôle  des  politiques  publiques  dans  le  maintien  des  terres  sous  production 
agricole, leur remise en service actif et la stimulation de la culture de la biomasse à 
des fins énergétiques et non-alimentaires 

Les  politiques  publiques  peuvent  jouer  un  rôle  important  pour  inverser  l’abandon  et  la 
dégradation des terres agricoles et rétablir une production active. La PAC, en conjonction 
avec  certaines  politiques  nationales 
financiers,  politiques 
d'aménagement  du  territoire  et  processus  d'enregistrement  foncier  et  de  résolution  de 
problèmes de régime foncier), s'est avérée avoir la plus grande influence. 

instruments 

(taxes, 

La dégradation ou l'abandon des terres n'est généralement pas la cible principale de ces 
instruments politiques qui abordent ces problèmes indirectement en soutenant la viabilité 
du  secteur  agricole  dans  son  ensemble  et  en  maintenant  la  diversité  des  types  et  des 
structures agricoles. Dans certains cas, ils cherchent à maintenir des formes spécifiques 
de production et à résoudre les problèmes de renouvellement des générations et de régime 
foncier.  Les  instruments  politiques  tels  que  la  PAC  ciblent  rarement  les  hotspots  de 
l'abandon  des  terres  ou  la  culture  de  matières  premières  à  des  fins  énergétiques  et  à 
d'autres fins non-alimentaires. Pourtant, là où ils coïncident, ils peuvent aider à contrer les 
facteurs socio-économiques affectant l'abandon. Les politiques nationales ont évolué pour 
répondre aux problèmes spécifiques rencontrés aux niveaux national, régional et local. Des 
politiques publiques spécifiques ont été identifiées dans les études de cas d'Europe centrale 
et orientale, conçues pour aborder les circonstances particulières entourant les problèmes 
de  structure  et  de  régime  fonciers  découlant  du  processus  de  restitution  des  terres, 
notamment les questions d'enregistrement foncier. À l'exception de certaines des mesures 
environnementales  de  la  PAC  (la  mesure  agroenvironnementale  et  climatique,  par 
exemple), la gestion durable des terres agricoles n'est pas un élément-clé dans la majorité 
des outils politiques identifiés. 

26 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

En  pratique,  la  combinaison  actuelle  des  politiques  publiques  en  place  est  souvent 
insuffisante pour contrer les facteurs socio-économiques de l'abandon des terres, tels que 
ceux  qui  conduisent  au  dépeuplement  rural.  Ces  problèmes  ruraux  de  grande  échelle 
méritent  plus  d'attention,  parallèlement  à  un  soutien  au  niveau  des  exploitations  et  à  la 
résolution des problèmes de structure et de régime foncier des exploitations, si l'on veut 
maintenir  les  systèmes  agricoles  les  plus  vulnérables  sur  le  plan  socio-économique.  La 
mesure  dans  laquelle  cela  est  possible  variera  d'une  région  à  l'autre  et  dépendra  de  la 
vigueur  économique  relative  de  l'économie  en  général.  Néanmoins,  certaines  mesures 
politiques  (paiements  directs  de  la  PAC  et  mesures  pour  les  zones  soumises  à  des 
contraintes  naturelles)  contribuent  à  maintenir  de  vastes  superficies  de  terres  à  usage 
agricole  qui,  autrement,  ne  seraient  plus  productives,  mais  elles  ne  garantissent  pas  la 
gestion  durable  de ces zones.  Il  est  également clair  que  les  processus sont  limités  pour 
déterminer les implications climatiques et environnementales de la remise en production 
des  terres.  Enfin,  la  politique  ne  joue  qu'un  rôle  limité  dans  la  décision  de  planter  des 
cultures de biomasse à des fins énergétiques ou à d'autres fins non-alimentaires sur les 
terres remises en production. Celles-ci relèvent du gestionnaire foncier et sont influencées 
par une série de facteurs, principalement liés au marché. Le rôle clé de la politique devrait 
être de garantir que la manière dont les cultures sont cultivées soit durable, la protection 
des  ressources  naturelles  et  de  la  biodiversité,  et  de  fournir  un  ensemble  de  services 
écosystémiques. 

Terres non-agricoles adaptées à la culture de la biomasse 

En examinant le potentiel des terres non-agricoles adaptées à la culture de la biomasse, 
un  certain  nombre  de  catégories  ont  été  évaluées  pour  identifier  les  obstacles  et  les 
opportunités de les utiliser à cette fin. Pour les trois catégories les plus intéressantes (en 
fonction  de  la  taille,  de  la  faisabilité  de  la  conversion,  de  la  viabilité  financière,  des 
utilisations concurrentes), une enquête plus détaillée a été menée : terrains aéroportuaires, 
terrains agrophotovoltaïques (APV) où la culture de biomasse est combinée à des systèmes 
PV, et décharges fermées. 

Pour  la  culture  de  biomasse  sur  les  terrains  des  aéroports,  les  principaux  obstacles 
identifiés sont que les activités agricoles peuvent présenter un risque supplémentaire pour 
les activités aériennes et également attirer une certaine biodiversité (par exemple, oiseaux 
et mammifères) qui peuvent augmenter les risques de collision avec les avions. Cependant, 
l'agriculture  aéroportuaire  pourrait  générer  des  revenus  financiers  supplémentaires, 
augmentant  ainsi  la  viabilité  économique  du  terrain  car  il  est  relativement  vaste  et 
facilement accessible. Les cultures sur les aéroports pourraient atténuer la pollution sonore 
et chimique et les effets négatifs des événements météorologiques extrêmes (températures 
élevées). Une gestion efficace de la faune dans les aéroports est une exigence minimale.  

Pour l’APV, le principal obstacle identifié est le niveau des coûts d'investissement, qui sont 
significativement  plus  élevés  que  ceux  des  systèmes  PV  à  grande  échelle.  L'électricité 
produite par APV n'est actuellement pas compétitive en termes de prix, même s'il pourrait 
y avoir un avantage potentiel grâce aux revenus supplémentaires générés par les cultures 
de biomasse. L'incertitude quant à la propriété des terres peut également entraver la mise 
en  œuvre.  La  superficie  potentielle  qui  pourrait  être  utilisée  pour  l'APV  dans  l'UE  est 
importante, avec environ 500 000 ha. L'APV pourrait être utilisée pour restaurer les sols 
dégradés  sur  des terres  arides  ou  semi-arides  et  les  panneaux  photovoltaïques  peuvent 
protéger les cultures contre les effets du temps et du climat (par exemple, la lumière directe 
du soleil, la sécheresse, la chaleur, la grêle et la pluie), réduisant ainsi les risques d'échec 
des  récoltes  pour  les  agriculteurs.  La  végétation  refroidissant  l’arrière  des  panneaux  PV 
peut également en améliorer l'efficacité. 

27 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Pour  la  culture  de  la  biomasse  sur  des  décharges  fermées,  les  principaux  obstacles 
identifiés sont que les polluants du sol et la mauvaise qualité du sol peuvent entraîner de 
faibles  rendements  ou  des  problèmes  de  qualité  de  la  biomasse  et  que  les  coûts 
d'exploitation sont relativement élevés en raison de la taille plus petite et sous-optimale des 
parcelles  et  le  traitement  de  fertilité  des  sols  nécessaire.  Cependant,  la  production  de 
cultures issues de la biomasse dans des décharges fermées a été identifiée comme une 
utilisation temporaire utile jusqu'à ce que des solutions permanentes soient trouvées pour 
l'assainissement, offrant même des options pour l'assainissement des sols ou la réduction 
des risques environnementaux associés aux fuites. 

Conclusions et recommandations 

Malgré le peu d’informations disponibles dans la littérature, les statistiques et les études de 
cas de l’UE concernant la mise en place de nouvelles activités de culture sur des terres 
inutilisées, abandonnées ou dégradées, un certain potentiel existe pour la réintroduction de 
ce type de terres dans la production agricole. Il peut s'agir de (anciennes) terres agricoles 
abandonnées  et/ou  dégradées  et  où  l'établissement  de  cultures  fournirait  de  multiples 
services  écosystémiques.  Il  pourrait  également  s'agir  de  certains  types  de  terres  non-
agricoles,  comme  celles  présentées  dans  cette  étude.  Une  résistance  de  la  société  à 
l'utilisation  de  certaines  terres  non-agricoles  n’est  pas  à  exclure  en  raison  de  la  perte 
potentielle  de  végétation  et  des  problèmes  d'intégration  écologique  ou  d'impacts  sur  le 
paysage. Dans d'autres domaines, l'écologisation des terres non-agricoles (urbaines) par 
le biais de cultures bioénergétiques pourrait contribuer aux initiatives en cours en Europe 
pour verdir les villes. La production de cultures bioénergétiques est une activité précieuse 
et appropriée pour une utilisation des terres à court et à long terme et peut donc être une 
option dans les cas où la terre n'est disponible que temporairement. 

Trois conditions doivent être remplies pour la production de biomasse non-alimentaire afin 
de  réduire  efficacement  l'abandon  et  la  dégradation  des  terres  ou  de  restituer  les terres 
abandonnées  et  dégradées  à  la  production  de  manière  durable.  Premièrement,  il  doit  y 
avoir une demande du marché en biomasse pour fournir des signaux de marché stables 
qui  donnent  confiance  en  la  production  de  cultures  à  des  fins  énergétiques  ou  non-
alimentaires. Deuxièmement, il y a un besoin en données pour comprendre quelles zones 
sont abandonnées et dégradées ou risquent de le devenir et pour décider où et comment il 
est le plus approprié d’encourager l’utilisation de ces terres pour la fourniture de multiples 
services  écosystémiques  (par  exemple  par  le  boisement,  reboisement,  écotourisme, 
chasse). Troisièmement, des politiques publiques doivent être mises en place pour stimuler 
la production de biomasse à des fins alimentaires et non-alimentaires là où elle conduit à 
une  gestion  durable  des  terres  et,  le  cas  échéant,  pour  permettre  un  changement 
d'utilisation  des  terres  bénéfique  pour  l'environnement  et  le  climat  qui  tirerait  parti  de 
nouveaux  marchés  tels  que  l'agroforesterie  et  les  cultures  pérennes  dans  les  zones 
marginales. Les recommandations spécifiques suivantes résultent de cette étude. 

Recommandations pour l'amélioration des données : 

•  Les  différences  dans  les  définitions  des  zones  agricoles  et  forestières  et  pour 
identifier  l'agroforesterie  entraînent  des  incohérences  dans  les  données  du  FSS 
communiquées par les États membres. Une plus grande uniformité dans les règles 
applicables aux États membres sur les niveaux de couvert arboré et une clarification 
de 
la  définition  des  zones  en  agroforesterie  à  communiquer  à  Eurostat 
contribueraient à résoudre ces problèmes. 
Il serait utile de pouvoir enregistrer l'absence de gestion de terres agricoles pendant 
plusieurs années consécutives, ainsi que les terres inutilisées depuis longtemps et 
28 

• 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

perdant leur statut officiel de terres agricoles utilisées. Un bon indicateur indirect de 
la marginalité et de la dégradation des terres sur les terres arables est le rendement. 
L'enregistrement annuel détaillé des rendements par hectare au niveau régional (de 
préférence  au  niveau  des  unités  administratives  locales)  est  très  informatif  et 
permettrait  d’identifier  les  régions  où  la  marginalisation  agricole  peut  conduire  à 
l’abandon. Les terres dégradées à la fois pour l'utilisation agriculture et pour d'autres 
utilisations doivent être enregistrées dans des sources de données statistiques ou 
spatiales. 

Recommandations pour les politiques publiques : 

•  Pour  améliorer  la  manière  dont  la  PAC  répond  aux  problèmes  de  l'abandon  de 
terres, les États membres doivent identifier ses moteurs dans l’analyse SWOT et 
l’analyse des besoins de leurs plans stratégiques de la PAC et effectuer une analyse 
pour identifier les zones à risque qui serait les plus intéressantes de maintenir dans 
un usage agricole. Les États membres devraient utiliser cette analyse pour choisir, 
concevoir, adapter et cibler une combinaison pertinente d'interventions de la PAC 
afin de soutenir la gestion durable des terres en combinaison avec la résolution des 
problèmes sociétaux plus larges de la pauvreté et de l'exclusion sociale dans les 
zones rurales. Une meilleure intégration de la PAC avec le financement des Fonds 
Structurels  ainsi  que  les  mesures  nationales  permettrait  de  réduire  le  niveau  de 
ressources nécessaires pour résoudre ces problèmes. 

•  Les systèmes agroforestiers suscitent un intérêt considérable en tant que source de 
biomasse  à  des  fins  non-alimentaires,  ainsi  que  pour  leur  potentiel  à  fournir  des 
services écosystémiques multiples. Cependant, les États membres soutiennent ces 
pratiques par un montant relativement faible de soutien de la PAC. À l'avenir, les 
paiements et le conseil pour créer des zones en agroforesterie durable et pour la 
restauration/le  maintien  des  systèmes  agroforestiers  existants  devraient  être 
encouragés  davantage  au  niveau  des  États  membres  au  travers  de  l'aide  au 
reboisement. 

•  Des  systèmes  d'enregistrement  foncier  incomplets  ont  été  identifiés  comme  un 
problème dans certains États membres. S'attaquer à ce problème devrait être une 
priorité afin qu'il soit clair à qui appartient chaque parcelle de terre et que lorsque 
des  problèmes  de  dégradation,  de  sous-gestion  et  d'abandon  surviennent,  les 
propriétaires puissent être contactés pour résoudre les problèmes. 

•  Une  meilleure  cohérence  est  nécessaire  entre  les  politiques  sur  les  énergies 
renouvelables et le climat, la PAC et les Fonds Structurels. De plus, la production 
de  cultures  bioénergétiques  sur  des  terres  non-agricoles  nécessite  souvent  une 
coopération  entre  plusieurs  industries  ou  secteurs  qui  ne  sont  généralement  pas 
amener  à  être  en  contact.  Les  politiques  publiques  renforçant  la  collaboration 
sectorielle  devraient  contribuer  à  l'utilisation  de  ces types  de terres  à  des  fins  de 
bioénergie.  Cela  pourrait  inclure  des  avantages  financiers  pour  les  consortiums 
d'entreprises  de  différents  secteurs  qui  coopèrent  pour  utiliser  les  terres  pour  de 
multiples fonctions, ou l'élaboration de directives législatives pour la conclusion de 
contrats  (modèles)  permettant  des  utilisations  multiples  de  la  même  zone.  La 
certification européenne pour la production de cultures bioénergétiques à partir de 
terres (auparavant) non-agricoles pourrait aider à différencier la biomasse produite 
dans ces zones, ce qui pourrait être un avantage sur le marché des carburants verts. 

29 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

1.  INTRODUCTION,  SCOPE  AND  PURPOSE  OF  THE 

STUDY 

Chapter aim and contents: 
This  chapter  presents  the  scope,  wider  context  and  objectives  of  the  study,  and  the 
overall  structure  of  the  report.  It  also  sets  out  the  overall  methodological  approach, 
including the selection of case studies.  

1.1.  Study scope and objectives 

While agriculture has historically shaped the biodiversity heritage of rural areas in the EU 
over the last 60 years, this synergistic relationship has declined. Polarisation has occurred, 
particularly  in  the  last  decades,  between  intensification  and  specialisation  of  agricultural 
production on land with more production potential on the one hand, and marginalisation and 
abandonment of agricultural land on the other (Polakova et al., 2011; Sutcliffe et al., 2015). 
At  the  same  time,  influenced  by  growing  ambitions  for  a  more  circular  and  bio-based 
economy, there is increasing demand to replace non-renewable resources, such as fossil 
resources,  with  biomass  to  be  converted  to  bio-based  materials,  chemicals  and  energy. 
This additional demand for biomass for non-food purposes must be sustainably produced 
and can come both from the use of residual biomass waste (from municipalities, agriculture 
and forestry), as well as dedicated crops and direct harvests from forests. To avoid putting 
additional  pressure  on  land  and  competing  with  food  production,  it  is  preferable  to  grow 
these  biomass  crops  on  land  that  is  no  longer  used,  has  become  abandoned  and/or 
degraded, as long as this can be done sustainably.   

It is in this context that the study presented in this report was commissioned by the EC-DG-
ENER. The study objectives are to: 

1.  provide,  based  on  most  recent  statistical  and  scientific  data,  the  current  area  of 
utilised agricultural area (UAA) in all EU-28 countries and an evaluation of how UAA 
has evolved since 1975. 

2.  provide the most recent statistical data, scientific and EU case study evidence on 
declines  in agricultural  land  in  the  EU  countries  and the reasons  why agricultural 
land becomes unused, abandoned and degraded.  

3.  support  the  Commission  in  proposing  policies  that  can  reverse  this  trend  of 

agricultural land becoming unused, abandoned and degraded.  

4.  support  the  Commission  in  proposing  policies  aimed  at  reclaiming  unused, 
abandoned  and  degraded  agricultural  land  and  putting  it  under  active  biomass 
production for energy and other non-food uses. 

5.  review  recent  data  and  scientific  evidence  to  identify  different  types  of  non-
agricultural  land  in  the  EU  that  could  potentially  be  used  for  active  biomass 
production for energy and other non-food uses. 

6.  support the Commission in proposing policies aiming at reclaiming non-agricultural 

land for active biomass production for energy and other non-food uses. 

30 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Box  1  Types  of  land  reviewed  for  the  production  of  cropped  biomass  for 
energy and other uses in the EU-28 

The study focuses on agricultural and non-agricultural land that is/has become unused and 
that  could  potentially  be used for  active  biomass production  for  energy  and other  non-food 
uses.  

For  agricultural  land,  the  focus  is  on  land  that  is  no  longer  used  for  food,  fibre,  and  feed 
production or severely degraded lands. This is land that has been partly in agricultural use in 
recent years (the last 20 years) as well as land that is likely to go out of production in the near 
future. These areas are currently defined or will be defined in the near future according to the 
RED II  definitions for low indirect land use change (ILUC) land:  

• 

• 

• 

‘unused land’ means areas which, for at least five consecutive years, were not used 
for  the  cultivation  of  food  and  feed  crops,  other  energy  crops,  or  any  substantial 
amount of fodder for grazing animals;  

‘abandoned land’ refers to unused land which was used in the past for the cultivation 
of food and feed crops, but where this cultivation ended due to biophysical or socio-
economic constraints; 

‘severely degraded land’ is land that, for a significant period of time, has either been 
significantly  salinated  or  had  significantly  low  organic  matter  content  and  has  been 
severely eroded.  

The study also focuses on land resources that either were agricultural over 20 years ago or 
have never been agricultural and that could potentially be used for biomass cropping. Such 
land may include any type that is temporarily or permanently out of productive use, or that is 
in use but where such use can be combined with biomass cropping. However, this study does 
not cover forest land. 

Figure 1 gives an overview of which type of land is the focus of each chapter. Chapters 2, 3, 
4  and  5  focus  on  (former)  agricultural  land  that  is  currently  unused,  has  been  recently 
abandoned, or is degraded. Chapter 6 discusses the options for biomass cropping on non-
agricultural land, with the exception of forest land. 

Figure 1 

As well as agricultural land resources that have become unused and/or abandoned for food 
and feed production or degraded, the study also focuses on non-agricultural land that has 
potential  for  producing  cropped feedstock  for  energy  and  other  uses  (see  Figure  1).  For 
both  types  of  land,  it  examines  whether  biomass  could  potentially  be  grown  and  if  this 
production has adverse environmental and climate impacts.  

31 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

The study’s scope is the EU-281, with the most recent UAA area figures evaluated for the 
EU-28  at Member  State-level  and  at  the  sub-regional  level  where  data  allow  (LAU  2/3)2. 
Historic  trends  and recent  UAA  figures  are  evaluated  and  underlying  processes  causing 
land abandonment identified. These drivers are partially mapped in order to link to emerging 
land use transitions.  

A  case  study  approach  is  used  for  both  further  understanding  agricultural  land 
abandonment and for in-depth data collection on three non-agricultural land categories, and 
the possibilities to use these for biomass cropping for energy and other non-food uses. The 
agricultural  land  case  studies,  nine  in total,  enable  the  relationship  between drivers  (and 
combinations  of  drivers)  and  land  use  transitions  that  lead  to  the  abandonment  of 
agricultural land to be studied. Three case studies were selected for in-depth analysis of the 
non-agricultural land categories (Chapter 6).  

The  study  also  looks  at  the  options  for  cropped  biomass  for  energy  and  other  non-food 
uses. Box 1 gives an overview of the biomass crops that are reviewed for their potential to 
be  grown  on  unused,  abandoned  and  degraded  agricultural  and  non-agricultural  land. 
Chapter 4 provides a literature review on the barriers and opportunities for biomass crops 
that are suitable for biomass production for energy and other non-food uses.  

The report also examines the roles different policies can play in influencing and supporting 
the maintenance of land under agricultural production, bringing it back into active use and 
stimulating  biomass  cropping  for  non-food  purposes  on  agricultural  and  non-agricultural 
land. It examines the role of both EU and national/regional policies, including the ways that 
different Member States have implemented EU policies. The assessment of national and 
regional policies is based on the case study findings, with evaluation results presented in 
Chapter 5 for policies covering agricultural land and in Chapter 6 for policies affecting non-
agricultural land.  

Box  2  Types  of  crops  considered  with  potential  to  be  grown  on  unused, 
abandoned, degraded agricultural and unused non-agricultural lands in EU-28 

Different types of crops can be considered as relatively novel crops that are producing either 
lignocellulosic  material  and/or  oil,  sugar  and  starch  that  is  a  suitable  feedstock  for  the 
production  of  advanced  biofuels,  or  other  bio-based  materials  or  chemicals.  The  selection 
listed below is based on the initial selection of crops in the MAGIC project (Alexopoulou et al., 
2019; Cossel et al., 2019) and a report on agroforestry systems in Europe (Elbersen and van 
Eupen, 2019).   

1 As when the study was commissioned the UK was still in the EU.  

2 Eurostat maintains a system of Local Administrative Units (LAUs) compatible with NUTS. These LAUs are the building blocks 
of the NUTS and comprise the municipalities and communes of the EU.Until 2016, two levels of Local Administrative Units 
(LAU) existed: 

• 
• 

The upper LAU level (LAU level 1, formerly NUTS level 4) were defined for most, but not all of the countries. 
The lower LAU level (LAU level 2, formerly NUTS level 5) consisted of municipalities or equivalent units in the 28 
EU Member States. 

Since 2017, only one level of LAU has been kept this is a subdivision of the NUTS 3 regions.  

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/local-administrative-units 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Category 

Definition 

Examples 

Annual oil, 
starch or sugar 
crops used for 
1G biofuels and 
bioproducts 

Crops that can  be  harvested  once  a  year  and 
need to be planted every year. Usually they are 
to be grown in rotation with other annual crops. 
The  main  type  of  resource  harvested  is  oil, 
sugar and starch (and straw). 

Sugarbeet,  oil  seed  rape,  sunflower,  cereals  (for 
example, wheat, barley, maize) 

Perennial 
herbaceous 
crops 

Woody 
perennial crops 
in short rotation 
systems (SRC) 

Perennial 
multipurpose 
crops 

Annual non-
food oil crops 

Annual non-
food 
multipurpose 
crops 

Agroforestry 
systems 

Crops that can be harvested on average once 
a  year  over  several  years  (between  10  to  25 
years)  without  the  need  for  ploughing  up  and 
new  planting.  The  main  type  of  resource 
harvested 
lignocellulosic 
herbaceous 
biomass. 

is 

SRC  refers  to  trees  that  are  harvested  by 
cutting  the  growing  stem  to  its  base,  allowing 
the  growth  of  new  stems.  These  can  be 
harvested  once  every  3  to  6  years  and 
plantations of SRC usually last for between 10 
to  25  years,  during  which  no  ploughing  and 
replanting is needed. The main type of resource 
harvested is woody biomass. 

Crops that can be harvested on average once 
a  year  over  several  years  (between  10  to  15 
years)  without  the  need  for  ploughing  up  and 
new  planting.  The  main  type  of  biomass 
harvested  is  a  combination  of  herbaceous 
lignocellulosic biomass and oil or starch. 

reed 

(Panicum 
(Miscanthus),  switchgrass 
Miscanthus 
virgatum), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), 
tall  wheatgrass 
giant 
(Thinopyrum ponticum or cristatum or sibiricum), wild 
sugarcane  (Saccharum  spontaneum  L.),  common 
reed (Phragmites australis, suitable for palludiculture) 

(Arundo  donax), 

Poplar  (Populus),  willow  (Salix  alba),  Siberian  elm 
(Ulmus), 
(Robinia 
pseudoacacia), black alder (Alnus glutinosa, suitable 
for palludiculture) 

eucalyptus, 

locust 

black 

Cardoon (Cynara cardunculus), lupin (Lupinus), lisse 
(Iridaceae, suitable for palludiculture) 

Crops that can  be  harvested  once  a  year  and 
need to be planted every year. Usually they are 
grown in rotation with other annual crops. The 
main  type  of  resource  harvested  is  oil  (and 
straw). 

Camelina  (Camelina  sativa),  castor  bean  (Ricinus 
communis),  crambe  (Crambe),  Ethiopian  mustard 
(Brassica  carinata),  Pennycress  (Thlaspi),  safflower 
(Carthamus tinctorius) 

Crops that can  be  harvested  once  a  year  and 
need to be planted every year. Usually they are 
grown in rotation with other annual crops. The 
main 
is 
lignocellulosic biomass and oil or starch. 

resource  harvested 

type  of 

Agroforestry  is  a  collective  name  for  land-use 
systems  and 
technologies  where  woody 
perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, and 
so on) are deliberately used on the same land-
management units as agricultural crops and/or 
animals, in some form of spatial arrangement or 
temporal  sequence.  In  agroforestry  systems 
there  are  both  ecological  and  economical 
interactions between the different components 
(Lundgren and Raintree, 1983).3 

(Cannabis 

Hemp 
(Sorghum  Moench 
cannabinus). 

sativa),  biomass 
kenaf 

1794), 

sorghum 
(Hibiscus 

Examples  of  agroforestry  practices 
(Mosquera-Losada et al., 2009): 

in  Europe 

1)  Silvoarable agroforestry: widely spaced trees 

inter-cropped with annual or perennial crops. It 
comprises alley cropping, scattered trees and 
line belts. 

2)  Riparian buffer strips: strips of perennial 

vegetation (tree/shrub/grass) natural or planted 
between croplands/pastures and along water 
sources. 

3)  Multipurpose trees: fruit and other trees 

randomly or systematically planted in cropland 
or pasture for the purpose of providing fruit, 
fuelwood, fodder and timber, among other 
services. 

3 The definition of agroforestry is also specified in Article 23 of EU Regulation 1305/2013 and sub-measure 
fiche  ‘establishment  of  agroforestry  systems  measure  8’  as  ‘land  use  systems  in  which  trees  are  grown  in 
combination with agriculture on the same  land’. It is further explained in the Agroforestry Measure Fiche: 
‘Agroforestry means land-use systems and practices where woody perennials are deliberately integrated with 
crops  and/or  animals  on  the  same  parcel  and  land  management  unit  without  the  intention  to  establish  a 
remaining forest stand. The trees may be arranged as single stems, in rows or in groups, while grazing may 
also take place inside parcels (silvoarable agroforestry, silvopastoralism, grazed or intercropped orchards) or 
on the limits between parcels (hedges, tree lines).’ 

33 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

4)  Silvopasture: combining trees with forage and 
animal production. It comprises forest or 
woodland grazing and open forest trees which 
can deliver wood residues for energy and other 
uses. 

1.2.  Study background 

The EU Energy Union Framework Strategy calls on Member States to develop a long-term, 
secure, sustainable and competitive energy system, with a continued increase in the share 
of renewable energy sources in the EU. The renewable energy Directive (2009/28/EC) set 
binding  national  targets  on  each  Member  State  designed  to  deliver  20%  of  energy  from 
renewable sources by 2020. The 2018 update of the Bioeconomy Strategy and RED II (EC 
Directorate-General 
the 
development  of  the  European  bioeconomy,  and  in  particular  to  maximise  its  contribution 
towards the Paris Agreement4, the 2030 Agenda5 and the Sustainable Development Goals 
(SDGs)6. The update also aligns more closely to new EU policy priorities. Sustainability and 
circularity are now integrated with the bioeconomy objectives. Central to the Bioeconomy 
Strategy  and  Action  Plan  (EC,  2018)  is  the  need  to  reconcile  the  competition  between 
different sectors (food, feed and industrial uses) for biomass.  

Innovation,  2018)  aims 

for  Research  and 

to  accelerate 

The  Green  Deal  is  a  new  growth  strategy  that  aims  to  transform  the  EU  into  a  fair  and 
prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there 
are  no  net  emissions  of  greenhouse  gases  in  2050  and  where  economic  growth  is 
decoupled  from resource use. It  is  expected  that  all  EU  actions  and  policies will  have to 
contribute to the Green Deal objectives. Soon after the Green Deal, the Circular Economy 
Action Plan (COM(2020) 98 Final) was published in March 2020. This develops the Green 
Deal  ambitions  and  specifies  how  the  transition  to  further  circularity  in  the  EU  economy 
should be brought about as an instrument to reach further climate-neutrality. It states that 
the climate-neutrality target by 2050 is not feasible without transitioning to a fully circular 
economy because half of total greenhouse gas emissions come from resource extraction 
and processing.  

It is therefore clear that sustainability and circularity are now very closely integrated with the 
bioeconomy objectives of the EC. This implies that demand for biomass for energy and non-
food  uses  can  be  expected  to  continue  to  grow,  but  that  the  requirements  for  it  to  be 
sustainably sourced cannot be ignored. The ambitions for a circular bioeconomy need to be 
carefully reconciled with other policy ambitions in relation to reaching more sustainability in 
agriculture,  land use,  biodiversity  conservation, and climate  mitigation,  but  also ensuring 
that there is enough food, jobs, and income. All these ambitions are also linked to the SDGs, 
to which the EC and all EU Member States have committed.  

The  focus  on  unused  lands  in  this  study  is  based  on  the  expectation  that  demand  for 
biomass for energy and non-food uses will increase in the future due to the influence of the 
policy driven transition to a circular bioeconomy. While it is claimed that there is sufficient 
biomass available in Europe to reach the 2030 goal of a bio-based economy (Panoutsou et 
al., 2016), mobilising biomass and setting up stable supply chains is one of the main barriers 

4 https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement 

5 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld  

6 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

that hamper developments in the bio-based sector (Pelkmans et al., 2016; OECD, 2018). It 
is expected that waste and residual biomass sources will not suffice to supply the expected 
growing demand for biomass for non-food uses. For primary residual biomass, sourcing is 
often  affected  by    farmers’  and  foresters’  lack  of  willingness  to  supply  biomass  (Gyalai-
Korpos  et  al.,  2018;  Dettenhofer,  2020),  for  instance  due  to  focusing  only  on  the  main 
product and concerns and lack of knowledge about sustainably removable residual biomass 
and effects on soil health. Another issue is the variability of biomass quality. Most residual 
biomass  is  of  low  quality,  but  there  is  more  demand  for  higher-quality  residual  biomass 
across a number of markets, which results in higher competition (Pelkmans et al., 2016). 
Bio-industries  will  also  be  cautious  where  there  is  uncertain  biomass  availability  without 
fixed prices. Given these challenges, dedicated cropping to source bio-industries is gaining 
increased attention and the introduction of dedicated lignocellulosic crops is considered a 
feasible option. Using unused lands for their production is considered the viable alternative 
to  minimise  land-use  competition  for  food  production  and  its  adverse  (direct  or  indirect) 
effects  on  food  security,  land-based  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  and  biodiversity 
loss. As part of this ‘stock’ of available land, abandoned unused and degraded agricultural 
lands have already been envisaged as land resources for the delivery of low ILUC biomass 
for biofuel production in RED II.  

Non-food cropping will still have sustainability risks, such as the loss of ecosystem services 
(Bindraban  et  al.,  2009;  Berzky  et  al.,  2011;  Immerzeel,  2014;  Plieninger  and  Gaertner, 
2011), even if competition with food production is avoided. There are also many studies that 
claim  that  win-win  situations  can  be  created  with  the  production  of  non-food  crops  on 
unused, abandoned and/or degraded lands (Dauber et al., 2012; Cossel, M. von et al., 2019; 
Smeets  et  al.,  2009;  Dale,  2010;  Fernando,  2005;  Zegada-Lizarazu  et  al.  2010; 
Zimmermann et al., 2012; Haughton et al., 2016). Cultivation of feedstock for energy and 
other  non-food  uses  on  unused,  abandoned  and  degraded  lands,  or  on  land  that  would 
otherwise  be  abandoned,  can  be  attractive  especially  if  primary  producers  can  gain 
additional income opportunities from it.  

The  options  for  creating  such  co-benefits  from  the  production  of  industrial  crops  depend 
very much on what type of land conversions are involved, the time between lack of use and 
conversion to new crops, the type of crops used (perennials or annuals), the management 
practices,  and  the  presence  of  other  uses  and  ecosystem  services  (Pedroli  et  al.,  2011; 
EEA,  2013;  ETC-SIA,  2013;  Immerzeel  et  al.,  2014).  In  principle,  the  effects  of  biomass 
cropping  for  energy  and  other  non-food  purposes  are  the  same  as  for  other  land-use 
activities such as for food and feed production. The specific challenge for biomass crops for 
non-food purposes is that this creates an additional demand for land and other inputs, for 
example, water and nutrients, over and above the already rising demand for food and feed 
due  to  a  growing  world  population  (Gough  et  al.,  2018;  Daioglou  et  al.,  2020)  and  an 
increasing climate change effect (Cossel et al., 2019). The incremental increase in land use 
for agricultural production, whether a result of demand for biofuels, food, feed or other non-
food applications, can directly or indirectly lead to an increase of CO2 emissions and the 
loss of natural habitats, with adverse effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services.  

It is important to highlight that it is not necessarily appropriate to bring back into production 
all land that is degraded or has been abandoned. Much land that is abandoned consists of 
small  individual  parcels  scattered  across  an  area  which  would  not  necessarily  be 
economically viable to bring back into production. In other situations, land may be of high 
biodiversity value, in the process to reverting to forest over time, with associated climate 
and  other  environmental  benefits,  or  fulfilling  other  important  socio-economic  and 
environmental  functions  and  delivering  ecosystem  services,  such  as  flood  control  and 
management.  A  precursor  to  any  decision  to  bring  land  back  into  agricultural  production 
therefore should be an assessment of the benefits and costs of doing so, taking into account 
the ecosystems services that are currently and could potentially be delivered in the future. 
This is necessary to ensure that vital ecosystem services are not lost in the process. 

35 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

There  may  also  be  other  barriers  to  the  use  of  previously  abandoned  land  for  these 
purposes,  including  issues  relating  to  markets,  infrastructure,  supply  chains.  Research 
within MAGIC (Elbersen et al., 2018), shows that abandoned land can often be marginal 
land with limited yield potentials. It could therefore be challenging to find large quantities of 
abandoned land within the EU that could be used for profitable cultivation of feedstocks for 
energy and other uses.  

Given these different perspectives and the urgent need for biomass to supply the growing 
bioeconomy,  this  study  aims  to  provide  a  more  detailed  understanding  of  the  actual 
available land in the EU that has been and could be envisaged for biomass production. As 
part of this ‘stock’ of available land, it explores the potential to use abandoned agricultural 
lands for the production of biomass crops for energy and other non-food uses, thereby also 
stimulating the stewardship of such land by farmers, cooperatives and other players in the 
agricultural value chain, and revitalising rural areas. The study also provides an overview 
of policies and policy options to both reverse the trend in land abandonment and reclaim 
unused lands for biomass cropping.  

1.3.  Selection of case studies 

Much of this study is derived from case studies, with two types of case studies selected: 

Nine regional case studies to provide deeper understanding of land dynamics and relevant 
policies in relation to unused, abandoned and degraded agricultural lands. 
Three  thematic  case  studies  of  non-agricultural  land  types  with  potential  to  be  used  for 
biomass  cropping  for  energy  and  other  non-food  uses.  These  were  taken  from  a  larger 
sample of 28 non-agricultural land types that were reviewed.  

The selection of the nine case studies focusing on agricultural land that becomes unused, 
abandoned  or  degraded  was  based  on  a  spatial  analysis  approach  to  identify  hotspot 
regions  of  agricultural  land  abandonment,  representing  the  diversity  in  biogeographical 
environments and socio-political contexts in the EU. To do this, three aspects were mapped 
at the regional level in the following order:  

1.  changes in UAA since 1975 and types of land use flows detected between 2000 and 

2018 (see Chapter 2 and Annex III); 

2.  the main drivers of abandonment identified in the literature review (in Chapter 3); 

and 

3.  diversity in climate and historical political context. 

This  information  was  used  to  elaborate  a  typology  of  European  regions,  with  a  diverse 
combination  of  factors  that  lead  to  farmland  abandonment.  Regions  with  high  land 
abandonment  were  further  classified  according  to  environmental  and  demographic 
characteristics.  The  nine  cases  studies  were  selected  based  on  this  typology  and 
classification. To cover the wide agro-environmental diversity in the EU, case studies were 
selected in all its environmental zones, except the Boreal and Alpine zones. In these two 
zones,  the  climate  (short  growing  season,  low  temperatures)  severely  constrains 
agricultural crop production and makes the development of biomass cropping unrealistic.  

Annex  VI  gives  further  details  of  the  approach  taken,  results  of  the  regional  typology 
mapping, and final case study selection. 

The  selection  of  the  three  thematic  case  studies  for  non-agricultural  land  options  with  a 
potential for  dedicated  biomass  cropping  was  based  on  several  steps.  First,  a  longlist  of 

36 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

potential  non-agricultural  land  use  categories  was  drawn  up  by  experts  involved  in  the 
project. This was then filtered to create a shortlist of categories based on size of availability, 
feasibility,  and  potential  of  co-benefits  identified  in  the  literature.  For  each  shortlisted 
category, opportunities and barriers were identified through a literature search focusing on 
policy, funding options, co-benefits, pilot projects or existing initiatives, and positive public 
perception. Finally, three shortlisted categories were selected for in-depth analysis of their 
technical and economic feasibility for bioenergy production, and to identify existing policies 
that stimulate and/or hinder this.  

1.4.  Overview of this report 

This report is the final deliverable of the ‘Analysis of actual land availability in the EU; trends 
in changes (abandoned land, low fertility land, saline land etc.) and options for (energy) crop 
utilisation’ study.  

Chapter 2 focuses on the definition and quantification of UAA and changes in UAA in all EU 
countries since 1975. It also outlines the hotspot regions in the EU-28 where agricultural 
areas have declined.  

Chapter 3 discusses the main drivers for agricultural land becoming unused, abandoned or 
degraded within the context of historical political changes in EU countries. It sets out the 
different  types  of  abandonment  processes  that  exist  in  the  EU,  based  on  the  literature 
review and findings from the nine regional case studies.   

Chapter  4  discusses  the  opportunities  and  barriers  for  using  unused,  abandoned  and 
degraded  agricultural  land  for  various  biomass  crops.  It  provides  a  mapped  overview  of 
where barriers and opportunities occur in the hotspot regions.  

Chapter 5 discusses the role of policies in relation to: maintaining land under agricultural 
production;  bringing  unused,  abandoned  and  degraded  land  back  into  active  use;  and 
stimulating biomass cropping on unused, abandoned and degraded lands. It concludes with 
policy recommendations. 

Chapter 6 focuses on the types of land outside agriculture use (excluding forest land) that 
can potentially be used for dedicated biomass cropping. A wider review of different types of 
land and their suitability for dedicated cropping is first presented. Based on this, three types 
of  lands  are  selected  for  an  in-depth  case  study-analysis  of  suitability,  options  and 
impediments.  The  case  studies  relate 
to  agro-photovoltaic  areas,  airports,  and 
contaminated land sites/closed landfill sites. Chapter 6 concludes with recommendations 
on how policy can stimulate and guide the development of cropping activities for biomass 
on these three non-agricultural land types.  

Chapter 7 presents the main conclusions and recommendations. These address data gaps 
and data needs for measuring actual UAA, changes in UAA and mapping hotspots of land 
abandonment;  main  drivers  for  land  abandonment;  key  characteristics  of  unused, 
abandoned  and  degraded  agricultural  lands;  sustainable  options  for  dedicated  biomass 
cropping; and key EU and national and regional policies influencing the abandonment and 
bringing back into use of lands for biomass crops. For non-agricultural land, the conclusions 
focus  on  the  key  characteristics  of  non-agricultural  lands  suitable  for  dedicated  biomass 
cropping.  The  main  recommendations  focus  on  improving  policies  targeting  stabilisation 
and bringing (back) into production agricultural lands that are becoming unused, abandoned 
and degraded, and non-agricultural lands where biomass cropping can be introduced.  

37 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

2.  DEFINING AND QUANTIFYING THE ACTUAL UAA AND CHANGES 

IN UAA SINCE 1975 IN EU REGIONS 

 Chapter aims and contents: 

This chapter provides a description of the definition of UAA and two broader categories 
of agricultural land, namely agricultural area (AA) and farm area (FA). It then provides a 
quantified  overview  of  these  three  types  of  land  categories  based  on  most  recent 
statistical data sources in all EU-28 Member States, drawing conclusions on the current 
extent of UAA in the EU-28.  

The  final  section  presents  a  quantified  assessment  of  changes  in  UAA  and  AA  since 
1975.  Changes  are  set  out  in  three  time  periods:  1975-1990,  1991-2005  and  2006-
2016/18, and presented first at the national level and then at the regional level. Regional 
changes are further analysed to provide a more detailed characterisation of changes in 
UAA, from which hotspot regions of regional land use change have been mapped. 

2.1. 

Introduction and approach 

Based on most recent statistical and scientific data, the current area of UAA in all EU-28 
countries and an evaluation of how this area has evolved since 1975 is presented here. 

The  approach  followed  here  is  involves  extensive  review  of  definitions  of  different 
agricultural land use categories and an extensive collection of statistical data from EU and 
national data sources.  

2.2.  Definitions of utilised agricultural area (UAA) 

To identify abandoned farmland through changes in UAA over time, it is necessary first to 
determine how UAA and other agricultural land use classes are officially defined in statistics. 
It is also necessary to understand how these definitions translate in EU-wide and national 
datasets  and  how  these  datasets  also  relate  to  data  determining  the  agricultural  areas 
eligible for  support  under  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP).  We  will  also show  that 
what is registered by Eurostat as UAA does not necessarily match with what is registered 
in national agricultural and land use statistics. We also consider a broader interpretation of 
what can be regarded as farmland, and how this differs from what is officially registered as 
UAA following the statistical definitions.  

Eurostat is the European statistical office that provides strict guidelines to all Member States 
on how they have to report their data to the farm structural survey (FSS). It ensures that 
there is regular data reporting according to a consistent methodology between all Member 
States. Eurostat makes a distinction between FA, AA and UAA (see Figure 2 and Table 1). 
UAA  is  the  smallest  area,  and  is  defined  as  ‘the  total  area  taken  up  by  arable  land, 
permanent  grassland,  permanent  crops  and  kitchen  gardens  used  by  the  holding, 
regardless  of  the  type  of  tenure  or  of  whether  it  is  used  as  a  part  of  common  land’.  AA 
consists  of  the  UAA  plus  unutilised  agricultural  area  (NUAA)  and  special  holding  areas 
(SAA). The largest area is the FA which consists of AA plus wooded area (WA) and other 
land (FA9), which is farmland occupied by buildings, farmyards, tracks, ponds, and so on. 

Therefore, as soon as farmland becomes unutilised it is excluded from the UAA, but may 
remain part of the AA or FA. This confirms that changes in UAA as defined by Eurostat is 
in principle an indicator for measuring land that goes out of agricultural use, although it does 
not tell us what the land becomes after it leaves the UAA. There are also limitations to data 
sources that report on UAA, certainly when used for registering historical changes, which 
will be discussed below. 

38 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 2 Eurostat overview of what is included in UAA, AA and FA. 

Notes:  Other  land  (SAA9)  =  Other  areas  on  farms  (so  outside  UAA,  cultivated  mushrooms,  NUAA,  wooded 
areas  (WA) and  SRCAA.  Unutilised  agricultural  area  (NUAA)  =  common  land  which  is  not  used.  Other land 
(FA9) = other land, occupied by buildings, farmyards, tracks, ponds, and so on. 

The main difference between the AA and UAA registration in FSS is that AA also includes 
unused agricultural land and special holding areas, although the latter do not cover a large 
area. However, this does not imply that the categories of land included in UAA are always 
used. For example, the categories fallow and unused lands are included in FSS as part of 
UAA or AA. These are registered in FSS in sub-categories such as ‘fallow land subject to 
payment of subsidies with no economic use’ or ‘permanent grassland and meadow - not 
used for production, eligible for subsidies’. This indicates that within the UAA registered in 
FSS there may be land included which is actually unused or even abandoned. For several 
categories of land, we do not know how it is managed. From the statistical classification into 
the  ‘fallow’  or  ‘not  used  for  production’  categories  it  is  not  possible  to  conclude  whether 
these categories of land are indeed abandoned for a longer time, or whether they refer to 
lands which is part of the crop rotation with a limited time out of production.  

Unused agricultural area (NUAA) is an interesting category that is registered as is part of 
the agricultural area and not of the UAA. It is defined as ‘common land which is not used’. 
From Section 2.1.2 (Table 2.3) it becomes clear that this category can cover large areas in 
certain countries and is responsible for the large differences that can exist between AA and 
UAA.  

39 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

2.2.1.  UAA and eligible farmland for CAP Pillar I payments 

The first point to note is that Eurostat follows its own official definitions of UAA and its sub-
classes,  while  the  CAP  eligible  area  is  defined  according  to  CAP  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1307/20137 (see Table 1). ‘Agricultural area’ in CAP seems to be practically the same as 
UAA in FSS, with the exclusion of kitchen gardens, as defined by Eurostat, and consists of 
three categories. There is however clearly a difference in how Eurostat and the CAP define 
sub-classes of UAA.  

Table 1 Definitions of arable land, permanent grassland, permanent crops and kitchen 
gardens in FSS and according to CAP regulations  

Eurostat – FSS metadata 

crops  and 

UAA  is  the  total  area  taken  up  by 
arable  land,  permanent  grassland, 
kitchen 
permanent 
gardens  used  by 
the  holding, 
regardless of the type of tenure or of 
whether  it  is  used  as  a  part  of 
common land. 

Arable 
land 

Land  worked  (ploughed  or  tilled) 
regularly,  generally  under  a  system 
of crop rotation. 

of 

subcategories 

of 
Definition 
Agricultural Area (based on Commission 
Regulation 
(EU)  No  1307/2013  and 
Regulation (EU) No 796/2004) 

Agricultural  area  is  any  area  taken  up  by 
arable 
land,  permanent  grassland  and 
permanent pasture, or permanent crops. 

the 

land  maintains 

Land cultivated for crop production or areas 
available for crop production but lying fallow, 
including areas set aside in accordance with 
rural  development  measures. 
certain 
considered  eligible 
Greenhouses  are 
provided 
the 
characteristics  of  an  agricultural  area. 
However, in specific situations, for example, 
cultivation  of  plants 
in  pots  with  no 
interaction of the plant’s roots with the soil, 
or  greenhouses  where  the  soil  is  concrete 
(e.g.  hydroponic  cultivation),  the  areas  are 
considered  not  eligible  because  the  soil  is 
not  contributing  to  the  development  of  the 
crop. 

Permanent 
grassland 

Land used permanently (for several 
five 
consecutive  years,  normally 
years  or  more)  to  grow  herbaceous 
fodder,  forage  or  energy  purpose 
crops,  through  cultivation  (sown)  or 
naturally (self-seeded), and which is 
not  included  in  the  crop  rotation  on 
the  holding.  The  grassland  can  be 
used  for  grazing,  mown  for  silage 
and  hay  or  used  for  renewable 
energy  production.  Grassland  must 
have  fodder  interest,  that  is,  they 
include  vegetal  species  of  fodder 
interest. Includes all harvested areas 

Land  used 
to  grow  grasses  or  other 
herbaceous  forage  naturally  (self-seeded) 
or  through  cultivation  (sown)  and  that  has 
not been included in the crop rotation of the 
holding for five years or more. Other species 
such  as  shrubs  and/or  trees  which  can  be 
grazed  are  considered  part  of  the  area 
provided 
the  grasses  and  other 
herbaceous forage remain predominant. 

that 

In addition, to recognise the ecological and 
agricultural  value  of  some  areas  with 

7 Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for 
direct  payments  to  farmers  under  support  schemes  within the framework  of  the common  agricultural  policy  and  repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

in 

traditional  pastoral/agricultural 
extensive 
systems,  Member  States  may  decide  to 
include 
the  category  of  permanent 
grassland any land which can be grazed and 
which 
local 
forms  part  of  established 
practices  even  though  grasses  and  other 
forage  are 
herbaceous 
traditionally  not 
in  grazing  areas.  Member 
predominant 
States 
this 
extension  of  the  definition  of  permanent 
grassland, which may be justified by any or 
a combination of the following practices:  

that  decide 

implement 

to 

(a) practices for areas for livestock grazing 
which  are  traditional  in  character  and  are 
commonly applied on the areas concerned;  

(b)  practices  which  are  important  for  the 
conservation of habitats listed in Annex I of 
the 
(Directive 
92/43/EEC), biotopes and habitats covered 
by Regulation 639/2014. 

Directive 

Habitats 

of  permanent  grass,  regardless  of 
the use such as:  

Areas of permanent grassland used 
for renewable energy production. 

Pastures  and  meadows  that  can 
normally  be  used 
intensive 
grazing. 

for 

in  poor  soils, 

grazings,  which 

Rough 
are 
permanent  grazings  with  low  yield, 
and  normally 
in 
mountainous  areas,  normally  not 
improved  by  use  of  fertilisers,  soil 
mobilisation,  sowing  or  drainage, 
and  which  are  only  suitable  for 
extensive grazing. 

Permanent grassland no longer used 
for production purposes and eligible 
for the payment of subsidies. 

than 

Land  taken  out  of  production  for 
more 
is 
maintained  in  good  agricultural  and 
environmental conditions.  

five  years  which 

Permanent 
crops 

It  excludes:  Areas  without  fodder 
interest (i.e. without species that can 
be used for fodder) 

Land  with  ligneous  crops,  meaning 
trees  or  shrubs,  not  grown 
in 
rotation,  but  occupying  the  soil  and 
yielding harvests for several (usually 
more  than  five)  consecutive  years. 
Permanent  crops  mainly  consist  of 
fruit  and  berry  trees,  bushes,  vines 
and olive trees. 

Non-rotational  crops  other  than  permanent 
grassland  and  permanent  pasture 
that 
occupy the land for five years or more and 
yield repeated harvests, including nurseries 
and short rotation coppice.  

Kitchen 
gardens 

to 

Areas  of  an  agricultural  holding 
devoted 
the  cultivation  of 
agricultural products not intended for 
selling  but  for  consumption  by  the 
farm holder and his household. 

- 

Therefore, the UAA (excluding kitchen gardens) registered in Eurostat statistics is defined 
differently, and the area registered also differs, from the agricultural area eligible for CAP 
payments.  Registration  of  the  CAP  eligible  area  is  through  a  separate  process,  the 
Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) and its geographic information system 
(GIS)  layer,  the  Land  Parcel  Identification  System  (LPIS).  This  has  to  be  set  up  by  all 
Member  States to manage  the  implementation  of  the  CAP  and is  operationalised  by the 
paying  agencies  of  each  Member  State.  IACS  ensures  that  CAP  payments  are  made 
correctly. LPIS identifies and quantifies agriculture land for the purpose of allocating CAP 
payments. Data are gathered each year through individual application forms filled out by 
every farmer claiming CAP payments. In IACS-LPIS the agricultural area definition applied 
is the same as that used in Eurostat and Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) sources 

41 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

(see Annex I). However, the representation of farms is again different. Figure 3, based on 
a fiche from the EC-DG-Agri  (2018), illustrates this. It shows that the eligible area at any 
time is smaller than the total UAA registered in Eurostat FSS statistics. 

Figure 3 shows the differences between the determined area (eligible area on which CAP 
claims have been made), the PEA (potentially eligible area) and the UAA. The differences 
can be explained by two factors:  

There  are  farmers  below  the  minimum  requirements  for  being  granted  direct 
• 
payments, or not fulfilling the eligibility conditions for being allocated payment entitlements 
in Basic Payment Scheme Member States (some fruit and vegetable or wine producers in 
certain Member States),  

There are farmers that do not apply for direct payments for several reasons (who 

• 
are included in the determined area, but not in the PEA). 

The Member States with the largest differences between UAA and determined area in 2016 
were Croatia, Romania, Malta, Greece, Bulgaria, Portugal and Italy. The agricultural sectors 
in these countries are characterised by a large number of very small (and often marginal) 
farms. The UAA is usually higher than PEA and determined area. However, it is sometimes 
lower because of differences in the definition of eligible area for direct payments and UAA. 
One reason is because common land is not always included in the UAA, particularly in UAA 
data from before 2010.  

42 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 3 Relation between UAA and eligible area for CAP- Pillar I payments 

Definition of permanent grassland 
Another factor that may have increased the differences between UAA (in FSS) and PEA 
and determined area registration in IACS-LPIS is the definition of ‘permanent grassland’, 
which changed in 2013 when Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 on CAP direct payments came 
into  force.  Under  the  previous  regulation,  the  definition  of  permanent  pasture  was:  ‘land 
used  to  grow  grasses  or  other  herbaceous  forage  naturally  (self-seeded)  or  through 
cultivation (sown) and that is not included in the crop rotation of the holding for five years or 
longer’ (Commission Regulation EU No 796/2004). This definition was much debated during 
the CAP reform process in 2013. The broader definition gives Member States the option to 
extend the definition of permanent grassland eligible for CAP support to areas that are used 
for grazing as part of established local practices (Table 2). According to the EC (2016), nine 
countries chose to extend the definition (Table 2).  

Table  2  clearly  shows  that  the  countries  that  have  chosen  to  extend  their  permanent 
grassland since 2013 coincide with those where a lot of grazing takes place on lands where 
herbaceous vegetation is mixed with woodier and shrub vegetation. These land use classes 
include agroforestry areas, for example the dehesa and montado in Spain and Portugal, the 
garrigue and maquis in France, and other southern and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) 
countries. However, FSS data for permanent grassland do not show an increasing trend 
from 2013 to 2016 in most countries that adopted ‘established local practices’ (see Annex 
I). This leaves it unclear whether the permanent grassland registration change also led to a 
change in the registration of permanent grassland in FSS statistics. There are, however, 
other factors that influence registration changes in FSS.  

43 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 2 Choice for including permanent grasslands in the UAA based on ‘established local 
practices’ since the 2013 CAP reform  

Source: EC (2016). Fiche Eligibility for Direct Payments of the Common Agricultural Policy8. 

Tree cover allowed in agricultural land eligible for CAP payments 

EC Delegated Act 640/2014 specifies that arable land is only eligible for CAP payments up 
to  a  maximum  allowed  tree  cover  of  100  trees  per  hectare.  This  limit  also  applies  for 
permanent grassland unless the land is declared ‘established local practices’, as explained 
above. For permanent crops there is no minimum or maximum tree density specified in the 
Delegated  Act.  In  addition  to  the  100  trees/ha,  the  Delegated  Act  also  prescribes  a 
maximum of 10% coverage for grouped trees per parcel. These are the rules regarding the 
definition  of  farmland  eligible  for  CAP  payments.  They  are  again  different  from  the  rules 
regarding maximum tree cover to distinguish farmland from forest land in statistics. 

CAP data registered in the LPIS is therefore not consistent with the area recorded as UAA, 
particularly in more marginal farm regions. Data on eligible FA will not necessarily reveal 
actual changes in management, including land that has become abandoned. In addition, 
changes in CAP definitions can be an important driver of land abandonment, through the 
potential effect on the viability of farm holdings if CAP direct payments are withdrawn (see 
Chapter 3 on drivers of farmland abandonment). 

2.2.2.  UAA definition and registration in FSS differs per country and over 

time 

The  UAA  definition  and  registration  in  FSS  may  differ  between  countries  and  over  time 
because of three main factors: 

•  The difference in the way that common land is included as part of the UAA.  

•  Differences in how forest and agricultural lands are defined in terms of tree cover 

density.  

•  Recent  increases  in  farmland  registrations  in  several  CEE  countries.  Recent  EU 
accession countries required time to properly register farmland according to official 
definitions, and it takes time to bring farmland back into agricultural use, particularly 
as the land of former collective farms needs to be redistributed to previous and new 
owners.  

8 
conditions_en.pdf 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/direct-payments-eligibility-

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Common land 
In 2010 some adjustments were made to the way common land should be recorded in FSS 
(see Table 8.1 and Table 8.2 in Annex I) as additional countries started registering it as part 
of the UAA, for example, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Croatia and 
the UK. Table 2.3 shows that this can result in quite significant areas being added to the 
UAA,  mainly  permanent  grassland  areas,  such  as  in  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Croatia,  Austria, 
Romania, Ireland and the UK. 

Table 3 Common land (km2) recorded in FSS before 2010 and after 2010 according to 
new common land registration rules introduced in 2010 (see also Annex I) 

2000 

2003 

2005 

2007 

2010 

2013  % UAA 

2010 

% UAA 
2013 

Country 

Bulgaria 
Germany 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Hungary 
Austria 
Portugal 
Romania (1) 

Slovenia 

: 
- 
- 
2 554  
- 

653e 

- 
414e 
70e 

- 
: 
- 
- 
2 367 
- 

656e 
1e 
- 
: 
124e 
2 485e 

- 
: 
- 
- 
2 353 
- 

635e 
0.4e 
- 
371e 
148e 
1 940e 

22 786 e 

22 786 e 

22 786 
e 
1 207e 

858 
: 
422  

- 
: 
421e 
- 

856 
: 
423 
1 699   1 475  
2 246  1 727   1 605  
675  
439 
285  
0.3 
67 
202  
102 
1 515 

749  
160  
610  
0.8 
73 
253 
128 
1 498 

- 
- 
637e 
0.3e 
- 
240 
162e 
1 735e 

9 062 e 

8 221 

8 733 

19 
: 
8 
33 
7 
3 
12 
5 
1 
2 
9 
3 
11 

2 

18 
: 
9 
30 
7 
2 
28 
2 
0.5 
1 
7 
3 
12 

2 

7 
United Kingdom 
Note: Table presents the part of the common land data which can be identified in the dataset or is 
reported in the National Methodology Reports (NMRs). 

1 195   1 195  

1 199e 

1 209e 

1 207e 

7 

Special values:     -     Common land data were not collected in the FSS. 

:   Common land data were collected in the FSS but exact figure is unknown. 

e   National estimate of common land 

(1) Only the permanent grassland is considered common land. 

The inclusion of common land and change in the definition of permanent grasslands has 
meant that the area that falls within the UAA (as registered in FSS) has suddenly increased 
in many EU countries, but has also led to more inconsistencies between countries in relation 
to what can be defined over time as AA and UAA.  

Comparison of the 2000 national estimates and the 2016 registrations in FSS of common 
land area in Table 3 shows that large declines took place, particularly in Spain, Italy, Austria 
and Slovenia. This indicates a shift of part of the common land from agricultural to forest 
due  to  vegetation  development  in  situations  where  management  is  absent  (for  example, 
grazing).  

One important conclusion is that apparent changes in permanent pasture area need to be 
treated with great caution, and changes in UAA data overall either side of 2010 are not very 
accurate for this reason alone. However, data since 2010 might be more reliable.  

45 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Maximum tree cover in agricultural land 
The difference between land that can be defined in statistics as agricultural and forest land 
is determined by the tree cover allowed in each land use class. The general rule for forest 
land definition used by FAO-UNECE (and followed by Forest Europe, Eurostat and the EEA) 
is: ‘land spanning more than 0.5 ha with trees higher than 5 m and a canopy cover of more 
than  10%,  or  trees  able  to  reach  these  thresholds  in  situ’.  However,  there  is  also  an  in-
between  category  which  is  ‘other  wooded  land’,  defined  as  ‘land  not  defined  as “forest”, 
spanning more than 0.5 ha, with trees higher than 5 m and canopy cover of between 5% 
and  10%,  or  trees  able  to  reach  these  thresholds,  or  with  a  combined  cover  of  shrubs, 
bushes and trees above 10%’. This category of land can (partly) overlap with agricultural 
land, often agroforestry (Mosquera-Losada et al., 2016), up until the minimum tree density 
for forestry is reached.  This density can vary per country (Table 4). As there is no land use 
class for  agroforestry  registered  in the  FSS  database,  areas  with  a tree cover  below the 
minimum for forests are sometimes registered as agricultural and sometimes not, and this 
is inconsistent across Member States. 

Table 4 Minimum values for area size, tree crown cover and tree height  
per Member State for the definition of forest 

Source: Annex 5 of Decision 529/2013/EU, in AGFORWARD deliverable 8.23 (Mosquera-Losada et al., 2016). 

National definitions of forest land range in area size between a minimum of 0.05-1 ha in 
combination  with  a  minimum  tree  crown  cover  range  of  between  10%  to  30%,  and  a 
minimum  tree  height  range  between  2  m  and  5  m  (Table  4).  There  is  therefore  large 
variation  in  how  countries  divide  land  between  agricultural,  other  wooded  and  forest 
classes, which also leads to differences in registrations of UAA and AA in statistical data 
sources, including FSS. 

2.2.3.  Definitions of UAA in other EU and international data sources 

As well as the FSS and IACS-LPIS, there are other international data sources that register 
AA and/or UAA. One other EU data source is the FADN. The UAA for which data is collected 
in FADN is based on the same definition as applied in FSS. One issue with this data source 
relates to the representation of farms (see below).  

Other statistical data sources which collect farm data are from the FAO and OECD. These 
sources  provide  data  aggregated  at  country  level.  FAOSTAT  and  OECD  use  the  same 

46 

 
 
  
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

definition  of  agricultural  land,  namely:  ‘Land  used  for  cultivation  of  crops  and  animal 
husbandry. The total of areas under ''Cropland” and “Permanent meadows and pastures”’. 
Like the UAA definition in CAP, it therefore covers cropland and permanent grassland. The 
FAO  definition  for  permanent  grassland  is  also  broad  enough  to  cover  those  grasslands 
that are declared ‘established local practices’: ‘Land used permanently (five years or more) 
to  grow  herbaceous  forage  crops  through  cultivation  or  naturally  (wild  prairie  or  grazing 
land). Permanent meadows and pastures on which trees and shrubs are grown should be 
recorded under this heading only if the growing of forage crops is the most important use of 
the area. Measures may be taken to keep or increase productivity of the land (i.e., use of 
fertilisers, mowing or systematic grazing by domestic animals.) This class includes: grazing 
in  wooded  areas  (agroforestry  areas,  for  example),  grazing  in  shrubby  zones  (heath, 
maquis,  garigue),  grassland  in  the  plain  or  low  mountain  areas  used  for  grazing:  land 
crossed during transhumance where the animals spend a part of the year (approximately 
100 days) without returning to the holding in the evening: mountain and subalpine meadows 
and similar; and steppes and dry meadows used for pasture’.      

FAO and OECD therefore define agricultural land categories in relatively similar ways as 
for the UAA in FSS and FADN. However, it is less clear where unused agricultural land is 
recorded and whether it is included under the agricultural land definition. Since data to FAO 
and OECD are the responsibility of individual Member States it is likely that they are based 
on similar national data sources as used for reporting data to Eurostat for the FSS. 

2.3.  Overview of EU-wide data sources used in this study to determine 

actual UAA  

2.3.1.  Statistical data 

The three EU-wide statistical sources collecting information on UAA and AA are the FSS, 
FADN, and IACS-LPIS. All contain data collected through surveys, and complete population 
data collection approaches through surveys with farmers. All in principle collect information 
using  practically  the  same  land  use  classification  (Figure  2),  but  following  different 
definitions for the three sub-categories of UAA (Table 1). They cover the AA and UAA, but 
not all cover the total FA (see Annex I for technical details on these data sources).  

Eurostat FSS is carried out by all Member States. It is conducted consistently throughout 
the EU with a common methodology on a regular basis and therefore provides relatively 
comparable  and  representative  statistics  across  countries,  at  regional  levels.  Complete 
consistency between countries and over time is not to be expected for the reasons outlined 
previously. The minimum farm size threshold to register farm data in FSS also creates some 
small differences per country (see Annex I), but overall much lower than the minimal size 
threshold for farm data registered in the FADN.  

The UAA for which data are collected in FADN is based on the same definition as applied 
in  FSS  but  there  is  a  much  lower  representation  of  small  farms  in  the  FADN  sample, 
because farms have to be above an economic size threshold (see Annex I, Table 13). In 
FSS, the survey only excludes the smallest agricultural holdings which together contribute 
2% or less to the total UAA (excluding common land), and 2% or less to the total number of 
farm  livestock  units.  For  FADN,  the  minimum  threshold  for  farm  inclusion  ranges  widely 
between EU countries, with a minimum of €4000 in economic size in 10 countries to €25,000  
in five counties (Annex I, Table 15). This means that FADN, much more than FSS, excludes 
parts  of  the  UAA  where  small  farms  predominate.  From  the  perspective  of  land 
abandonment this is even more of a limitation as the drivers of farmland abandonment are 
most prominent in remote and economically marginal rural areas, and in these areas there 
are  a relatively  greater  number  of  farms  of  limited  economic  size  and  part-time  farmers, 

47 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

particularly  in  the  CEE  and  Mediterranean  countries.  This  leads  to  a  significant  under-
representation of farms and related UAA in areas with high risk of land abandonment. FADN 
is therefore not considered a suitable source for undertaking analysis of developments in 
UAA in the different Member States.  

IACS (see Annex I) registers agricultural land use at the level of agricultural parcels. CAP 
payments can only be linked to agricultural land which is ‘eligible’ and for which payments 
are also claimed by the farmer (the determined area, see Figure 3). This means that the 
UAA recorded under IACS-LPIS is mostly smaller than that under the FSS. IACS-LPIS is 
therefore not considered the most suitable source for analysing developments in UAA in the 
different Member States.  

Statistical  data  sources  from  the  FAO  and  OECD  also  collect  land  use  information,  and 
provide  data  aggregated  at  the  country  level.  The  definitions  of  agricultural  land  by 
FAOSTAT  and  OECD  follow  a  relatively  similar  definition  for  UAA  as  the  European 
statistical sources of FSS and FADN. As mentioned, it is likely that data to FAO and OECD 
are based on similar national data sources used for reporting data to Eurostat for the FSS.  

There  are  therefore  several  reasons  why  statistical  data  that  Member  States  provide  on 
agricultural land must be carefully interpreted in relation to UAA and abandoned agricultural 
land. In spite of the changes in definition of the various components of UAA over time and 
the variations permitted to Member States for recording certain agricultural land categories, 
the FSS database is the best relatively uniform source of information to determine the FA, 
AA and the UAA for EU countries and regions. We therefore use Eurostat FSS as the main 
data source. However, for data on AA and UAA before 1990 we also use FAOSTAT data 
since Eurostat data do not always cover all EU countries, particularly for periods before they 
joined the EU.  

2.3.2.  Spatial data 

Another important set of data providing information on the location and extent of agricultural 
land  are  spatial  data  sources  which  have  been  collected  using  aerial  photographs  and 
remote sensors, sometimes combined with field-based surveys. Annex I, Table 16 gives an 
overview of the most relevant spatial sources which provide data on agricultural land in the 
EU, both currently and historically. 

Box 3 Change in agricultural area based on statistics and on spatial 
data sources 

The difference in AA changes derived from statistics and from spatial data sources is 
illustrated by the following. According to satellite information, on which Corine Land 
Cover (CLC) data are based, the area covered by agricultural land decreased by 1.2% 
across the EU between 2000 and 2018. The most significant losses were observed in 
Poland and the UK, as well as in parts of Spain and Germany. However, in Romania 
and Bulgaria, as well as in certain regions of Spain, Italy, Austria, France, Ireland and 
Sweden,  agricultural  land  cover  increased.  However,  this  overall  1.2%  decline  of 
agricultural land is not consistent with what was detected through FSS data, which 
showed a much larger decline in UAA over the EU and in most Member States. This 
difference  is  related  to  the  fact  that  CLC  is  based  on  satellite  imagery  that  is 
interpreted to land cover classes (see last column of Table 16 in Annex I). However, 
CLC is  a  very useful  source to detect  changes  in land use to  obtain information  on 
where loss of agricultural lands takes place and to what it is converted (Annex III).  

48 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Differences between what is registered as AA or UAA occur between statistical and spatial 
data due to the different approaches to detecting it. To detect declines in UAA and to identify 
where agricultural land becomes abandoned both types of data sources are needed (see 
Box 3). Statistical data sources can only provide an indication of how agricultural land is 
changing at the administrative scale (national or regional level) at which they are collected 
or  available.  Spatial  data  provide  information  on  land  use  changes  at  a  higher  spatial 
resolution and can also help detect what land use agricultural land changes to. Based on 
these land use flows (see Section 2.4 and Annex III), it can then be established whether 
agricultural  land  becomes  urbanised,  afforested,  industrialised,  used  for  recreation  or 
transport, or a more undefined class – areas that are more likely to represent abandoned 
land.  

To establish the current extent of UAA and how it changes over time, it is recommended to 
compare data from different data sources and to interpret the data taking into account the 
known limitations of the sources. By combining different sources and interpreting them for 
each Member State, it is possible to come to the best estimate of actual UAA and historic 
changes that the data allow.  

2.4.  Results: actual UAA 

2.4.1.  Approach to detecting actual UAA 

The FSS database records FA, AA, UAA and the total, and the AA and UAA registered in 
FSS  are  also the  most  uniform  in  the  EU  and consistent  with  the  definitions  in  the  CAP 
regulations.  However,  looking  at  historical  data from  FSS  for  the  long-term  analysis,  the 
definitions of UAA and AA have changed several times, for reasons already discussed. In 
addition, over time there have been some CAP instruments and other trends such as the 
set-aside  policy  or  afforestation  of  agricultural  lands,  which  also  influenced  the  uniform 
interpretation of changes in the UAA. However, these definition changes mostly relate to 
what is included in FA, AA and UAA, unless it involves afforestation without CAP Pillar II 
payments. Usually if certain categories are excluded from one of the three, for example, 
UAA,  they  reappear  in  another,  for  example,  in  AA  or  FA.  When  assessing  the  trend  in 
agricultural land use, it is therefore recommended to look at the UAA, the AA and the FA. If 
the same land decline trend is seen in all three categories, this as strong evidence that the 
land is abandoned or converted to other land categories outside the agricultural domain. 

The use of spatial data to detect the UAA is not recommended because, while all the spatial 
databases  reviewed  do  detect  agricultural  land  categories,  they  do  not  follow  the  CAP 
definitions for AA and UAA to classify what is registered. Spatial data sources are however 
very suitable for detecting land use changes over time, and will therefore be used to explain 
to  what  land  uses  agricultural  lands  shifted  to  and  whether  these  indicate  land 
abandonment.  

2.4.2.  Actual UAA  

To determine what can be identified as actual UAA we first selected and analysed data from 
the Eurostat FSS database for the last 10 years (2005-2016) for each EU Member State 
and then the total for all Member States.  

49 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 4 UAA, AA and FA 2005-2016 for EU-28 

EU-28* (km2)

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

2005*

2007

UAA

2010

2013

2016

AA

Farm area

Source: Eurostat, FSS data.  

Note: *2005 excludes Croatia. 

Figure 4 and Table 5 show the total EU-28 data. Between 2005 and 2016 the actual UAA 
remained relatively stable with an average level of 173,720 km2, with its highest peak in 
2010 at 175,815 km2. FA and AA showed a slight decline in this same period. 

Table 5 AA, UAA and FA and subcategories (km2) 2005-2016 for EU-28 
2016 

2005* 

2013 

2007 

2010 

FA 

AA 

UAA 

215,746 

216,472 

217,391 

213,446 

210,741 

184,479 

185,403 

183,960 

184,290 

182,422 

171,996 

173,376 

175,815 

174,358 

173,052 

Arable land  104,717 

105,072 

103,923 

104,203 

103,142 

55,984 

56,897 

60,840 

59,566 

59,194 

10,872 

11,015 

10,703 

10,303 

10,505 

% 
change 
since 
2005 

-2 

-1 

1 

-2 

6 

-3 

426 

393 

350 

286 

247 

-42 

Source: Eurostat, FSS data. 

In the EU-28 overall, over this 10-year period arable land and permanent cropland declined, 
while the permanent grassland area increased, at least until 2010 which was why the UAA 
peaked in 2010. Kitchen gardens declined the most, but their area is small and therefore 
has little influence on the total UAA.  

The UAA covers between 80% and 82% of the FA, and between 85% and 87% of the AA 
over this 10-year period. The difference between the UAA and the AA implies that around 
5% of farmland is in the unused agricultural land category which is registered as part of AA 

50 

Permanent 
grassland 

Permanent 
crops 

Kitchen 
gardens 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

and not UAA. The difference of around 15% between the AA and the FA is mostly made up 
of  wooded  areas (with SRC),  and  other  land,  which is  occupied  by buildings, farmyards, 
tracks, ponds. 

The  EU-28  totals  tell  us  little  about  whether  the  actual  UAA  was  relatively  stable  on  the 
ground in the last 10 years as changes level out across 28 countries. To understand recent 
developments in UAA we need to look at the national and regional levels of UAA (Figure 
2.4 and Figure 6 and Annex II).  

France has the largest UAA, but the largest FA is registered in Spain. Figure 5 and Figure 
6 show large differences within countries between FA, AA and UAA. The largest differences 
occur  in  countries  such  as  Finland,  Sweden,  Austria,  Slovenia,  Slovakia  where  farming 
activities are often combined with forestry. 

Figure 5 UAA, AA and FA 2005-2016 for EU-28 Member States (km2) 

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

a
t
l
a
M

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

Source: FSS data. 

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

a
i
v
t
a
L

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
o
P

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

UAA

AA

Farm area

51 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 6 Relative difference between UAA, AA and FA 2016 (FA=100%)  

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

UAA

AA

Farm area

Source: Eurostat, FSS data. 

The stability of the UAA in the last 10 years is very different between EU countries (see 
Annex  II,  Table  17).  The  countries  with  the  most  stable  UAA  are  France,  Portugal, 
Luxembourg,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia.  The  largest  declines  are  seen  in  Cyprus,  Austria, 
Netherlands and Romania. The largest increases are found in Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, 
Croatia and Greece. The increases in Bulgaria, Croatia and Estonia are most extreme and 
likely related to their recent accession to the EU, which required time to properly register 
farmland  as  UAA  according  to  Eurostat  definitions  and  also  to  redistribute  the  lands  of 
former collective farms to previous and new owners.  

Generally, the trends in increases and declines seen for UAA also apply to AA and FA (see 
Figure 5 and Annex II, Table 19). However, in countries where there is a clear decline in 
UAA the decline in FA is usually relatively larger. In the countries with an increase in UAA 
the  increase in FA  is  usually  relatively  lower,  such as in  Croatia  and Bulgaria,  indicating 
towards a shift from FA towards UAA which is likely to be partly explained by the taking up 
of arable activities on lands which were before part of collective farms.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 7 Relative distribution of the UAA over arable, permanent grassland, permanent 
crops and kitchen garden per EU Member State in 2016 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Arable

Permanent grassland

Permanent crops

Kitchen gardens

Source: FSS data. 

The composition of the UAA in the different countries is also very diverse (see Figure 7).   
Arable  land  dominates  in  most  EU  countries,  particularly  in  many  northern  and  Central 
European  countries  (for  example,  Finland,  Sweden,  Denmark,  Lithuania,  Estonia, 
Germany). The countries where permanent grassland dominates are limited to Ireland, the 
UK,  Slovenia,  Portugal  and  Luxembourg.  In  southern  European  countries,  the  share  of 
permanent crops is much more significant.  

Data  in  Table 17  in  Annex  II  provide  a  better  understanding  of  where the  largest  recent 
changes  in  UAA  took  place.  The  largest  declines  in  UAA  (more  than  10%)  occurred  in 
Cyprus  (-26%)  and  Austria  (-18%).  Romania,  Spain,  Netherlands,  Sweden,  Belgium, 
Czechia,  Denmark,  Germany,  Italy,  Poland,  Portugal  and  Finland  showed  more  modest 
declines in UAA. The largest increases in UAA (more than 10%) are seen in Bulgaria (64%), 
Estonia  (20%),  Ireland  (16%),  Greece  (14%),  Croatia  (60%)  and  Latvia  (13%).  Smaller 
increases are seen in France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Slovakia, the UK, Hungary, 
and Malta.  

Countries  with  declining  arable  and  permanent  cropland  areas  are  more  common  than 
countries  with  declines  in  permanent  grassland  areas.  The  highest  relative  increases  in 
permanent grassland area are seen in Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece and Cyprus. In the latter 
two countries this was combined with a strong decline in arable and permanent cropland, 
while in the first two it is in line with the overall increase in UAA, AA and FA. This increase 
in  likely  to  be  related  to  the  registration  of  common  land  in  FSS  since  2010  in  Bulgaria, 
Greece, Croatia, Austria, Romania and the UK (see Table 17 in Annex II). This common 
land is almost always permanent grassland and therefore this new registration will also have 
increased  the  permanent  grassland  area  since  2010  and  thus  the  total  UAA  in  these 
countries,  particularly  where  the  common  land  area  makes  up  a  significant  share  of  the 
UAA.  

2.4.3.  Evidence of changes in UAA in national data compared to FSS   

In the former changes in UAA have been presented based on Eurostat-FSS data. In Annex 
IV data are also presented from national statistical sources. The reason is to evaluate to 

53 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

what extent these national sources use similar definitions for UAA and other sub-categories 
of agricultural land and how their reported totals relate to the FSS totals.  

A comparison at national level (Table 24 in Annex IV) reveals that the differences in UAA 
area published by Eurostat and national data sources are very small. However, there are 
exceptions  for  certain  countries  and  for  specific  years.  The  biggest  differences  between 
Eurostat  and  national  levels  are  seen  in  Bulgaria,  France  and  UK.  It  is  likely  that  these 
differences  are  particularly  related  to  how  sub-categories  of  UAA,  such  as  arable, 
permanent grassland and permanent crop land are defined.  

Differences in totals of arable land are generally smaller than for the permanent crops and 
permanent grassland categories.   This is for instance well illustrated by the comparison of 
FSS  data  with  national  data  from  the  Spanish  Ministry  of  Agriculture  (MAPA)  and  the 
Spanish  LPIS  data  (SIGPAC)  (see  Annex  IV  ‘Spain’).  The  large  differences  in  area 
coverage for all sub-categories as arable land, permanent crops and permanent grassland 
between FSS and national sources is related to two factors. The first relates to differences 
in tree cover determining the difference between agricultural and forest area. For example, 
to the definition change of permanent grassland in the CAP allowing for inclusion of areas 
with shrubs and trees in permanent grassland surface eligible for CAP payments lead to an 
important increase in grasslands with tree and shrub cover registered in SIGPAC (Spanish 
LPIS) as permanent grassland. In FSS and partly in MAPA they fall out of the agricultural 
land boundary and are categorized forest land.  The second reason is related to the unclear 
definition of agroforestry land. In Spain large areas are covered with these dual systems in 
which trees are combined with arable, permanent crops and/or grasslands for grazing. FSS 
does not register this class separately, nor has a definition for it. Countries have all different 
approaches to including this type of land use systems in different sub-categories of UAA.  

In the comparison between FSS data and national data in Hungary and Croatia we observe 
that differences in what is registered as UAA as for sub-categories are large, but seem to 
diminish  in  time.  This  is  related  to  the  gradual  adaptation  of  their  national  statistical 
registration  to  the  Eurostat  definitions.  However,  another  factor  is  registration  of  UAA  in 
national  statistics  and  in  the  national  LPIS  systems.  In  LPIS  this  is  lower  because  of 
differences in definitions and parcels not being registered in LPIS due to ownership issues. 

From the comparison we conclude that using the data from FSS for actual UAA analysis is 
better and more consistent between EU countries than when basing it on national statistical 
sources. At the same time, we suspect that also in the reporting by national statistical offices 
to Eurostat FSS inconsistencies occur particularly in relation to minimum and maximum tree 
cover rules and in relation to categories of agroforestry areas.  

Further,  uniformity  in  tree  cover  levels  between  EU  Member  States  determining  the 
difference between forests and agricultural areas is recommended. With this improvement, 
it  would  also  be  strongly  recommended  to  define  more  clearly  agroforestry  areas  and 
develop clear agreement on how to register them in FSS. This could either be as a separate 
category of agricultural land or as part of the different sub-categories, but clear rules need 
to be established for which type of agroforestry area is registered under which subcategory 
of UAA (arable, permanent crops or permanent grasslands).  

2.4.4.  Results  from  agricultural  land  use  flows  based  on  Corine  Land 

Cover  

Annex III provides a regional analysis on land cover flows, derived from analysis of CLC 
data  of  2000  to  2018.  It  aims  to  provide  a  better  understanding  at  regional  level  of 
agricultural land use decline and the type of land use/cover flows this involves.  

54 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

The results show that the signs of abandonment between 2000 and 2018 in agricultural land 
are evident throughout the EU. Only ‘shift to agricultural land abandonment’ (Figure 20, 
Annex  III)  is  considered  ‘real’  agricultural  land  abandonment  here.  This  conversion  took 
place on about 6% of the EU-28 agricultural land surface in 2000. Half of these conversions 
went together with forest formation and indicate to longer term abandonment. It was also 
noted that the large majority of these conversions to abandonment (80%) are outside Natura 
2000  areas.    The  largest  total  conversions  of  agricultural  land to  abandonment  between 
2000 and 2018 were seen in Spain, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal, Austria, Ireland, UK 
and Romania. 

Conversion of agricultural land to urban land covered around 2% of the EU-28 agricultural 
land surface in 2000 and make up a small part of the agricultural land use conversions. In 
spite of this, they can be relatively large in certain areas, particularly around big cities and 
in coastal regions.   

Largest conversions of the average 4.5% of EU-28 agricultural land surface in 2000 took 
place within agricultural land and involved shifts from arable to fallow, permanent grassland 
and set-aside. This can be interpreted as extensification and may sometimes point towards 
a process of hidden abandonment. Largest conversions within agricultural lands towards 
more extensive land uses, such as set-aside, pasture and fallow, were seen in Germany, 
Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Portugal, Romania and UK. 

2.5.  Results: changes in UAA since 1975  

2.5.1.  National overview  

Data to quantify actual UAA, AA and FA are available from FSS and also from most national 
statistical sources. Data on UAA and AA that go back until 1975 are more difficult to find, 
particularly for countries that have joined the EU since 2004 or later . For these countries 
national-level  data  on  agricultural  land  as  defined  in  FAOSTAT  are  mostly  available. 
However, countries like the Baltics and those of former Yugoslavia (Croatia and Slovenia) 
and former Czechoslovakia only started reporting to FAOSTAT as independent countries 
from 1990 and much later to the EU. In Annex VI ( Section ‘Hotspot regions of declining 
UAA’ ) the detailed  steps  taken to obtain values for the UAA in 1975 for these countries 
are described. Important to notice that the long term UAA change (since 1975) could not be 
completely quantified for the three Baltic States because they were non-existent in 1975. 
For these countries, the data on change in UAA only apply to 1990-1975 period. In the total 
EU UAA area, their land share is relatively small (3% of total UAA in 2016).  

The results of the analysis of changes in UAA at country level, for the three periods between 
1975  and  2016,  are  presented  in  Figure  8  and  Annex  II  (Table  21)  per  country.  In  all 
countries, the UAA decreased between 1975 and 2016. The largest declines are seen in 
Cyprus, Slovenia and Slovakia. In most CEE countries, the decline was particularly large 
during 1990-2005, directly after the transition from planned to market economies (Annex II, 
Table 21). In this period large state farms ceased to exist, agricultural production decreased 
tremendously, land was partly claimed back by pre-communist-period owners, and several 
areas of land were left unused because legal rights remained unclear and/or production for 
the market became difficult. After entry into the EU, agricultural production started to grow 
and  more  land  was  taken  into  use,  as  shown  by  the  increase  in  UAA  in  most  of  these 
countries between 2005 and 2016. Despite this, the overall decline in UAA between 1975 
and  2016  is  significant  and  generally  much  larger  for  these  former  communist  countries 
than for the rest of the EU (Figure 8). 

55 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 8 Change in UAA 1975-2019 

*
s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
k
a
v
o
S

l

*
*
a
i
n
e
v
o
S

l

*
y
r
a
g
n
u
H

*
*
*
*
a
i
t
a
o
r
C

y
l
a
t
I

*
*
*
a
i
n
o
t
s
E

n
i
a
p
S

*
d
n
a
l
o
P

*
a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

*
*
*
a
i
v
t
a
L

*
*
a
i
h
c
e
z
C

e
c
e
e
r
G

*
n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

d
n
a
l
n
F

i

a
t
l
a
M

e
c
n
a
r
F

*
a
i
r
t
s
u
A

*
a
i
n
a
m
o
R

*
*
*
a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

m
u
g
l
e
B

*
l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

0%

-10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

-50%

% change 1975/1990-2019

Source: Eurostat FSS data 1975-2016. Where data missing, FAOSTAT data were used.  
Notes:  *  Data  from  FAOSTAT  for  1975  and  from  Eurostat  for  other  years.  **  Data  from  FAOSTAT  from  former 
Czechoslovakia for 1975. Distribution over Czechia and Slovakia according to agricultural land use share in 1990. *** 
Data for FAOSTAT from former Yuguslavia for 1975. Distribution over Croatia and Slovenia according to agricultural 
land use share in 1990 of the six countries into which it was split. **** No data available for 1975 in FAOSTAT. Change 
in last column calculated for the period 1990-2016 instead of 1975-2016, as for all other countries.  

Within the group of non-former communist countries, some show a decline over all three 
periods,  such  as  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  Sweden,  Germany,  Spain,  Netherlands.  In 
some of these the declines are modest, for example, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and in 
others it is larger, for example, Spain. There are also countries that show a decline until 
2006, but a clear increase in UAA in the last 10 years. This is especially seen in Greece, 
Ireland, the UK, France and Malta. In these countries, except for Malta, this was due to a 
clear  increase in  grazing  land often  caused by  the inclusion  of common  land in the  FSS 
statistics after 2010. Luxembourg has the smallest decline overall. Portugal and Austria are 
also exceptions in terms of the pattern of change. In 1975-1990 they showed UAA increases 
while  most  other  EU  countries  saw  declines,  followed  by  larger  declines  after  1990  and 
particularly since 2000 for Austria.  

The total decline in UAA between 1975 and 2016 for all current EU countries, except for the 
three Baltic states, amounts to almost 36,000 km2. This is equivalent to 18% of the UAA 
area in 1975.  

2.5.2.  Regional overview: hotspot regions of declines in UAA  

It is also useful to understand where the largest changes in agricultural area took place at 
the regional level. The change in UAA was analysed over the long term (1975-2016) and 
short term (2005-2016) at the NUTS2 and NUTS3 regions level (Figure 9). The regions with 
large declines in UAA (>25%) in the period 1975-2016 are in Spain, France, Italy, Austria, 
Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia and Sweden. The regions with large 
declines  in  2005-2016  (>10%  with  reference  to  UAA  in  2005)  are  located  in  Sweden, 
Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria, Romania, Cyprus, Poland and the Netherlands.  

Focusing on signs of abandonment linked to conversions to nature protection areas (within 
current Natura 2000 boundaries) gives a more diverse picture. Again, in the southern EU 
area strong signs are seen in all Spanish and Portuguese regions, in Italy most strongly in 
Sicily,  Apulia,  Basilicata,  Liguria and  Aosta,  in  Slovenia and the  Mediterranean region  of 

56 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Croatia,  and several  northern  Greek  regions. In central  and eastern  EU the regions  with 
strongest signs within Natura 2000 are found in Austria in Tirol and Lower Austria, in most 
of  western  Romania,  the  south-western  half  of  Bulgaria,  the  Zachodniopomorskie  and 
Podkarpackie regions in Poland, and the eastern regions of Slovakia.  

The results also show that only a small part of the agricultural land declines lead to land 
becoming  unused  or  abandoned,  while  most  conversions  involve  urbanisation  and  also 
afforestation in some regions. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND 
OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 9 Long-term change in UAA (1975-2016) with reference to the UAA in 1975 (left) and recent change in UAA (2005-2016) with reference to the 
UAA in 2005 (right).  

Source: Eurostat-FSS.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

2.6.  Data on unused, abandoned and degraded lands in data sources 

Statistical data 
This section outlines data sources that exist that register EU unused lands. The main reason 
for not registering land that goes out of production and becomes abandoned or degraded is 
because  it  then  also  loses  agricultural  land  status  and  is  therefore  no  longer  registered. 
Declines  in  FA,  AA  and  UAA  are  therefore  good  proxy  indicators  for  land  going  out  of 
agricultural production. However, whether this land becomes unused, abandoned, degraded 
or has other urban or forestry uses, cannot be determined based on such an analysis. For this, 
spatial land use and land cover flow analysis needs to be undertaken, based on CLC data.  

In FSS,  for  some  categories  of  unused  lands data  have been  collected  over  time.  The first 
category, NUAA is part of the AA and not of the UAA. It is defined as ‘common land which is 
not used’. This category can cover large areas in certain countries and is responsible for the 
large  differences  in  areas  that  can  exist  between  AA  and  UAA  (Annex  I),  which  are  most 
significant  in  the  UK,  Italy,  Spain,  Poland,  Greece.  Between  2005-2016  these  NUAA  have 
declined strongly in almost all EU countries. Some of this decline may be related to the change 
in the registration of these lands since 2010 as part of the UAA (see Section 2.2) or because 
new owners/users have brought these lands into production. Part of these lands may also have 
disappeared from the FSS registration completely because of a change in land use, such as 
to forest due to abandonment. The fate of these lands is not clear from the statistics, but the 
sudden drop indicates that these are not a reliable source of data on unused or abandoned 
lands.  

As part of the UAA, land use categories are registered that are not always used, such as the 
categories ‘fallow land subject to payment of subsidies with no economic use’ or ‘permanent 
grassland and meadow - not used for production, eligible for subsidies’. This implies that the 
UAA  registered  in FSS may include land which is  actually  unused  or  even  abandoned.  For 
several  categories  of  land  we  do  not  know  how  it  is  managed.  Based  on  the  statistical 
classification  into  ‘fallow’  or  ‘not  used  for  production’  it  is  not  possible  to  conclude  whether 
these categories of land are indeed abandoned for a longer time, or if they refer to lands which 
are part of the crop rotation with a limited time out of production.  

IACS-LPIS  also  compiles  some  indirect  information  on  the  management  status  of  the  land. 
The paying agencies have to review this since CAP payments can only be made to agricultural 
lands  maintained  in  good  environmental  and  agricultural  condition.  If  lands  go  out  of 
management for five consecutive years, they are no longer eligible for CAP payments, unless 
specific measures or arrangement apply. Paying agencies monitor this through comparing the 
registrations of land uses in LPIS across different years, but also through the use of Normalised 
Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) indices derived from remote sensing data indicating the 
biomass development in a field. This information is normally only used by the paying agencies 
and not always made public.  Figure 10 gives an example of such information. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 10 Parcels in Albacete, Spain from SIGPAC (Spanish LPIS), showing parcels in 
yellow with no management for five consecutive years  

Source: SIGPAC data Albacete Region 2014-2018.  

The  nine  regional  case  studies  also  investigated  whether  unused,  abandoned  or  degraded 
lands  were  registered  in  any  official  national  or  regional  statistical  data  source.  In  Annex  V 
(Table  26)  an  overview  is  presented.  Fallow  land  is  registered  in  most  national  statistical 
sources and refers to the fallow land that is part of the rotation. Registration of this category is 
logical as it also needs to be reported as a separate category to Eurostat for FSS.  In a couple 
of case regions the share of land that could be categorized as ‘unused’ could be estimated by 
subtracting the area that was registered as ‘agricultural land’   and ‘used agricultural land’ in 
national statistical data sources. In Latvia and the Bulgarian Blagoevgrad region data this could 
be done. This explicit registration of used land is in line with what Eurostat also asks Member 
States  to  report  to  make  a  distinction  between  AA  and  UAA,  but  Eurostat-FSS  defines  this 
difference as ‘unused common land’ only, while in the 2 example case studies it refers to all 
agricultural land irrelevant of whether it is common land. 

In  the  Romanian  Brasov  region  it  was  reported  in  the  case  study  that  ‘Degraded  and 
unproductive lands’ were registered by the Romanian National Institute of Statistics. The land 
registered only referred to land outside the UAA and was defined as ‘land that permanently 
lost the ability of agricultural production through erosion, pollution or some other destructive 
action of anthropogenic origin’. It is likely that part of this land overlaps with the REDII definition 
of degraded land.  The registration of this type of land was not seen in the other case studies. 
It  is  however  an  interesting  category  of  land  to  be  registered  from  the  perspective  of  land 
degradation and low-ILUC.  

Overall,  we  conclude  however  that  unused,  abandoned  and  degraded  lands,  certainly  as 
defined in the REDII are not registered in any EU wide or national data sources.   

60 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Spatial data sources 
The only data source that maps abandonment status of lands directly (by surveyors on the 
ground) is the land use and cover area frame survey (LUCAS). In the LUCAS system a 
category of land registered as a separate land cover class is ‘fallow and abandoned land’. 
‘Fallow’ land includes all crop land not included in the crop rotation for at least one year. 
‘Abandoned lands’ are defined as ‘all agricultural land that is set aside for a long term’. 
LUCAS also registers agricultural land and as the survey is repeated every three to five 
years, trends in agricultural land use can be detected. Annex V, Figure 26 and Figure 26  
present the total agricultural area and land registered as fallow and abandoned lands from 
LUCAS for different survey years in absolute and relative terms. The largest shares are in 
Cyprus, Croatia, Greece, Malta, the UK, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Sweden. Annex V, Table 25 
presents the top 10 regions with the largest area of unused and abandoned lands. These are 
mainly regions from Spain, Finland, Sweden, the UK (Scotland), Italy, Greece, France, 
Croatia and Latvia. 

The limitation of the LUCAS data is that it is point information collected in a sample, which is 
then scaled-up to a total area share per region (NUTS 1,2 3 level). It therefore gives a good 
indication of how much land abandonment there is roughly per region, country, and land cover 
class, but does not map the precise location of abandoned land or the spatial extent. 

2.7.  Conclusions 

Eurostat provides strict guidelines to all Member States on how they report their data to FSS 
and  ensures  that  there  is  regular  data  reporting  according  to  a  consistent  methodology 
between  all  EU  Member  States  at  national  and  regional  levels  and  over  time.  However, 
statistical  data  provided  by  Member  States  on  agricultural  land  must  still  be  carefully 
interpreted  in  relation  to  UAA  and  abandoned  agricultural  land.  In  spite  of  the  changes  in 
definition  of  the  components  of  UAA  over  time  and  Member  States’  permitted  variations  in 
recording certain agricultural land categories, the FSS database is the best relatively uniform 
source of data to determine the FA, AA, and the UAA for EU countries and regions. Reporting 
on  the  actual  UAA  therefore  takes  Eurostat  FSS  as  its  primary  data  source.  For  some 
countries, before their accession to the EU we also use FAOSTAT data since Eurostat data 
do not always cover all EU countries, particularly before they joined the EU.  

The FSS includes data on FA, AA and UAA. FA is the largest area, including AA plus wooded 
area (defined as SRC) and other land (farmland occupied by buildings, farmyards, tracks and 
ponds). AA covers UAA plus NUAA, defined as ‘common land which is not used’. 999 

Short-term changes in UAA 2005-2016 

•  At EU-28 level, the total UAA increased by 1%, AA decreased by -1% and FA by -2%. 
Within the UAA, arable land decreased by -2%, permanent grassland increased by 6%, 
and permanent crops decreased by -3%.  

•  Large declines in UAA (<= -10%) occurred in Cyprus (-26%) and Austria (-18%). 
•  Medium declines in UAA (< -10% to-5%) occurred in Romania, Spain, the Netherlands 

and Sweden. 

•  Small declines in UAA (-5% to 0%) occurred in Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, 

Italy, Poland, Portugal and Finland. 

•  Small increases in UAA (0-5%) occurred in France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia, 

Slovakia and the UK. 

•  Medium increases in UAA (>5%-10%) occurred in Hungary and Malta.  
•  Large  increases  in  UAA  (>10%)  occurred  in  Bulgaria  (64%),  Estonia  (20%),  Ireland 

(16%), Greece (14%), Croatia (60%) and Latvia (13%). 

61 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

•  At  the  regional  level  the  largest  declines  (<-10%)  were  seen  in  northern  Sweden, 
central Portugal, north-west and central Spain, most of Italy except for the deep south, 
Sicily and Sardinia, eastern and southern Austria, south-west Romania, Cyprus, south-
east Poland and the southern Netherlands. 

•  Reasons for increases in UAA in most CEE countries relate to the period after entry 
into the EU, when agricultural production started to grow and more land was taken into 
use.  

Long-term changes in UAA 1975-2016 

•  The total decline in UAA between 1975 and 2016 for all current EU countries amounts 
to almost 36,000 km2. This relates to 18% of the UAA in 1975. Declines were seen in 
all countries in this period.  

•  Large declines in UAA (<= -20%) occurred in Bulgaria (-25%), Czechia (-23%), Estonia 
(-27%),  Greece  (-20%),  Spain  (-27%),  Croatia  (-30%),  Italy  (-29%),  Cyprus  (-38%), 
Latvia (-24%), Hungary (-31%), Poland (-25%), Slovenia (-45%) and Slovakia (-35%). 
•  Medium declines in UAA (< -20% to-10%) occurred in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, 
Ireland, France, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Romania, Finland, Sweden and 
the UK. 

•  Small declines in UAA (-10% to 0%) occurred in Luxembourg and Portugal. 
•  At regional level, the largest declines (<-25%) were seen in northern Sweden, Estonia, 
Galicia, Madrid, Valencia, Alicante, Castellon, Provence-Alpes, Languedoc-Roussillon, 
most Italian regions, southern Austrian regions, and all regions in Slovakia, Hungary, 
Bulgaria, Slovenia and Croatia.  
In most of the CEE countries the decline was particularly large between 1990-2005, 
directly after the conversion from communist to market economies. In this period large 
state farms ceased to exist, agricultural production decreased tremendously, land was 
partly  claimed  back  by  pre-communist  owners,  and  several  areas  of  land  were  left 
unused  because  legal  rights  remained  unclear  and/or  production  for  the  market 
became difficult.  

• 

Data on unused, abandoned or degraded lands are practically not available in EU-wide data 
sources, nor in national or regional data. The main reason for not registering land that goes 
out  of  production  and  becomes  abandoned  or  degraded  is  because  it  then  also  loses 
agricultural land status and is therefore no longer registered in agricultural statistics. This is 
confirmed by the fact that the only unused land categories for which data are collected refer to 
lands that are temporarily out of use, such as fallow land or unused lands. However, if they are 
unused for a couple of years the lands lose agricultural status and are no longer registered. 
Wider land use statistics may still cover these lands, and register them according to the land 
use  or  land  cover  they  become.  This  can  be  forest,  urban,  nature  conservation  area, 
industrialised, used for recreation or transport, or a more undefined class possibly more likely 
to be abandoned. However, there have been problems using remote sensing data to identify 
the  level  of  intensity  (or  even  presence)  of  active  management  of  permanent  pastureland 
(grassland, heaths, agroforestry, and so on). For these lands, it then becomes very challenging 
to understand whether they relate to former abandoned or degraded agricultural lands.  

Land use and land cover data is therefore needed, on which spatial flow analysis needs to be 
undertaken. Box 2.1 gave an example of this using CLC data for 2000 and 2018. The land 
cover  flow  analysis  showed  what  agricultural  lands  converted  to.  For  the  EU-28,  a  shift  to 
abandonment with and without forest formation was seen on about 6% of the agricultural area 
(relative to 2000), around 2% involved urbanisation and 4.5% internal agricultural shifts from 
arable to set-aside, fallow and permanent grassland. It was also clear from the land cover flow 
analysis that in all EU countries the majority of this type of abandonment takes place outside 
Natura 2000 (80% on average EU28).  

62 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

The CLC flow analysis only identifies those flows that are dominant in terms of land cover, so 
those  that  cover  a  large  area.  Small  area  changes  are  missed,  which  can  accumulate  to 
significant amounts. This is related to the coarse spatial resolution of the satellite data used 
for  CLC,  that  have  a  minimum  mapping  unit  of  25  ha.  This  means  that  detailed  spatial 
information  is  lost  and  small  abandoned  fields  become  part  of  the  mosaic  classes  in  CLC. 
Identifying these from the CLC then becomes impossible unless additional data are collected.  

Another  reason  why  data  detecting  abandoned  lands  are  missing  is  because  it  involves  a 
gradual  process  of  transition  from  agricultural  land  to  shrubs  and  eventually  forest.  It  is 
therefore very difficult to determine exactly when land has become completely abandoned or 
when it is still managed. Detecting abandonment based on land cover data alone is difficult. A 
combination  of  statistical  and  different  spatial  data  sources  from  different  time  periods  is 
usually needed, providing information on land use, land management and land cover. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

3.  FACTORS THAT LEAD TO AN INCREASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS 

BECOMING UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED 

Chapter aim and contents: 

This chapter provides an overview of factors leading to agricultural 
land in the EU becoming unused, abandoned and degraded, based 
on a literature review and evidence from nine case studies. 

3.1. 

Introduction and approach 

Establishing  successful  planning  and  management  policies  for  sectors  that  depend  on 
agricultural  land  requires  an  understanding  of  the  mechanisms  leading  to  agricultural  land 
becoming unused, abandoned and degraded. In this chapter, we therefore identify such land 
and outline the historical context of land use changes in different parts of the EU. We adopted 
an existing classification for unused, abandoned and degraded land, and distinguished main 
categories  of  underlying  drivers.  We  then  made  an  inventory  of  drivers  for  agricultural  land 
abandonment using literature on agricultural land abandonment in the EU and evidence from 
nine case studies. We conclude with a summary of the spatial distribution of drivers in the EU 
and the hotspot regions where these concur (see Annex VI).  

Information  on  the  occurrence  of  unused,  abandoned  and degraded  land  in the  case study 
regions  and  drivers  was  derived  from  interviews  with  65  stakeholders.  See  Annex  VIII  for 
details on the types of respondents, response rates and interview questions. 

3.1.1.  Identifying types of unused, abandoned and degraded lands 

The extensive literature on farmland abandonment in Europe shows the difficulty in identifying 
land  on  which  agricultural  activities  have  ended  for  economic,  political  or  environmental 
reasons (for example, Wiegman et al., 2008; IEEP, 2010; Allan et al., 2014; Elbersen et al., 
2014; Keenleyside and Tucker, 2010; Elbersen et al., 2015; Terres et al., 2013; Lasanta et al., 
2017).  Figure  11  shows  that  land  can  be  in  different  stages  of  abandonment.  The  stages 
reflect a complex process of reduced farming activity over a continuum, ranging from land that 
is temporarily unused (overlapping here with fallow) to semi-abandoned land (managed only 
to comply with CAP cross-compliance requirements but not currently used for production). At 
the end of the range is land that is entirely abandoned and where management is withdrawn 
completely. Usually this last category of land loses its status as agricultural land and is also no 
longer eligible for direct payments under the CAP. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 11 Agricultural land use transitions 

Source: Allen et al. (2014).  
Notes: Types in dashed red boxes are the focus of the regional case studies. 

If land stays unused for at least five consecutive years, it is classified as unused and abandoned 
in RED II. However, the land use classification of RED II does not acknowledge the complex 
process of reduced farming activity described above. Keenleyside and Tucker (2010) overcome 
this  drawback  by  distinguishing  between  temporarily  unused  lands,  transitional  and  actual 
abandonment (see Box 4). 

Box 4 Classification of abandoned land and process of abandonment, adapted from 
Keenleyside and Tucker (2010) 
Temporarily unused land: land that is likely to be temporarily unused and includes fallow and former 
compulsory set-aside (under CAP until 2008), but also semi-abandonment or hidden abandonment.  

Fallow is generally part of the crop rotation, and involves a temporary suspension of cultivation ranging 
from one or several vegetation periods (for example, short (1-2 years) and long-term fallow (>=3 
years).  

65 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Example of short-term fallow land: land in use for cereals every two to three years in the Soria region, 
Spain. Photo: Michiel van Eupen.  

N.B. Keeping lands in fallow generally helps to recover soil fertility, although brown fallow (without 
vegetation cover) may also increase the risk of soil erosion, while green fallow (fallow with vegetation 
cover) has a lower risk for soil loss. Furthermore, fallow lands also have a positive contribution to 
biodiversity, particularly in arable monocultural landscapes. 

Example of long-term fallow land: land not in use for agriculture for three to five years in the Soria 
region, Spain. Photo: Michiel van Eupen.  

Semi or hidden abandonment refers to land with a very low level of management. The land is not (yet) 
formally  abandoned  and  is  subject  to  some  form  of  management,  which  might  be  simply  to  keep  it 
available for future use, for example, for agriculture, recreation or tourism. Such land may also be subject 
to the minimum management necessary to meet cross-compliance requirements by those claiming direct 
payments  under  the  CAP.  Very  extensive  or  intermittent  farming  operations  may  also  fall  into  this 
category. Such extensive farming is generally associated with very low direct economic returns, but may 
be continued for personal or social reasons, to support other farm income streams, for example, from 
hunting and tourism, or for nature and landscape conservation. It may also be kept in extensive use to 
maintain a long-term family investment.  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Example of semi-abandoned land: land not in use for agriculture for three years in the Soria region, Spain 
due to a family dispute. Photo: Michiel van Eupen.  

Transitional abandonment has been observed particularly in Central and Eastern Europe as a result 
of restructuring and land reforms, and in other Member States as a result of compulsory or voluntary set-
aside, until this was abolished in 2008, or as a result of land use change. This includes land that is held 
for optional conversion to urban or infrastructural use. Transitional abandonment can be seen also  in 
areas  that  are  economically  marginal  in  production  terms.  These  areas  can  move  in  and  out  of 
agricultural use depending on market prices for certain commodities.  

Example of land under transitional abandonment: abandoned land previously in use as meadow, 
pasture and orchard in the Kontinentalna Hrvatska region, Croatia. Photo: Željka Fištrek.  

Actual abandonment: where the farmland is not used at all. The vegetation may change through natural 
succession  into  tall  herb,  bush  and  forest  ecosystems  after  a  period,  depending  on  climatic  and  soil 
conditions. On rich and wet soils, the outcome is likely to be forest ecosystems but, in contrast, on poor 
dry soils in south-eastern Europe, it can be ‘steppe-like’ grassland vegetation that is able to survive for 
many years without any active management such as mowing or grazing.  

67 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Example of abandoned land: land not in use for agriculture for more than ten years in the Soria region, 
Spain. Photo: Michiel van Eupen.  

3.1.2.  Historical context and abandonment 

Agricultural  land  use  and  tenure  systems  developed  differently  across  Europe  over  many 
centuries, and therefore the starting point for abandonment was diverse. The abandonment of 
agricultural land in Europe can be traced to the early nineteenth century. It increased after the 
Second  World War  due to the  collapse  of  societies  in mountainous regions (Lasanta  et  al., 
2017; Corbelle-Rico, et al., 2015). Differences in abandonment patterns between the western 
and  eastern  parts  of  Europe  may  reflect  fundamentally  different  underlying  causes  and 
timescales  that  triggered  agricultural  land  abandonment.  In  Western  Europe,  abandonment 
appeared to be mainly driven by gradual industrialisation, market orientation, and urbanisation 
(MacDonald et al., 2000; Verburg et al., 2010). In contrast, abandonment in Eastern Europe 
was triggered by the collapse of socialism and subsequent institutional reforms (Baumann et 
al., 2011). 

Change of political systems in Central and Eastern Europe (after 1990) 
Many studies mention that the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1991 triggered widespread 
abandonment  of  agricultural  land  in  countries  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  (for  example, 
Loffe et al. 2004; Henebry, 2009; Kuemmerle et al., 2008; Estel et al., 2015; Kuemmerle et al., 
2016; Plutzar et al., 2016; Terres et al., 2015; van Vliet et al. 2015). In south-eastern Europe 
millions of hectares of farmland were abandoned (for example, 15–20% of cropland in Slovakia 
and Poland, (Keenleyside and Tucker, 2010 and Van Dijk et al., 2004; Zakkak et al., 2015, 
cited  in:  Leal  Filho  et  al.  2017).  Alcantara  et  al.  (2013)  quantified  the  extent  of  abandoned 
farmland (cropland and pastures) in Central and Eastern Europe using satellite images. They 
found that abandoned farmland was widespread, totalling 52.5 million ha. The variation in rates 
of agricultural land abandonment across the area was driven to a large extent by differences 
in  institutional  and  socio-economic  factors  among  countries,  rather  than  by  biophysical 
settings. The driving factors included differences in governmental support for agriculture after 
1989-1991,  the  level  of reorganisation  of  agricultural  sectors  (Kuemmerle  et  al.,  2016),  and 
accession  to the  EU.  Land  reforms  took  place  in  various ways:  by  restitution  of  agricultural 
land, distribution of land shares, or continuation of state ownership.  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

The  mechanism  behind  agricultural  land  abandonment  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe 
consisted of a restructuring of agricultural and forestry sectors in the transition to free market 
economies  (Pointereau et  al.,  2008).  This  process  was  characterised  by  privatisation,  price 
liberalisation  of  inputs  and  agricultural  products  (Brooks  and  Gardner,  2004;  Lerman  et  al. 
2004, cited in: Alcantara et al., 2013), integration into global markets, and the disappearance 
of guaranteed markets in the Eastern Bloc.  

The dismantling of large collective or state farms in the process of land privatisation resulted 
in  land  abandonment  because  property  rights  were  not  well  established,  or  because  co-
ownership or lack of information on the landowner impeded the allocation of land. For example, 
in  Bulgaria,  the  forced  co-ownership  of  land  parcels  created  inadequate  property  rights, 
inefficient  land  allocation  and  farmland  abandonment  (Vranken  et  al.,  2004,  2011,  cited  in: 
Terres, Nisini Scacchiafichi and Anguiano, 2013). Returning land to previous owners was also 
complicated  by  a  lack  of  interest  from  some  owners  who  had  migrated  to  cities  or  other 
countries (Bell etal., 2009), and by a lack of start-up capital for agricultural enterprises (Bell et 
al., 2009, 2010, cited in: Lasanta et al., 2017).  

The  variety  of  socio-economic  changes  mentioned  above  resulted  in  the  abandonment  of 
properties (Bell et al., 2009) or in high fragmentation and small size of agricultural plots and 
holdings, impeding the development of profitable and commercial farming (Terres et al., 2013). 
Other barriers for agricultural land use included lack of equipment, limited access to capital, 
scarcity of advice and technical support, difficulties with markets, and low levels of government 
support (Keenleyside et al., 2005, cited in: Terres et al., 2013).  

Accession to the EU 
After  2000,  several  countries  joined  the  EU:  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Cyprus,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Bulgaria and Romania in 
2007; and Croatia in 2013. This enabled farmers to access agricultural support payments and 
new markets (Alcantara et al., 2013). Agricultural commodity prices increased, and restitution 
of  agricultural  land  and  forests  to  former  owners  progressed.  As  a  result,  abandoned 
agricultural land was partly recultivated, and agricultural yields and forest yields increased in 
some countries (Rozelle and Swinnen, 2004; Griffiths et al., 2013, cited in: Plutzar et al., 2016). 

3.2.  Main drivers of land becoming unused, abandoned and degraded in 

the EU 

We  grouped  drivers  according  to  the  main  categories  distinguished  in  the  reviews  by 
Pointereau et al. (2008), Keenleyside and Tucker (2010), Terres et al. (2013, 2015), Filho et 
al.  (2017)  and  Lasanta  et  al.  (2017)  and  Castillo  et  al.  (2018),  and  applied  in  the  spatially 
explicit mapping approach of marginal lands for industrial cropping in Europe (Elbersen et al., 
2017). These categories include: natural constraints limiting the suitability for agricultural uses 
( 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 6 and Annex VI under point 4), socio-economic drivers at the farm level (Table 7), and 
broader socio-economic drivers (Table 8). We added a fourth category for drivers from policy 
(Table 9). 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 6 Category 1 - Natural constraints and land degradation limiting the suitability for 
agricultural uses 

Driver 

Mechanism and aspects 

References 

Adverse 
climate  

Low temperature or short growing season limiting 
crop growth. 

Dry  conditions  and  water  stress  affecting  crop 
physiological processes.  

Soil and terrain 
properties 

Limitations in rooting of crops, in soil drainage and 
excessive  wetness  constraining  crop  production 
and farming operations. 

Low soil fertility, acidity, alkalinity, salinity, sodicity. 

High altitude limiting crop growth. 

Steep  slopes  complicating  use  of  agricultural 
machines. 

Steep slopes being rocky and having low fertility. 

Water  accumulation  on  fields  in  valley  bottoms, 
inundation risk. 

Land 
degradation 

Soil  erosion,  decline  in  soil  organic  matter,  soil 
land 
salinisation, 
degradation constraining agricultural production9.  

forms  of 

fires  as 

forest 

Terres  et  al.,  2015;  Elbersen  et  al., 
2019;  Elbersen  et  al.,  2018; 
Schneider,  Blanchard,  Levers,  and 
Kuemmerle,  2015;  Lasanta  et  al., 
2017; Castillo et al., 2018; Terres et 
al., 2013 

Leal  Filho  et  al.,  2017;  Elbersen  et 
al.,  2019;  Elbersen  et  al.,  2018; 
Lasanta  et  al.,  2017;  Castillo  et  al., 
2018;  Terres  et  al.,  2013;  Terres  et 
al., 2015; Plutzar et al., 2016; Ciria, 
Sanz,  Carrasco,  and  Ciria,  2019; 
Tóth  et  al.,  2008;  Castillo,  Aliaga, 
Lavalle, and Llario, 2020; Schneider 
et al., 2015 

Leal Filho et al., 2017; Lasanta et al., 
2017; Estel et al., 2015; Jones, 2015; 
Stolte et al., 2016; Tóth et al., 2008 

Landscape 
configuration 
and land use 

Reduction  of  heterogeneity  promoting 
the 
encroachment  of  vegetation  and  increased  fire 
frequency. 

Leal Filho et al., 2017; Schneider et 
al.,  2015;  Vinogradovs,  Nikodemus, 
Elferts, and Brūmelis, 2018 

Proximity to forest edge likely promoting secondary 
succession on abandoned farmland. 

Table 7 Category 2 - Socio-economic drivers at farm level 

Driver 

Mechanism and aspects 

References 

Agricultural 
viability 

Land  becoming  unprofitable 
insufficient farm income. 

to  farm,  generating 

Lack of financial capital or credit to maintain assets and 
machinery. 

Low investments indicating farming activity in decline.  

Non-economic  motivations  and  options  for  future  use 
maintaining  agricultural  land  under  some  form  of 
management (semi- or hidden abandonment). 

Leal Filho et al., 2017; Allen et al., 2014; 
Elbersen  et  al.,  2019;  Elbersen  et  al., 
2018;  Alcantara  et  al.,  2013;  Terres  et 
al.,  2013;  Terres  et  al.,  2015;  van  der 
Sluis,  Pedroli,  Kristensen,  Lavinia 
Cosor,  and  Pavlis,  2016;  Bell  et  al., 
2009; Lasanta et al., 2017; Castillo et al., 
2018;  Keenleyside  and  Tucker,  2010; 
Hart et al., 2013 

9  Agricultural  land  abandonment  is  also  reported  to  lead  to  land  degradation,  for  example,  in  the  Mediterranean,  where 
abandonment of traditional terrace systems lead to soil erosion and shallow landslides (Arnaez et al., 2011; Cammeraat et al., 
2007; Nadal-Romero et al., 2012), and abandonment of grazing adjacent to forests or in grassy firebreaks leading to increased 
risk of forest fires (for example, Lourenço, 2018). Other main forms of land degradation caused by agricultural land abandonment 
include degradation of peat soils, desertification, and landslides (Stolte et al., 2016).  

71 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Driver 

Mechanism and aspects 

References 

Terres  et  al.,  2013;  Leal  Filho  et  al., 
2017; Lasanta et al., 2017; Vinogradovs 
et al., 2018; Terres et al., 2015; Elbersen 
et  al.,  2019;  Elbersen  et  al.,  2018; 
Castillo et al., 2020; Allen et al., 2014; 
Baumann  et  al.,  2011;  Krčílková  and 
Janovská,  2016;  Castillo  et  al.,  2018; 
Bell  et  al.,  2009;  Viedma,  Moity,  and 
Moreno, 2015; Hart et al., 2013  

Farm structure 

Small  parcels  and 
fragmentation  causing 
land 
difficulties  in  mechanisation  and  poor  accessibility  of 
fields. 

Remoteness  of 
transportation to markets, processing and labour costs. 

inducing  higher  costs  of 

fields 

Fragmented  ownership  structure  leading  to  higher 
management cost and hampering succession. 

Small farm size leading to limited access to credit and 
other  institutional  services;  limited  options  to  benefit 
from economy of scale and use of machinery. 

Enrolment in support schemes favouring commitment to 
continue farming. 

Uncertainty  in  land  tenure  or  property  rights,  disputed 
ownership  and 
(owner 
deceased, acquisition for purposes of land development) 
causing land to be kept out of production. 

transitional  arrangements 

Farm 
characteristics 

holder 

Old  age  of  farmers  and  proportion  of  farmers  near 
retiring age. 

Lack of continuity in the agricultural enterprise due to 
the  absence  of  direct  descendants  in  families  or  other 
successors,  family  dispute  the  inheritance  or  other 
problems in handling inheritance. 

Landowners living in towns at distance with no interest 
to farm/maintain the land.  

Level of education or training of farm holders and use of 
advisory  services  indicate  the  professionalism  of  the 
farm and willingness to invest.  

Lasanta et al., 2017; Castillo et al., 2018; 
Terres  et  al.,  2013;  Terres  et  al.,  2015; 
Kosmas et al., 2015; Vinogradovs et al., 
2018;  Viedma  et  al.,  2015;  Cvitanović, 
Blackburn,  and  Rudbeck  Jepsen,  2016; 
Krčílková  and  Janovská,  2016;  Bell  et 
al., 2009 

Farm  practices 
and  intensity  of 
agricultural use 

Abandonment of traditional farming practices. 

Estel  et  al.,  2015;  Hart  et  al.,  2013; 
Jones, 2015 

Intensive  management  leading  to  the  over-exploitation 
of natural resources. 

intensity  management 

Low 
economically marginal. 

systems  becoming 

Table 8 Category 3 - Broader socio-economic drivers 
Mechanism and aspects 

Driver 

References 

Economic 
opportunities 
in 
other regions and 
sectors 

Concentration of actively cultivated land in productive 
areas, and a decrease in others due to intensification of 
agriculture or structural changes. 

Leal Filho et al., 2017; Estel et al., 2015; 
Hart  et  al.,  2013;  Lasanta  et  al.,  2017; 
Terres et al., 2013, 2015; Cvitanović et 
al., 2016; Baumann et al., 2011 

Increasing  imports  of  agricultural  products  from  other 
regions. 

72 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Driver 

Mechanism and aspects 

References 

Employment opportunities in other sectors (industry and 
services)  shifting  active  population  and  labour  forces 
away from farms. 

Decreased attractiveness of agriculture when income is 
below regional income. 

Demographic 
trends 
settlement 
pattern 

and 

High  emigration  rate  from  rural  areas  to  cities  and 
industrial  sites,  especially  of  younger  population; 
decline in rural population. 

Loss of services and infrastructure in villages. 

Castillo  et  al.,  2018;  Estel  et  al.,  2015; 
Lasanta  et  al.,  2017;  Leal  Filho  et  al., 
2017; Terres et al., 2015; van Vliet et al., 
2015;  Ceausu  et  al.,  2015;  Bell  et  al., 
2009 

of 

Level 
technology, 
industrialisation 
and  training  in  a 
region 

Family background, childhood history and attachment to 
rural landscape determining whether people continue to 
live in rural areas. 

Lack  of  new  technology,  equipment  and  technical 
support. 

Lasanta et al., 2017; Terres et al., 2013; 
Jones, 2015; Corbelle-Rico et al., 2015; 
Alcantara et al., 2013 

Modernisation  of  agricultural  practices  (mechanisation 
and chemical fertilisation) in marginal areas leading to 
overstocking. 

Competition  of  smallholders  in  dry  and  mountainous 
areas  with  large-scale  mechanised  farms  elsewhere  in 
Europe. 

Intensification of agricultural use of the most productive 
land and abandonment of remote, marginal land. 

Level of training10 and advice in a region required for 
adaptation of agricultural enterprises to changing socio-
economic circumstances. 

Accessibility, 
rural 
infrastructure 
and  proximity  to 
urban areas 

Possibility to access the land with machinery and human 
workforce to perform agricultural operations, to supply 
inputs  and 
implement 
transport  harvest,  and 
infrastructure for irrigation or drainage. 

to 

Leal  Filho  et  al.,  2017;  Terres  et  al., 
2013,  2015;  Bell 
al.,  2009; 
et 
Vinogradovs et al., 2018 

Distance  of  farm  holdings  to  social  infrastructure  (for 
example, schools, hospitals), opportunities, activities or 
assets in other areas. 

Availability  and  condition  of  rural 
infrastructure 
(schools,  hospitals,  roads,  houses,  public  buildings, 
financial and market structures). 

Proximity of urban areas making land attractive for real 
estate developers. 

Land markets 

Weak land market with low demand for land translating 
into low prices (selling or renting). 

Leal  Filho  et  al.,  2017;  Terres  et  al., 
2013, 2015 

10 ‘Training’ falls under the key criterion ‘farmer qualification’ in the indicator on the risk of farmland abandonment developed by 
JRC (Terres et al., 2013). This refers to technical and economic training, including expertise in new information technologies, as 
well as adequate awareness of product quality, results of research and sustainable management of natural resources, including 
cross-compliance requirements and the application of production practices compatible with the maintenance and enhancement 
of the landscape and the protection of the environment. 

73 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Driver 

Mechanism and aspects 

References 

Imperfections in credit markets and property rights, high 
transaction costs.  

Agricultural 
market 
constraints 

Unfavourable  agricultural  markets  in  the  region  or 
beyond,  for  example,  when  small-scale  farming  has 
difficulties  competing  economically  with  a  more 
structured, intensive agricultural market. 

Castillo et al., 2018; Lasanta et al., 2017; 
Leal  Filho  et  al.,  2017;  Terres  et  al., 
2013;  Kuemmerle  et  al.,  2016;  EEA, 
2019; Keenleyside and Tucker, 2010 

Market  globalisation  and  global  competition  among 
agricultural  commodities, 
low  commodity  prices 
stimulating import of goods from abroad. 

Trend  towards  specialisation  and  achieving  greater 
economies  of  scale  in  most  agricultural  sectors  in  the 
EU, reducing the viability of marginal livestock systems. 

3.2.1.  Drivers from policy 

The CAP is the main policy tool affecting the use and management of agricultural land and 
agroforestry.  Literature  shows  that  several  CAP  measures  have  clear  potential  benefits  in 
combating drivers of land abandonment and restoring abandoned or unused land to production 
(see Chapter 5). However, there are some situations where the CAP may also contribute to 
land being abandoned, because of the implementation choices made by individual Member 
States in defining, targeting and funding specific CAP measures. There is little evidence at the 
EU  level  of  biodiversity  and  water  policies  acting  as  drivers  of  land  abandonment  or 
degradation and, like the CAP, they too can be implemented at national or regional level to 
combat land abandonment.  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 9 Category 4 - Drivers for agricultural land abandonment from policy at the EU level  

Policy 
instrument 

Mechanism and examples 

direct 

CAP 
payments 
(Pillar 1) 

Hart and Bas-Defossez (2018) found that excluding certain farmland habitats from 
being  defined  as  agricultural  means  that  this  land  is  not  eligible  for  CAP  direct 
payments, which often leads to it being abandoned, or to agricultural intensification 
to ensure that it is eligible.  

For example, in 2015, just four Member States opted to define as eligible, grazing 
land on which herbaceous forage is not predominant (Greece, France, Spain and 
the UK (except Wales) (Alliance Environnement, 2019). In Andalucía (Spain), the 
eligibility criteria for direct payments and the definition of permanent grassland has 
led to a decrease in the area of wooded grasslands (dehesa) declared as eligible 
for Pillar 1 support and may lead to abandonment (Alliance Environnement, 2018).  

In the 2007-2013 CAP programming period significant areas of high nature value 
(HNV) farmland in active agricultural use were not eligible for CAP support. These 
included thousands of hectares of Annex 1 habitats of European importance (under 
the Habitats and Species Directive), consisting of semi-natural grasslands, wooded 
pastures, heathland, dunes, fens, phrygana scrub and pseudo-steppe (Keenleyside 
et al, 2014).  

In the current period (2014-2020) in Croatia, out of 607,000 ha of utilised permanent 
grassland, only one third is inscribed in LPIS and receiving CAP support. Most of 
the  grassland  outside  the  CAP  is  either  abandoned  or  farmed  at  a  (semi)-
subsistence  level  by  elderly  farmers,  and  thus  at  high  risk  of  abandonment,  and 
most of this is HNV karst grassland rich in rare species (Alliance Environnement, 
2019). 

European  Agricultural  Fund 
for 
afforestation  of  agricultural  land  can  change  the  use  of  land  still  in  production, 
effectively removing it from the UAA once the trees are established. 

for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  support 

Forest 
measures  

(Pillar 2) 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

3.2.2.  Combinations of drivers 

The literature review for agricultural land in the EU becoming unused, abandoned or degraded 
points  out  that  these transitions  are  caused  by  combinations  of  drivers  from  the  categories 
reported above. Agricultural land abandonment can be triggered by primary drivers related to 
either low productivity, remoteness or mountainous regions, or to unfavourable soil or climate 
conditions for agriculture (Castillo et al., 2018). In combination with natural constraints, factors 
such  as  the  absence  of  markets,  difficult  accessibility,  poor  infrastructure,  low  population 
density  and  declining  population  were  identified  as  drivers  for  farmland  abandonment 
(Elbersen  et  al.,  2018;  Kosmas  et  al.,  2015;  Terres  et  al.,  2013).  A  case  study  in  southern 
Romania illustrates how drivers from all four categories interacted to cause land abandonment 
and reforestation (Stringer and Harris, 2014). Land that was returned and redistributed after 
the ending of the socialist governance became abandoned and unused in response to land 
degradation, a lack of irrigation, agricultural labour shortages, and the economic unviability of 
farming small plots.  

Drivers can also occur in sequence, as demonstrated in a modelling study of changes in fire 
hazard through time as a result of agricultural land abandonment in a large rural area in west-
central Spain for the period 1950-2000. From 1950 to 1978, land abandonment was driven by 
local  environmental  and  socio-economic  constraints  (small  farms,  in  distant  locations,  in 
municipalities with low population and a low percentage of employees in the primary sector). 
In the subsequent period, land abandonment was driven by factors in the wider context (large 
farms,  in  more  productive  soils,  closer  to  towns,  municipalities  with  high  rates  of 
unemployment, and higher employment in the services sector). Throughout the entire period, 
a  low  level  of  mechanisation  in  municipalities  and  a  high  proportion  of  landowners  over  55 
years old influenced the probability of agricultural land abandonment in this region (Viedma et 
al., 2015).  

Table 10 summarises how the drivers in the categories presented above can be linked to the 
different types of land in the stages of passing out of use, and the resulting types of unused 
and abandoned land according to the definition adopted in this study (Box 3.1). Degraded land 
occurs in all land types, and is therefore not indicated as a separate land type. 

Table 10. Summary of categories of unused and abandoned land used in this review in 
relation to drivers  
Land type 

Sub-type 

socio-
Broader 
economic drivers  

Drivers 
policies 

from 

Natural 
constraints 
the 
limiting 
suitability 
for 
agricultural uses  

Socio-economic 
drivers  at  farm 
level 

Temporarily 
unused land  

a. Fallow (short-term: 1-2 years)  X 

(long-term:  >=3 

b.  Fallow 
years) 
c. Semi- or hidden abandonment  X 

X 

Abandoned land  

a. Transitional abandonment 

b. Actual abandonment 

Degraded lands 

Degraded lands 

X 

X 

XX 

Source of land type classification: Keenleyside and Tucker, 2010.  
Notes: X: small influence of driver, XX: large influence of driver. 

X 

XX 

XX 

XX 

XX 

X 

X 

XX 

XX 

XX 

X 

XX 

XX 

X 

X 

X 

X 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

3.3.  Evidence from the case studies for drivers of land becoming unused, 

abandoned and degraded in the case study regions 

3.3.1.  Scale, type and location of land abandoned  

Scale 
Case study interview respondents estimated that land abandonment (actual and transitional or 
hidden forms) and unused land occur on less than 5% of agricultural land11 in most case study 
regions, with the exception of Portugal. 

Figure 12 Estimated percentage of agricultural land affected by abandonment or left unused 
in case study regions according to definitions of Keenleyside and Tucker (2010) 

Notes: Average scores from respondents: 0: not present; 1: <1% of the agricultural area; 2: 2-5%; 3: >5%. 

Land  under  transitional  abandonment  was  attributed  relatively  high  scores  for  the  region  in 
Croatia.  This  could  be  explained  by  market  price  fluctuations  of  certain  commodities  and 
optional conversion to urban or infrastructural use. Price fluctuations in commodities, having 
appeared especially since Croatia entered the EU market, can influence farmer’s decisions to 
reduce production of these commodities and to leave land of lower quality abandoned until the 
situation changes (Fištrek and Kulišić, pers. comm.). The lowest scores for forms of abandoned 
land  were  given  for  the  region  in  France.  This  confirms  the  demand  for  land  from  the 
agricultural and commercial sectors (see Figure 12). 

The  estimates  of  the  occurrence  of  abandoned  or  unused  land  by  respondents  should  be 
interpreted with caution, because respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the land 
types, and some restricted their answer to areas smaller than the case study region.  

Types of land abandoned and destination  
Respondents  reported  mainly  arable  land,  permanent  grassland  and marginal  land to  have 
been  subject  to  abandonment  in  the  past  20  years  (reported  in  29,  42,  and  38  responses 
respectively, out of 145 in total). Arable land was mentioned in all case study regions except 
for the region in France, where permanent grassland was the most frequently reported type of 
abandoned land. Grassland and permanent grassland were also mentioned as abandoned for 
the regions in Bulgaria, Latvia, Italy and Romania. Marginal land was reported as subject to 
abandonment by respondents from all regions. Characteristics of this type of land that were 

11 According to Eurostat’s definition, agricultural area includes UAA, NUAA, and SAA (see Section 2.2).  

77 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

mentioned  include  steep  slopes,  shallow,  stony  or  wet  soils,  land  with  low  profitability, 
producing low quality forage, and land where cultivation with machines is difficult.  

Respondents considered the same types of land use likely to become abandoned in the near 
future:  arable  land,  (permanent)  grassland  and  marginal  land  (19,  24  and  25  responses 
respectively, out of 103 in total). For arable land this applies mainly to the regions in Bulgaria, 
Croatia,  Italy,  Portugal  and  Spain.  Grassland  and  marginal  land  were  considered  likely  to 
become abandoned in all case study regions except for the regions in Portugal and Romania.  

Shrubs  and  shrubs  in  combination  with  forest  were  most  frequently  mentioned  as  the  land 
cover  resulting  from  abandonment  (80  responses  out  of  130),  especially  for  the  regions  in 
Croatia (18 responses) and Portugal (15 responses). Forest and grassland, and combinations 
of grassland with shrubs, were mentioned respectively 16 and 12 times as land use types of 
destination. Only the case studies for the regions in Bulgaria and France indicated whether the 
change of land use to forest was deliberate or not: in Bulgaria part of the municipal and state 
common  grasslands  and  lands  with  marginal  biophysical  conditions  were  abandoned  and 
became  shrubs  and  forests (so  natural regeneration);  in France permanent  grasslands that 
became unused or abandoned in the past underwent a natural conversion to shrub land and 
forest. However, changes in land use from marginal land to naturally regenerated or planted 
forest or shrubs in the region in France were indicated to happen because landowners do not 
need to pay property tax for this land, and because it allows them to privately hunt on this land. 
In the case study region in Romania, unused or abandoned marginal lands tend to become 
overgrown  with  bushy  woody vegetation  and  often  continue to  be  used for  grazing  (notably 
sheep), but the quality of forage is poor and productivity is low. 

The most frequently mentioned types of conversions in the past 20 years were from marginal 
land to shrubs or shrubs and forest (22 responses out of 130), and from permanent grassland 
and arable land to these land use types (23 and 18 responses, respectively).  

Specific locations 
Specific locations mentioned of land that has become unused or abandoned were in hilly or 
mountainous  areas  (Bulgaria,  Croatia,  France,  Italy,  Spain,  Romania),  remote  or  physically 
isolated  territories  (Bulgaria,  Italy,  Portugal),  areas  near  forest  (Croatia,  France,  Romania), 
flood-prone  areas  (Croatia,  Hungary,  Latvia)  and  protected  areas  (Bulgaria,  Italy,  Latvia, 
Romania). For example, about 50% of the territory of Braşov county in Romania is designated 
as Natura 2000 area. For the region in Croatia, areas suspected to carry mines from the war 
of 1991-1995 were mentioned as specific locations of abandoned land.  

Locations near urban areas were mentioned for the regions in France and Italy due to expected 
benefits from conversion to built-up land, and in the region in Latvia around former buildings 
and sites with rubbish dumps or industrial waste (for example, from quarrying or mining). For 
the region in Croatia, it was mentioned that people living in rural areas in the vicinity of larger 
cities  search  for  employment  in  cities  and  abandon  family  owned  agricultural  fields.  This  is 
predominantly visible in area around the capital, Zagreb.  

Changes in vegetation, biodiversity and degradation after abandonment 
For  most  case  study  regions,  agricultural  land  abandonment  was  reported  to  lead  to  the 
subsequent natural regrowth of grasses, shrubs and trees, transforming into forest. This was 
reported to lead to an increased risk of forest fire for all countries, except for the regions in 
France and Hungary. Increased fire risk is explained by the appearance of weeds, tall grasses 
and bushes in combination with the incidence of dry summers (case study region in Bulgaria), 
the  lack  of  maintenance  of  firebreaks  and  of  shrubland  and  forest  (case  study  regions  in 
Portugal and Spain), the occurrence of sloping land (case study regions in France, Italy, and 
Spain), or by illegal practices of vegetation removal by fire or burning of residues (case study 

78 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

region  in  Croatia).  In  the  case  study  region  in  Italy,  fires  are  a  significant  phenomenon. 
Respondents mentioned two causes: fire-raising by shepherds who want to use land for their 
goats,  or  fire-raising  for  speculation,  because  deforested  land  has  a  higher  price  for 
construction purposes. In the region in Romania, a risk of wildfire exists on pastures that are 
not used or abandoned, and where it remains a common (though not legal) practice at the local 
level to burn dry grassland vegetation in the spring.  

Abandonment of agricultural land was reported to cause soil erosion for the case study regions 
in Spain in abandoned terraces, by uncontrolled clearing of forest in the region in Croatia, in 
properties  located  on  slopes  and  affected  by  floods  in  the  region  in  Bulgaria,  and  by  the 
disappearance of drainage systems in the region in Italy. Yet, some respondents reported a 
reduced soil erosion risk after abandonment because the vegetation of shrubs and forests that 
develops on abandoned land has higher potential for erosion reduction (case study regions in 
Croatia, France, Spain and Romania).  

Invasive  alien  plant  species  and  increased  damage  to  crops  from  wildlife  following 
abandonment were mentioned for the case study regions in Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary. 

3.3.2.  Main drivers for agricultural land abandonment 

Socio-economic  drivers  were  the  main  drivers  for  agricultural  land  becoming  unused  or 
abandoned according to respondents in most case study regions (Figure 13), accounting for 163 
out  of  199  responses,  versus  27  responses  for  natural  constraints  and  nine  for  drivers  from 
policy. 

Figure 13 Drivers for agricultural land abandonment reported in case studies: main 
categories   

79 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Socio-economic drivers at farm level 
Socio-economic  drivers  at  farm  level  were  most  frequently  mentioned  for  the  case  study 
regions in Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy and Portugal (Figure 13). Among these, small parcels and 
the fragmentation of holdings, factors determining the farm income, and issues with land tenure 
were most frequently mentioned (13, 14, 15 and 16 responses, respectively, out of 87 in total). 
Small parcels and fragmentation of farmland were reported for the regions in Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Italy, Portugal and Romania. In the regions in Croatia and Bulgaria, these resulted from the 
division  of  land  between  many  heirs,  leading  to  small  parcels  and  co-ownership  of  single 
parcels. Landowners manage the land with different degrees of intensity and quality, and some 
are not aware of ownership of parcels. The small and scattered position of parcels cause low 
profitability  and  difficulties  cultivating  or  selling  these  parcels.  For  the  region  in  Romania, 
conflicts arising from unresolved errors in the cadastral system were mentioned, for example 
due to incorrectly placed boundaries.  

Factors determining the farm income that were mentioned to drive abandonment include low 
income or low profitability of the holding (case study regions in Bulgaria, Italy, France, Spain), 
low productivity of the land for crops and livestock (case study regions in Spain, Romania), 
and increase in cost of production, resources or taxes (case study regions in Latvia, France, 
Romania).  

Difficulties arising from land tenure that were mentioned include, for example, where people 
who had left the rural area keep the agricultural land that they inherited, but neither cultivate 
nor lease it (case study regions in Croatia and Latvia). Also mentioned were one-year leasing 
contracts  which  made  it  difficult  to  clear  the  land  and  demonstrate  good  agricultural  and 
environmental  condition,  the  difficulty  of  proving  ownership  of  land  in  regions  with  a  large 
number of owners (case study region in Bulgaria), the lack of legal tools to protect ownership 
and prevent expropriation of land (case study region in Italy), and problems arising from state 
ownership. Croatia went through a process of land reforms where much of the state-owned 
land was given under concession to farmers and companies, but much land still remains to be 
distributed  (Fištrek  and  Kulišić,  pers.  comm.).  Underutilisation  of  state-owned  land  was 
reported for the case study region in Italy. 

Broader socio-economic drivers 
Figure  14  illustrates  the  distribution  of  broader  socio-economic  drivers  of  agricultural  land 
abandonment  in  the  case  study  regions.  Respondents  most  often  mentioned  demographic 
trends  and  settlement  patterns  (25  out  of  73  responses),  economic  opportunities  in  other 
regions  or  sectors  (19  responses)  and  accessibility  of  agricultural  land,  presence  of  rural 
infrastructure and proximity to urban areas (nine responses).  

The depopulation of rural areas was mentioned as a driver for abandonment for all regions 
except Hungary and is associated with an ageing population. Younger people migrate to urban 
centres or abroad in search for employment and better living conditions. This results in a lack 
of a younger population to farm the land and an ageing population of landowners, who are not 
able to cultivate the land or lack the skills or knowledge to adapt to new technology and markets 
(regions in Croatia, Latvia and Romania). These trends were reported to lead to shortage of 
both skilled and unskilled agricultural labour, an uneven distribution of income, employment 
and investments in the region, and rural areas being characterised by higher levels of poverty.  

In all case study regions except for the region in Spain, respondents reported that agriculture 
becomes  less  profitable  compared  to  other  economic  sectors,  and  that  particularly  young 
people  search  for  employment  in  the  industrial  or  tertiary  sectors.  Other  socio-economic 
aspects  mentioned  in  relation  to  agricultural  abandonment  include  low  salaries  in  the 
agricultural sector compared to the national average (case study regions in Croatia, Bulgaria) 
and an interest in land for investment and obtaining bank loans (case study regions in Latvia). 

80 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Interest in agricultural land was also mentioned for recreational use in the case study regions 
in  France  and  Romania,  and  for  construction  purposes  in  response  to  the  expansion  of 
metropolitan and sub-urban areas in the regions in Hungary and Romania. Land conversion 
for afforestation was mentioned for the region in Hungary.  

Figure 14 Broader socio-economic drivers for agricultural land abandonment reported in case 
studies 

A lack of transport infrastructure and public services in rural areas (for example, health and 
education)  was  mentioned  as  a  driver  for  land  abandonment  in  the  case  study  regions  in 
Croatia, Bulgaria and Italy. Examples include difficult access to agricultural land and markets, 
and poor internet connectivity. Conversely, the proximity of urban areas and infrastructure was 
mentioned to lead to the abandonment of agricultural land in the case study regions in Croatia, 
France and Romania. In the region in France, this relates to the demand for land in peri-urban 
areas,  where  plots  have  become  unused  or  abandoned  in  the  past  by  owners  to  enable  a 
change of land use for construction, which resulted in an increase in the value of the land (case 
study report for the Normandie region, France).  

Natural constraints and land degradation limiting the suitability for agricultural uses 
Adverse climate, soil properties and unsuitable terrain for agricultural use of land were most 
frequently mentioned as reasons for land becoming unused or abandoned in this category (21 
responses out of 27 in total).  

Land degradation as driver of abandonment 
Around  half  of the respondents (25  out  of  44)  indicated  that there  is  degraded  land in their 
region, and that land degradation leads to abandonment of agricultural land. The types of land 
degradation  mentioned  include  contamination  (from  nearby  abandoned  buildings,  mining, 
industrial or military activities) (case study regions in Latvia and Romania), soil erosion (case 
study regions in Italy, France, and Spain) and landslides (case study region in Romania), loss 
of soil structure and organic matter decline (case study region in Italy), and nutrient depletion 
and salinisation due to rising sea levels (case study region in France). Respondents from the 
regions in Croatia and Italy expected land degradation to increase in the future due to intensive 
or  industrial  forms  of  agriculture  with  inappropriate  farming  practices  (use  of  pesticides, 
intensive mechanisation, destruction of soil fertility and biodiversity, monocultures).  

However, according to 15 respondents from six case study regions, land degradation is not a 
driver for abandonment of agricultural land. The area of degraded land is insignificant (case 

81 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

study regions in Bulgaria, Latvia, Spain, and Romania) or degraded land is still used and land 
degradation is manageable.  

Drivers from policy 
Only  five  respondents,  from  case  study  regions  in  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Spain  and  Romania, 
mentioned drivers from policy for agricultural land abandonment. There is evidence from the 
case study region in Croatia of cases where agricultural support payments are claimed, but 
where  there  is  no  actual  production  from  that  land.  Also  for  this  region,  the  area  under 
permanent pastures has increased following adoption of the CAP, but the size of the livestock 
sector  has  significantly  decreased.  This  could  be  interpreted  as  the  first  step  towards 
abandonment, although respondents indicated that the increase in grassland areas is partly 
due  to  the  change  in  the  method  by  which  the  coverage  of  the  UAA  was  registered.  Other 
reasons given included the ‘national inability’ to tailor efficient measures from the CAP for the 
sector,  and the fact that  the  national  land  policy  enabled  speculative  investments  aiming to 
access agricultural support payments from the EU. For the region in Bulgaria, a lack of proper 
incentives and support policy for high-quality agricultural production was mentioned as a driver 
for agricultural land abandonment.  

Stakeholders from the region in Romania mentioned that existing rural development policies 
in  Romania  failed  to  address  factors  that  reinforced  the  trend  towards  older  farmers  and  a 
dwindling agricultural labour force. It was also noted that the drop in participation in the agri-
environment measures for HNV grassland in the period 2014-2020 may have increased land 
abandonment. Furthermore, the case study reported major delays with setting up a functional 
land 
land  administration/cadastral  system,  although 
privatisation  and  restitution  is  nearly  completed  (case  study  report  for  Braşov  county, 
Romania).  

the  post-communist  process  of 

Drivers of agricultural land abandonment in the future 
Socio-economic drivers, both at farm level and broader, were mentioned most frequently in 
relation to the risk of abandonment of agricultural land in the near future (25 and 33 responses, 
respectively,  out  of  89  in  total).  A  decrease  in  the  number  of  livestock  and  limited  market 
options  for  products  from  livestock  farming  were  mentioned  as  drivers  for  all  case  study 
regions, except for the regions in Hungary, Portugal and Romania. For the regions in Italy and 
France this was explained by a declining demand for meat due to a change in diets. The low 
profitability of farming due to declining land quality, low yields and high costs of cultivation and 
limited  accessibility  were  mentioned  for  all  case  study  regions  as  drivers  in  the  future.  The 
decrease  in  population  of  young  farmers  and  an  ageing  population  in  rural  areas,  with  the 
consequent lack of labour force, were expected to increase abandonment of agricultural land 
in  the  future  in  the  case  study  regions  in  Portugal,  Bulgaria,  Latvia,  Hungary,  Spain  and 
Romania. This is particular the case for traditional smallholder farms in Portugal and Romania, 
for which a lack of competitiveness is exacerbated by desertification.  

New drivers of agricultural land abandonment in the next ten years were mostly broader socio-
economic drivers and drivers from natural constraints (eight and ten responses respectively 
out of 27). In the first group, distortions in the market for agricultural products were mentioned 
as new drivers for the region in Latvia due to the availability of more completive produce from 
other  EU  countries  with  intensive  agricultural  land  use.  Competition  from  countries  outside 
Europe was mentioned as a constraint on agricultural production in the region in Italy. A lack 
of alternative crops was mentioned for the Soria region in Spain. Drivers concerning the land 
market  include  increasing  land  prices  in  Latvia  because  foreigners  buy  agricultural  land  at 
higher prices than Latvian property owners. For the Normandie region in France, respondents 
indicated that the abandonment of agricultural land is not expected to accelerate, because of 
an increasing interest in land for diversification to new forms of agriculture and for biomass 
crops for energy and other non-food uses.  

82 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

New drivers mentioned from natural constraints were mainly related to climate change, with 
insufficient rainfall during the growing season, uneven distribution of rainfall, extremely high 
temperatures, drought, water stress and high temperature limiting rainfed agriculture in several 
regions. According to some respondents there is a need for new technologies and other crop 
types adapted to the new climate conditions.  

Development of drivers 
Respondents from all case study regions expected drivers for agricultural land abandonment 
to increase in the future (six or more responses per region). Climate change, declining land 
productivity, advance of desertification and land degradation were mentioned as drivers from 
natural constraints. Rural depopulation, shortage of labour force, ageing population, low prices 
for  products  on  agricultural  markets,  international  competition,  infrastructural  developments, 
land take for urban use and infrastructure, and afforestation were mentioned as broader socio-
economic  drivers.  As  socio-economic  drivers  at  farm  level,  decreasing  profitability, 
fragmentation  of  holdings,  increase  in  production  costs,  and  ageing  of  farm  holders  were 
thought likely to become more pronounced. 

The  drivers  from  policy  that  were  mentioned  to  increase  land  abandonment  were  the 
decreasing  support  for  young  farmers  under  rural  development  plans  (case  study  region  in 
Bulgaria),  a  diminished  interest  in  agricultural  use  of  the  land  due  to  obligations  from 
environmental  regulations  (case  study  region  in  Latvia)  and  reduced  support  from  the  CAP 
(case study region in Spain).  

Respondents also mentioned trends leading to a decrease in agricultural land abandonment, 
mostly  referring  to  broader  socio-economic  drivers.  These  include  a  strategic  interest  at 
national level in self-sufficiency for food production, and renewable energy production as an 
opportunity to revitalise rural areas (case study regions in Croatia, Italy). A renewed interest 
from citizens and foreigners in small-scale farming and living in rural areas were mentioned for 
the case study regions in Portugal, Latvia and Italy. Respondents from the regions in Bulgaria, 
Latvia, Spain and France reported a trend of increasing size of farm holdings, in some regions 
along with an increasing demand for agricultural land. For the case study region in Hungary, 
problems with land ownership are decreasing. In the case study regions in Bulgaria and Spain, 
an increasing farm size leading to higher profitability of farms in the regions in Bulgaria and 
Spain. Also mentioned as factors diminishing agricultural land abandonment were an increase 
in regional income levels enabling part-time farmers to keep agricultural land in good condition 
and increased knowledge and entrepreneurial activity of farmers (case study region in Latvia). 

3.4.  Conclusions:  classification  of  hotspot  regions  according  to  main 
drivers that lead to lands becoming unused, abandoned and degraded  

The literature review on agricultural land in the EU becoming unused, abandoned or degraded 
highlights that these transitions are caused by combinations of drivers which develop(ed) from 
different historical and geopolitical contexts. Industrialisation, the development of markets for 
agricultural  products,  and  urbanisation  characterised  changes  in  agricultural  land  use  in 
Western  Europe.  In  Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  the  change  of  political  systems  after  the 
breakdown of the Soviet Union triggered abandonment of agricultural land, mainly due to the 
reform of the agricultural sector and the redistribution of land.  

Agricultural land abandonment can be triggered by unfavourable agro-ecological conditions, 
socio-economic drivers operating at the level of farm holdings and regions. Drivers from policy 
appeared less prominent. The main policy influencing the use and management of agricultural 
land  is  the  CAP.  This  policy  can  both  reduce  and  increase  drivers  of  agricultural  land 

83 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

abandonment. An increasing effect was attributed to definitions of agricultural land by Member 
States that determine eligibility for direct payments.  

In the EU-28, 29% of the agricultural area is marginal, occurring mainly in deep rural and rural 
areas  (Elbersen  et  al.,  2018).  Mechanisation  and  modernisation  of  agricultural  practice  has 
induced abandonment in these areas as it is not possible to deploy these practices. Mountain 
areas are particularly sensitive to agricultural land abandonment.  

Socio-cultural motivations may explain the maintenance of agriculture in regions where it is not 
economically viable, sometimes manifesting in hidden land abandonment. Productivity gains 
in  some  areas  may  lead  to  the  abandonment  of  agricultural  land  in  other  areas,  and 
employment opportunities in other sectors may reduce agricultural land use. Declines in rural 
population are a key driver of agricultural land abandonment in many parts of the EU, not only 
in the CEE countries. Accessibility and the level of rural infrastructure appear to be key factors 
for maintaining land in agricultural use and keeping population in rural areas.  

In the case study regions, less than 5% of the agricultural area appeared to have been subject 
to forms of abandonment. The land that was abandoned in the past 20 years was mostly in 
use as arable land, permanent grassland, or was marginal land. These types of land are also 
considered likely to become abandoned in the near future. Abandoned land transformed into 
shrubs and combinations with trees or grassland. This leads to an increased risk of forest fires 
and soil erosion in some regions.  

Specific locations where agricultural land was abandoned are in hilly or mountainous areas in 
remote locations, or in protected areas under the Natura 2000 regulation. Agricultural land near 
urban centres are also subject to abandonment in some areas, where conversion to built-up 
land is generating benefits and populations are leaving in search for employment.  

The main drivers for agricultural land becoming unused or abandoned are of socio-economic 
character, operating either at the level of the farm holding or of the region. The most important 
drivers at farm level are the profitability of holdings, the productivity of the land for crops and 
livestock,  production  costs,  fragmentation  of  farmland,  and  issues  with  land  tenure  and 
ownership.  Depopulation  of  rural  areas  was  the  most  frequently  mentioned  driver  at  the 
regional level, in all cases associated with an ageing population of landowners that remains. 
These trends were reported to lead to shortage of both skilled and unskilled agricultural labour, 
an uneven distribution of income, employment and investments in the region, and rural areas 
characterised by higher levels of poverty. A lack of transport infrastructure and public services 
in rural areas characterises several case study regions.  

Agriculture as an economic sector is becoming less profitable in all case study regions except 
one. This increases the trend of young people leaving rural areas. Interest in agricultural land 
was reported for investment, construction, recreational use and afforestation.  

In contrast to what the literature reports, natural constraints for agricultural land use and land 
degradation were not the most important drivers for agricultural land abandonment in the case 
study  regions,  although  they  were  mentioned  to  occur  in  all  regions.  Adverse  climate  and 
unsuitable soil  properties or terrain for  agricultural  use  were  the  most frequently mentioned 
factors. In some  regions  land  degradation reinforces abandonment  of  agricultural  land or  is 
expected  to  do  so  in  the  future  under  changing  climate  conditions.  The  types  of  land 
degradation reported are induced by use and management of agricultural land in place (soil 
erosion,  soil  organic  matter  decline)  or  originate  from  external  sources  (contamination, 
salinisation  due  to  sea-level  rise).  In  only  a  few  case  study  regions  does  agricultural  land 
abandonment lead to land degradation, taking the form of wildfires and soil erosion.  

84 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Few  drivers  from  policy for  agricultural  land abandonment  were  identified in the  case  study 
regions.  Those  mentioned  concern  the  possibility  to  obtain  agricultural  support  payments 
under the CAP and the lack or failure of national policies to support agricultural production and 
rural  development.  A  deficient  land  administration  or  cadastral  system  was  mentioned  for 
several regions.  

The current socio-economic drivers leading to agricultural land becoming abandoned, unused 
or degraded in the case study regions are mostly expected to continue or increase in the future. 
New drivers come from distortions in agricultural markets due to competition from EU countries 
with  intensive  agriculture  or  from  countries  outside  Europe.  Climate  change  is  expected  to 
constrain rainfed agriculture in several case study regions, in particular on marginal land.  

The  case  studies  also  revealed  decreasing  trends  of  land  abandonment  due  to  a  strategic 
interest  in  self-sufficiency  for  food  production  in  some  regions,  and  in  renewable  energy 
production  as  an  opportunity  to  revitalise  rural  areas.  In  some  regions  there  is  a  renewed 
interest for agriculture and an increasing demand for agricultural land due to increasing levels 
of regional income and enlargement of farm holdings. 

85 

 
 
 
  
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

4.  ROLE  OF  POLICY 

IN  MAINTAINING  LAND  UNDER 
AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTION,  BRINGING 
IT  BACK 
INTO  ACTIVE  USE  AND  STIMULATING  BIOMASS 
CROPPING FOR NON-FOOD PURPOSES 

Chapter aim and contents: 

This  chapter  identifies  policy  measures  that  have  the  greatest  potential  to reverse 
the trend of agricultural land becoming unused, abandoned and degraded, as well 
as to reclaim such land and put it back under active production for cropped feedstock 
for energy use. 

It first provides an overview of the range of EU and national policies that in principle 
can  influence  the  processes  driving  land  abandonment  and  degradation  (Section 
5.2). It then looks in more detail at specific EU and national policy instruments that 
have been shown through the literature and the case studies to work in practice to 
help  counter  the  drivers  that  lead  to  both  intended  and  unintended  abandonment, 
semi-abandonment  or  land  degradation  (Section  5.3)  and  to  bring  land  back  into 
agricultural production from an abandoned or degraded state, where it is appropriate 
and sustainable to do so (Section 5.4). Third, it examines the policy and other levers 
that  would  be  required  to  encourage  this  land  to  be  used  to  produce  cropped 
feedstocks for  energy  and  other  non-food  purposes where  this  is  deemed  to  be  a 
priority (Section 5.5). The chapter concludes with a summary of the issues arising 
with the implementation of the current suite of policies. Recommendations on how to 
address these can be found in Chapter 7. 

4.1. 

Introduction  

There are a number of reasons that land moves out of active agricultural management and 
use. In some situations, these changes in land use are the result of deliberate decisions to 
reallocate the land for other purposes that are deemed to have greater economic, social or 
even  environmental  or  climate  value.  This  includes  reallocating  agricultural  land  for 
infrastructure development (buildings, roads, urban expansion, tourist developments, and so 
on)  but  also  converting  agricultural  land  to  forests  (for  commercial,  environmental  and 
increasingly  climate  reasons)  as  well  as  into  nature  reserves  or  wetland  areas  for 
environmental  purposes.  Although  policies  often  play  an  important  role  in  influencing  these 
changes in land use, these are not the focus of this study and are not considered further.  

In other situations, land leaves agricultural use through a less direct route, becoming degraded, 
semi-abandoned or fully abandoned over a period of time, and it is these changes in land use 
and management that  are  the focus  of this  study.  This  chapter therefore  examines  the  key 
policy instruments/mechanisms that are currently in use or under development that have the 
greatest  potential  to  counter  the  drivers  of  land  degradation  and  abandonment,  alongside 
those that can incentivise land managers to bring land back into production from an abandoned 
or degraded state.  

Having  land  in  a  state  that  can  legally  and  physically  be  used  for  agricultural  production, 
however, does not mean it will necessarily be used to produce cropped feedstocks for energy 
or other non-food purposes. Indeed, it is clear from former chapters that this rarely happens in 
practice. This decision is in the gift of the land manager. The final section explores the role of 

86 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

policy in encouraging the production of cropped feedstocks for energy and other non-food uses 
where it is appropriate and sustainable to do so. 

The  findings  are  based  on  an  assessment  of  EU,  national  and  regional  policy  instruments, 
including consideration of how EU policy instruments are implemented at the national/regional 
level. The analysis has been informed by a review of the legislative texts, a literature review 
focusing on their role in influencing land at risk of leaving production and returning to active 
use, as well as information provided in the nine case studies.  

4.2.  Role of EU and national policies in countering land degradation and 

land abandonment 

A number of policy instruments were identified that theoretically have the potential to counter 
the process of land abandonment – either through maintaining land under active agricultural 
use or incentivising it to come back into production. These include:  

•  Policies providing funding to rural areas, farms and rural enterprises and rural land in 
the form of payments for land management as well as investments in physical and non-
physical infrastructure, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – both Pillar 1 
and Pillar 2 – the Structural Funds, the LIFE Programme as well as national initiatives. 
•  Legislation addressing farm structure and land tenure issues – mainly national policies 

which vary depending on the issues and priorities of the country concerned. 

•  Land  use/development  control  policies  –  mainly  national  legislation  but  also  the 
implementation of EU legislation such as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 
Directives. 

•  National financial instruments, such as those used to support young people to enter 

into or continue in farming. 

•  Environmental  and  climate  policies  (for  example,  the  Nature  Directives,  the  Floods 
Directive,  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive,  LULUCF  Regulation,  Effort  Sharing 
Regulation, mainly via the national strategies and plans that are put in place to achieve 
their  objectives (for  example,  the  National  Energy and  Climate  Plans  and  Prioritised 
Action Frameworks), but also (in the case of RED) by providing an additional stimulus 
to produce low ILUC biofuel crops on abandoned or degraded land. 
•  State aid rules relating to certain agricultural and forest investments. 

Table 32 in Annex IX sets out the EU policies that in principle could have a role in countering 
land  abandonment  with  an  explanation  of  how  this  might  occur.  In  practice,  however,  the 
literature review and case studies show that relatively few of these play a significant role. The 
most influential is the CAP, in conjunction with some national policies. Most of the other EU 
policies, particularly the climate and environmental policies, generally exert an influence more 
indirectly  through  the  impacts  arising  from  the  national  strategies  and  plans  that  are  put  in 
place to achieve their objectives. 

It is important to note that very few policies address land degradation or land abandonment as 
their primary focus, with the exception of the CAP payments to areas facing natural constraints 
(ANC) and national measures in some countries addressing farm structure and tenure issues.  

Instead, most policies that have the potential to play a role in helping counter the drivers of 
land abandonment or support land coming back into agricultural production seek to address 
the  socio-economic  drivers  affecting  farm  viability  and  the  effects  of  broader  rural  socio-

87 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

economic  trends  on  the  agricultural  sector.  These  policies  are  therefore  concerned  with 
supporting the viability of the agricultural sector as a whole, maintaining the diversity of farming 
types and structures, and in some cases seeking to maintain specific forms of production as 
well as addressing issues of generational renewal and land tenure. They are rarely targeted at 
hotspots of abandonment.  

The sustainable management of this land is not a key consideration of the majority of policy 
tools  identified  as  helping  avoid  land  abandonment,  given  their  socio-economic  focus.  
Exceptions  are  those  that  encourage  particular  types  of  land  use  or  land  management  for 
environmental or climate purposes, such as the agri-environment-climate or organic farming 
measures under Pillar 2 of the CAP. The cross-compliance standards attached to agricultural 
land in receipt  of  payments  under the  CAP  seek  to avoid  the  degradation  of  land  receiving 
these payments, although standards and their enforcement are very variable between Member 
States (see, for example, ECA, 2016; Frelih-Larsen et al., 2017). 

Finally, it should be noted that only a few policy measures promote the use of agricultural land 
for cropped biomass feedstock production for energy and other uses, and those that do rarely 
focus on abandoned land.  

More  detail  on  the  key  policies  identified  as  helping  counter  land  degradation  and  land 
abandonment  is  set  out  in  Sections  5.3  and  5.4.  The  role  of  policy  in  promoting  the  use  of 
agricultural land for producing biomass for energy and other non-food uses is explored further 
in Section 5.5. 

4.3.  Role of policy in maintaining land under agricultural use  

A review of the literature, supplemented by evidence from the nine case studies, showed that 
the main EU policy that helps constrain land leaving agricultural production by countering the 
drivers  of  land  degradation  and  land  abandonment  is  the  CAP.  The  key  CAP  measures 
identified as exerting an influence were: 

•  Pillar 1 direct payments, including the Basic Payment Scheme/Single Area Payment, 
voluntary coupled support (VCS) as well as the additional payments for young farmers.  

•  Pillar 2 measures, particularly: 

o  Compensation payments to farmers in areas facing natural constraints (ANC);  
o  The  agri-environment-climate  measures 
(AECM)  –  mainly  protecting 

extensively grazed areas; 
o  Organic farming payments;  
o  Natura 2000 compensation payments; 
o 
o  Start-up aid for young farmers and small farms; 
o  Support for farm diversification; and  
o  Support to revitalise rural areas. 

Investments in tangible and intangible assets on farms; 

In reality, however, whether or not these measures have more than a very marginal effect on 
maintaining land in agricultural production depends on a range of factors, including: 

•  National  circumstances  and  economic  conditions  –  for  example,  relatively  low  CAP 
payments can make a significant difference to the decision to stop farming or not in 
Member States where agricultural incomes and land prices are low (for example, many 

88 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

of  the  Central  and  Eastern,  and  Mediterranean  Member  States  as  well  as  in  more 
marginal upland areas in other parts of the EU), but are likely to have far less of an 
effect in other countries and locations. 

•  Decisions made by Member States about payment rates on land of different productive 
potential and how the value of these compares to average returns per hectare, which 
can vary significantly. 

•  The eligibility rules set by Member States for particular CAP instruments and measures, 

as well as those that stipulate which land is eligible for CAP support. 

•  The choice of which CAP Pillar 2 measures to implement, the budget allocated to these 
and how they are designed and targeted (the area of land they cover and whether or 
not this is land that is at risk of abandonment). 

An  array  of  national  policies  were  also  identified  in  the  case  studies  as  playing  a  role  in 
maintaining agricultural land under active management, some of which complement the CAP 
policy measures in place and others which are nationally distinctive and intended to address 
the issues and priorities of the country concerned. The scale and significance of their effect 
also varies considerably depending on the modalities for their implementation. These generally 
address the broader regional socio-economic drivers of abandonment (such as encouraging 
young farmers to enter agriculture to try and counter rural outmigration and an ageing farmer 
profile), as well as farm structure and land tenure issues. These can take the form of incentives, 
taxes, land use planning policies, and processes that seek to overcome land tenure issues. 
They can be characterised into four groups: 

•  Legislation to maintain agricultural land in active productive use; 
•  Legislation addressing farm structure and land tenure issues, including those arising 

from inheritance; 

•  Financial instruments, such as land taxes or preferential rates for loans; and 
•  Land use/development control and land zoning policies 

The ways in which the CAP and the range of national policy measures exert an influence on 
land abandonment are varied, with different policy measures playing different roles at different 
scales and with different degrees of specificity. The role of each of the main types of policy 
instrument is set out below. 

4.3.1.  The Common Agricultural Policy 

The key CAP interventions identified as playing a role in constraining land leaving agricultural 
production are outlined below, along with information on the ways in which they counter the 
key drivers of land abandonment and degradation, the scale of their influence, and the extent 
to which they include requirements for the sustainable management of agricultural land.  

CAP direct payments and payments to ANCs 
The  Pillar  1  Basic  Payment  Scheme  (BPS)  or,  in  some  Member  States,  the  Single  Area 
Payment  Scheme  (SAPS),  as  well  as  the  Pillar  2  payments  for  ANC  are  key  measures 
highlighted  in  both  the  literature  and  the  case  studies  as  helping  maintain  land  under 
agricultural use. They tend to combat the risk of land becoming abandoned primarily on land 
that is marginally productive. They do this by increasing the viability of farming in general terms 
(Ecorys  et  al,  2016;  European  Commission,  2013).  However,  since  2005,  when  most  CAP 
Pillar 1 payments were decoupled from production, there has been no obligation to produce 
crops or livestock on agricultural land receiving CAP payments, although it must be maintained 
in  a  state  suitable  for  grazing  or  cultivation  via  so-called  ‘cross-compliance’  requirements. 

89 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

These  cross-compliance  measures  require  land  managers  to  maintain  agricultural  land  in 
‘good  agricultural  and  environmental  condition’  and  can  therefore  reduce  the  risks  of  land 
degradation and abandonment, even if the land is not actively used for production (Keenleyside 
and Tucker, 2010; Filho et al., 2017). In some Member States, VCS is also thought to play a 
role by providing additional payments to grazing livestock in economically vulnerable farming 
systems (Alliance Environnement, 2019; Baldock and Mottershead, 2017).  

The BPS/SAPS is not a targeted measure. It is available to all agricultural land that meets the 
eligibility criteria and therefore systematically supports land being maintained in a state that 
can be used for agricultural activities in all regions of the EU, not just those areas that are at 
risk  of  becoming  unused  and  abandoned.  In  2018,  BPS/SAPS  annual  payments12  covered 
87%  of  the  162  million  hectares  of  UAA  in  the  EU2713.  Its  influence  on  land  abandonment 
occurs where conditions make agriculture less viable, with marginal regions that have large 
areas of less productive land (typically grasslands) the most heavily affected (Anguiano et al., 
2008; Brady et al, 2017). A number of studies that have attempted to model the impact of direct 
payments on production have shown that, in aggregate, direct payments help to keep land in 
agricultural production across the EU and, while land abandonment still occurs in practice, it is 
likely  that  more  land  would  have  been  abandoned  had  direct  payments  not  been  in  place 
(Brady et al, 2017; Uthes et al., 2011). Research in Central and Eastern European countries 
has shown that the (usually higher) share of CAP payments in farm income has influenced the 
maintenance of agricultural land and that, where reduced levels of support from the CAP for 
extensive farming occurred, a higher level of land abandonment was reported (Terres et al., 
2013).  

However,  because  land  does  not  have  to  be  under  active  management  to  be  in  receipt  of 
BPS/SAPS, in places where land is more marginal economically and where those owning the 
land  have  other  sources  of  employment,  semi-abandonment  can  still  occur  to  a  significant 
extent. The BPS/SAPS does not ensure that agricultural land is managed sustainably, beyond 
adhering to cross-compliance requirements, which vary between Member States and whose 
enforcement is also variable (see, for example, ECA, 2016; Frelih-Larsen et al., 2017). The 
proposals for the next programming period of the CAP aim to strengthen these to some degree, 
although this has been contentious during the negotiations so far (Bas-Defossez and Meredith, 
2019). 

However, the literature also shows that implementation choices made by Member States on 
eligibility rules14 for CAP direct payments may lead to agricultural land being excluded from 
support  and  so  becoming  unused  and  subsequently  abandoned.  CAP  legislation  allows 
Member States to define several eligibility criteria for direct payments in ways that deliberately 
include marginal and other farmland at risk of abandonment or, alternatively, to define these 
rules to exclude some of this land. The ineligibility of particular types of land for CAP direct 
payments diminishes the force of the CAP as a magnet to keep land in agricultural use rather 
than acting as an active lever to push land out of production (although this may be the longer-
term effect in practice).  

12 Including the Small Farmers Scheme which is an alternative to BPS/SAPS in some Member States. 

13 Data for 2018 from the CAP Indicators data portal – these figures exclude the UK: 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DataPortal/cmef_indicators.html-  

14 This includes rules on: maintaining an agricultural area in a suitable state for grazing or cultivation; minimum activities required 
on agricultural areas naturally kept in a state suitable for grazing or cultivation; defining ‘permanent grassland and permanent 
pasture’ in a way that includes pastureland with shrubs and/or trees which can be grazed, and other grazing land where grasses 
are traditionally not predominant; and ensuring landscape features are eligible for direct payments. 

90 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

In  Bulgaria,  for  example,  the  permissible  threshold  of  tree  density  for  land  eligible  for  CAP 
support was increased in the current programming period (2014-2020) from 50 trees/ha to 100 
trees/ha, which led to a 55% increase in the area of eligible permanent grasslands in LPIS by 
2019. Despite this, the current definition excludes grasslands with scrubby vegetation from the 
SAPS  since  Bulgaria  chose  not  to  extend their definition  of  eligible permanent  grassland  to 
include areas that are used for grazing as part of established local practices, permissible since 
2013 (see Table 2 in Chapter 2). Because the economic viability of farming on most agricultural 
land  in  Bulgaria  depends  on  CAP  support,  eligibility  or  non-eligibility  for  such  support  is 
potentially a significant factor preventing or leading to land abandonment. 

Payments to areas facing natural and other specific constraints are available under both Pillars 
of the CAP, although in the 2014-2020 period Member States have chosen to implement the 
measure  predominantly  under  Pillar  2.  The  aim  of  the  ANC  measure  is  to  ‘contribute  to 
maintaining  the  countryside  as  well  as  to  maintaining  and  promoting  sustainable  farming 
systems’  by  ‘encouraging  continued  use  of  agricultural  land’  (Regulation  (EU)  1305/2013, 
recital 25). In 2019, 57.9% of UAA in the EU-27 was designated as ANC, ranging from 2.5% 
in Denmark to 100% in Luxembourg and Malta15. Of this, 17.1% is designated as ‘mountain’ 
ANC,  32.6%  as  ‘areas  other  than  mountains  facing  natural  constraints’  and  8.1%  as  areas 
affected by other ‘specific constraints’. The scale of disadvantage in different parts of the EU 
varies considerably even within these areas. Payments per hectare also vary greatly between 
Member States, but provide additional non-market, annual area-based payments to encourage 
continued use of agricultural land in mountain areas or in other areas facing natural or other 
specific constraints (such as steep slopes or poor soils) and act as a form of broadly targeted 
direct  payment.  These  payments  support  agricultural  incomes  and  improve  the  economic 
viability of farms in these areas and, although supporting evidence is lacking, it is expected 
that  the  measure  reduces  the  rate  of  abandonment  of  such  farmland  as  well  as  inhibiting 
afforestation  or  other  competing  land uses  (Alliance Environnement,  2019;  Louwagie et  al., 
2011).  

All  case  studies  highlighted  the  ANC  measure  as  important  for  reducing  the  risk  of 
abandonment  in  these  areas.  This  is  reinforced  by  examples  from  Alliance  Environnement 
(2019) which showed that ANC payments had helped maintain HNV farmland in agricultural 
use in France and avoided the abandonment of grassland in Hungary and Ireland and on steep 
mountain slopes in Romania. Although there are no explicit environmental criteria attached to 
the payments, in some cases they help maintain extensive areas of HNV and the associated 
environmental  and  climate  benefits  they  bring.  However,  the  payments  may  also  provide 
sufficient liquidity for farmers to carry out agricultural improvements on this land and can lead 
to overgrazing, which can have negative environmental impacts (Elbersen et al., 2014).  

Voluntary  coupled  support  is  optional  for  Member  States  and  provides  support  for  specific 
crops  or  types  of  livestock  in  ‘specific  sectors  or  regions  facing  particular  situations  where 
specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors are particularly important for economic, 
environmental  and/or  social  reasons’  (Regulation  (EU)  1307/13,  Recital  49).  In  practice  all 
Member States apart from Germany have used VCS to varying degrees. It has been suggested 
that well-designed coupled payments may offer a useful way of providing extra income support 
for  economically  vulnerable  livestock  farming,  including  mountain  dairy  farms  (Keenleyside 
and  Tucker,  2010),  although  this  type  of  targeting  is  not  required  and  is  very  variable  in 
practice.  

Approximately  10%  of  the  direct  payments  budget  is  used  to  provide  coupled  support.  It  is 
heavily used to support livestock production. Figures from 2020 show that the beef and veal 

15 
update: 
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-indicators-table_2019_en.pdf 

Indicator 

Context 

C.32, 

2019 

CAP 

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

91 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

sector receives most support under VCS (40%), followed by milk and milk products (21%), and 
sheep and goat meat (13%) (European Commission, 2020). In 2020, 39% of bovine animals 
were  supported  through  VCS  and  54%  of  sheep  and  goats16.  However,  it  also  supports  a 
variety of crops, accounting for the remaining 27% of support17. Evidence of its impact on land 
abandonment is limited. Brady et al. (2017) concluded that VCS support for beef, sheep and 
goats  and  dairy  was  maintaining  livestock  production  in  areas  where  it  would  otherwise 
disappear, although whether this land would be abandoned or not is unclear. In three of the 
case studies, VCS is highlighted as an important supplementary payment to the BPS/SAPS 
for  keeping  land  under  agricultural  production,  helping  maintain  cattle,  sheep  and  goats  in 
mountainous areas in Bulgaria, sheep in Spain and grazing livestock in Hungary (although in 
this  case  the  payments  are  available  everywhere,  not  targeted  to  areas  at  risk  of 
abandonment). One other example where VCS has been shown to help avoid land moving out 
of agricultural production that has been identified in the literature include two VCS schemes in 
Spain  –  one  focused  on  nut  production  which  may  contribute  to  avoiding  abandonment  of 
terraces in mountainous areas, and one in Andalucía for extensive livestock systems which 
contributes  to  maintaining  grassland  systems  on  steep  parcels  which  might  otherwise  be 
abandoned (Alliance Environnement, 2019). However, it should be noted that VCS payments 
do not require the sustainable management of agricultural land (beyond complying with cross-
compliance regulations) and therefore payments can be made even if the land is unsustainably 
managed or degraded.  

Finally, the green direct payments are considered to reduce the risk of land degradation (mainly 
soils)  as  some  of  the  forms  of  management  that  have  been  required  have  led  to  improved 
management  of  the  land,  for  example,  fallow  introduced  under  crop  diversification  and 
ecological focus areas (EFA), and green cover and nitrogen fixing crops introduced under EFA 
(flagged in the Bulgarian case study). 

CAP environmental area payments (Pillar 2) 
The  AECM  plays  a  role,  in  combination  with  other  CAP  area  payments  and  other  Pillar  2 
investment measures, in mitigating land abandonment by providing agricultural holdings with 
additional  income  for  carrying  out  particular  management,  including  on  more  economically 
marginal farms (Lasanta and Laguna, 2007; Calvo-Iglesias et al., 2009; Schröder, 2011). The 
scale and extent of this effect depends on the design and targeting of the agri-environment-
schemes that are put in place in Member States as well as the payment levels and not all sub-
measures will play a role. In most of the case studies, the AECM was specifically highlighted 
as  an  important  means  of  supplementing  farm  income  and  helping  maintain  land  under 
agricultural  production,  particularly  in  extensive  grassland  areas,  as  a  means  of  protecting 
those grasslands which are of high biodiversity value.  

For example, in Bulgaria the AECM provides support for the maintenance and restoration of 
HNV  grasslands,  with  the  main  aim  of  preventing  the  loss  of  HNV  grasslands  from 
abandonment  or  intensification  of  agricultural  activities.  Funding  is  also  available  under  a 
further scheme, the ‘Pastoralism scheme’ to maintain traditional grazing management in two 
national parks, on land in which is not eligible for Pillar 1 direct payments. In this case, the 
AECM support is critical to maintain these systems on which management had ceased prior 

16 Based on Eurostat 2019 figures of 77 million bovine animals in the EU-27 ((apro_mt_lscatl) and Eurostat 2015 figures of 63 
million sheep and 12.4 million goats in the EU-27  (apro_mt_lssheep) and (apro_mt_lsgoat) 

17  2020  figures  show  11.16%  of  support  went  to  protein  crops,  4.31%  to  fruit  and  vegetables,  4.28%  to  sugar  beet  and  the 
remaining 7.06% to crops such as cereals, olive oil, rice, grain legumes, starch potato, nuts, seeds, hops, hemp, oilseeds, silkworm 
and flax. 

92 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

to the introduction of the AECM. In Basse-Normandie in France, two management actions18 
specifically  aim  to  limit  scrub  encroachment  on  agricultural  land,  thereby  limiting  the  semi-
abandonment  of  these  areas.  In  Sicily  (Italy),  an  AEC  scheme  on  ‘conservation  and 
management  of 
to  reduce  erosion  and 
hydrogeological instability’ helps both to prevent land degradation in the form of soil erosion, 
landslides and wildfires, as well protecting areas characterised by manna ash trees, in the hilly 
and  mountainous  areas  of  north-western  Sicily,  where  cultural  landscapes  are  at  risk  of 
disappearing.  

landscape  and 

terraced  areas 

traditional 

Evidence  from  some  of  the  case  studies  identified  the  organic  farming  measure,  which 
supports the conversion or maintenance of organic farming, as helping enhance income for 
certified organic producers on poor as well as productive land. It was also identified as helping 
promote  economic  growth,  increase  farm  profitability  and  provide  new  employment 
opportunities in rural areas, both on and off farm. It can contribute to efforts to minimise land 
abandonment, especially where organic farming is promoted on marginal and less profitable 
land.  In  some  situations,  it  may  also  help  prevent  land  degradation  through  supporting 
environmentally friendly production methods. Four of the case studies identified this measure 
as  important  for  maintaining  land  under  sustainable  management  (Bulgaria,  Spain,  Italy, 
Latvia).  In  the  Spanish  region  of  Soria  there  is  an  additional  focus  on  encouraging  young 
people and women into organic farming (as set out in the Strategic Plan for organic production 
in Castilla y Léon), which also aims to help counter issues of rural depopulation. However, the 
scale of influence of this measure is relatively low. Organic agriculture covers only 8% of UAA 
in 2018 (12.98 million ha), and the CAP organic farming measure provides support for 65% of 
this  area  (8.5  million  ha)19,  with  significant  variations  between  Member  States.  In  addition, 
much  of  the  area  supported  under  this  measure  will  not  be  at  risk  of  abandonment. 
Nonetheless  the  recent  EU  Green  Deal  target  under  the  Farm  to  Fork  and  Biodiversity 
Strategies to increase the area under organic production to 25% by 2030 is likely to stimulate 
more land becoming organic (although not all of this land will require funding via the CAP to 
make this transition). 

Natura  2000  compensation  payments  for  restrictions  attributable  to  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives play a role in the 2014-20 CAP in maintaining agricultural production on these areas. 
However, uptake of the measure is low, occurring in only 13 Member States and an estimated 
7.9%  of  the  total  UAA  in  Natura  2000  areas  (Alliance  Environnement,  2019).  A  study  in 
Germany concluded that if productivity impairments are not fully compensated, this could lead 
to the  abandonment  of  farming  in marginal  Natura  2000  areas  (Koemlea  et  al.,  2019).  The 
measure was highlighted in the case studies in Bulgaria and Sicily (Italy) as helping with the 
economic viability of farms within protected areas, which might otherwise be neglected and 
lose their biodiversity value. 

CAP investment aid/grants (Pillar 2) 
Investment aid for tangible and intangible assets on farms provides support for a wide range 
of investments to improve or maintain the economic viability of farm businesses. As such it can 
be  an  important  means  of  improving  the  overall  economic  performance  of  farms,  thereby 
keeping them in production. This was highlighted in the Italian and Croatian case studies. In 
France,  preferential  conditions  are  placed  on  investment  support  for  young  farmers  (for 
example, priority access in the selection process) as a means of incentivising young farmers 
to  get  into  agriculture.  In  Baden  Wurttemberg  in  Germany,  the  small  farm  investments 
programme  is  directly  focused  on  supporting  smaller  producers  in  grazing  areas  at  risk  of 

18 These are OUVERT_01 and OUVERT_02. 

19  CAP  Dashboard: 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/OrganicProduction.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 

European  Union 

  Organic 

Production 

(EU27) 

27 

- 

- 

(excluding  UK) 

93 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

abandonment,  with  investments  mainly  covering  stables  for  cattle  and  machinery  for  steep 
slopes (Alliance Environnment, 2019).  

The farm and business development measure was highlighted in many of the case studies as 
a  further  CAP  measure  than  has  been  used  to  strengthen  the  economic  viability  of  farms. 
Business start-up support for young farmers is addressed below, but in Bulgaria and Croatia, 
the measure is used to provide start-up support to small farmers to strengthen their viability. 
In Sicily (Italy), the sub-measure for farm diversification is used to provide alternative income 
streams for farm households, which are highlighted as important for enabling them to stay on 
the  land,  although  it  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  land  is  maintained  in  active 
management. The measure targets young farmers and women and promotes diversification 
into: renewable energy production; rural tourism; ICT activities and e-commerce; services for 
farms and for the rural population; and transformation of primary products into products with 
greater added value and their marketing. 

Support for young farmers (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2) 
Support available under both CAP Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 has been identified as being used in the 
case study regions to encourage young farmers to take up farming as a way of addressing one 
of  the  drivers  of  land  abandonment  –  an  ageing  farming  population  as  a  result  of  the 
outmigration of young people from rural areas. These are sometimes used alongside national 
measures (see below).  

It is compulsory under the CAP (Pillar 1) to provide additional decoupled payments to young 
farmers,  allocating  up  to  2%  of  their  national  ceiling  for  this  purpose.  The  objective  of  the 
measure  is  centred  on  improving  the  competitiveness  of  the  farming  sector,  rather  than 
encouraging  generational  renewal.  Nonetheless,  as  an  additional  source  of  income,  not 
dependent on level of production or market prices, it can also play a role in encouraging young 
people to take up farming in areas where rural depopulation is a driver of abandonment. These 
payments are often used in conjunction with other Pillar 2 payments and sometimes national 
measures, as seen in a number of the case studies. An ECA report (ECA, 2017), however, 
found that the aid provided was often not targeted on the basis of a sound needs assessment 
which means that support is provided in a standardised way rather than focusing on places 
where the need is greatest. In addition, the report found that data on the income and viability 
of the supported holdings are not collected, which makes assessment of the effectiveness of 
this measure problematic. 

The other key CAP measure used to encourage young people to take up farming is the Pillar 
2 start-up aid for young farmers. Funding is often provided as a lump sum payment, subject to 
the completion of a business plan and sometimes an interest subsidy on a loan (ECA, 2017). 
Five of the nine case study countries highlighted this as an important measure in the regions 
investigated  (Bulgaria,  France,  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal).  In  Bulgaria,  this  measure  has 
encouraged young farmers in the municipality to rent and start cultivating abandoned land in 
lowland  areas,  areas  close  to  urban  areas,  mountainous  areas  and  border  areas.  Young 
farmers  with  more  financial  resources  have  rented  land  from  numerous  owners  who  have 
stopped cultivating their small, fragmented land plots due to a lack of profitability and manual 
labour. Those with more limited resources are renting smaller areas for vegetables. It has also 
helped young people inheriting even a few acres of land to cultivate it. Despite this, in Bulgaria, 
some interviewees identified decreases in the level of funding for young farmers under Pillar 2 
measures as an issue with knock-on effects on the areas of land becoming abandoned. 

Two  case  studies  also  highlighted  the  targeting  of  other  CAP  measures  to  prioritise  young 
farmers.  Young  farmers  are  prioritised  in  the  application  process  for  the  CAP  investment 
measure  in  Basse  Normandie  (France),  and  the  farm  diversification  measure  is  targeted  at 
young farmers in Sicily (Italy). 

94 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

However, in all the case studies it was noted that the measures in place were insufficient to 
address the issues faced by young farmers (for example, lack of knowledge, capital and access 
to land). A recent evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal showed that 
CAP  support for  young  farmers  both  in the  past and currently  has  had a  variable impact  in 
addressing the very powerful drivers influencing generational renewal in agriculture, such as 
farm structural adjustments and wider socio-economic dynamics (CCRI, OIR and ADE, 2019). 
Evidence for the 2014-2020 period highlighted that despite some positive examples, in areas 
that  are  marginal  economically,  ‘the  impact  of  the  measures  may  be  dwarfed  by  negative 
influences including socio-cultural and wider economic disincentives to farm or to remain in 
rural areas’ (CCRI, OIR and ADE, 2019). This report concludes that ‘the indirect effect of the 
young  farmer  measures  upon  local  economies  and  rural  employment  appears  weak  but 
positive, particularly in the most remote and marginal rural areas. However, these impacts are 
likely much less than the impacts of other measures in the Pillar 2 menu which target these 
goals  directly,  as  well  as  the  indirect  impacts  of  Pillar  1  and  ANC  aids  which  provide  more 
significant general support to maintain farming in these areas’.  

Support to revitalise rural areas 
A significant driver of abandonment in many countries is the continuing outmigration of people, 
particularly women and younger generations, from rural households to look for employment in 
nearby urban centres and further afield. The CAP ‘basic services and village renewal’ support 
measure  has  been  used  in  two  of  the  case  studies  (Romania  and  Croatia)  to  try  to  limit 
outmigration by providing investments and services in local villages/communities to improve 
the  quality  of  life  in these  areas, thereby seeking to address the  socio-demographic  factors 
driving  the  under-utilisation  and  abandonment  of  agricultural  land.  There  is  little  available 
evidence to show if these measures are successful in achieving their goals, given the strength 
of these socio-demographic drivers. 

A  handful  of  other  CAP  Pillar  2  measures  were  identified  in  the  case  studies  as  helping 
minimise the risk of abandonment, although there is little evidence to demonstrate their impact 
in practice. These include: 

•  The  restoration  of  agricultural  production  potential  after  damage  caused  by 
natural/climate events which is intended to prevent abandonment after such events – 
highlighted in the Croatian and Portuguese case studies. 

•  The  establishment  of  producer  and  interbranch  organisations  –  highlighted  in  the 
Croatian case study as being used to help increase the negotiation power of individual 
producers, thereby enhancing their ability to access markets and remain competitive. 

4.3.2.  National policy measures 

A mix of national policies were identified which have been used to help maintain land under 
agricultural production. These tend to address the broader regional or national socio-economic 
drivers  of  land  abandonment  and  degradation  identified  in  Chapter  3,  such  as  ageing  and 
declining rural populations, issues with successors and inheritance, and land fragmentation, 
rather than being targeted specifically at abandonment. The four groups of policy measures 
identified earlier are addressed in the following. 

Legislation to maintain agricultural land in productive use 
A number of the case studies highlighted national laws that set out rules about how agricultural 
land  should  be  managed.  These  generally  require  agricultural  land  to  be  kept  under  active 
management  and  in  good  agricultural  condition,  thereby  protecting  productive  land  from 
potential degradation and where degradation exists, ensuring that this is addressed (Hungary, 
Croatia,  Romania).  This  is  separate  to  rules  that  apply  under  the  CAP.  These  rules  are 
considered by the case study experts to be an important means of requiring farmers to keep 

95 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

their  land  under  productive  use  and  in  a  non-degraded  state.  However,  it  is  unclear  how 
effective  these  laws  are  in  practice.  The  example  from  Romania  demonstrates  that  the 
implementation of the Land Fund Law has been problematic. The Law states that owners of 
agricultural land are obliged to ensure it is cultivated and its soils are protected. Although it is 
not known to what extent this has helped avoid land becoming abandoned, it has led to land 
becoming semi-abandoned or in a state of ‘transitional abandonment’ as ongoing conflicts over 
land  ownership  with  respect  to  the  active  management  of  the  land  leave  areas  of  land 
unmanaged.  

Incomplete cadasters can also lead to problems with maintaining land in productive use. For 
example, in Portugal, only a proportion of agricultural land is registered in the official cadastre 
which makes it impossible to require landowners to maintain their lands, particularly in relation 
to scrub encroachment that increases the risk of wildfires. Incomplete registration of land in 
cadastres is also an issue in Croatia (see Box 4). 

Box 4 Examples of laws in place to promote the active use of productive agricultural 
land 
In Hungary, the Land Protection Act imposes a cultivation obligation on all landowners in keeping with the type 
of land cultivated. This is a very important basic principle in the legal system. The Land Market Act reconfirms 
these obligations, stipulating that when agricultural land is sold and purchased, the owner must cultivate the land 
for five years after the purchase and must keep it in his/her own use.  

The National Land Fund Act in  Hungary also sets out rules on the management of state-owned land, which 
means that state-owned agricultural land is generally kept under active agricultural management. New land is 
constantly coming under state control, for example through inheritance or land exchange. Although these areas 
may look as if they are abandoned in their transitional state, they are quickly allocated to some form of land use 
through the National Land Fund Centre.  

In Croatia, the Law on Agricultural Land aims to protect agricultural land as a valuable natural resource and to 
promote or enable its use for agricultural production. It regulates a range of issues related to agricultural land, 
including its protection, use, how state-owned land is allocated to farmers, and changes in land use. It requires 
agricultural land to be kept in a condition suitable for agricultural production and protected from any damage that 
would reduce the agronomic value of the land (for example, via maintaining soil quality). In practice, however, 
the effectiveness of this law is reduced because land ownership is often unclear, and not fully registered in the 
cadastre. 

In  Romania,  the  Land  Fund  Law  (18/1991)  establishes  a  regulatory  framework  for  the  re-privatisation  and 
restitution of land after the collapse of communism, including the restitution of agricultural land from collective 
and  state  farms.  The  legislation  has  many  stated  purposes  –  one  of  which  is  to  ensure  the  ‘protection  and 
improvement  of  land’  through  its  continued  use.  Article  53  requires  that  ‘All  owners  of  agricultural  lands  are 
obliged to ensure their cultivation and soil protection’. If a landowner does not comply with this, the law includes 
provision  for  the  local  authority  to  impose  an  annual  fine  (Article  54)  and  after  a period  of  two  years  to  take 
possession of the land (Article 55). Although it is not clear to what extent Article 53 specifically reduced the risk 
of abandonment, it is widely acknowledged that it been misused by local government officials to acquire land for 
their own personal interests and benefit (Mihalcea et al., 2015; Stahl et al., 2016).  

Its flawed design and implementation led to instability, incoherence and unjustified delays in the land privatisation 
and  restitution  process  (Rusu  et  al.,  2011).  In  particular, it created  the  phenomenon  of so-called ‘transitional 
abandonment’, which in Romania has mainly been associated with agricultural land being temporarily under-
utilised or taken out of production due to land-related disputes and conflicts. According to Rusu et al. (2011), 
multiple forms of dispute and conflict have arisen from implementation of the Law, including: 

•  Ownership conflicts between state and private, common or collective owners; 
•  Boundary conflicts;  
•  Ownership conflicts linked to inheritance; 
•  Disputes over the value of land; 
•  Ownership conflicts due to lack of land registration; 
•  Disputes over payments for using/buying land; 
•  Evictions by landowners; and 
• 

Illegal evictions by state officials acting in their private interest. 

96 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

•  These disputes continue and the issues with the design of the Law are yet to be addressed. 

Source: case studies 

Legislation addressing farm structure and land tenure issues 

issues  arise  both  as  a  result  of 

Many Member States, especially Mediterranean or CEE countries, continue to face issues with 
land structure and tenure, both as a result of ongoing issues surrounding  uncertainty about 
ownership or as a result of inheritance rules. Indeed, land tenure issues were among the most 
frequently identified drivers of land abandonment highlighted in the case studies (see Chapter 
3).  Land  ownership 
land 
privatisation/restitution  process,  but  also  due  to  incomplete  land  registration/cadastral 
problems (see also Box 5). Ongoing issues with creating a comprehensive land cadastre were 
highlighted in the Portuguese, Romanian and Croatian case studies, where administrative, IT 
and institutional weaknesses are hampering progress. Significant efforts are taking place in 
Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary to consolidate fragmented parcels of land, many of which are 
unused or abandoned. However, in some cases these efforts are having limited effect due to 
tensions  with  other  policies  in  place  (for  example,  inheritance  laws  in  Hungary).  The 
effectiveness  of  these  policies  is  also  hampered  by  lack  of  enforcement  (for  example,  in 
Croatia). Box 4 and 5 and provide some examples. 

the  post-communist 

Box 5 Examples of national policies to address farm structure and tenure issues 
Bulgaria: ‘White spots’ policy and land consolidation policy  
This policy, part of the law on ownership and use of farmland, provides for the administrative allocation of unused 
and/or unclaimed agricultural lands. It was introduced to provide the legal basis for land users of this land to 
claim CAP support. The policy requires landowners to submit an annual declaration of their intention to use the 
agricultural land they own. If no declaration is submitted, local authorities can allocate the land to other users 
who wish to cultivate it. The users pay a rent to the municipality and the municipality pays the rent to the owners. 
Between 4,600-4,900 ha have been maintained in agricultural use as a result of this measure. It also includes a 
provision  to  reduce  land  ownership  fragmentation.  This  allows  landowners  that  own  over  10%  of  land  in  a 
particular  area  to  put  forward  a  land  consolidation  plan  to  decrease  ownership  fragmentation.  This  must  be 
approved by local authorities. In practice this provision is used more in areas where land is more fertile than for 
land in marginal areas, which continues to become abandoned. 

Croatia: Law on Agricultural Land and 2015 Land Consolidation Law   
The Law on Agricultural Land aims to protect agricultural land as a valuable natural resource and to promote or 
enable its use for agricultural production. It regulates a range of issues related to agricultural land, including its 
protection, use, the allocation of state-owned land to farmers, and changes in land use. However, the process of 
selling state-owned land in practice is not well organised and tends to favour large companies (see Box 4.1).  

The 2015 Land Consolidation Law aims to consolidate parcels and cadastre units into larger entities to improve 
their economic efficiency, create more favourable conditions for agricultural production, as well as to establish 
agricultural roads, and improve water structures and other land development activities related to the agriculture 
sector.  The  intention  was  to  increase  the  area  of  agricultural  holdings  by  about  300,000  ha  over  a  five-year 
period, but this has not happened. A previous Law (1987) with the same aim led to an increase in the area of 
land  registered  as  under  agricultural  use  by  822,704  ha  by  1991.  However,  the  current  law  is  proving  very 
challenging to be enforced, mainly due to problems in tracing the remaining landowners (often people who left 
the land and emigrated two or three generations back) and having to use land books from the Austro-Hungarian 
Empire, since during the planned economy land books were not used. 

Hungary: Proposed package of policies to address issues of ‘undivided common ownership’ of land  
A particular land ownership/property rights issue exists in Hungary relating to the ‘undivided common form of 
ownership’. This means small areas of land may have multiple co-owners (for example, one 8.5 ha parcel of land 
had 1,573 owners). Many of the co-owners do not manage the land and are often unknown, for example the title 
deed is missing, the owners cannot be identified, or the data are out of date or incomplete. This issue affects 
almost half of the agricultural area – 2.4 million ha – and more than one million properties. To avoid the issues 
that  arise  when  people  try  to cultivate  land  without  official permission  in  order  to  access  CAP  subsidies,  the 
proposed law on agricultural land consolidation offers a number of ways of terminating the joint ownership of 
these areas of land. However, land under this form of ownership continues as the law on inheritance remains 
unchanged. This states that, unless stipulated otherwise, when an agricultural landowner dies, the land is divided 

97 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

between the heirs. It is not common practice to make a will in Hungary, and it is estimated that only 5% of farmers 
do so. The tensions between inheritance rules and the Law on Agricultural Land Consolidation was identified by 
many interviewees as one of the biggest issues hampering the efficient use of agricultural land in Hungary. 

Source: case studies  

Box 6 Romanian programme to create a general cadastre for all private agricultural 
holdings  

Cadastral  measurement  and  registration  of  the  ownership  of  restituted  land  has  proceeded  very  slowly  in 
Romania, with much conflict and dispute. It has also been a very expensive process for landowners.  

A large-scale pilot programme to introduce a general cadastre for private agricultural holdings (based on the so-
called ‘Land Book’ system for land registration and titling) was first supported by the World Bank from 1997-
2006.  This  pilot  was  rolled  out  into  a  national  programme  for  2015-2023  which  provides  for  the  cadastral 
registration of all properties throughout Romania, ‘free of charge’ to owners. This includes: 

Identifying property owners; 

Integrating and processing data and drafting cadastral documents; 

• 
•  Performing cadastral measurements; 
•  Collecting property title documents; 
• 
•  Public display of cadastral documents; 
•  Registering and resolving rectification requests filed by owners; 
•  Updating cadastral documents; and 
•  Digitalising existing hand-written records. 

Successful  implementation  of  the  National  Land  Book  and  Cadastre  Programme  aims  to  make  significant 
progress towards the development of a fully functional land market in Romania based upon formal, transparent 
and trustworthy transactions. It should make it easier to investigate the legal status of land and other properties 
and thereby make it safer to acquire them. It would also help to speed up remaining restitution claims by providing 
significantly  more  accurate  information  regarding  property  locations,  thereby  reducing  title  challenges  and 
boundary disputes. This in turn should help to help prevent land from becoming unused and reduce the risk of 
transitional (or actual) abandonment.  

Unfortunately, after five years of implementation, this national programme is clearly failing and a further European 
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) co-funded project (worth a total of €312 million) has recently been launched 
to focus on building the necessary administrative capacity in 23% of the rural regions where the registration of 
around 5.8 million ha is most hampered by poor socio-economic conditions, outdated IT, systems and institutional 
issues. 

Source: case studies 

Land use/development control and land zoning policies 
Spatial planning and zoning policies can be used to help maintain land under agricultural use 
by seeking to protect it from built development. These policies exist in many Member States. 
The main example identified in the case studies was in France. Here, development is generally 
not permitted on agricultural land (unless it is construction linked to agricultural activities). In 
Basse  Normandie,  the  bocage  landscape  (composed  of  hedges  and  trees)  is  protected  by 
local development plans (plan local d’urbanisme - PLU) within the framework of the Green and 
Blue Network initiative (Trame verte et bleue), and thus protected as a non-productive area. 
The trame verte et bleue is a policy tool that combines biodiversity conservation and land-use 
planning, whose purpose is to maintain and strengthen green infrastructure into planning tools 
and development projects. It does this by strengthening and creating ecological terrestrial and 
aquatic  corridors  and  enabling  built  development  to  be  planned  in  a  way  that  achieves 
ecological coherence at a local level. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Taxation and financial instruments 
Evidence of the use of these types of instruments was found only in two of the case studies. 
In Italy, a programme has been in place for more than 50 years under which a public body, 
ISMEA20, provides subsidised mortgages for young people who want to become farmers. This 
is intended to counter land abandonment, depreciation of the value of land, and help decrease 
land fragmentation. The programme provides a mortgage with very low interest rates whereby 
ISMEA buys the land on behalf of young farmers and retains ownership until the mortgage is 
paid back over a period of time (the maximum is 30 years). The land cannot be sold for the 
first five years and the farmer is required to use it for agricultural purposes and to manage it 
directly.  

The  second  example  comes  from  France.  In  order  to  promote  young  people  setting  up  in 
agriculture and encourage certain types of farming practices, young farmers (and also organic 
farmers) can be totally or partially exempt from paying property taxes on the part of their land 
that is not built on. Young farmers can apply for a 50% tax relief at the national level and an 
additional 50% tax relief can be granted by local authorities, depending on the municipality. 
This  does  not  just  relate  to  land  being  brought  back  from  an  abandoned  state  but  can  be 
applied on such land. 

However, examples from the case studies also show that taxation can also work counter to 
maintaining land under agricultural production. For example, in Latvia situations were identified 
where  landowners  were  allowing  trees  to  encroach  onto  agricultural  land  to  avoid  taxes  on 
agricultural land (see Box 5.5). In Portugal, an issue was identified with people not claiming 
ownership of land in order to avoid paying taxes, having the land registered in the cadastre, 
and then being obliged to maintain it under active management.  

4.4.  Role of policy in stimulating land to be brought back into agricultural 

production 

It  is  important  to  highlight  that  it  is  not  necessarily  appropriate,  for  environmental  and/or 
economic  reasons,  to  bring  back  into  production  all  land  that  is  degraded  or  has  been 
abandoned. Much land that is abandoned consists of small individual parcels scattered across 
an  area  which  would  not  necessarily  be  economic  to  bring  back  into  production.  In  other 
situations, land may be of high biodiversity value, in the process to reverting to forest over time, 
with associated climate and other environmental benefits, or may be fulfilling other important 
socio-economic and environmental functions and delivering ecosystem services, such as flood 
control  and  management.  A  precursor  to  any  decision  to  bring  land  back  into  agricultural 
production therefore should be an assessment of the benefits and costs of doing so, taking 
into account the ecosystems services that are currently and could potentially be delivered in 
the future. This is necessary to ensure that vital ecosystem services are not lost in the process. 

In  addition,  even  where  land  is  brought  back  into  agricultural  production,  this  will  not 
necessarily  be  appropriate  for  growing  biomass  feedstocks  for  energy  and  other  non-food 
uses. Chapter 4 set out the types of land that might be used to grow different types of crops 
for these purposes sustainably. There may also be barriers to the use of previously abandoned 
land for these purposes, including lack of competitiveness for reasons including remoteness 
and/or low yields, as well as issues relating to markets, infrastructure and supply chains. This 
is explored further in Section 5.5, which looks at the role of policy for incentivising biomass 
cropping for energy and other non-food uses. 

20 Istituto di Servizi per il Mercato Agricolo Alimentare (Institute for Agricultural Food Market Services). 

99 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

This section focuses on those policies that have been identified in the literature and the case 
studies  as  being  in  place  to  proactively  bring  land  back  into  active  agricultural  production, 
irrespective of the crop that is subsequently grown on this land.  

The evidence  gathered  for this  study shows that  both  national  policy measures and  certain 
CAP  measures  have  been  used  to  bring  abandoned  or  unused  land  back  into  production. 
These  policy  measures  generally  work  alongside  those  that  seek  to  maintain  land  in 
production, and in a number of Member States the same policies are used for both purposes.  

4.4.1.  The Common Agricultural Policy 

A number of CAP measures can and have been used by Member States to help bring land 
back  into  production.  In  the  past,  when  CAP  Pillar  1  direct  payments  became  available  on 
accession  of  the  central  and  eastern  European  Member  States  to  the  EU,  this  encouraged 
land back into production on a significant scale, as the payments helped increase economic 
returns  and  improved  income  security  which  had  been  seriously  disrupted.  The  payments 
helped farmers to reintroduce long-term management on temporarily abandoned land and land 
where  ownership  changes  had  been  very  disruptive  (Anguiano  et  al.,  2008).  Some  HNV 
pastures, for example, in parts of southern and eastern Europe were already suffering major 
abandonment  and  a  dramatic  decline  in  livestock  numbers,  but  decoupled  direct  payments 
helped,  by  allowing  mowing  as  an  alternative  to  grazing,  to  meet  CAP  cross-compliance 
requirements  (Keenleyside  and  Tucker,  2010).  In  some  of  the  case  studies  (for  example, 
Bulgaria and Latvia), these payments, in conjunction with ANC payments, are still seen as an 
important incentive to bring land back into active management. Much of the national legislation 
in  place  in  these  countries  to  bring  unused  and  abandoned  land  back  into  production  also 
seeks to make sure that these areas are eligible for CAP direct payments.  

However,  there  is  also  a  range  of  CAP  Pillar  2  measures  that  can  be  used  to  support  the 
process of bringing land back into production. Unlike Pillar 1 direct payments, these measures 
also seek to ensure that the land is managed for particular environmental or climate purposes. 
These  areas  of  land  would  therefore  not  necessarily  be  appropriate  for  biomass  cropping 
unless the crops used were able to deliver significant environmental and climate benefits (see 
Chapter  4).  These measures  include the  investments  aid  measure  (for  both  productive  and 
non-productive investments), the AECM and the Natura 2000 compensation measure. These 
measures are used in a targeted way and with often limited budgets, therefore their influence 
is at a small scale, although locally this can be very significant.  Box 7 provides examples of 
how these Pillar 2 measures have been used in locally specific situations.  

Box 7 The use of CAP Pillar 2 measures to bring land back into agricultural production 
Investment measures: 
In Sicily (Italy) the non-productive investment measure is used to provide funding to bring back into production 
abandoned  land  through  restoring  traditional  agricultural  landscapes  that  are  of  high  cultural  and 
environmental  value,  as  well  as  reducing  soil  erosion  and  hydrogeological  instability  triggered  by  land 
abandonment.  The  funding  covers  planting  or  slope  recovery  interventions  to  reduce  erosion  and 
hydrogeological instability, and actions to restore terraces and trees.  

In Bulgaria in 2014, investment support was used to convert 5.4 ha of abandoned land into organic cherry 
orchards, thus helping to expand the harvest season and increase the farms profitability. The organic cherry 
producer  used  the  funds  to  extend  his  farm  by  bringing  abandoned  land  back  into  production  as  well  as 
diversify the mix of cherry varieties grown in order to guard against risks relating to climate change.  

Agri-environment-climate measures: 
In Bulgaria, the ‘traditional practices for seasonal grazing’ AECM was introduced to support traditional grazing 
practices in two national parks where agricultural activities were not otherwise permitted. These areas were 

100 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

not eligible for SAPS or any other area-based payments. The measure was introduced in 2008 to bring the 
remote  alpine  grasslands  back  into  production  and  now  is  used  to  maintain  these  practices  to  prevent 
abandonment and biodiversity losses. Uptake has increased over time. In 2018, there were 154 beneficiaries 
covering 11,189 ha in the region. In 2019, there were 184 beneficiaries covering 14,516 ha. 

In  Finland,  the  CAP’s  agri-environment  and  non-productive  investment  measures  have  been  used  in 
conjunction with LIFE and Interreg funding to restore management in threatened coastal meadows. Here, a 
group of priority habitats found around the coastlines of the Baltic Sea that had been grazed since prehistoric 
times were in unfavourable status, primarily due to the abandonment of traditional low-intensity grazing. The 
combination  of  measures  supported  the  restoration  and  reinstatement  of  grazing  on  several  hundred 
hectares of coastal meadows.  

Natura 2000 compensation measure: 
The Bulgarian case study noted that some of the restrictions imposed on land use and management through 
the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives had led to land leaving active management. This 
CAP measure has helped bring some of these Natura 2000 grasslands back under active management.  

Restoration  of  agricultural  production  potential  damaged  by  natural  disasters  and  introduction  of 
appropriate prevention measures: 
In Croatia, this measure has been used to support the removal of mines on agricultural land in war-affected 
areas to restore the productive potential of such land and prevent the longer-term abandonment of agricultural 
holdings in these areas.  

Source:  Case  studies;  ENRD  good  practice  examples  (see:  https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/projects-practice_en);  Alliance 
Environnement, 2019. 

4.4.2.  National policies 

In terms of the national policies identified, these emerged primarily from the case studies, with 
few  examples  found  in  the  literature.  This  highlighted  a  mix  of  policy  tools  in  operation, 
including taxes, land auctions, spatial planning tools, and the development of processes for 
transferring land that has been abandoned to new owners/managers (for example, the use of 
pre-emption rights, land associations and land banks). The national measures identified above 
to address land structure and tenure issues also are often used to help bring land back into 
active management. Most  of  these  policies either  apply  at  a  fairly  local  scale and deal  with 
small areas of land or are in place but hardly used in practice. Box 8Box  sets out examples of 
the national policy tools identified in the case studies. 

Box 8 National policy tools to stimulate land being brought back into active agricultural use 
Latvia has a political objective to return unused agricultural land to production. There are a couple of national 
policies used to achieve this:  

• 

• 

Law permitting the lease/auction of land owned by the municipality to revitalise land that is currently 
uncultivated or degraded. The municipality often ends up being responsible for managing land plots 
which have no official owners, where legal processes are ongoing, or where the owner dies and nobody 
inherits the land. There can be situations where the court gives the municipality the right to sell or lease 
such land. The practice works successfully, because in some regions, farmers lack agricultural land 
and they are keen to lease uncultivated land. 
Latvia also applies an additional tax on agricultural land that is unmanaged or untidy to disincentivise 
this. The basic tax on all land is 1.5% of the cadastral value of the land, which is doubled if deemed to 
be unmanaged/untidy. According to case study respondents, this is having the desired effect, but there 
are some exceptions where landowners prefer to pay the higher tax, viewing the land as a long-term 
investment, whether used or not. In some cases, growing trees on agricultural land is seen as a more 
secure long-term investment option, also providing a source of income for future generations. Where 
this takes place land will lose its agricultural status. 

In Italy (Sicily) there are two policies currently under development: 

•  A land association – in the Madonie mountains – which would act as an intermediary between owners 

of agricultural land and young people willing to bring it back into production. 

101 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

•  A regional land bank is being put in place, under a national law that requires municipalities to create 
an inventory of their abandoned land and rent it to farmers aged between 18-40 years old. The aim is 
to improve the management of agricultural land and create jobs. 

In France, there is a specific national process for bringing agricultural land back into production (SAFER pre-
emption  rights  for  agricultural  land).  An  individual  can  request  to  manage  an  area  of  land  that  has  been 
abandoned  or  under-utilised  for  more  than  three  years  –  the  landowner  is  notified  and  given  a  year  to  start 
cultivation. If this does not happen then the applicant is authorised to manage the land. Pre-emption rights to 
address land abandonment issues also exist in other countries, such as  Spain (Galicia) and Lithuania (van 
Holst,  2011),  but  are  rarely  exercised.  France  also  uses  spatial  planning  tools,  for  example  development 
control  rules  that  aim  to  avoid  urban  development  projects  impacting  on  agricultural  land.  In  cases  where 
development is approved on agricultural land, payments are required to compensate for the impacts (‘collective 
encourage 
collective 
example 
compensation’) 
abandoned/unused/degraded land to be brought back into production. 

compensation 

possible 

one 

to 

of 

is 

– 

In Croatia the Law on Agricultural Land permits the Ministry of Agriculture to lease land that is not being used 
for agricultural production or kept in a state suitable for agricultural production and is owned by individuals who 
cannot be identified, to individuals who want to use it for agricultural production for a duration of up to ten years. 
This does not change the ownership rights of the land, it cannot be used for perennial crops, and agricultural 
buildings cannot be erected.  

Source: case studies 

4.5.  Role  of  policy  in  incentivising  biomass  production  on  agricultural 

land  

Bringing abandoned land into active agricultural use does not mean that it will necessarily be 
used to cultivate cropped feedstocks for energy and other non-food purposes. This decision is 
in the hands of the land manager and is influenced by a range of factors, with policy being only 
one of these.  

There will be many cases where biomass cropping is not a viable use for abandoned, unused 
or  degraded  land,  for  a  variety  of  reasons  (see  also  Chapter  3).  First,  it  may  simply  be 
uneconomic to grow biomass crops in situations where: 

•  natural constraints (soil, water availability, slope, altitude) limit potential productivity and 
raising this would require significant interventions which are costly and/or may conflict 
with other environmental or climate objectives. This constraint applies more strongly to 
annual  oil,  starch  and  sugar  crops  which  require  good  agricultural  land,  than  to 
perennial  woody  crops  such  as  SRC  and  agroforestry  (see  Section  4.2  for  the 
cultivation  requirements  of  different  biomass  crops  for  energy  and  other  non-food 
uses); 
land where farm structures preclude the use of specific parcels for a sufficiently long 
time period to provide a return on the investment in perennial biomass cropping; and  
•  where  the  lack  of  local  markets,  access  problems  or  transport  costs  to  processing 
facilities  make  biomass  cropping  economically  unsustainable.  The  length  of  the 
production cycle of perennial biomass crops may heighten the level of economic risk 
(Clancy et al., 2012). 

• 

Second, there will be some abandoned land which should be allocated to other uses, not to 
biomass cropping, for reasons of environmental sustainability. These include: 

•  HNV pasturelands where restoration of the previous livestock management is feasible 
and alternative uses would damage their biodiversity conservation status: for example, 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

grassland, heathland, steppe grazed/browsed woodland and long-established locally 
adapted agroforestry habitats (including but not limited to Annex 1 habitats and Natura 
2000 sites dependent on or associated with specific types of agricultural management).  

•  Other nature conservation and protected areas. 
•  Undrained peatlands (unless used for paludiculture biomass crops). 

Without spatially explicit information on the bio-physical and other structural characteristics of 
abandoned  or  degraded  land,  which  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this  study,  it  is  not  possible  to 
identify the extent or location of abandoned land where biomass cropping is a viable option. 
However, analysis of the drivers of land abandonment (see Section 4.4) indicates that overall 
there is likely to be a large overlap of abandoned land and the marginal conditions typical of 
areas where natural constraints impact on agricultural production. 

There  is  very  little  evidence  on  biomass  cropping  specifically  on  previously  abandoned  or 
degraded  land,  and  the  following  summary  refers  to  biomass  cropping  on  agricultural  land 
generally. At the farm level the potential for growing biomass crops is affected by economic 
risks and uncertainties (variability in production costs, yields, market prices and especially the 
opportunity cost of alternative land uses); access to appropriate infrastructure and processing 
facilities; social factors (grower acceptance and resistance to long-term land use change); and 
the  institutional  and  policy  context  (Allen  et  al.,  2014;  Clancy  et  al.,  2012;  DECC,  2012;  Di 
Corato et al., 2013; Faaij, 2018). The market for energy crops shows huge variation across the 
EU  countries  (Rokwood,  2015a)  (see  Section  4.4  for  further  discussion  of  socio-economic 
factors). 

Three studies illustrate the complexity and interaction of factors affecting farmer adoption of 
energy cropping on productive agricultural land, marginal land and abandoned land:  

•  A  review  of  25  years  of  UK  perennial  energy  crops  policy  concluded  that  perennial 
biomass  crops  for  energy  have  not  fulfilled  their  potential  on  productive  agricultural 
land. Obstacles to progress included: the lack of long term supportive policy; the failure 
of headline projects and organisations (which undermined grower confidence); long-
term perennial crops being less competitive than annual crops; scheme bureaucracy; 
over-ambitious  projects;  and  large-scale  support  schemes favouring  imported  rather 
than domestic biomass supplies (Adams and Lindegaard, 2016). An on-farm survey of 
arable  farmers  in  England  found  that  the  main  reasons  for  not  growing  dedicated 
energy crops were the impact on land quality, lack of appropriate machinery and the 
length of time to commit to this land use and achieve a financial return and profitability. 
The authors noted that previous research found that even where arable farmers are 
interested in energy crops, they are unlikely to convert large areas to them (Glithero et 
al. 2013). 

•  A study of marginal land in the Mediterranean concluded that the cultivation of energy 
crops  ‘still  remains  uncertain  and  less  attractive  without  incentive  mechanisms,  tax 
credits and exemptions, or long-term pricing schemes’ (Pulighe et al., 2019). 

•  A  study  of  the  establishment  of  short  rotation  crop  systems  (SRC)  on  abandoned 
agricultural  land  in the  Latgale  region  of  Latvia  showed  the  dependence on  policies 
guiding  land  acquisition  and  agricultural  land  use,  as  well  as  social  and  economic 
policies. Currently barriers include: lack of land management by absentee landowners 
(and ineffective tax measures for unmanaged agricultural land); afforestation measures 
offering better value than woody crops; insufficient support for small/medium farms and 
for  young  farmers  planting  SRC  on  abandoned  agricultural  land;  low  uptake  of 
payments to improve land that is capable of growing SRC; and social exclusion and 
marginalisation of the rural population in the region (Abolina and Luzadis, 2015). 

103 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

These studies illustrate the importance of a supportive policy framework, but despite national 
efforts  (in  particular  in  Sweden  and  the  UK),  and  EC-supported  research  and  pilot  projects 
(Faaij, 2006) dedicated perennial energy crop production remains a minority land use in the 
EU. After 40 years of R&D the SRC sector accounted for just 514,260 ha in the EU-28 in 2016 
(Eurostat FSS data). Evidence from the case studies shows that over the past five to ten years, 
where farmers have diversified their cropping into energy crop production, this has been only 
on a limited scale, and predominantly into familiar production systems: agroforestry in France, 
Portugal,  Spain  and  Hungary;  rapeseed  in  France  and  Hungary  (which  also  recorded  oil 
pumpkin). Six of the nine case studies reported no interest so far in more novel energy crops, 
but  there  had  been  some  diversification  into  SRC  willow/poplar  in  Hungary,  miscanthus  in 
Croatia (where there was considerable interest in industrial hemp and solar panels), industrial 
soy  and  sorghum  (Hungary)  and  hemp/flax  in  France.  Where  other  renewable  energy 
production  on  agricultural  land  has  increased, this  is  mainly  solar  panels,  initiated  by  policy 
incentives to the photovoltaic sector which leased farmland (see Section 4.3). 

4.5.1.  Types of policy support for growing energy crops 

It is not possible to identify where polices promoting biomass cropping for energy or other non-
food uses have been applied specifically to abandoned, degraded or marginal land. Therefore, 
the  remainder  of  this  section  looks  at  the  role  of  policy  on  agricultural  land  in  general, 
irrespective of its current status or use.  

Policy  support  for  biomass  crop  cultivation  for  energy  and  other  non-food  uses  can  be 
direct/push (for example, supply-side support to incentivise growing perennial energy crops) 
or indirect/pull (for example, demand-side support for capital investment or energy generation), 
and the two need to be balanced to link supply with end-user markets (Adams and Lindegaard, 
2016). 

The key policy instruments and the way they influence biomass cropping for energy and other 
non-food uses are set out below. An important caveat is that in order to ensure sustainability, 
the socio-economic and environmental/climate suitability of agricultural land parcels should be 
assessed prior to its use for this purpose and that any biomass crops are managed sustainably 
to optimise the generation of ecosystem services. 

The Common Agricultural Policy  
The CAP has enabled the production of energy crops and SRC on agricultural land since 1992, 
through area-based direct payments under Pillar 1 and indirectly through a range of optional 
rural  development  measures  under  Pillar  2.  The  form  and  scope  of  the  CAP  support  has 
changed considerably over time. 

Direct  payments  under  Pillar  1:  Wholly  funded  by  the  European  Agricultural  Guidance  and 
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), almost all direct payments are now de-coupled annual payments 
per hectare of eligible agricultural land21. All annual oil, starch or sugar crops can be grown on 
agricultural land in receipt of CAP payments irrespective of their end use – for food, energy or 
other non-food uses. In 2009, land growing SRC became eligible for the main SPS claimed by 
most  farmers22.  In  the  2014-20  CAP  Member  States  could  choose  to  pay  additional  VCS 

21 Meaning that there is no requirement for agricultural production, only an obligation to maintain the land in good agricultural and 
environmental condition.  

22 Reg 73/2009 Art.34. 

104 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

payments per hectare for SRC23 and, together with agroforestry24, it was also one of the options 
under the Pillar 1 greening requirement to manage an area equivalent to a proportion of the 
farm’s arable land as EFA25. Only six Member States recorded farmers choosing SRC as an 
EFA option in 201826. The legislative proposals for the next CAP programming period include 
an option for Member States to grant VCS for SRC and other non-food crops with potential to 
substitute fossil materials27.  

Rural  development  measures  under  Pillar  2:  In  Pillar  2  of  the  2014-20  CAP  almost  all  the 
measures are optional for Member States, and there are just two relevant measures. There is 
a specific reference to biomass production in the co-operation measure, which was introduced 
in 2014  under  the  EU  priority  for  fostering  innovation,  cooperation,  and development  of the 
knowledge base in rural areas. Funding is available to support cooperation among supply chain 
actors  for  the  sustainable  provision  of  biomass  for  use  in  food  and  energy  production  and 
industrial processes28, for example through operational groups (innovation projects financed 
through the RDPs). Topics might include, for example, testing of novel techniques; innovative 
harvesting  and  conditioning  machinery  for  biomass  production  from  short-rotation  coppice; 
testing options for small-scale on-farm use of woody side streams for energy self-consumption; 
producing charcoal/pellets on the farm; exploring technological options for mobile heating units 
(for  example,  for  seasonal  grain  drying);  and  groups  of  farmers  working  together  on  larger 
scale integrated renewable energy generation installations with the potential to provide multiple 
benefits  for  the  local  population  (EIP-AGRI,  2019).  The  second  relevant  measure  is  a  sub-
measure  (within  the  suite  of  forest  measures  in  Pillar  2)  providing  support  for  the  costs  of 
establishment  and  initial  maintenance  of  agroforestry  systems.  These  systems  vary 
considerably and the woody component may not be used for bioenergy. 

Despite the availability of different forms of CAP support for nearly 30 years, research suggests 
that CAP payments do not appear to have had a significant influence on farmers’ adoption of 
energy  crops  (Bartolini  and  Viaggi,  2012;  Giannoccaro  et  al,  2009).  It  is  relevant  to bear  in 
mind  that  when  Member  State  or  regional  CAP  managing  authorities  and  farmers  make 
decisions about support for biomass cropping, they do so within a context where: 

• 

• 

• 

the policy drivers of afforestation (LULUCF, payments under the CAP and state aid) 
are  generally  stronger,  more  familiar  and  better  established  than  drivers  of  biomass 
cropping; 
for the land manager, biomass cropping falls between very short arable rotations and 
long  forestry  rotations  and  requires  a  different  set  of  skills  and  business  plan.  The 
introduction  and  management  of  agroforestry  systems  requires  considerable 
investment and specific knowledge to integrate trees into existing cropping systems;  
the detailed decisions made by Member States or regional authorities will determine 
whether  the  available  CAP  measures  are  used  to  address  the  drivers  of  land 
abandonment  and  to  create  a  more  favourable  environment  for  biomass  cropping. 

23 Reg 1307/2013 Art.52. 

24 Only agroforestry that is or has been supported under the CAP Pillar 2 measure is eligible (Reg 1307/2013 Art.46(2)e. 

25 Reg 1307/2013 Art.52. 

26  Austria,  Denmark,  Latvia,  Poland  and  Slovakia  (all  at  1%  of  total  EFA)  and  Sweden  (at  2%  of  total  EFA).  Source: 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Biodiversity.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  (accessed  2  September 
2020). 

27 COM(2018) 392 final Art. 30. 

28 Reg 1305/2013 Art.35(2)h.  

105 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Under the present CAP, all Pillar 2 measures are optional for land managers and most 
are optional for Member States (except for the AECM and LEADER measures).  

Structural fund policies 
In  addition  to  the  EAFRD,  three  other  EU  structural  and  investment  funds  are  of  potential 
relevance to energy crop supply chains: the ERDF, European Social Fund, and the Cohesion 
Fund.  Key enabling  technologies (KETs)  are  one  of  the  investment priorities  for the  ERDF, 
which could support ‘technological and applied research, pilot lines, early product validation 
actions,  advanced manufacturing  capabilities’  (EC,  2014, cited  in Scarlat  et  al. (2014)).  For 
example, in Andalusia, Spain, an investment of €450,000 in nearly 2MW of biomass boilers in 
municipal dependencies was enabled with funding from the ERDF, the provincial council and 
participating municipalities (Rokwood, 2015a). 

RED II  
This specifies that to be classified as low ILUC, biomass renewable energy should come from 
unused, abandoned, degraded lands (according to the definitions in the regulation), but the 
effect  so far  is  unclear  and  probably  limited  by  the  lack  of  a stable,  economically  attractive 
market. 

National policies 
It  is  beyond the  scope  of  this  study  to  review  individual  EU-28  policy  incentives  for  energy 
cropping,  but  a 2006 study  of  bioenergy  in  Europe,  considering  both agricultural  and forest 
energy crops, concluded that much was achieved for bioenergy in the 1990s, and ‘the stronger 
the national policy in terms of support and legal embedding, the more substantial the results 
were’. Examples included a carbon tax, and the development of the SRC willow production 
and combined heat and power (CHP) markets in Sweden; financial support for biodiesel and 
CHP in Germany; a straw utilisation programme in Denmark; and a CHP programme in Austria, 
which  strengthened  the  position  of  the  bioenergy  sector  in  these  countries  and  industries 
(Faaij, 2006).  

A study of the impact of incentive programmes on returns from willow biomass cropping in the 
US showed that establishment grants of 75% of cost provided high returns on medium to high-
productivity  land,  but  annual  payments  over  5–15  years  had  little  impact  on  profitability  for 
growers and were costly to fund (Buchholz and Volk, 2012). Low cost start-up loans were one 
of the least expensive approaches for medium to high-productivity land, but the only incentive 
that made low-yielding sites profitable was an output subsidy of $50 per oven-dried metric ton, 
which  was  more  expensive  than  other  incentives.  The  authors  concluded  that  effective 
financial  incentives  must  be  well  designed  and  monitored  to  reach  the  target  audience 
(Buchholz  and  Volk,  2012).  A  recent  study  of  the  wider  bio-based  economy  in  the  EU 
concluded that financial policy instruments are the dominant support for the development of 
the bioeconomy (Elbersen et al., 2020). 

Therefore, rather than focusing just on ‘push’ policies (for example, CAP measures enabling 
farmers  to  grow  biomass  crops  and  providing  investment  support  for  agroforestry) 
complementary action is needed to improve ‘pull policies’ that will stimulate a biomass market 
that can compete with alternative, more economically attractive crops. This includes a need to: 

• 

Improve  biomass  energy  value  chains,  access  to  markets  and  technological 
innovations (for example, in the use of crop and other residues). 

•  Create market  demand  for  sustainable  biomass  for  advanced  biofuels  and  non-food 

uses. 

106 

 
 
  
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

•  Develop  a  certification  policy  for  sustainable  biomass  for  energy  and  non-food  uses 
that  comes  from  specific  perennial  land  management  systems  such  as  agroforestry 
and SRC.  

•  Pay  for  additional  ecosystem  system  services  and  biodiversity  delivered  by  existing 
and newly developed sustainable perennial biomass crops and agroforestry (landscape 
heterogeneity,  biodiversity,  carbon  capture  in  above  ground  biomass),  for  example 
through EAFRD environmental land management measures in the CAP. 

4.6.  Conclusions  

The way in which policy addresses land degradation and abandonment is mostly indirect and 
arises  from  a  combination  of  different  policies  working  together.    The  policies  identified  as 
having  a  particular  influence  were  various  instruments  and  measures  under  the  CAP  (both 
Pillar 1 and 2) and an array of national policies (including taxes, financial instruments, spatial 
planning policies and processes for land registration and to address land structure and tenure 
issues).  

Other EU policies, such as those relating to renewable energy, climate, and environment, are 
likely to have an influence both through the policy signals they send about priorities as well as 
the national strategies put in place to implement them on the ground. However, their influence 
appears to be secondary to the policies identified above and they are rarely identified in the 
literature or the case studies. 

Avoiding land abandonment is rarely the primary objective of the policy measures identified, 
with  the  exception  of  the  ANC  measure  under  the  CAP.  They  primarily  influence  land 
abandonment by attempting to address the broader socio-economic issues facing either the 
agricultural sector or rural areas – for example seeking to maintain farm incomes, address farm 
structure and tenure issues, or avoid rural depopulation and promote generational renewal. In 
some cases, they also seek to influence the way land is managed, either through protecting 
areas of high biodiversity value or through maintaining or encouraging more sustainable forms 
of land management and the protection of natural resources (mainly Pillar 2 measures).  

These policy measures operate at different scales and have varying degrees of influence on 
land degradation and abandonment depending on the way they are designed and implemented 
within Member States. In relation to the CAP, Member States have a high degree of flexibility 
in designing and implementing the interventions under both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2. This includes 
their  eligibility  criteria,  payment  rates,  the  funding  allocated  to  them,  and  for  Pillar  2,  which 
measures to use and how these are targeted. In the future it is intended that Member States 
will  have  even  greater  flexibility  which  will  also  allow  them  to  target  Pillar  1  measures  to 
address identified policies and needs.  

National policies have evolved to address the specific issues faced nationally, regionally and 
locally. In particular, the case studies highlighted the special circumstances facing central and 
eastern European countries, particularly in addressing land structure and tenure issues arising 
from the process of land restitution.  

In practice, however, the current policy mix is often insufficient to counter the broader socio-
economic drivers of land abandonment, such as those leading to rural depopulation. These 
wider rural issues deserve more attention alongside support at the farm level and attempts to 
address farm structure and tenure issues if the most socio-economically vulnerable farming 
systems  are  to  be  maintained.  The  extent  to  which  this  is  possible  will  vary  regionally  and 
depend on the relative economic buoyancy of the economy more generally.  

107 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

In terms of bringing land back into agricultural production, there does not appear to be a widely 
applied process available that allows for an assessment of whether or not this is desirable from 
an  environmental  or  climate  perspective,  since  the  decision  lies  purely  in  the  hands  of  the 
landowner.  The  exception  to  this  is  the  EIA  requirements29  although  the  threshold  criteria 
adopted in most Member States as well as issues of enforcement effectively exempt most such 
changes from  an  EIA  in  practice  (COWI,  2009b;  King,  2010).  Although the  RED  II  includes 
sustainability criteria whereby bioenergy crops cannot be considered low ILUC if grown on land 
identified  as  biodiverse  or  carbon-rich  according  to  the  criteria  set  out  in  the  implementing 
regulation, it assumes that crops planted on abandoned or degraded land would automatically 
meet these sustainability criteria. However, this is not necessarily the case. It is important to 
recognise  that  some  land  that  has  become  abandoned  over  time  will  be  delivering  greater 
societal benefits in its new and less managed state (for example, for biodiversity, climate, flood 
protection, or even through other economic activities such as hunting) and it would therefore 
be inappropriate to bring this back into agricultural use. The absence of an effective EU system 
for screening the environmental effects of bringing land back into agricultural production is a 
current policy gap. 

Maintaining or bringing back land into agricultural production in a way that is sustainable and 
does  not  lead  to  land  degradation  is  only  one  side  of  the  coin.  Once  it  is  available  for 
production, decisions about whether or not to plant biomass crops for energy or other non-food 
purposes also rest with the land manager. The factors determining these decisions are varied 
but  tend  to  be  primarily  market-related.  Although  there  are  some  policy  measures  (mainly 
under the CAP) that promote the production of biomass crops for energy, the policies available 
to those in the agricultural sector apply equally no matter what type of crop is produced. The 
key role of policy here is to ensure that agricultural production is carried out in a way that also 
delivers public goods: in other words, that the way crops are grown is sustainable, protecting 
natural resources and delivering a mix of ecosystem services. 

The policy recommendations that follow from this chapter are presented in Chapter 7.  

29 In relation to agricultural land, the EIA Directive requires Member States to put in place rules for carrying out EIAs in certain 
circumstances,  including  the  restructuring  of  agricultural  land  and  the  conversion  of  uncultivated  or  semi-natural  habitats  to 
intensive agricultural management. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

5.  NON-AGRICULTURAL  AREAS  AND  OPTIONS  FOR 

BIOMASS CROPPING  

Chapter aim and contents: 

This  chapter  provides  an  overview  of  different  types  of  non-agricultural  land 
potentially suitable for producing biomass crops for energy and other non-food 
uses. Based on recent statistical data and literature, it identifies different non-
agricultural land categories and assess the order of magnitude of these areas of 
land within the EU-28. It also outlines the outcomes of an analysis identifying 
the barriers and opportunities for growing biomass crops on these different land 
use types. Finally, three case studies provide in-depth insights into the potential 
for biomass crop production on the three most promising non-agricultural land 
use types. 

5.1.  General introduction and approach 

Before analysing categories of non-agricultural land, it is important to arrive at a clear definition. 
When  agricultural  land  is  abandoned,  this  happens  mostly  through  a  gradual  process.  This 
makes it somewhat arbitrary to decide when exactly it becomes non-agricultural land. While 
Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 focus on agricultural lands that has been abandoned recently, here the 
focus is on non-agricultural land and agricultural land that has been out of production for a long 
time and therefore progressed to non-agricultural uses (the focus of Task 6 in this study).Forest 
land  is  excluded  from  the  analysis.  The  boundary  between  agricultural  and  non-agricultural 
land lies in the status of transformation (see Figure 15). 

Figure 15 Boundaries and status of transformation of (former) agricultural land 

The following approach was used to further specify the different categories of non-agricultural 
land that could potentially be used to produce biomass crops for energy and other non-food 
uses:  

Expert consultation to construct a longlist. Experts with experience in agriculture, forestry, 
EU  biofuel  policy,  EU  environmental  policy,  sustainable  biomass  certification,  and  land  use 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

change  were  consulted  to  brainstorm  a  longlist  of  potential  non-agricultural  land  use 
categories. These were then reviewed by experts in the rest of the project team. 
Estimation of the theoretical potential available area in the EU-28. For each category, the 
(maximum) theoretical potential of land area availability was estimated based on a literature 
search of scientific papers, databases, news articles, and other sources. 
Estimation  of  the  available  area in  the  EU-28.  For  each  category,  the  potential  available 
area that is realistically available was estimated by considering competing uses or other factors 
that would limit the maximum theoretical potential. 
Creation of shortlist of categories. The longlist was filtered to create a shortlist of categories 
based  on  size  of  availability, feasibility,  and potential  co-benefits (economic,  environmental, 
and so on) identified in literature. 
Identification of opportunities and barriers. For each shortlisted category, opportunities and 
barriers  were  identified  through  a  literature  search  focusing  on  policy,  funding  options,  co-
benefits, pilot projects or existing initiatives, and positive public perception. The assessment 
was based on expert judgement. 
Identification of three categories for in-depth case study analysis. Three shortlisted land 
use categories were selected for in-depth analysis on their technical and economic feasibility 
for biomass production, and to identify existing policies that could form barriers or stimulate 
the use of these lands for biomass cropping.  

5.2.  Non-agricultural land use categories 

From the initial expert consultation, 28 categories of non-agricultural land use were identified 
to construct the longlist (see Annex X Non-agricultural land). Some of these include previous 
agricultural  land  that  is  now  abandoned  and  may  overlap  with  land  categories  from  other 
chapters.  We  left  these categories  in the  list  as the  input  on  policy  recommendations  could 
also be  used in  Chapter  5.  The  longlist  was pared  down  by  removing  land  types  that  were 
deemed too small in area, too low in practical feasibility, potentially interfering with ongoing 
activities, or if developing dedicated biomass cropping was not expected to be financially viable 
in the coming decades (see Annex VI for selection criteria). The result was a shortlist of 13 
categories  of  non-agricultural  land  (Table  11),  including  the  order  of magnitude of  available 
land area and the most relevant regions within the EU-28. The size ranges are defined as: low 
(0-10,000  ha);  medium  (10,000-100,000  ha);  and  high  (>100,000  ha).30  These  refer  to  the 
potential of currently available land; for example, the closed landfills category includes landfills 
that are currently closed and excludes landfills to be closed in the future. Many land categories 
share common characteristics or are part of the same sector and can therefore be grouped 
into  four  aggregate  groups:  (1)  brownfield  land;  (2)  abandoned  agricultural  land;  (3) 
infrastructure landscaping; and (4) combined business.  

30 The uncertainty of these ranges is high as the estimation from theoretical potential available area to 
potentially available area was determined by expert judgement. 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 11 List of identified non-agricultural land categories suitable for biomass cropping for 
energy and other non-food uses, and scale of area available in the EU 

Category 
group  

Category 

Description 

Land 
availability* 

Most 
regions 

relevant 

Brownfields 

Closed landfills 

coal 

Closed 
mines 
Closed quarries 

Closed  mining 
waste facilities 
Brownfields 
general 
Desertified land 

Saline land 

Roadside 

Railside 

Green 
planning 
PV farms 

city 

Airports 

Military terrain 

Abandoned 
agricultural 
land 

Infrastructure 
landscaping 

Combined 
business 

in 

landfills 

drylands, 

land  due 

that  are  not 

Former 
operational 
Former  opencast  coal  mines  that 
are not operational 
Former  aggregate  mines  that  are 
not operational 
Tailings  and  waste  from  extractive 
mining 
Previously  developed  or  derelict 
land, including contaminated land 
Degraded 
land 
including former agricultural land 
Degraded 
salinisation 
Reserved  area  on  the  sides  of 
paved roads 
Reserved  area  on  the  sides  of 
railroads 
Planned  green  spaces  in  urban 
areas 
Agriphotovoltaics 
(combines 
biomass production with utility scale 
PV farms) 
Reserved  and  uninhabitable  area 
not needed for airport operations 
Land 
necessary 
operations 

training  not 
permanent 

for  military 
for 

soil 

to 

High 

Low 

Medium 

High 

High 

DE, IT, UK, GR31 

PL,  DE,  BG, 
RO32 
PL, DE, FR, UK, 
IT33 
CY, CZ, EE, EL, 
ES, FI34 
EU-28 

Medium 

PT, ES, EL, IT35 

High 

High 

Medium 

High 

High 

FR, ES, HU36 

EU-28 

GE,  FR,  PO,  IT, 
UK, ES37 
EU-28 

GE,  IT,  UK,  FR, 
ES, NL, BE38 

Medium 

EU-28 

High 

EU-28 

Notes: * low (0-10,000 ha); medium (10,000-100,000 ha); high (>100,000 ha). 

European 

Commission, 

‘EU  coal  regions:  opportunities  and  challenges  ahead.’ 

31  European  Enhanced  Landfill  Mining  Consortium,  ‘Landfills  in  Europe.’  https://eurelco.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/landfill-situation-eu-28-eurelco.pdf 
32  European  Commission,  (2018), 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/eu-coal-regions-
opportunities-and-challenges-ahead  
33 UEPG, (2017), ‘Estimates of aggregates production data.’ http://www.uepg.eu/statistics/estimates-of-
production-data/data-2017  
34 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/mining/implementation.htm   
35  Courthouse  News, 
(2019), 
https://www.courthousenews.com/eu-warned-to-do-more-on-desertification 
36 
sodic 
https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/images/eusoils_old/Library/Themes/Salinization/Resources/salinisation.
pdf   
37  Statista, 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/451500/length-of-railway-lines-in-use-in-europe  
38 EurObserv’ER, (2019), ‘Photovoltaic barometer.’   
https://www.eurobserv-er.org/photovoltaic-barometer-2019    

‘EU  warned 

in  Europe.’ 

do  more 

abandoned 

European 

facilities.’ 

‘Closed 

(2008), 

(2017), 

railway 

‘Saline 

length 

waste 

‘Total 

JRC, 

lines 

soils 

and 

and 

use 

the 

the 

desertification.’  

Union.’  

on 

of 

to 

in 

in 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

5.3.  Opportunity and barrier analysis  

The successful implementation of biomass crop production is influenced by factors that could 
stimulate  or  hinder  the  process.  These  opportunities  and  barriers  can  be  grouped  into  six 
categories:  

Economic. Opportunities are related to profitability from the cultivation of bioenergy crops or 
available funding opportunities, for example, PV farms where energy crops could be cultivated 
on unused land to generate additional income. Barriers are related to the high cost of cultivation 
or investments needed, or the unprofitability of cultivation, for example, rail-side and roadside 
strips cover long distances but are narrow, and  therefore potentially difficult and expensive to 
manage and harvest. 

Policy and regulation. Opportunities are related to policy or strategic plans that accelerate or 
are  synergistic  with  bioenergy  crop  cultivation,  for  example,  land  rehabilitation  policy  and 
greening  initiatives.  Barriers  include  policy  or  regulations  that  hinder  or  limit  agricultural 
activities  on 
land 
classification/planning. 

for  example,  permitting 

land  category, 

restrictions  or 

this 

Public  perception.  Opportunities  are  related  to  positive  public  perception,  for  example, 
contaminated land being rehabilitated or closing coal mines. Barriers are related to negative 
public perception, for example, cultivation for bioenergy competing with nature protection or 
recreational uses.  

Ongoing initiatives. Opportunities are related to instances where production of biomass crops 
leads to synergies (besides economic benefits) with existing projects or initiatives, for example, 
EU  land  rehabilitation  projects.  Barriers  are  related  to  biomass  crops  competing  with  other 
initiatives, for  example, rehabilitation  projects  focused on  increasing  biodiversity rather  than 
cultivation of single or few crops. 

Environment.  Opportunities  are  related  to  cultivation  having  a  positive  impact  on  the  local 
ecosystem  or  soil  quality,  for  example,  degraded  land  is  restored.  Barriers  are  related  to 
environmental  limitations  that  make  cultivation  challenging,  for  example,  low  productivity  of 
crops on contaminated land. 

Other. These can vary depending on the land use category. Annex X, Table 33, gives details 
of the relevant opportunities and barriers in this category.  

The  opportunities  and  barriers  identified  for  each  non-agricultural  land  category  are 
summarized  in  Table   a  detailed  analysis  included  in  Annex  X,  Table 34.  The  plus-sign  (+) 
indicates  an  opportunity  and  the  minus-sign  (-)  indicates  a  barrier.  In  cases  where  both  an 
opportunity and barrier are identified within a group of categories, a slash mark (/) is used. The 
table is not exhaustive and includes the opportunities and barriers most apparent in literature 
and from expert judgement (see also references to Table 34 in Annex X). It resulted in a scoring 
matrix for the opportunities and barriers for the land categories selected for further analysis.  

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 12 Summary of opportunities and barriers for non-agricultural land categories  

Category 
group  

Brownfield 
land 

Abandoned 
agricultural 
land 

Infrastructure 
landscaping 

Combined 
business 

Category 

Economic 

Policy  and 
regulation 

Ongoing 
initiatives 

Environment 

Public 
perception 

Other 

Closed landfills 

+ 

+ 

Closed coal mines 

++/- 

Closed quarries 

Closed  mining  waste 
facilities 

Brownfields general 

Desertified land 

Saline land 

Roadside 

Railside 

Green cities 

Utility scale PV 

Airports 

Military terrain 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

- - 

- - 

+/- 

++ 

++ 

- 

+/- 

-  

- 

+/- 

+ 

+/- 

++ 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

+/-  

+/-  

+/- 

++ 

- 

++/- 

++/- 

++/- 

++/- 

++/- 

- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

- 

+ 

5.4.  Case studies: three promising types of non-agricultural land use 

Three land categories were selected for a deeper analysis of the barriers and opportunities 
regarding biomass cropping opportunities. The selection was based on a number of factors, 
including  high  land  availability,  promising  opportunities  and  practical  feasibility  for  biomass 
production.  For  each  case  study,  several  (industry)  experts  were  interviewed  and  relevant 
literature reviewed.  

5.4.1.  Case study 1: Bioenergy crops on airport land  

General context 
Airports generally own a large area of land around the operational aviation zone that is not 
used for other activities for a range of reasons, mostly safety related. For example, aviation 
safety rules prohibit tall objects or buildings to be built near landing and taking off zones. Sound 
pollution  makes  the  area  near  an  airport  uninhabitable  and  unsuitable  for  most  economic 
activities. But there are options, like agriculture, that can utilise this area effectively. Agriculture 
on  airport  land  is  called airport  farming,  and  is  a  well-known  practice in  the  USA.  Experts39 
suggest  that  about  half  of  US  airports  have  some  sort  of  farming  on  their  lands  or  nearby 
aviation operations. There appears to be no specific preference for biomass crop production 
for non-food uses on airport land, as currently most airport farming includes food/fodder crops 

39  Experts  from  the  Wisconsin  Department  of  Transportation  and  the  Bureau  of  Aeronautics  were 
consulted. 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

(for example, corn, soy, beans, wheat). However, research has shown that airplane fumes can 
lead  to  pollution  on  or  in  crops  which  could  make  food  production  unviable.  Logistically,  it 
should be straightforward to connect airport land to existing agricultural supply chains. Most 
airports in the EU are already surrounded by land on which agriculture is carried out.  

The  changes  in  land  use  can  have  a  substantial  effect  on  the  local  biodiversity.  This 
relationship needs to be assessed carefully to ensure minimal interaction with wildlife. One of 
the  most  prominent  barriers  for  airport  farming  is  attracting  wildlife  and  the  potential 
corresponding  increase  of  wildlife  collision  (EASA,  2018).  Airports  are  spatially  planned  to 
create  clearance,  specifying  object-free  areas  around  instruments,  lights  and  runways.  The 
buffer  size  of  these  areas  depends  on  the  overall  design  and  size  of  the  airport.  Different 
regulations  apply  for  large  (international)  airports  versus  smaller  (national)  airports.  For 
example, large airplanes require bigger buffer zones and two intersecting runways are required 
to have undisturbed sight lines alongside each other. Smaller airports might be more suitable 
for energy crop production due to having proportionally more area available. 

Order of magnitude estimate for EU potential 
For this case study, a spatial analysis based on OpenStreetMap and CLC was carried out to 
estimate the maximum potential area for airport farming in the EU-28. Data on airports (class 
1.2.4) in CLC (Copernicus Global Land Service) indicate that airports in the EU-28 cover about 
3,000  km2.  However, this mostly refers  to the  area  covered  by  buildings and  landing  strips, 
land that cannot be used. In a more detailed analysis, using OpenStreetMap, the total area in 
the  EU-28  belonging  to  airports40  amounts  to  5,500  km2  in  EU-28.  Of  this,  the  total  non-
impervious land was estimated to be roughly 4,300 km2, or about 430,530 ha. Annex XII, Table 
35 gives an overview of the breakdown for each Member State. On average, about 21.8% of 
the total airport area is impervious (covered by buildings and roads) and thus not suitable for 
agricultural activity. There are significant differences in the ratio of operational area per total 
airport  area  between Member  States,  ranging  from  6.7%  (Latvia)  to  36.1%  imperviousness 
(Luxembourg).  Smaller  airports  are  expected  to  have  less  air  traffic  and  a  larger  ratio  of 
operational area per total airport area. Therefore, smaller airports might be more suitable for 
airport farming (and biomass cropping).  

Preferred characteristics for energy crops 
To  prevent  the  blocking  of  sight  lines,  a  maximum  height  of  crops  on  airports  of  about  two 
metres is acceptable according to experts. The crops ideally should not produce substantial 
(loose) plant matter, in order to avoid this being blown onto the runways. Another preferred 
characteristic is low attractiveness to animals that pose a high risk of collision. This must be 
assessed locally for different airports, as climates and biodiversity differ between regions. The 
agricultural  operations  needed  for  cultivation  should  also  be  evaluated  to  reduce  additional 
wildlife being attracted to the airport.  

Airport-owned land might not always be most optimally fertile. Therefore, crops that can cope 
well with marginal circumstances like low soil fertility, limited water requirements, and specific 
pollution levels (for example, de-icing, potassium acetate, propylene glycol and hydrocarbons) 
are more suitable for airport farming. In relation to these pollutants, it might also be useful to 
take the bioremediation capability of different crops into account in the crop selection for airport 
farming.  

Practical examples 
There are not many specific examples of airport farming in the EU-28, although it is expected 
that many airports have some sort of farming near them. Several examples are found outside 

40 Excluding small airports where landing strips consist of grassland cover. 

114 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

the  EU.  Airport  farming  is  usually  done  on  airport-owned  land  away  from  the  aviation 
operations. A safe distance from aviation operations should be maintained to control the risks 
of  collision  and  leftover  agriculture  debris.  Airport  farming  could  thus  seem  to  be  an 
unnecessary hazard to aviation operations. However, there are some cases that have a direct 
benefit  to  aviation.  One  example  is  Adelaide  Airport  in  Australia,  which  uses  agricultural 
practices to lower the air temperature for aviation operations (see Figure 16)41. The trial site is 
four hectares in size and located 600 metres south of the airport’s main runway. Different types 
of grass species were considered (including tall fescue, couch and kikuyu) but Lucerne showed 
the highest impact on temperature dampening. Lucerne can also be cut into hay and sold as 
a premium feed for livestock, provided pollution stays below acceptable levels, otherwise the 
biomass can be used for energy and other non-food products. Lucerne also appears to deter 
birds, which pose a great risk of collision with planes. The total water requirements in this pilot 
project are not yet known.  

Figure 16 Airport farming can lower air temperature on hot days. Adelaide Airport, Australia.  

Source: SA Water. 

Another example is East Midlands Airport in the UK, which has planted an onsite willow farm 
to produce biofuel (and biogas) for the terminal building biomass boiler.42 Using these fuels 
helps the airport to meet their sustainability goals. A feasibility study for energy crop production 
on airports and other non-traditional land in Michigan was performed by the Michigan State 
University in 2010.43 This underlined the international priority of utilising (infrastructural) land 
for energy crops production, while not competing with food production. 

Barriers 
New agricultural practices at airports are expected to change the local biodiversity. How strong 
this effect will be depends on the type of crop and a combination of factors at landscape scale 
(for example, other land uses and the presence of habitats around the airport). This biodiversity 
change could lead to a higher prevalence of wildlife, which brings the risk of wildlife collision 
with aviation. Airports in different European regions have different types of wildlife that pose a 
high risk of collision. For example, at Schiphol Airport geese pose the highest risk due to their 
weight and size. Wildlife collisions can lead to serious damage of airplanes and helicopters, 

41 ABC News, ‘Lucerne  hay grown near Adelaide Airport runway helps aircraft take off, and provides 
cash crop’, April 2019, https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-04-10/livestock-feed-crop-cools-down-
adelaide-airport/10962938 
42 GreenAIR online.com, ‘UK airport to plant its own willow farm to produce biofuel for terminal building 
biomass boiler’, April 2010, https://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=796 
43 Gould, C.M., (2010), ‘Exploring the feasibility of growing, harvesting and utilizing bioenergy crops on 
non-traditional 
University, 
Michigan’, 
in 
https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/files/Final%20Report%20Phase%20I.pdf 

Michigan 

cropland 

State 

115 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

and even fatal incidents (EASA, 2008). Wildlife management is therefore essential for airports 
to ensure safe aviation operation, with avoiding and minimizing the risk of wildlife collision an 
integral part of airport planning.  

Land before and after runways must be kept clear of objects to avoid obstructed sight lines. 
Radio signals, instruments and critical airport infrastructure must also be kept clear44 and other 
activities are not permitted nearby in order to prevent damage. This is a barrier for agriculture 
using  high  crops  or  involving  bulky  machinery.  Another  barrier  for  airport  farming  is  the 
necessity  for  access  routes  for,  for  example,  emergency  vehicles.  This  could  result  in  the 
division of available farmland into small patches, which could reduce yield or increase costs. 

 Furthermore,  there  is  a  risk  of  agricultural  waste  ending  up  on  the  runways,  which  could 
damage or hamper airplanes. Foreign object debris (FOD) on runways is a danger and should 
be avoided. It is unlikely, however, that organic FOD like mud or small pieces of plants would 
cause severe damage. Airports previously allowing airport farming have agreed strict protocols 
with farmers on clean farming operations. 

Opportunities 
Most airports have a type of grass covering the unused land around the runway and buildings.45 
This grass needs to be maintained yearly to ensure that it does not attract wildlife or grow too 
tall.46  This  brings  a maintenance cost for  airports.  Cut  grass  could  decompose  if  left  on the 
ground, leading to carbon emissions. Instead of grass and maintenance costs, a more valuable 
crop that sequesters carbon could be planted. This could have direct positive effects for the 
airport in terms of biomass and GHG emission compensation. Airport farming also adds a new 
revenue stream for the airport, and its operational costs could (partially) replace the previous 
maintenance costs. Revenue could either come from the rent a farmer pays to the airport, or 
from  the  sale  of  the  produced  biomass  feedstock.  Airport  farming  can  thus  be  financially 
attractive.  Commercial  viability  is  an  important  factor  for  additional  activities,  especially  to 
larger airports, as they often act as a real estate developer. 

Growing crops on airport land could have a range of potential benefits to the local environment. 
Plants  have a dampening  effect  on the  local  temperature and can  absorb heavy rainfall. In 
addition, they could help prevent soil loss through wind erosion. For airports that suffer from 
extreme  weather  events  like  heavy  rainfall  or  high  temperatures,  airport  farming  may  be 
beneficial to their aviation operations because the crops could reduce the likelihood of adverse 
effects  of  these  weather  events.  Extremely  high  temperatures  can  force  airports  to  cancel 
flights due to a significant reduction in lift. This has occurred in South Australia and was the 
main reason for Adelaide Airport to start experimenting with Lucerne crop cultivation to help 
cool the air.  

Most airports are already surrounded by agriculture, which eases the expansion of agriculture 
to airport-owned land and it makes the airport land more easily accessible, which is a great 
logistical opportunity. This opportunity may only be valid if the nearby farmer/owner of the land 
agrees to take on the management of the airport land. 

44 For example, in Europe, 150 metres either side of runways must be kept clear of all objects except 
airport infrastructure.  
45 This holds for airports in moderate climates. In dry regions, sand, scrubs or rock is mostly seen as 
land cover. 
46 Around 30 cm is the preferred length for grass on airport. Longer grass attracts rodents and predators, 
shorter grass attracts large birds.  

116 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Lastly,  airport  farming  can  help  reduce  the  adverse  effects  of  aviation  operations.  Noise 
pollution  and  chemical  pollution  are  substantial  issues  which  can  be  reduced  by the  sound 
dampening and remediating effect of some crops (Nunes et al., 2011). 

Summary of main barriers and opportunities 

Barriers 

Opportunities 

Airport farming poses an additional risk to 
aviation. 

Airport farming could be financially attractive to airports 
due to several reasons. 

Airport  farming  can  attract  wildlife  to 
airport  land  which  is  a  substantial  threat 
to  wildlife  collision 
for  aviation  due 
damage.  

Crops on airports could remediate several adverse effects 
of  aviation  operation,  such  as  sound  and  chemical 
pollution. 

Available  land  on  airports  is  comparatively  large  and 
easily  accessible,  which  makes  bioenergy  production 
more feasible. 

Airport  farming  could  dampen  the  negative  effects  of 
extreme  weather  events,  reducing  financial  loss  of 
delayed or cancelled aviation operations.  

Policy recommendations 

•  The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) should be consulted on policy on airport 

farming in Europe, as they are the main authority for aviation safety.  

•  Every modification to airport land is carefully evaluated by the EASA. Airport farming 
could lead to an increase in wildlife as plants attract wildlife. Wildlife attraction and risk 
assessment differs across different countries, climates, areas and crops. It is necessary 
to  look  at  the  local  characteristics  before  judging  the  wildlife  risk.  Monitoring  and 
precautionary measures are crucial in order to track wildlife interaction over time and 
intervene pro-actively when needed.  

•  Distinguishing regulations for large versus medium or small airports is useful, as large 
(international) airports follow a stricter set of rules on aviation operations, maintenance 
and safety.  

•  Standards  on  airport  farming  need  to  include  methods  to  minimise  the  impacts  of 
farming  activity  and  debris.  A  clean  and  efficient  operation  is  vital  to  ensure  a  safe 
aviation  environment.  After  harvesting,  the  biomass  should  be  taken  away  quickly. 
Throughout the process, debris should not linger on runways or airport grounds.  
•  The  US  Federal  Aviation  Administration  (FAA)  requires  airports  to  lease  the  land 
through a public bidding process. Farming is mostly done by an adjacent farmer, and 
through  a  short-term  lease  agreement,  preferably  a  yearly  contract  in  order  to  stay 
flexible. This could be a template for the European setting. 

•  Effective  wildlife  management  is  required  to  minimise  wildlife  collisions.  The  cost  of 
wildlife control and potential accidents should be weighed against the income produced 
by the crops when deciding whether to allow farming on the airport (USDA, 2005). 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

5.4.2.  Case study: energy crops in utility scale PV systems  

General context 
Agrophotovoltaics (APV) is the process of combining agricultural practices with photovoltaic 
electricity production on the same surface area47. APV systems consist of PV arrays48 installed 
at an elevated height to make normal agricultural operations at ground level possible. This dual 
use increases the value of land because it generates a higher total income per area.49 Pilot 
projects in Europe have observed a slight decrease in biomass production for most crops in 
the APV setup, compared to a reference case. This is because the PV panels use part of the 
sunlight, which could otherwise be captured by the crops via photosynthesis. However, due to 
the shading effect and tendency to reduce evaporation, the PV arrays can also have a positive 
effect on crop growth.  

Existing utility scale ground-mounted PV systems50 in Europe are often optimised for maximum 
power production. The PV arrays are generally installed facing south and with minimal space 
in  between,  capturing  sunlight  optimally.  In  these  installations  the  PV  arrays  are  often 
separated  by  a few  metres of  cleared  space,  enabling  installation and maintenance. In this 
configuration  roughly  50%  of  the  surface  area  is  covered  by  the  PV  arrays.  They are  most 
often mounted on metal and concrete structures and alleviated two to four metres above the 
ground.51 Recently, PV developers in Europe have experienced more societal resistance to 
large  PV  systems,  due  to  a  lack  of  ecological  integration  and  adverse  impacts  on  the 
landscape.  This  topic  has  recently  received  more  attention  in  the  Dutch  PV  sector.  A  new 
initiative  in  the  Netherlands,  the  Code  of  Conduct  Solar  PV  on  Land,  aims  for  ecological 
integration  of  all  new  installations.  The  initiative  was  signed  by  several  environmental 
organisations and the Dutch PV industry association.52 Modifications to the mounting system 
(infrastructure) for large PV systems are needed to enable (energy) crop agriculture. Although 
there are some commercial APV systems worldwide, in Europe the installation of APV systems 
is mostly not yet financially viable due to high investment costs and unfavourable (financial) 
policies  (Weselek  et  al.,  2019).  European  pilot  studies  show  great  opportunities  for  APV 
systems for society, but with a need for dual land use.  

Order of magnitude estimate for EU potential 
The potential area for energy crop production in APV systems in the EU-28 is estimated to be 
about 500,000 ha, based on the following calculations. As of 2019, about 150 GWp of PV had 
been installed in the EU-28 (GMO Solar Power 2019-2023). On average, about one third (50 
GWp) of this consists of large PV systems. Large PV systems have a power density of about 
0.5 MW per ha53, so currently about one million hectares is used by large PV systems. Project 
developers  for  new  large  PV  systems  might  be  interested  in  the  integration  of  energy  crop 
farming, but it is highly unlikely that existing large PV systems can be adjusted to facilitate this, 
according to PV industry specialists. Most installed large PV systems are not suitable for ex-
post integration of energy crops with corresponding agricultural practices. Despite fluctuations 
in the annual installed capacity, the total installed capacity in the EU-28 is expected to exceed 

47 In some sources the term ‘agrivoltaics’ is also used.  
48 Commonly understood as solar panels 

to  experts  associated  with 

the  Heggelbach  APV  pilot  study,  and 

49  According 
literature: 
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2019/agrophotovoltaics-hight-harvesting-
yield-in-hot-summer-of-2018.html 
50 For readability, ‘large PV systems’ is used to describe ‘utility scale ground-mounted PV systems’. 
51 Expert interview: TKI Urban Energy, Holland Solar.  
52 ‘Gedragscode zon op land’, Holland Solar, 2019, https://hollandsolar.nl/gedragscodezonopland 
53 Global Market Outlook for Solar Power 2019–2023. 
  https://www.solarpowereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SolarPower-Europe-Global-Market-
Outlook-2019-2023.pdf 

118 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

300GWp in the coming decade, even assuming the most conservative scenarios. Based on 
this expected trend, we assume half of the area currently taken up by large PV systems could 
be used as (new) agrophotovoltaics systems in the near future. This means that one out of 
four  hectares  of  large  PV  systems  in  future  will  be  APV  systems,  which  requires  a  very 
substantial  development  and  implementation  of  APV  systems  in  the  coming  years.  Such 
development remains debatable.  

Preferred characteristics for energy crops 
PV arrays block a significant part of the sunlight, causing shade. Energy crops that grow well 
in shade or diffuse light are therefore preferable in APV systems. Ease of production is also 
an important factor. Crops that require less frequent agricultural operations, such as perennial 
crops, are preferred because operations near or under PV arrays bring an associated risk of 
damaging  the  PV  system.  Agricultural  operations  generally  entail  seeding,  cutting  and 
ploughing. Heavy machinery and farming equipment are normally required for these activities. 
The types of crops cultivated in APV facilities worldwide are all food crops and consist of winter 
wheat,  maize,  watermelon,  potato,  onion,  rice,  and  more  (Weselek,  2019).  At  the  time  of 
writing, we are not aware of an APV facility cultivating energy crops.  

Figure 17 Configuration of PV arrays in APV Research Plant in Heggelbach, Germany (left). 

Figure 18 Raspberry farm with PV arrays as protective roof. Babberich, the Netherlands 
(right). 

Practical examples 
There have been several APV pilot studies. For example, one in Heggelbach, Germany, run 
by Fraunhofer ISE, aims to learn about the interaction between bioenergy and solar energy in 
different  set-ups,  such  as  the  one  in  Figure  1754.  Preliminary  results  show  that  vegetation 
behind PV arrays have a cooling effect and can therefore be beneficial for the PV efficiency. 
Some crops also tend to grow better in shady conditions, which the PV arrays naturally create. 

In  Babberich  in  the  Netherlands,  an  APV  pilot  project  is  currently  underway  at  a  raspberry 
farm.55 Different types of PV technologies are being tested as a protective roof for raspberry 
farming    (Figure  18).  The  preliminary  results  show  a  slight  decrease  in  the  production  of 
berries,  but  this  decrease  is  minimised  with  the  semi-transparent  PV  technology.  In  the 
reference case, berry farmers use plastic covers to establish diffuse light conditions. These 

54 APV Research Plant (2016), Fraunhofer ISE, http://www.agrophotovoltaik.de/english/research-site  
55  ‘Frambozen  gedijen  onder  zonnepanelen’,  Nieuwe  Oogst  (2019),  Zachtfruitteler  Piet  Albers, 
https://www.nieuweoogst.nl/nieuws/2019/09/27/frambozen-gedijen-onder-zonnepanelen 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

covers need to be replaced and can be destroyed by storms, generating a substantial waste 
stream. 

Barriers 
A potential barrier for the integration of agriculture and large PV systems is the risk of damage 
to the PV equipment. In addition, a more spacious setup for the PV arrays to enable agricultural 
practices will lead to a lower surface power (production) density. This means a lower yield of 
solar  PV  electricity  production  per  hectare.  Because  the  cost  of  land  is  an  important  cost 
component for large PV systems, this could be a serious barrier. To make energy crop APV 
financially feasible, the extra revenue stream from the energy crop production would have to 
outweigh the loss in PV electricity.  

Currently, electricity from APV systems does not enjoy feed-in tariffs in the EU-28, except in 
France,  which  makes  APV  not  price  competitive  in  the  EU-28.56  The  cost  price  (LCOE)  of 
electricity from APV systems is currently between 7-10 eurocents per kwh, which is significantly 
higher than the average LCOE for state-of-the-art (utility scale) ground-mounted PV systems 
(under 5 eurocents per kwh) (Jäger-Waldau, 2019). Extra infrastructural components in APV 
systems such as steel beams and concrete poles are the main reasons for the increased costs 
of  the  electricity  produced.  Additionally,  there  could  be  higher  transaction  costs  for  APV 
systems  compared  to  the  usual  large  PV  systems,  as more  (and  different)  players  need  to 
interact and collaborate, which could incur more management costs. The ownership of land 
can also be an issue and a potential barrier for energy crop production in APV. Owners would 
have to allow for APV to be integrated into the agricultural operations of the farmer. From the 
perspective  of  PV  developers,  energy  crop  farmers  would  have  to  be  invited  to  integrate 
agricultural operations onto their (leased) land.  

Finally, the recent growth in societal resistance to large PV systems due to a lack of ecological 
integration and adverse landscape impacts, could also be valid for APV systems. APV systems 
do integrate with agricultural lands, but can change the landscape aesthetics significantly.  

Opportunities 
The integration of energy crops into large PV systems can increase the value of land, which is 
a great opportunity in densely populated areas in the EU-28. The dual land use provides an 
extra revenue stream which could improve the economics of both large PV systems and energy 
crop  farming.  The  total  operational  costs  will  probably  be  lower,  since  some  of  the  cost 
components can be shared.56 APV systems could therefore have a dampening effect on the 
farmer’s financial risks of crop failure. Vegetation cooling the PV arrays from behind improves 
PV efficiency57, and PV arrays can protect crops from direct sunlight and from extreme drought, 
heat, hail and rain. An associated opportunity in this beneficial interaction is that PV arrays are 
likely  to have a dampening  effect  on  the  farmer’s  risks  of  crop failure, since  PV  arrays can 
shield crops from extreme drought, heat, hail and rain. Some APV pilot projects experiment 
with  food  crops  that  require  diffuse  light  in  ideal  growing  circumstances.  Results  show  that 
some crops perform better under (semi-transparent) PV arrays compared to a reference case 
without a roof. Currently these crops are grown under a plastic cover to create diffuse light. 
These covers need to be replaced (bi-)yearly and can be damaged by storms.   

APV systems could also offer ecological value, such as the protection of pollinator health by 
providing  a  temporary  resting  place  and  food  source.  Furthermore,  APV  systems  could 
potentially  be  used  as  a  cost-effective  method  to restore degraded  soil, in arid  or  semi-arid 

56 According to experts associated with Heggelbach APV pilot study.  
57 
operation/effect-of-temperature 

‘Effect  of  Temperature’,  PVeducation.org,  https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/solar-cell-

120 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

land.  The protective  characteristics  of  PV  arrays  (shade,  evaporation  reduction,  and so on) 
can lead to an improved growing environment. Although the extra construction material like 
steel beams and concrete inflicts a significant higher carbon footprint per kWh of produced PV 
electricity, overall this could be counteracted by the ability of carbon capturing by the crop in 
an APV system. Thus, from a system perspective, an APV system with energy crops could 
have a lower carbon footprint than a usual large PV system. 

Summary of main barriers and opportunities 

Barriers 

Opportunities 

The investment costs of APV costs are significantly 
higher than utility-scale PV systems.  

APV  systems  show  great  potential  to  increase 
the value of land.  

Electricity from APV systems is currently not price 
competitive due to higher installation cost. 

The  area  potential  for  APV  in  EU-28  is  large, 
around half a million hectares.  

Uncertainty about the ownership of land can hinder 
the implementation of APV systems. 

APV could be used to restore degraded soils, on 
arid or semi-arid land. 

PV arrays can protect crops from direct sunlight 
and  from  extreme  drought,  heat,  hail  and  rain. 
APV  systems  could 
the 
farmer’s risks of crop failure. 

therefore  reduce 

Vegetation  cooling  the  PV  arrays  from  below 
improves PV efficiency.57 

From a system perspective, an APV system with 
energy crops could have a lower carbon footprint 
than a usual large PV system. 

Policy recommendations 

•  Target PV developers with new policies rather than farmers, as this is expected to be 
more fruitful.58 Usually farmers follow market trends and APV electricity currently is not 
price competitive.  

•  To  make  APV  competitive,  stimulating  policies  and  quality  standards  are  needed  to 
subsidise  electricity  from  APV  systems  in  the  first  phases  of  technological 
development.  This  could  make  large-scale  APV  commercially  viable  and  possibly 
independent of subsidy schemes in future.  

•  Standards and quality norming are needed to establish trust and avoid safety issues of 
APV systems. Fraunhofer ISE is working on an APV standard, due in summer 2020, 
which needs international support and governmental approval to be fully effective.  
•  Create more financial incentives (instruments) in the PV market to integrate agricultural 
operations into large PV systems, as these incentives seem to be lacking. To establish 
this,  legislative  guidance  around  ownership  or  collaboration  between  PV  developers 
and farmers could be useful. 

•  Offer legislative guidance around ownership of land or facilitate collaboration between 
PV  developers  and  farmers.  From  the  perspective  of  PV  developers,  farmers  would 
have to be invited to integrate agricultural operations onto their (leased) land.  

58 According to experts associated with Heggelbach APV pilot study. 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

•  The lack of ecological integration into conventional large PV systems and landscape 
impacts have led to recently societal resistance. Anticipating this trend by endorsing 
recent  efforts  around  new  guidelines  or  European  policy  is  recommended.  APV 
systems may have less public resistance in the EU-28. This has not yet been studied.  

5.4.3.  Case study: energy crops on closed landfills 

General context 
Growing energy crops on closed landfills can be financially viable, scalable and could aid in 
the remediation of contaminated soils. Without the need for (semi-)permanent infrastructure, it 
can also serve as a temporary short to mid-term activity, while waiting for possible remediation 
or removal plans for the landfill.  

The  total  land  area  of  closed  landfills  is  expected  to  be  large  but  scattered.  According  to 
Eurostat data, the EU-28 has about 1,483 closed landfill sites.59 About 87% (1,293) of these 
contain non-hazardous waste, 4% (61) contain hazardous waste, and 9% (131) were used to 
dispose inert waste. Older landfills tend to be filled with municipal solid waste and often lack 
any  environmental  protection  technology  (Hernández  Parrodi  et  al.,  2019).  As  landfilling  is 
considered  to  be  the  least  preferable  option  for  waste  disposal,  it  should  be  limited  to  the 
necessary minimum.60 It is expected that the remaining operational landfills will close in the 
coming decades. The need for landfilling is also expected to reduce, as clear targets for waste 
reduction, management and recycling are set in the revised legislative proposal on waste.61  

The most common way of closing a landfill has been to cover the surface with a layer of clay, 
sand or dirt. Closures of modern landfills, after the EU Landfill Directive of 1999/31/EC, have 
additional requirements to reduce negative effects on the environment. After closure, a landfill 
site often needs to be monitored for decades to ensure environmental safety. There are a few 
options  for  closed  landfills,  from  doing  nothing,  remediation  activities,  to  landfill  mining  (for 
recovering resources).  

The  Landfill  Directive  allows  the  EU-28  to  organise  their  own  waste  management  and 
organisational  bodies  to  manage  the  responsibilities  on  waste  disposal.  Therefore, 
maintenance, monitoring, and control of landfills and its potential hazards can be performed 
by different parties alongside the (former) operator of the landfill. The distribution of these tasks 
can be different for each Member State, but in most cases the responsibility is placed with local 
governments. Temporary use of the area is possible and can increase economic and societal 
value, until the local government decides on the final outcome of a closed landfill (for example, 
remediation  or  incineration)  (van  Liedekerke  et  al.,  2014).  A  viable  and  scalable  option  for 
temporary use is the production of energy crops on top of the cover layer.  

Order of magnitude estimate for EU potential 
The EU-28  has  about  1,483 closed landfill  sites,  according  to  Eurostat  data  in 2016.  Some 
sources indicate a higher number of closed landfills, in the range of 150,000-500,000. Many of 

59 Eurostat, ‘Number and capacity of recovery and disposal facilities by NUTS 2 regions [env_wasfac].’ 
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wasfac&lang=en 
60 European Commission on Environment and Waste.  
  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm 
61 European Commission, Review of Waste Policy and Legislation.   
  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/target_review.htm 

122 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

these are historic62 and have been closed for many decades or even centuries. Some of the 
closed landfills have been reclaimed by urban areas, recreational areas, restored to natural 
land, or are now part of the built environment. This is understandable since many landfills are 
situated in semi-urban areas.63 For reasons of simplicity and reliability, the order of magnitude 
estimate for the EU potential of energy crops on closed landfills is based on the Eurostat data. 
Using insights from the Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM), 40% of closed landfills are 
smaller than 1 ha, 50% are average-sized (1-10 ha) and 10% are large (over 10 ha) (OVAM, 
2013). Assuming an average size of 3 ha per closed landfill, this implies a total potential of 
about  4,500 ha  in the  EU-28.  However,  the OVAM  numbers  are  based on  modern  and  old 
landfills combined. Also, being a comparatively small country, it is unlikely the proportions of 
the Belgium case represent the situation in the rest of Europe accurately.  

The largest landfill in Europe was Malagrotta in Italy, at around 275 ha, which was closed in 
2013.64 The Vinča landfill, situated next to Belgrade, is about 68 ha.65 Large landfills are most 
commercially attractive for energy crop production due to scaling advantages. Due to a lack of 
accurate estimates for the surface area of the average modern (closed) landfill in the EU-28, 
we estimate it to be about 10 ha, in line with the sizing groups of OVAM (2013). The order of 
magnitude estimate for the EU-28 potential for energy crops on closed landfills is thus about 
15,000 ha. When including all currently open landfills into the equation as well (6,043 in total), 
the potential is about 60,000 ha.  

Preferred characteristics for energy crops  
There are several specific landfill features that could determine the selection of appropriate 
crops to grow on closed landfill sites. Ideally, energy crop production on closed landfills is a 
temporary  measure  until  permanent  remediation  can  be  carried  out  effectively.  Water  and 
groundwater access might be problematic, since landfill sites are often situated in an elevated 
position in the landscape, can contain a membrane, and are therefore dependent on rainfall. 
Also, the soil can be contaminated which can affect crop growth.  

The selected crops should therefore be tolerant to certain contaminants and, if possible, they 
may also function to bioremediate certain polluting substances from the sites. Perennial crops 
may be preferred on landfills that cannot afford topsoil losses (due to erosion or ploughing) in 
order  to  protect  the  landfill’s  cover  layer.  Perennial  crops  can  increase  biological  carbon 
sequestration  and  reduce  waterway  pollution  through  preventing  agricultural  runoff.  An 
important feature in the selection of crops is the compatibility with the local processing industry 
to add further value to the crop. Landfill sites mainly are situated near urban or industrial areas. 
Previously, energy producers have considered miscanthus produced on landfills as feedstock 
for bioenergy. 

62  In  line  with  the  Environment  Agency  for  England,  the  definition  for  historic  landfills  is:  ‘A  historic 
(closed)  landfill  site  is  one  where  there  is  no  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control  permit  or  waste 
management licence currently in force’.  
63 EU Landfill Policy and LF Directive (2019). 
https://www.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1551688415.pdf 
64  Size  of  largest  landfills  as  of  2019:  https://www.statista.com/statistics/530481/largest-dump-sites-
worldwide  
65 https://www.energoinfo.com/listing/call-for-final-bids-for-belgrades-largest-landfill-vinca  

123 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Practical examples 
There are several ongoing pilot projects, such as NEW MINE66, RAWFILL67 and COCOON68, 
on  remediating  or  recycling  closed  landfills.  These  efforts  have  mainly  focused  on 
methodologies  for  enhanced  landfill  mining  and  not  on  the  integration  of  energy  crop 
production  on  top  of  the  cover  layer.  However,  plants  are  considered  one  of  the  low-cost 
remediation strategies for landfills with low to medium concentrations of pollutants, so that the 
phytotoxicity remains low and crops/plants can grow. Furthermore, the plant yield can serve 
as a temporary source of income until other measures are taken.  

Figure 19 FCC Environment reaps energy from landfill sites 

Waste  companies  such  as  FCC69  have  already  demonstrated  the  feasibility  of  energy  crop 
production  on  closed  landfills  through  projects  growing  miscanthus  in  the  UK  to  supply  the 
DRAX  power  plant  (Figure  19)70.  Alongside  pilot  studies,  studies  have  been  undertaken  of 
energy  crops  on  landfills,  such  as  by  Pivato,  Garbo,  and  Moretto  (2018).  They  found  that 
energy  crop  production  is  slightly  economic  attractive  and  can  decrease  the  leaching  of 
pollutants due to enhanced evapotranspiration.  

Barriers 
A potential barrier to the production of energy crops on closed landfills is the existence of other 
plans  for these landfills, such  as  remediation or enhanced landfill  mining.  As  Europe  works 
towards a more circular economy, there is an increasing push for policies such as a ‘regulatory 
framework for enhanced landfill mining as to permit the retrieval of secondary raw materials 
that are present in existing landfills’ (Hernández Parrodi et al., 2019). Energy crop production 
can still take place, but as a temporary use. Energy crops could still be grown after secondary 
raw materials are removed from landfills, but this is not always likely, as the land could then 
also become available for other purposes.  

A  practical  barrier  could  be  the  degree  of  dispersion  of  landfills  over  a  region  or  country. 
Agricultural farms (economically optimised) can have large plots of land, often several tens of 
hectares and in the vicinity of other plots of agricultural land and related infrastructure. Landfills 
are  rather  dispersed,  and  most  are  only  a  few  hectares  in  size.  Crops  on  landfills  could 
therefore have higher operational costs than crops on agricultural land, resulting in a reduced 

Consortium 

66 NEW-MINE: https://new-mine.eu/project   
67  RAWFILL:  https://www.nweurope.eu/projects/project-search/supporting-a-new-circular-economy-for-
raw-materials-recovered-from-landfills  
68 
https://www.interregeurope.eu/cocoon  
69 FCC Environment is one of the UK’s leading waste and resource management companies. 
70  Energy  Crops  Harvested 
world.com/a/energy-crops-harvested-from-fcc-landfill-sites  

(2013).  https://waste-management-

from  FCC  Landfill  Sites 

Management 

European 

Coherent 

Landfill 

Strategy: 

for 

a 

124 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

business  case.  As  well  as  to  potential  higher  operational  costs,  bioenergy  production 
installations usually require considerable and constant supplies of feedstock. If the biomass is 
too  dispersed  and  spread  over  large  distances,  logistics  and  transport  costs  are  likely  to 
increase. 

The cover layer of closed landfills might be contaminated by pollutants such as heavy metals 
which  can  negatively  affect  the  biomass  chemistry  and  restrict  suitability  for  bioenergy  or 
biofuel application (Dastyar et al., 2019). Non-food applications of the biomass may be the only 
feasible option. Another barrier to the cultivation of energy crops is the potential absence of 
fertile soil in the cover layer. The soil might need treatment to improve its quality and ensure 
sufficient yields, which would inflict extra costs. With persistent low-quality soil, yields could fall 
short and impact on the economic feasibility. 

Opportunities 
The cultivation of bioenergy crops on closed landfills has several opportunities or unique selling 
points. First, landfills are marginal lands with serious restrictions in new (spatial) zoning plans. 
As  food  production  is  not  allowed  on  former  landfills  due  to  safety  regulations,  and  the 
construction  of  new  permanent  buildings  might  be  dangerous  due  to  instability  and 
contaminated soil, energy crop production might be one of the most useful temporary purposes 
for closed landfills. It does not hinder a potential future decision for enhanced resource mining 
or remediation of that landfill, as very limited infrastructural modifications are needed, if any.  

Infrastructure for  supplying  biomass  feedstock to  the  rest  of  its  supply  chain  is  essential  to 
keep transport costs low and landfills are most likely well integrated with road infrastructure 
since they needed to be accessed by lorries carrying waste to landfill sites.  

There  are  scientific  insights  on  the  remediation  effect  of  biomass  on  contaminated  lands 
(Pivato, Garbo, and Moretto, 2018; Garbo et al., 2017). As well as the gradual extraction of 
pollutants,  vegetation  could  also  decrease  the  leaching  of  polluted  water  due  to  enhanced 
evapotranspiration.  

Summary of main barriers and opportunities 

Barriers 

Opportunities 

Soil pollutants and poor soil quality could 
lead to low yields or biomass quality issues.  

Energy crop production on closed landfills is an ideal 
temporarily  use  until  more  permanent  solutions  are 
found for remediation.  

Operational  costs  are  expected  to  be 
relatively  high  due  to  smaller  and  sub-
optimal  geometry  of  the  patches  and 
necessary soil fertility treatment.  

The accessibility of closed landfills is a great benefit 
to their integration into supply chains.  

Energy crops could remediate the soil and prevent or 
decrease  environmental  risks  associated  with  closed 
landfills like leakage.  

Policy recommendations 

•  The EC  has  acknowledged that  a vision  for  managing  Europe’s  landfills  is  required. 
The  COCOON  project  (under  INTERREG  Europe),  among  other  things,  proposes 
improvements to existing policy instruments to stimulate landfill mining. There is merit 

125 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

in ensuring energy crop production is included in this European effort as a temporary 
option for closed landfills which are currently not being used for other purposes.  
•  There  is  currently  no  uniform  European  governance  structure  on  the  ownership, 
maintenance, monitoring, and control of landfills in the EU-28 Member States. In many 
EU  countries  the  execution  and  costs  for  monitoring  a  closed  landfill  are  publicly 
managed. The introduction of a European governance structure could therefore ease 
the utilisation of the closed landfills.  

•  Establishing a value chain for the biomass produced on closed landfills is crucial for 

commercial viability. Policy instruments could aid in establishing this.  

•  European  landfill  management  could  offer  opportunities  for  circular  economy  and 

additional land potential to avoid competition with current food/feed production.  

•  The pollutants in the soil cover layer of closed landfills can be taken up by crops. The 
current quality criteria for new biomass feedstocks might be a barrier for demand for 
landfill biomass, as heavy metals or other pollutants could be taken up by the energy 
crop.  The  possibilities  for  leeway  in  this  legislation  to  remove  this  barrier  could  be 
assessed, recognizing the differences in quality criteria needed for food crops and non-
food crops. 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

6.  MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  

6.1. 

Introduction 

This  chapter  presents  the  study’s  main  conclusions,  following  up  systematically  on  the  six 
study objectives: 

•  To provide, based on most recent statistical and scientific data, the area of UAA in all 
EU-28 countries at present and an evaluation of how this area has evolved since 1975. 
•  To provide the most recent statistical data, scientific and EU case study evidence on 
declines in agricultural land in the EU countries and the reasons why agricultural land 
becomes unused, abandoned and degraded.  

•  To  support  the  Commission  in  proposing  policies  that  can  reverse  this  trend  of 

agricultural land becoming unused, abandoned and degraded.  

•  To  support  the  Commission  in  proposing  policies  aimed  at  reclaiming  unused, 
abandoned  and  degraded  agricultural  land  and  putting  it  under  active  biomass 
production for energy and other non-food uses. 

•  To  review  recent  data  and  scientific  evidence  to  identify  different  types  of  non-
agricultural land in the EU that could potentially be used for active biomass production 
for energy and other non-food uses. 

•  To support the Commission in proposing policies aiming at reclaiming non-agricultural 

land for active biomass production for energy and other non-food uses. 

6.2.  Actual UAA and changes in UAA since 1975  

Here we present the results under the first study objectives, to provide, based on most recent 
statistical and scientific data, the current area of UAA in all EU-28 countries and an evaluation 
of  how  this  area  has  evolved  since  1975;  and  to  provide  the  most  recent  statistical  data, 
scientific and EU case study evidence on declines in agricultural land in the EU countries. 

According to the Eurostat-FSS definition, the UAA is ‘the total area taken up by arable land, 
permanent grassland, permanent crops and kitchen gardens used by the holding, regardless 
of the type of tenure or of whether it is used as a part of common land’. AA consists of the UAA 
plus NUAA and SAA. The FA is the largest area, and consists of AA plus wooded area (WA) 
and other land (FA9), which is farmland occupied by buildings, farmyards, tracks, ponds, and 
so on. 

In spite of the changes in definitions and recording of data on the various components of UAA 
over time, and the variations permitted to Member States for recording certain agricultural land 
categories, the FSS database is a relatively uniform source of data that can be accessed to 
determine the actual UAA for EU countries and regions and historic changes in UAA. However, 
for data on UAA for some countries’ pre-EU accession period, we also used FAOSTAT data. 
FAOSTAT data on agricultural lands follow a relatively similar definition as Eurostat FSS for 
the sub-categories of UAA. Since Member States are also responsible for providing data to 
FAO, it is likely that they are based on similar national data sources as used to report data to 
Eurostat.  

Other EU-wide data sources, such as FADN, IACS-LPIS and spatial sources, were considered 
less suitable to obtain data on actual UAA. FADN has a much lower representation of small 
farms, IACS-LPIS registers AA, but is not consistent with the FSS definitions applied for UAA 
sub-categories, and representation of farmland is limited to potentially CAP-eligible areas. 

127 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

The best source of information to determine actual UAA and historical changes in UAA in the 
total  EU-28  at  the  country  and  region  level  is  therefore  the  Eurostat  FSS  database,  in 
conjunction with FAOSTAT data. Analysing these data allowed the following conclusions to be 
reached regarding UAA.  

Actual UAA and changes in UAA 2005-2016 
In the period between 2005 and 2016, actual UAA remained relatively stable, with an average 
level of 1,737,200 km2, with a peak in 2010 of 1,758,150 km2. The FA and AA showed a slight 
decline in this period, of -2% and -1%, respectively. The difference between the UAA and the 
AA suggests that around 5% of farmland is unused agricultural land, defined by Eurostat as 
‘common land that is unused’. The difference of around 15% between the AA and the FA is 
mostly  made  up  of  wooded  areas,  which  also  include  SRC  areas,  and  other  land,  which  is 
occupied by buildings, farmyards, tracks, ponds, but does not belong to the farm area.  

In this 10-year period, within the UAA arable land and permanent cropland declined in both 
absolute and relative terms, while the permanent grassland area increased, at least until 2010.  
This  does  not  reflect  a  real  increase  in  permanent  grasslands,  but  rather  be  a  result  of  an 
adjustment  in  2010  in  the  inclusion  of  common  land  in  FSS.  Since  common  land  often 
coincides with permanent grasslands this leads to large increases in this area, in especially 
Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia, Austria, Romania, Ireland and the UK. Therefore apparent changes 
in permanent pasture area need to be treated with great caution and changes in UAA data as 
a whole either side of 2010 are less accurate for this reason alone. However, data since 2010 
might be more reliable.  

For this same 2005-2016 period, the changes in UAA at country or regional levels were more 
extreme than for the EU-28 as a whole. The largest declines in UAA  (more than 10%) occurred 
in Cyprus  (-26%)  and  Austria (-18%).  Countries with more modest  declines  were  Romania, 
Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal 
and Finland. The largest increases in UAA (more than 10%) were in Bulgaria (64%), Estonia 
(20%), Ireland (16%), Greece (14%), Croatia (60%) and Latvia (13%). Smaller increases were 
seen  for  France,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Slovenia,  Slovakia,  the  UK,  Hungary,  and  Malta. 
Countries  with  declining  arable  and  permanent  cropland  areas  are  more  common  than 
countries with declines in permanent grassland areas. The declines in the first two categories 
are  likely  to  be  more  reliable  than  the  increases  in  permanent  grasslands,  for  the  reasons 
outlined above. 

Long-term changes in UAA 1975-2016 
The  total  decline  in  UAA  between  1975  and  2016  for  all  EU-28  countries  (for  three  Baltic 
States, between 1990 and 2016), amounts to almost 360,000 km2. This relates to 18% of the 
UAA  area  in  1975.  Declines  were  seen  in  all  countries  in  this  period.  The  largest  declines 
occurred in Bulgaria (-25%), Czechia (-23%), Estonia (-27%), Greece (-20%), Spain (-27%), 
Croatia (-30%), Italy (-29%), Cyprus (-38%), Latvia (-24%), Hungary (-31%), Poland (-25%), 
Slovenia (-45%) and Slovakia (-35%). Medium declines in UAA (> -20% to -10%) occurred in 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  Ireland,  France,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Austria, 
Romania,  Finland,  Sweden  and  the  UK.  Small  declines  in  UAA  (-10%  to  0%)  occurred  in 
Luxembourg  and  Portugal.  At  the  regional  level  the  largest  declines  (>-25%)  were  seen  in 
northern  Sweden,  Estonia,  Galicia,  Madrid,  Valencia,  Alicante,  Castellon,  Provence-Alpes, 
Languedoc-Roussillon,  most  Italian  regions,  southern  Austrian  regions,  and  all  regions  in 
Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Croatia.  

Industrialisation,  the  development  of  markets  for  agricultural  products,  and  urbanisation 
characterised changes in agricultural land use in most non-CEE EU countries. In most of the 
CEE  countries  the  decline  was  particularly  large  between  1990-2005,  directly  after  the 
conversion  from  communist  to  market  economies,  when  large  state  farms  ceased  to  exist, 

128 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

markets collapsed, and agricultural production decreased tremendously. It takes a long time 
to bring these lands back into agricultural use by either returning the land to its original owner, 
or  renting  or  selling  it  to  people/companies  who  want  to  farm  it.  This  gradual  process  of 
returning land to agricultural use and accession to EU explains most of the large increase in 
UAA in some CEE countries in the 2005-2016 period, such as in Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia 
and Latvia, but also at more modest level in Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Hungary. Over 
the whole 1975-2016 period, the decline in UAA is still large in these countries, indicating that 
a large propotion of land has not been brought back to agriculture and could have become 
forest  with  or  without  productive  management,  shrubland  with  no  use,  nature  conservation 
areas, or urban areas.  

6.3.  Main drivers for land abandonment in agricultural lands in EU-28 

Here we present the results under the second study objective, which is to provide literature 
and EU case study evidence on drivers for declines in agricultural land in the EU-28 and the 
reasons why agricultural land becomes unused, abandoned and degraded.  

The literature review suggests that these transitions in land use are caused by combinations 
of  drivers  which  develop(ed)  from  different  historical  and  geopolitical  contexts.  In  Western 
Europe  the  main  socio-economic  contexts  in  which  abandonment  took  place  were 
industrialisation, the development of markets for agricultural products, and urbanisation which 
led to changes in agricultural land use and demographic changes in rural areas. In Central and 
Eastern Europe, the change of political systems after the collapse of the Soviet Union triggered 
abandonment  of  agricultural  land,  mainly  due  to  reform  of  the  agricultural  sector  and  the 
redistribution  of  land.  After  this  the  access  to  the  EU  agricultural  markets  influenced  the 
agricultural land use strongly.  

When looking specifically at drivers for agricultural land abandonment we found more widely 
applicable  drivers  of  agricultural  land  abandonment  which  are  unfavourable  agro-ecological 
conditions and socio-economic drivers operating at the level of farm holdings and regions. In 
the  EU-28,  29%  of  the  agricultural  area  is  marginal,  occurring  mainly  in  rural  areas. 
Mechanisation and modernisation of agricultural practice has induced abandonment in areas 
where  it  was  not  possible  to  deploy  these.  Mountain  areas  are  particularly  sensitive  to 
agricultural land abandonment.  

From the literature it also became clear that socio-cultural motivations explain on the one side 
the  maintenance  of  agriculture  in  regions  where  it  is  not  economically  viable,  sometimes 
manifesting in hidden land abandonment, while on the other side productivity gains elsewhere 
and employment opportunities in other sectors may lead to the abandonment of agricultural 
land  and  reduction  of  agricultural  land  use.  Declines  in  rural  population  are  a  key  driver  of 
agricultural  land  abandonment  in  many  parts  of  the  EU,  not  only  in  the  CEE  countries. 
Accessibility and the level of rural infrastructure were other key factors for maintaining land in 
agricultural use and keeping populations in rural areas. 

Drivers from policy appeared less prominent, except for the CAP, the main policy influencing 
the use and management of agricultural land. This policy can both reduce and increase drivers 
of  agricultural  land  abandonment.  An  increasing  effect  was  attributed  to  definitions  of 
agricultural land by Member States that determine eligibility for direct payments.  

In the nine regional case studies interviewed experts estimated that in most cases less than 
5% of the agricultural area appeared to have been subject to forms of abandonment. The land 
that  was  abandoned  in  the  past  20  years  was  mostly  in  use  as  arable  land  or  permanent 
grassland, and it was often marginal land. This explains why specific locations experienced 

129 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

more  abandonment,  such as hilly  or mountainous  areas  in remote locations  or  in protected 
areas under the Natura 2000 regulation. These types of land were also considered likely to 
become abandoned in the near future. The vegetation development seen after abandonment 
was of shrubs and combinations with trees or grassland. Some case studies confirmed that 
agricultural land near urban centres is also subject to abandonment in some rural areas, where 
conversion to built-up land is generating benefits and the population is leaving in search for 
employment.  

The nine case studies suggest that the main drivers for agricultural land becoming unused or 
abandoned were socio-economic in character, operating either at the level of the farm holding 
or the region. The most important drivers at the farm level are the profitability of holdings, the 
productivity of the land for crops and livestock, production costs, fragmentation of farmland, 
and issues with land tenure and ownership. Agriculture as an economic sector is becoming 
less profitable in all case study regions except the Basse-Normandie region. This enhances 
the  trend  of  young  people  leaving  rural  areas.  Interest  in  agricultural  land  was  reported  for 
investment, construction, recreational use and afforestation. Depopulation of rural areas was 
the  most  frequently  mentioned  driver  at  the  regional  level,  in  all  cases  associated  with  an 
ageing population of landowners that remain. These were reported to lead to a shortage of 
both skilled and unskilled agricultural labour, an uneven distribution of income, employment 
and investments in the region and poverty.  

In contrast to what the literature reports, natural constraints for agricultural land use and land 
degradation were not the most important drivers for agricultural land abandonment in the case 
study regions, although they were mentioned in all regions. In some regions, land degradation 
was mentioned as reinforcing abandonment, or being expected to do so in the future under 
changing climate conditions. In some regions land degradation was reported to be induced by 
use and management of agricultural land in place (soil erosion, soil organic matter decline) or 
originate from external sources (contamination, salinisation due to sea level rise). In only a few 
case study regions does agricultural land abandonment lead to land degradation, in the form 
of wildfires and soil erosion. 

Also, in the case study regions few drivers from policy for agricultural land abandonment were 
identified, but if mentioned they related to support payments under the CAP. In principle it was 
acknowledged that they did help keeping land in agricultural production. At the same time it 
was  also  mentioned  that  national  policies  to  support  agricultural  production  and  rural 
development  were  not  sufficient  to  keep  all  agricultural  land  in  production.  Also,  a  deficient 
land administration  or  cadastral  system  was mentioned in  several regions  as  a reason  why 
lands are becoming unused or are not brought back into agricultural use.  

In most case study regions, the drivers described for land becoming unused, abandoned and 
degraded are expected to continue in the future. In Sicily and Soria the expectation was also 
for  decreasing  trends of  land  abandonment  due  to a strategic  interest  in  self-sufficiency for 
food production, and in renewable energy production as an opportunity to revitalise rural areas. 

6.4.  Data gaps and data needs for detecting land abandonment 

The only  data  source  that maps  abandonment  status  of  lands  directly  (by  surveyors  on the 
ground) is LUCAS. In the LUCAS system one category of land registered as a separate land 
cover class is ‘fallow and abandoned land’. ‘Fallow’ land includes all crop land not included in 
the crop rotation for at least one year. ‘Abandoned lands’ are defined as ‘all agricultural land 
that is set aside for a long-term’. LUCAS also registers agricultural land, and since the survey 
is  repeated  every  three  to  five  years  trends  in  agricultural  land  use  can  also  be  detected. 

130 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

LUCAS data is however, limited in that it is point information collected in a sample. This point 
information  is  scaled-up  to  a  total  area  share  per  region  (NUTS  1,2  3  levels).  The  precise 
location of the abandoned lands is not mapped in LUCAS. It therefore gives a good indication 
of how much land abandonment there is roughly per region, country and land cover class, but 
does not map the precise location of abandoned lands or the spatial extent. 

A check on registration of unused, abandoned or degraded lands in the case study regions 
showed that fallow  land is  the  only  unused  category  registered  in  most  national  agricultural 
statistical sources and refers to the fallow land that is part of the rotation. Registration of this 
category is logical as it also needs to be reported as a separate category to Eurostat for FSS. 
In Latvia and the Bulgarian Blagoevgrad region the share of land that could be categorized as 
‘unused’ could be estimated by subtracting the area that was registered as ‘agricultural land’   
and ‘used agricultural land’. In data this could be done. This explicit registration of used land 
is in line with what Eurostat also asks Member States to report to make a distinction between 
AA and UAA, but Eurostat-FSS defines this difference as ‘unused common land’ only, while in 
the 2 example case studies is refers to all agricultural land irrelevant of whether it is common 
land.  In the Romanian Brasov region the registration of ‘Degraded and unproductive lands’ 
was reported. It is likely that part of this land overlaps with the REDII definition of degraded 
land.  The registration of this type of land was not seen in the other case studies.   

Overall, we conclude that unused, abandoned and degraded lands, certainly as defined in the 
REDII are not registered in any EU wide or national data sources. 

The main reason for not registering land that goes out of production and becomes abandoned 
or degraded is because it then also loses agricultural land status and is therefore no longer 
registered  in  agricultural  statistics.  The  only  unused  land  categories  for  which  data  are 
collected refer to lands that are temporary out of use, such as fallow land or unused lands. 
However, if they are unused for a couple of years the lands lose agricultural status and are 
often no longer registered. Wider land use statistics may still cover these lands, and register 
them according to what land use or land cover it has become. This can be forest, urban, nature 
conservation  area,  lands  with  shrubs,  or  bare  land.  It  then  becomes  very  challenging  to 
understand whether these lands relate to former abandoned or degraded agricultural lands. 
Land use and land cover data is therefore needed, on which spatial flow analysis needs to be 
undertaken.  

The  Corine  Land  Cover  flow  analysis  example,  enabling  the  comparison  of  land  use  in  a 
precise location in different time periods, yielded some information on the types of conversions 
from agricultural land to other land covers. The limitation of the CLC flow analysis is that it only 
identifies flows that are dominant in terms of land cover, those that are large in area coverage. 
Small area changes are missed. This is related to the coarse spatial resolution of the satellite 
data that CLC uses, that have a minimum mapping unit of 25 ha and which means that detailed 
spatial  information  is  lost.  Therefore,  small  abandoned  fields  become  part  of  the  mosaic 
classes in CLC, making their identification from the CLC impossible if additional data are not 
used.  

Another  reason  why  data  detecting  abandoned  lands  are  missing  is  because  it  involves  a 
gradual  process  of  transition  from  agricultural  land  to  shrubs  and  eventually  forest.  It  is 
therefore very difficult to determine when land has become abandoned completely or when it 
is still managed, if trying to detect abandonment based on land cover data alone. Usually a 
combination  of  statistical  and  different  spatial  data  sources  is  needed  from  different  time 
periods providing information on land use, land management and land cover. 

In spite of this there are options to improve the detection and registration of abandoned and 
unused lands. To identify farmland abandonment and also land degradation the parcel level 
should be the starting point as this is the spatial level at which this process takes place. One 

131 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

parcel  can  be  abandoned,  while  the  next  is  managed  regularly  and  sustainably.  From  this 
perspective, some recommendations are made and presented in the next section.  

6.5.  Barriers and opportunities for growing biomass crops for energy and 
other non-food uses in unused, abandoned and degraded agricultural 
lands  

Here, we present the main conclusions regarding the types of non-food biomass crops and the 
barriers and opportunities for growing them on unused, abandoned and degraded lands. These 
barriers  and  opportunities  are  important  to  take  into  account  when  making  policy 
recommendations.  

Socio-economic opportunities of introducing new biomass crops on unused, abandoned and 
degraded lands were clearly mentioned in literature and indicate that biomass crops on unused 
lands may lead to additional income, create new employment, and can therefore improve rural 
development overall. It may also help diversify the income of farmers and create local access 
to new and clean energy resources. In the case studies confirmed the need for alternative land 
use activities within and outside agriculture, although experts differ on whether bringing back 
into use unused, abandoned and degraded agricultural lands is realistic, or if introducing new 
biomass crops is either. 

There is some development of SRC cropping in the EU (500,000 ha in 2016) but otherwise 
both in the EU wide literature and statistics little evidence exists of the wider uptake of biomass 
cropping in general let alone on types of unused, abandoned or degraded lands. The same 
applies to the situation reviewed in the 9 case studies. No mention is made of the development 
of dedicated biomass cropping for energy and other non-food purposes on unused, abandoned 
and degraded lands. Evidence for the interest in dedicated biomass crops for production in low 
productive  lands  typically  under  threat  of  abandonment  or  to  become  abandoned  is  hardly 
given in all case studies. A key reason given in literature, but also by many experts in the case 
studies, is uncertainty about its financial return, particularly because the market demand for 
biomass  crops  is  generally  not  well  developed.  This  specifically  concerns  lignocellulosic 
biomass crops most suited to be grown on abandoned and degraded lands. 

Another  issue  found  in  literature  and  confirmed  in  the  case  studies  is  that  there  are  many 
technical challenges to solve to make the land suitable (again) for agricultural use including for 
biomass cropping for non-food uses. This usually requires large investments which are usually 
not very interesting to farmers, particularly when the expectations for good economic returns 
for the crops, whether used for non-food or food applications are low.  

Beside  the  socio-economic  barriers  and  opportunities  linked  to  the  introduction  of  biomass 
crops, it was also investigated what barriers and opportunities were related to introduction of 
these biomass crops in terms of environmental risks and opportunities. The options for creating 
co-benefits  from  the  production  of  industrial  crops  on  unused,  abandoned  and/or  degraded 
lands depend very much on what type of land conversions are involved, the time between lack 
of  use  and  conversion  to  new  crops,  the  type  of  crops  used  (perennials  or  annuals),  the 
management  practices,  and  the  presence  of  other  uses  and  ecosystem  services  before 
introduction of the new crop.  

On bare (black)unused, abandoned, degraded lands the establishment of any crop that will 
create a soil cover will help stabilising the soil. However, perennial crops are more effective 
than annual crops in reducing soil erosion and building up soil carbon. The continuous ground 
coverage,  the  low  soil  disturbance,  and  the  large  rooting  systems  are  reasons  for this.  The 

132 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

same applies for agroforestry systems, particularly those that combine trees with permanent 
crops and permanent grassland, but also those combined with annual crops. Agroforestry are 
better in erosion control and overall maintenance of the soil fertility then conventional single 
forestry, cropping or single pasture systems. 

The  effect  on  soil  carbon  of  perennial  biomass  crops  and  agroforestry  systems  very  much 
depends on the land use before. Clearing and tillage of grasslands long abandoned lands with 
dense  shrub  and/or  forest  vegetation  coverage  or  wetlands,  for  the  purpose  of  perennial 
biomass crops results in serious decline in carbon (both above and below soil). These carbon 
losses  for  which  the  restoration  period  is  variable  and  depending  on  the  yield  may  not  be 
compensated within the plantation lifetime of the new perennial or agroforestry system. 

Overall, perennial biomass crops have low lower soil disturbance, year-round soil coverage 
and  deep  rooting  which  explains  very  low  nutrient  leaching  to  water.  The  deep  and  well 
branched  roots  in  all  of  these  perennials  make  that  they  hold  large  amounts  of  water  and 
nutrients. Many perennial biomass crops have an increased nitrogen uptake from air and/or 
through fine root system and/or translocation of nutrients to the root system before the crop is 
harvested.  In  perennials  water transpiration rates  are  high  and this reduces water  drainage 
and leaching. Similarly, adverse water quality effects of agroforestry systems are very limited 
as in several studies it is indicated that the use of herbicides, pesticides and nutrient inputs is 
generally lower in agroforestry systems as compared to mono-cultural cropping systems and 
intensive grazing systems. Also the deep roots of the trees make that they hold large amounts 
of water and nutrients, also those nutrients that are leached to the deeper root zone of trees 
by the annual crops grown in combination. 

Effects on water availability in drought prone areas from additional establishment of crops may 
increase unsustainable water use. This may happen when irrigation is used, but also in rainfed 
situations.  This  applies  to  annual  crops  and  also  perennials  where  deep  rooting  in  rainfed 
conditions  may  also  deplete  ground  water.  On  the  other  hand  there  are  many  annual  and 
perennial  non-food  crops that  can  cope  well  with  arid  conditions  and  may grow  where food 
crops are no longer an option. Furthermore, non-food crops can be irrigated with waste water. 
The  best  option  however  in  arid  circumstances  is  an  agroforestry  system  since  it  entails 
integrating woody with crop and/or animal production systems to create shading which reduces 
the  water  loss  through  evaporation  and  enables  higher  efficiency  in  water  use.  The  deep 
rooting  system  in  trees  and  shrubs  ensure  that  these  systems  cope  well  with  long  drought 
periods. 

In  terms  of  GHG  efficiency  the  land-based  emissions  in  the  cropping  phase  need  to  be 
considered.  Application  of  fertilisers,  manure  in  annual  crops  that  may  occurrence  of 
nitrification and denitrification in the field form N2O (and NOx) that is released to the air are 
always higher than when lands are left unused. Furthermore, annual row crops, particularly in 
temperate climates, have a long period of absence of plants and thus plant uptake of nitrogen 
which increases N2O emissions further. For perennials and agroforestry systems, even though 
they require relatively low levels of fertilisation and mechanisation, still release nitrous oxide 
and  CO2  (through  mechanisation)  to  the  atmosphere  during  cropping.  However,  perennials 
including trees in agroforestry can compensate the emissions of GHG in the cropping phase 
through the strong capture of carbon below and above ground during the plantation phase and 
also through use as alternative to fossil feedstock to avoid fossil-based emissions. 

The effects on biodiversity are very much landscape and habitat context related. It is however 
clear that any shift that takes place from unused status to an annual, perennial of agroforestry 
system will lead to higher input use and mechanisation. This will have negative implications 
for  overall  habitat  quality  in  terms  of  soil,  water  quality  on  soil  and  water  quality  and 
subsequently soil organisms. A shift from vegetated abandoned lands to rotational arable will 
diminish shelter and breeding opportunities for mammals and birds and will diminish the floristic 

133 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

diversity  that  was  present  in  the  abandoned  land.  So  any  conversion  from  unused  and 
abandoned  lands  to  crop  production  systems  should  be  avoided  when  located  in  nature 
protection and or high biodiversity areas, for example, Natura 2000 and HNV farmland. On the 
other  hand,  when  new  plantations  can  be  created  in  a  more  strategic  way  that  considers 
landscape and biodiversity context co-benefits may be possible. Some species (certain birds 
and  small  mammals)  might  profit  from  introduction  of  perennial  and  agroforestry  systems 
particularly  in  typical  open  monotonous  permanent  grassland  or  arable landscapes  as they 
provide additional new landscape structural diversity and shelter and nesting opportunities.  

6.6.  Key  characteristics  of  non-agricultural  lands  suitable  for  crops  for 

energy and other non-food uses 

In this section we present the main conclusion regarding to objective of the study to review 
recent data and scientific evidence to identify different types of non-agricultural land in the EU 
that could potentially be used for active production of biomass for energy and other non-food 
uses. Non-agricultural land can cover a wide diversity of land including land that has gone out 
of agricultural production already for a longer period (> 20 years) and has therefore progressed 
to other non-agricultural land uses. What is excluded from the analysis here however is forest 
land.  

The study started with the elaboration of a longlist of non-agricultural land categories suitable 
for biomass cropping for energy and other non-food uses with 28 categories. The longlist was 
pared down to a shortlist by removing land types that were deemed either too small in area, 
too low in practical feasibility, potentially interfering with ongoing activities or in the case that 
developing dedicated biomass cropping was not expected to become financially viable in the 
coming decades. The result was a shortlist of 13 categories of non-agricultural land that could 
be grouped into four aggregate groups, namely: (1) brownfield land, (2) abandoned agricultural 
land, (3) infrastructure landscaping and (4) combined business. For each shortlisted category, 
opportunities  and  barriers  were  identified  through  focusing  on  policy,  funding  options,  co-
benefits,  pilot  projects  or  existing  initiatives,  and  positive  public  perception.  Airport  land, 
agrophotovoltaics (APV) which are biomass crops on utility scale PV systems and biomass 
cropping on closed landfills were eventually selected as most promissing options.  For these 
the main barriers and opportunities were reviewed through literature review and interviews with 
experts.  

For  biomass  cropping on  airports  the main barriers  identified  were that farming  activities 
poses  an  additional  risk  to  aviation  activities  and  cropping  activities  may  attract  certain 
biodiversity,  birds  and  mammals  they  may  increase  collision  risks  with  airplanes.  As  to  the 
opportunities  several  were  identified.  Airport farming  could bring  additional  financial  income 
and  available  land  on  airports  is  comparatively  large  and  easily  accessible,  which  makes 
bioenergy production more (economically)feasible. Crops grown on airports could remediate 
several adverse effects of aviation operation, such as sound and chemical pollution. Crops on 
airport could also dampen the negative effects of extreme weather events (for example, high 
temperatures), reducing financial loss of delayed or cancelled aviation operations. 

For APV, the main barriers identified were investment cost which are significantly higher than 
utility scale PV systems and therefore electricity from these is currently not price competitive 
and uncertainty about the ownership of land can hinder the implementation of APV systems. 
There were also many opportunities identified. APV systems show great potential to increase 
the value of land. The area potential for APV in the EU-28 is very large around 500,000 ha. 
APV could be used to restore degraded soils, on arid or semi-arid land. PV-arrays can protect 
crops from direct sunlight and from extreme drought, heat, hail and rain and could reduce the 

134 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

farmer’s  risks  of  crop  failure.  Vegetation  cooling  the  PV  arrays  from  behind  improves  PV 
efficiency and the combination with energy crops could have a lower carbon footprint than a 
usual large PV system. 

For biomass cropping on closed landfills the barriers identified were, first, that present soil 
pollutants  and  poor  soil  quality  could  lead  to  low  yields  or  biomass  quality  issues.  Second, 
operational costs are expected to be relatively high due to smaller and sub-optimal geometry 
of the patches and necessary soil fertility treatment. The first opportunity is that biomass crop 
production on closed landfills is an ideal temporarily use until more permanent solutions are 
found  for  remediation.  Second,  accessibility  of  (closed)  landfills  is  a  great  benefit  to  its 
integration  into  supply  chains.  Third,  Energy  crops  could  remediate  the  soil  and  prevent  or 
decrease environmental risks associated with closed landfills like leakage. 

6.7.  Main  recommendations  for  filling  data  gaps  on  UAA  and  unused, 

abandoned and degraded lands 

Some improvements may still be made in the consistent registration of UAA in EU Member 
States. In the  former    we  already    concluded that  still  in the  reporting  by  national statistical 
offices to Eurostat FSS inconsistencies occur particularly in relation to minimum and maximum 
tree  cover  rules  and  also  in  relation  to  categories  of  agroforestry  areas.  It  is  therefore 
recommended  that  further  uniformity  in  tree  cover  levels  between  EU  Member  States 
determining  the  difference  between  forests  and  agricultural  areas  is  created.  With  this 
improvement it would also be strongly recommended to define more clearly agroforestry areas 
and develop clear agreement on how to register them in FSS. Either as a separate category 
of agricultural land or as part of the different sub-categories, but for this, clear rules need to be 
established for which type of agroforestry area is registered under which subcategory of UAA 
(arable, permanent crops or permanent grasslands).  

As to unused, abandoned and degraded lands we concluded that these are not registered in 
any EU wide or national data sources. This brings us to make the following recommendations: 

•  Absence of management for several years in a row is recommended to be registered 
for lands in the agricultural domain, also when they become unused for a long time and 
lose their official agricultural land use status (e.g. in terms of eligibility for CAP). This 
can  be  done  in  existing  national  data  sources,  which  are  also  used  as  a  basis  for 
national reporting to Eurostat for FSS. At this moment absence of certain management 
practices  such  as  ploughing  for  the  registration of  permanent  grassland are  already 
applied and this can also be done for management in cropping lands.   

•  Degraded lands within and outside agricultural lands need to be registered in statistical 
or spatial data sources. Heavily eroded lands can be detected more easily using high 
temporal and spatial resolution sensor data. In Romania degraded lands are already 
registered by the statistical office and other countries may follow this example.  

•  A good indirect indicator of marginality and land degradation in arable lands is yield. 
Detailed yearly and regional level (preferable at LAU level) registrations of yields per 
hectare  are  very  informative  and  can  help  identify  regions  where  agricultural 
marginalisation may lead to (further) abandonment and where measure may be taken 
to support and turn this process around.  

To identify farmland abandonment and also land degradation the parcel level should be the 
starting  point  as  this  is  the  spatial  level  at  which  this  process  takes  place.  From  this 

135 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

perspective,  some  recommendations  can  be  made  to  improve  detection  and  registration  of 
unused and abandoned agricultural lands: 

•  Use  the  existing  IACS-LPIS  framework  and  data  stored  in  the  LPIS  by  the  Member 
State paying agencies. The annual update cycle of IACS data together with the high 
spatial accuracy and land-use information (e.g. crop type) stored in IACS-LPIS make 
this database potentially very valuable for the identification of unused, abandoned and 
degraded lands. The information registered at a yearly basis already enables paying 
agencies  to  trace  crop  cultivation  and  therefore  also  the  absence  of  it  over  time.  In 
practice  such  analysis  is  already  applied  in  order  to  detect  permanent  grassland  as 
grasslands  can  only  be  classified  as  permanent  if  it  has  grass  cover  for  5  years 
consecutive years. For this reason, and also to check eligibility of specific parcels of 
land  for  different  types  of  CAP  payments  paying  agencies  can  monitor  the  use  and 
maintenance  of  agricultural  fields  through  the  comparison  of  registrations  of  land 
uses/crops in IACS in different years. However, there is no obligation on farmers to use 
productively the land on which they claim CAP direct payments, they simply have to 
comply with GAEC cross-compliance standards, for example maintaining minimum soil 
cover and retaining certain landscape features. This makes it difficult to identify land 
that is temporarily unused or in transition to abandonment simply by using IACS data.   
•  Combine the use of the LPIS reference layers with high spatial and temporal resolution 
information  from  satellites  to  measure  within  field  vegetation  development,  through 
NDVI, and management activity or rather the lack of it. In the last couple of years much 
progress is being made with identifying crop types, land management through RS and 
aerial  photographic  interpretation.  Higher  temporal  and  spatial  resolution  images  in 
combination with better interpretation methods and big data processing technologies 
enable  us  to  identify  within  parcel  activities  in  fields.  In  the  MAGIC  project  a 
methodology  is  being  developed  to  identify  land  abandonment  using  radar  data  to 
detect management activities in fields. The method is still in development, but showing 
promising results in relation to detecting management of land or absence of it.  

6.8.  Main conclusions and recommendations on policy improvements for 
maintaining land under  agricultural  production and bringing  it back 
into active use 

From an analysis of the literature and the case study reports it is clear that preventing land 
abandonment or bringing land that has been abandoned back into production is rarely a direct 
objective of policies. Rather, the way in which policy addresses these issues is mostly indirect 
through  policies  that  affect  some  of  the  drivers  of  land  abandonment,  but  not  necessarily 
targeted at areas facing land abandonment specifically.  

The CAP was shown to have a particular influence (both Pillars) alongside a range of national 
policies (including taxes, financial instruments, spatial planning policies and processes for land 
registration and to address land structure and tenure issues).  These measures have varying 
degrees of influence on land degradation and abandonment depending on the way they are 
designed, targeted and implemented within Member States.  

The key issues identified in the analysis can be summarised as follows: 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

•  The broader socio-economic drivers of land abandonment are often stronger than the 
policy measures in place that could address them. This is not helped by the fact that 
restraining  abandonment  is  not  necessarily  an  explicit  or  even  implicit  goal  of  such 
policy measures.  

•  Farm level economic drivers of abandonment are addressed to some extent through 
the  existence  of  CAP  direct  payments  and  ANC  measures  that  help  maintain  large 
areas of land in agricultural use that would otherwise move out of production, although 
they do not secure the sustainable management of these areas. 

•  The policy measures in place to counter rural depopulation and encourage generational 
renewal in agriculture operate at a very local scale and have limited funding allocated 
to them. At some point, if these wider rural issues are not addressed then the farm level 
payments  and  attempts  to  address  farm  structure  and  tenure  issues  will  not  be 
sufficient  to  maintain  farming  in  systems  that  are  the  most  socio-economically 
vulnerable. The extent to which this is the case will vary regionally and also depend on 
the relative economic buoyancy of the economy more generally. 

•  The way Member States choose to implement the available policy measures (in terms 
of  funding  allocation,  design,  eligibility  criteria,  targeting,  payment  levels)  affects  the 
impact that these can have on land degradation and land abandonment issues. 

•  National  policies  have  evolved  to  address  the  specific  issues  faced  nationally, 
regionally  and  locally.  In  particular,  the  case  studies  highlighted  the  special 
circumstances  facing  central  and  eastern  European  countries,  particularly  in 
addressing land structure and tenure issues arising from the process of land restitution.   
In some countries, tensions between policies have been identified, particularly between 
national policies to address farm structure and tenure and inheritance laws. 

• 

•  Land registration and efforts to create complete cadastres remain incomplete in some 
countries,  which  leads to  continued  issues  with  identifying  those  responsible  for  the 
management of the land and the ability to require its sustainable management. 

•  There  is  no  requirement  for  land  that  has  been  abandoned  to  be  screened  and 
assessed prior to coming back into agricultural production to assess the environmental 
/ climate sustainability of doing so, unless it falls within the scope of the EIA Directive 
(and much agricultural land does not). The REDII appears to assume that crops planted 
on abandoned or degraded land would automatically be considered to be sustainable. 
This  is  not  the  case  and  assumes  that  abandoned  land  is  to  be  considered  as 
something negative that should be overcome, whereas in reality it may have evolved 
to deliver other valuable ecosystem services.  The absence of an effective EU system 
for  screening  the  environmental  effects  of  bringing  land  back  into  agricultural 
production is a policy gap currently. 

Given  these  issues  a  number  of  recommendations  for  policy  improvements  have  been 
identified. These are set out below.  

A  key  role that  public  policy  has  to  play  in  relation  to  land  management  and  land  use  is  to 
support the delivery of public goods (i.e. those that cannot be provided by the market). In the 
face of the environmental and climate challenges facing the EU, it is of paramount importance 
that any policies influencing land use and management should seek to maintain and stimulate 
the sustainability of all land management practices on agricultural land, whether it is used to 
grow biomass for food or for energy and other non-food uses.  

Policy improvements for maintaining or bringing back land into agricultural production: 

137 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

•  Member States should assess the areas that are currently abandoned or degraded or 
at  risk  of  becoming so  and  identify  which of these areas would be  most suitable for 
biomass  production  for  energy  and  other  non-food  uses.    This  assessment  should 
consider  the  types  of  crops  that  would  be  appropriate,  taking  into  account  the 
environmental  and  climate  implications  and  market  feasibility.  Policy  interventions 
should  only  be  made  where  it  is  clear  that  such  intervention  is  required,  that  it  is 
environmental  sustainable  to  do  so  and  to  actively  promote  the  sustainable 
management of such land. 

•  Member  States  should  make  sure  that  the  drivers  of  land  abandonment  are  well 
identified  in  the  SWOT  analyses  of  their  CAP  Strategic  Plans  and  that  analysis  is 
carried out on which areas at risk it are most appropriate to maintain in agricultural use 
and which areas might be better used for other purposes (e.g. afforestation, rewilding, 
used for eco-tourism, hunting etc). 

•  Once the priorities have been identified, Member States should choose, design, tailor 
and target the appropriate mix of CAP interventions to address those issues, using the 
flexibilities permitted under the CAP to support the sustainable management of land, 
but also to address the wider societal issues of poverty and social exclusion in rural 
areas.  In  the  latter  situation,  better  integration  of  the  CAP  with  funding  from  the 
Structural  Funds  as  well  as  national  measures  could  help  draw  down  the  level  of 
resources required to address the issues. 

•  Greater use of innovative and locally-led approaches would be of value as a way of 
identifying and piloting novel solutions to the more intractable local problems in rural 
areas,  for  example  using  tools  like  LEADER,  EIP  Operational  groups  and  the  LIFE 
fund. 

•  Member  States  with incomplete  systems  of  land  registration should prioritise sorting 
this  out  so  that  it  is  clear  who  owns  each  parcel  of  land  and  that  where  issues  of 
degradation, under-management and abandonment occur owners can be contacted to 
address the issues. 

•  All policies that deal with agricultural land (including CAP direct payments and the ANC 
measure)  should  make  sure  that  sustainability  criteria  are  in  place  and  adequately 
enforced  to  require  and  stimulate  land  to  be  managed  sustainably  and  that 
environmental degradation is avoided. 

6.9.  Main  conclusions  and  policy  recommendations  for  stimulating 
biomass  cropping  for  energy  and  other  non-food  purposes  on 
previously unused, abandoned and degraded lands 

Decisions on whether land in agricultural production (either at risk of abandonment or recently 
brought back into production) should be used to produce biomass crops for energy or other 
non-food purposes are in the hands of the land manager and policy plays only a limited role. 
Agricultural payments have been decoupled from production since 2005 (with the exception of 
voluntary coupled support) in order to allow decisions on which crops to grow to be influenced 
by the market. The key role of policy should be to ensure that agricultural production is carried 
out in a way that also delivers public goods, in other words that the way crops are grown is 
sustainable, protecting natural resources and delivering a mix of ecosystem services. 

Given this, the key policy improvements to incentivise biomass cropping for energy and non-
food uses on agricultural land that has been brought back into production can be summarised 
as follows:  

138 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

•  The continuity of the EU’s strategic priorities with respect to climate goals, the role of 
renewable energy in achieving emission reductions targets, and within this the role of 
biomass crops from agricultural land, remains important to provide consistent market 
signals that instil confidence in producers to produce crops for energy and other non-
food uses. 

•  There  should  be  better  coherence  at  Member  State  and  regional/local  levels  of 
local/regional/national  renewable  energy  and climate  policies with the  CAP  and with 
the Structural Funds. 

•  All interventions under the CAP should have sustainability criteria attached and area 
based  support  should  only  be  made  available  where  it  leads  to  the  sustainable 
management  of  agricultural  land and,  where  it  is  needed, to enable environmentally 
and  climate  beneficial  land  use  change  that takes  advantage of  new markets  –  e.g. 
agroforestry and perennial crops in marginal areas (c.f. Chapter 4). 

•  Member States could make greater use of CAP rural development funds under Pillar 2 
to provide support for biomass value chains at farm, local and regional levels through 
packages  of  investment,  knowledge  transfer  and  innovation  support  (including 
research/farmer/processor co-operation, pilot projects, farm exchanges etc). 

•  Although  there  is  considerable  interest  in  agroforestry  systems,  a  relatively  small 
amount  of  CAP  support  is  provided  in  Member  States  currently  to  support  these. 
Payments  and  advisory  support 
the 
restoration/maintenance  of  existing  agroforestry  systems  should  be  competitive  with 
afforestation support at Member State level. Since agroforestry is an agricultural land 
use (rather than a forest measure) and has the potential to deliver multiple ecosystem 
services,  it  may  also  merit  being  included  as  part  of  the  agricultural  environmental 
interventions in the future CAP, rather than part of the suite of forest measures. 

for  sustainable  new  agroforestry  and 

•  Greater development of institutional capacity is required to provide technical advice on 
biomass cropping and processing/marketing and on targeting at land with minimal risk 
of ILUC or conflict with existing use. 

6.10.  Policy improvements to incentivise biomass cropping for energy and 

non-food uses on non-agricultural land 

Based on the findings of the three case studies and the earlier sections in this chapter, several 
overarching policy recommendations are summarized in the following paragraph. These are 
recommendations that may be relevant to other non-agricultural land categories as well.  

•  At  airports  some  non-agricultural  land  with  existing  vegetation  needs  active 
management to ensure safety for (nearby) various operations. The maintenance costs 
could be partially replaced by the agricultural costs in case of a dual function, possibly 
improving the economics of bioenergy crop production substantially.  

•  Effective wildlife management at airports is required to minimise wildlife collision with 
traffic of any kind or with wildlife interaction in case of an additional agricultural function. 
The effect  on this  from agriculture (including  bioenergy  crops)  is to be  assessed for 
each case individually and it is difficult to make any general predictions on success or 
mitigation measures.  

•  Bioenergy  crop  production  on  non-agricultural  land  often  requires  the  collaboration 
between  several  industries  or  sectors  that  do  not  commonly  interact.  Policies 

139 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

enhancing sector collaboration are expected to aid in the implementation. Examples 
are financial benefits for consortia of companies from different sectors cooperating in 
giving land multiple functions, or legislative guidance in arranging (model) contracts for 
multiple uses of the same area.  

•  European certification for bioenergy crop production from (previously) non-agricultural 
lands could help in differentiating the biomass produced in these areas which could be 
a significant benefit in the market for green fuels.  

•  Use  of  some  non-agricultural  lands  for  agricultural  purposes  are  prone  to  societal 
resistance due to a loss of vegetation or ecological integration or landscape impacts. 
In  line  with  the  ongoing  initiatives  to  green  European  cities,  (urban)  non-agricultural 
lands could be made greener by bioenergy crops actually fulfilling two purposes.  
•  Some non-agricultural lands are only temporarily available for other purposes, but not 
for a long-term. Bioenergy crop production is a valuable and suitable activity for short 
to medium-long term land use and can therefore be an option in those cases, as long 
as done sustainably.  

•  Bioremediation of the soil is a promising side-effect of (bioenergy) crop production or 
agriculture  and  can  lead  to  significant  reductions  in  toxic  compounds  near  logistic 
operations, waste facilities, chemical industries, and so on. As bioenergy crops will not 
be used for food, the permitted toxicity of these crops could be adjusted accordingly. 
This can be done after research has proven that using toxic feedstocks does not have 
substantial negative implications in energy production. Another form of bioremediation 
is the observed improvement of soil structure, making it more resilient against erosion. 
Therefore,  bioenergy  crop  production  might  be  more  valuable  on  lands  prone  to 
erosion.  

140 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

REFERENCES 

Abolina,  E.,  Luzadis,  V.A.  (2015).  ‘Abandoned  agricultural  land  and  its  potential  for  short 
rotation 
435–445. 
crops 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.022 

Latvia.’ 

Policy, 

woody 

Land 

Use 

49, 

in 

Acharya, B.S. & Blanco-Canqui, H. (2018). ‘Lignocellulosic-based bioenergy and water quality 
parameters: a review.’ GCB Bioenergy 10, 1, 504–533. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12508  

Aebischer, N.J. and Ward, R.S., (1997). ‘The distribution of corn buntings Miliaria calandra in 
Sussex in relation to crop type and invertebrate abundance.’ In P.F. Donald, N.J. Aebischer, 
J.H.  Bratton,  S.M.  Davies  and  P.V.  Grice  (eds)  The  Ecology  and  Conservation  of  Corn 
Buntings Miliaria Calandra, pp. 124-138. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 

Alcantara, C., Kuemmerle, T., Baumann, M., Bragina, E. V., Griffiths, P., Hostert, P., Radeloff, 
V.C. (2013). ‘Mapping the extent of abandoned farmland in Central and Eastern Europe using 
MODIS 
8(3). 
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035035  

data.’  Environmental  Research 

satellite 

Letters, 

series 

time 

Alexopoulou, E., Christou, M., and Eleftheriadis, I. (2018). ‘Deliverable 1.5 Handbook with fact 
sheets of the existing resource-efficient industrial crops.’ Athens: MAGIC H2020 project, Grant 
Agreement No. 727698.  

Allen, B., Kretschmer, B., Baldock, D., Menadue, H., Nanni, S., and Tucker, G. (2014). ‘Space 
for  energy  crops  –  assessing  the  potential  contribution  to  Europe’s  energy  future.’  Report 
produced  for  BirdLife  Europe,  European  Environmental  Bureau  and  Transport  and 
Environment London; IEEP. 

Allen, B., Kretschmer, B., Kieve, D., Smith, C., and Baldock, D. (2013). ‘Biofuels and ILUC – 
Q&A: Answers to common questions surrounding the ILUC debate.’ Biofuel ExChange Briefing 
No 5. London: IEEP. 

Alliance  Environnement  (2017).  ‘Evaluation  study  of  the  forestry  measures  under  Rural 
Agriculture. 
European 
Development.’ 
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/forest/publications/pdf/eval-study-
forestry-measures-report_en.pdf  

Commission, 

Report, 

Final 

DG 

Alliance  Environnement  (2017a).  ‘Literature  reviews  on  the  effects  of  farming  practices 
associated with the CAP greening measures on climate and the environment, carried out for 
the Evaluation study of the payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the 
environment (‘greening’ of direct payments), ISBN 978-92-79- 73406-9.  

Alliance Environnement. (2017b). ‘Evaluation study of the payment for agricultural practices 
beneficial  for  the  climate  and  the  environment,  Final  Report,  European  Commission,  DG 
Agriculture.’ https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/fullrep_en.pdf   

141 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Alliance Environnement. (2019). ‘Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, 
biodiversity.’  Final  Report  for  the  EC  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development. Lunel: Alliance Environnement.  

Al-Riffai, P., Dimaranan, B, and Laborde, D. (2010). ‘Global Trade and Environmental Impact 
Study of the EU Biofuels Mandate, Vol. 125.’ Washington, DC: IFPRI. 

ANCPI  (2019).  ‘Cadastre  –  A  Solid  Foundation  for  Economic  and  Social  Growth:  The 
Romanian  Experience.’  Presentation  by  the  National  Agency  for  Cadastre  and  Land 
Registration  to  a  plenary  meeting  and  conference  (‘The  Economic  Impact  of  Cadastre  for 
Society’) of the Permanent Committee on Cadastre in the European Union (PCC) held on 6-7 
June  2019 
in  Bucharest,  Romania.  Available  at:  https://eurogeographics.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/Romania-ANCPI-PCC-Bucharest.pdf 

ANCPI (2020). Public information on the state of implementation of the ‘National Land Book 
and Cadastre Programme 2015-2023’, notably the local administrative units (LAUs) that have 
started 
at: 
cadastral 
http://www.ancpi.ro/pnccf_docs2/index.php   

registration. 

systematic 

Available 

their 

Aronsson,  P.G.,  and  Bergstrom,  L.F.  (2001).  ‘Nitrate  leaching  from  lysimeter-grown  short 
rotation  willow  coppice  in  relation  to  N-application,  irrigation  and  soil  type.’  Biomass 
and Bioenergy, 21, 155–164. 

Baldock, D. & Mottershead, D.H. (2017). ‘Towards an integrated approach to livestock farming, 
sustainable diets and the environment: challenges for the Common Agricultural Policy and the 
UK.’ London: Institute for European Environmental Policy. 

Bartolini, F. and Viaggi, D. (2012). ‘An analysis of policy scenario effects on the adoption of 
energy production on the farm: A case study in Emilia–Romagna (Italy).’ Energy Policy, 51, 
454–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.043 

Bas-Defossez,  F.  and  Meredith,  S.  (2019).  ‘CAP  2021-  27:  A  comparative  analysis  of  the 
environmental  performance  of  the  COMENVI  and  COMAGRI  reports  on  the  Commission’s 
proposals.’ Report for NABU. London: IEEP. 

Baumann, M., Kuemmerle, T., Elbakidze, M., Ozdogan, M., Radeloff, V. C., Keuler, N. S. and 
Hostert, P. (2011). ‘Patterns and drivers of post-socialist farmland abandonment in Western 
Ukraine.’ Land Use Policy, 28(3), 552–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.11.003 
LK - https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/5902879447 

Bell, S., Montarzino, A., Aspinall, P., Penēze, Z. and Nikodemus, O. (2009). ‘Rural Society, 
Social  Inclusion  and  Landscape  Change  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe:  A  Case  Study  of 
Latvia.’ Sociologia Ruralis, 49(3), 295–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00480.x 
LK - https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/5156923006  

Bennett,  A.B.,  and  Isaacs,  R.  (2014).  ‘Landscape  composition  influences  pollinators  and 
pollination  services  in  perennial  biofuel  plantings.’  Agriculture,  Ecosystems  &  Environment, 
193, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.04.016   

142 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Bertzky,  M.,  Kapos,  V.  and  Scharlemann,  J.P.W.  (2011).  ‘Indirect  land  use  change  from 
biofuels 
456. 
https://www.cbd.int/agriculture/2011-121/UNEP-WCMC-JNCC%20report-sep11-en.pdf   

JNCC  Report  No. 

biodiversity.’ 

implications 

production: 

for 

Bindraban, P.S., Bulte, E.H., and Conijn, S.G. (2009). ‘Can large-scale biofuels production be 
sustainable by 2020?’ Agricultural Systems, 101, 197-199. 

Buchholz,  T.,  Volk,  T.  (2013).  ‘Profitability  of  Willow  Biomass  Crops  Affected  by  Incentive 
Programs.’ BioEnergy Research, 6, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9234-y 

Burel, F., Baudry, J., Butet, A., Clergeau, P., Delettre, Y., Le Coeur, D., Dubs, F., Morvan, N., 
Paillat,  G.,  Petit,  S.,  Thenail,  C.,  Brunel,  E.  and  Lefeuvre,  J.-C.  (1998).  ‘Comparative 
biodiversity along a gradient of agricultural landscapes.’ Acta Oecologica, 19, 47-60. 

Burgess, P.J. (1999). ‘Effects of agroforestry on farm biodiversity in the UK.’ Scottish Forestry, 
53, 1, 24–27.  

Cacho,  J.F.,  Negri,  M.C.,  Zumpf,  C.R.,  and  Campbell,  P.  (2018).  ‘Introducing  perennial 
biomass crops into agricultural landscapes to address water quality challenges and provide 
other  environmental  services.’  Wiley 
Interdisciplinary  Reviews,  7,  2,  e275.  doi: 
10.1002/wene.275  

Cannell,  M.G.R.,  Noordwijk,  M.V.A.N.,  and  Ong,  C.K.,  (1996).  ‘The  central  agroforestry 
hypothesis:  the  trees  must  acquire  resources  that  the  crop  would  not  otherwise  acquire.’ 
Agroforestry Systems, 24, 27–31. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00129630 

Carey, P.D., Griffiths, G.H., Carey, I.N., Butcher, B., Treweek, J., Charlton, M.B., Arnell, N.W., 
Sozanska-Stanton, M., Smith, P. and Tucker, G. (2015). ‘Priority Habitats, Protected Sites and 
Climate Change: Three Investigations to Inform Policy and Management for Adaptation and 
Mitigation.’ Defra, contract CR0439, pp 206  

Carlsson,  G.,  Mårtensson,  L.M.,  Prade,  T.,  Svensson,  S.E.,  and  Jensen,  E  S.  (2017). 
‘Perennial species mixtures for multifunctional production of biomass on marginal land.’ GCB 
Bioenergy, 9, 191–201. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12373 

Carvalho, J.L.N., Hudiburg, T.W., Franco, H.C.J., and DeLucia, E.H. (2017). ‘Contribution of 
above- and belowground bioenergy crop residues to soil carbon.’ GCB Bioenergy, 9, 8, 1333-
1343. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12411  

Castillo, C., Aliaga, E. C., Lavalle, C., and Llario, J. C. M. (2020). ‘An assessment and spatial 
modelling of agricultural land abandonment in Spain (2015-2030).’ Sustainability (Switzerland), 
12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020560 

Castillo,  C.,  Kavalov,  B.,  Diogo,  V.,  Jacobs-Crisioni,  C.,  Batista  e  Silva,  F.,  and  Lavalle,  C. 
(2018).  JRC  Policy  Insights  –  ‘Agricultural  land  abandonment  in  the  EU  within  2015-2030.’ 
Jrc113718, 
from 
www.ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publications%0Ahttps://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-
scientific-and-technical-research-reports/agricultural-land-abandonment-eu-within-2015-
2030%0Ahttps://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc113718.pdf 

(October), 

Retrieved 

7. 

143 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

CCRI, OIR and ADE. (2019). ‘Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, 
local development and jobs in rural areas.’ Report for the European Commission, Directorate-
General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/4bd0b0a2-0503-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1  

Ceausu, S., Hofmann, M., Navarro, L. M., Carver, S., Verburg, P.H. and Pereira, H.M. (2015). 
‘Mapping opportunities and challenges for rewilding in Europe.’ Conservation Biology, 29(4), 
1017–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12533 

Ceotto, E., and Di Candilo, M. (2010). ‘Sustainable bioenergy production, land and nitrogen 
use.’ In Lichtfouse, E. (ed.) Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture. 
Berlin: Springer, pp. 101–122. 

Chauvat,  M.,  Perez,  G.,  Hedde,  M.,  and  Lamy,  I.  (2014).  ‘Establishment  of  bioenergy 
crops  on  metal  contaminated  soils  stimulates  belowground  fauna.’  Biomass  Bioenergy  62, 
207–211. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.01.042  

Cherubini, F., Bird, N.D., Cowie, A., Jungmeier, G., Schlamadinger, B., and Woess-Gallasch, 
S. (2009). ‘Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key 
issues, 
ranges and recommendations.’ Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53, 8,  434–447. 

Chimento,  C.,  Almagro,  M.,  and  Amaducci,  S.  (2016).  ‘Carbon  sequestration  potential  in 
perennial bioenergy crops: the importance of organic matter inputs and its physical protection.’ 
GCB Bioenergy, 8, 111–121. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12232  

Ciria, C., Sanz, M., Carrasco, J., and Ciria, P. (2019). ‘Identification of Arable Marginal Lands 
under  Rainfed  Conditions  for  Bioenergy  Purposes  in  Spain.’  Sustainability,  11,  1833.  doi: 
10.3390/su11071833  

Clancy,  D.,  Breen,  J.P.,  Thorne,  F.  and  Wallace,  M.  (2012).  ‘A  stochastic  analysis  of  the 
decision  to  produce  biomass  crops  in  Ireland.’  Biomass  and  Bioenergy,  46,  353–365. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.08.005 

Corbelle-Rico, E., Butsic, V., Enríquez-García, M. J. and Radeloff, V. C. (2015). ‘Technology 
or policy? Drivers of land cover change in northwestern Spain before and after the accession 
18–25. 
to 
Economic 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.004 
- 
https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/5900996052  

Policy, 
LK 

Community.’ 

European 

Land 

Use 

45, 

COWI.  (2009a).  ‘Ex-post  evaluation  of  projects  and  activities  financed  under  the  LIFE 
programme. Final Report. Part 1: Methodology and description of the LIFE programme and its 
policy 
context.’ 
https://life.aeidl.be/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/documents/life_fin
alreport_part1.pdf 

COWI. (2009b). ‘Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA 
Directive.’ Final report, report to DG Environment, June 2009. 

144 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Cuthbertson, A., and McAdam, J. (1996). ‘The effect of tree density and species on carabid 
beetles in a range of pasture-tree agroforestry systems on a lowland site.’ Agroforestry Forum, 
7, 3, 17-20. 

Cvitanović, M., Blackburn, G. A. and Rudbeck Jepsen, M. (2016). ‘Characteristics and drivers 
of  forest  cover  change  in  the  post-socialist  era  in  Croatia:  evidence  from  a  mixed-methods 
approach.’ 
1751–1763. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0928-0 LK - https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/6659535312  

Environmental 

Regional 

Change, 

16(6), 

Daioglou,  V.,  Doelman,  J.C.,  Stehfest,  E.,  Müller,  C.,  Wicke,  B.,  Faaij,  A.,  et  al.  (2017). 
‘Greenhouse gas emission curves for advanced biofuel supply chains.’ Nature Climate Change 
7, 920–924.  

Daioglou,  V.  Woltjer,  G.,  Elbersen,  B.,  Barberena  Ibanez,  G.,  Strengers,  B.,  Sanches 
Gonzales,  D.,  and  Vuuren,  van,  D.  (2020).  ‘Progress  and  barriers  in  understanding  and 
preventing  indirect  land use  change.’  Biofuels,  Bioproducts  and  Biorefining,  14,  5,  924-934. 
doi: 10.1002/bbb.2124   

Dale, V., Kline, K., Wiens, J. and Fargione, J. (2010). ‘Biofuels: Implications for Land Use and 
Biodiversity.’ Biofuels and Sustainability Reports, 1-13. http://www.esa.org/biofuelsreports/  

Dastyar,  W.  et  al.  (2019).  ‘Biofuel  Production  Using  Thermochemical  Conversion  of  Heavy 
Metal-Contaminated  Biomass  (HMCB)  Harvested  from  Phytoextraction  Process.’  Chemical 
Engineering Journal 358, 759-785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.08.111   

Dauber,  J.  and  Miyake, S.  (2016).  ‘To  integrate or  to  segregate  food  crop and energy  crop 
cultivation at the landscape scale? Perspectives on biodiversity conservation in agriculture in 
Europe.’ Energy, Sustainability and Society, 6,25.  

Dauber, J., Brown, C., Fernando, A., Finnan, J., Krasuska, E., Ponitka, J., Styles, D., Trän, D., 
Groenigen, K., Weih, M., and Zah, R. (2012). ‘Bioenergy from ‘surplus’ land: environmental 
and socio-economic implications.’ BioRisk, 7, 5-50. 

Dauber, J., Jones, M.B., and Stout, J.C. (2010). ‘The impact of biomass crop cultivation on 
temperate biodiversity.’ GCB Bioenergy 2, 289–309. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01058.x  

DECC–DfT–DEFRA  (2012).  UK  Bioenergy  Strategy,  London:  Department  of  Energy  and 
Climate  Change,  Department  for  Transport,  Department  of  the  Environment,  Farming  and 
Rural Affairs. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-bioenergy-strategy 

De  Fraiture,  C.  Giordano,M.,  and  Liao,  Y.  (2008).  ‘Biofuels  and  implications  for  agricultural 
water use: blue impacts of green energy.’ Water Policy 10. 67-81.  

Dennis,  P.,  Shellard,  L.J.F.,  and  Agnew,  R.D.M.  (1996).  ‘Shifts  in  arthropod  species 
assemblages  in  relation  to  silvopastoral  establishment  in  upland  pastures.’  Agroforestry 
Forum, 7, 3, 14-17. 

Dıaz-Pines, E., Molina-Herrera, S., Dannenmann, M., et al. (2017). ‘Nitrate leaching and soil 
nitrous oxide emissions diminish with time in a hybrid poplar short-rotation coppice in southern 
Germany.’ GCB Bioenergy, 9, 613–626. 

145 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Di  Corato,  L.,  Gazheli,  A.  and  Lagerkvist,  C.J.  (2013).  ‘Investing  in  energy  forestry  under 
uncertainty.’ Forest Policy and Economics, 34, 56-64. 

țineți 

Dobre, R. (2018). ‘Subvenția APIA pentru PÂRLOAGĂ! Care este noul termen de care trebuie 
să 
at: 
(6 
https://agrointel.ro/92440/subventia-apia-pentru-parloaga-care-este-nou-termen-de-care-
trebuie-sa-tineti-cont/ 

Agrointeligența 

February, 

Available 

2018). 

cont!’ 

Dobre,  R.  (2020).  ‘CADASTRU  GRATUIT  2020:  Lista  cu  cele  261  de  comune  unde  incep 
lucrarile 
at: 
https://agrointel.ro/152682/cadastru-gratuit-2020-lista-261-comune-august/ 

cadastrare.’  Agrointeligența 

2020).  Available 

(10  August, 

de 

Don, A., Osborne, B., Hastings, A., et al. (2012). ‘Land-use change to bioenergy production in 
Europe: implications for the greenhouse gas balance and soil carbon.’ GCB Bioenergy, 4, 372–
391. 

Drewer, J., Finch, J.W., Lloyd, C.R., Baggs, E.M., and Skiba, U. (2012). ‘How do soil emissions 
of N2O, CH4 and CO2 from perennial bioenergy crops differ from arable annual crops?’ GCB 
Bioenergy, 4, 408–419. 

(2008). 

EASA. 
‘Bird  Strike  Damage  and  Windshield  Bird  Strike  Final  Report.’ 
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Final%20report%20Bird%20Strike%20Stud
y.pdf   

EC Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2018). ‘A sustainable Bioeconomy for 
Europe:  strengthening  the  connection  between  economy,  society  and  the  environment.’ 
Updated Bioeconomy Strategy. Brussels: EC. doi: 10.2777/478385  

ECA. (2016). ‘Making cross-compliance more effective and achieving simplification remains 
challenging, Special Report No 26.’ Brussels: ECA.  

ECA.  (2017).  ‘EU  support  to  young  farmers  should  be  better  targeted  to  foster  effective 
generational renewal, Special Report No 10.’ Brussels: ECA. 

Ecorys,  IEEP  and  WUR.  (2016).  ‘Mapping  and  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  the  CAP.’ 
Final Report for DG Agriculture and Rural Development. 

(2019). 

EEA. 
https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-197108000-00011  

and  Soil 

‘Land 

in  Europe.’  Soil  Science 

(Vol. 

112). 

EIP-AGRI  (2019).  ‘Focus  group  enhancing  production  and  use  of  renewable  energy  on  the 
farm: final report October 2019.’ 

Eitelberg,  D.,  van  Vliet,  J.  and  Verburg,  P.  (2015).  ‘A  review  of  global  potentially  available 
cropland estimates  and their  consequences  for model-based  assessments.’ Global  Change 
Biology, 21, 1236–1248. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12733  

Elbersen, B.S., Fritsche, U.R, Petersen, J-E, Lesschen, J.P., Böttcher, H. and Overmars, K. 
(2013). ‘Assessing the effect of stricter sustainability criteria on EU biomass crop potential.’ 

146 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining (Biofpr) Journal. Article first published online: 19 MAR 2013 
| DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1396  

Elbersen, B.S., Fritsche, U., Overmars, K., J.P. Lesschen, Staritsky, I., Ros, J., Zulka, K.P., 
Brodski, L., Eerens, H. and Hennenberg, K. (2013). ‘Review of the EU bioenergy potential from 
a resource efficiency perspective.’ A follow-up to EEA report No 7/2006. ETC-SIA technical 
report. (July 2013).  

Elbersen, B., Beaufoy, G., Jones, G., Noij, G-J., Doorn, A., Breman, B. and Hazeu, G. (2014). 
‘Aspects of data on diverse relationships between agriculture and the environment.’ Report for 
DG-Environment. Contract no. 07-0307/2012/633993/ETU/B1. Wageningen: Alterra. 

Elbersen,  B.,  Staritsky,  I.,  Hengeveld,  G.,  Jeurissen,  L.,  Lesschen,  J.P.  and  Panoutsou,  C. 
(2015).  ‘Outlook  of  spatial  biomass  value  chains  in  EU-28.’  (September  2015).  Biomass 
Policies, p.270. 

Elbersen, B., Eupen, van, M., Mantel, S., Verzandvoort, S., Boogaard, H., Mucher, S., Cicarreli, 
T. & Elbersen, W., Bai, Z., Iqbal, Y., Cossel, M., Ian MCallum, I., Carrasco, J., Ciria Ramos, 
C., Monti, A., Scordia, D., Eleftheriadis, I. (2018). ‘Deliverable 2.1 Definition and classification 
of marginal lands suitable for industrial crops in Europe.’ MAGIC; GA-No.: 727698.  

Elbersen, B., Eupen, van E., Mantel, S., Verzandvoort, S.., Boogaard, H., Mucher, S., Cicarreli, 
T., and Elbersen, W., Bai, Z., Iqbal, Y., Cossel, M., MCallum, I., Carrasco, J., Ciria Ramos, C., 
Monti, A., Scordia, D., Eleftheriadis, I. (2018). ‘Deliverable 2.6: Methodological approaches to 
identify  and  map  marginal  land  suitable  for  industrial  crops  in  Europe.’  MAGIC;  GA-No.: 
727698.  

Elbersen, B.; Coninx, I; Hatvani, N.; Houtkamp, J.; Koos, A.; Kulmány, I; Mateffy, K.;  van den 
Oever, M. & Vásáry, V. (2020). An overview of suitable regional policies to support bio-based 
business models. Deliverable 4.2. POWER4BIO. Grant Agreement no. 818351. H202-RUR-
2018-2020. 

Emmerling, C., and Pude, R. (2017). ‘Introducing Miscanthus to the greening measures of the 
EU Common Agricultural Policy.’ GCB Bioenergy, 9, 2, 274–279. 

Estel,  S.,  Kuemmerle,  T.,  Alcántara,  C.,  Levers,  C.,  Prishchepov,  A.,  &  Hostert,  P.  (2015). 
Mapping  farmland  abandonment  and  recultivation  across  Europe  using  MODIS  NDVI  time 
series. 
312–325. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.03.028 

Environment, 

Sensing 

Remote 

163, 

of 

Eupen,  van,  M.,  Hennekens,  S.  and  Zervas,  G.  (2003).  ‘Developing  a  high  nature  value 
indicator.’  Report  for  the  European  Environment  Agency.  Copenhagen.  Further  work  of  the 
under: 
EEA 
http//eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/envirowindows/hnv/library  

documented 

JRC 

and 

is 

European Commission. (2013). ‘CAP Towards 2020, Impact Assessment – Direct Payments, 
contribution  to  the  Impact  Assessment  of  the  CAP  towards  2020.’  (COM(2011)  625  final). 
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/PO0202_direct_payments.pdf  

147 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

European Commission. (2020). ‘COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2020/859 
of 16 June 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the 
Member  States  under  the  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF)  and  under  the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).’ Official Journal of the European 
Union 
https://eur-
(19.6.2020), 
195 
lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2020/859/oj   

Available 

59–93. 

at: 

L 

European Commission. (2020). ‘Voluntary coupled support Review by the Member States of 
their  support  decisions  applicable  as  from  claim  year  2020.’  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development Informative Note. Brussels: EC.   

European Commission. (2018). ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and 
the 
https://eur-
Council.’ 
lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?qid=1490786763554&uri=COM:2017:152:FIN  

European Environment Agency. (2013). ‘Review of the EU bioenergy potential from a resource 
efficiency perspective.’ Brussels: EEA. 

Evans, A., Appleby, M., Dixon, J., Newbery, P. and Swales, V. (1995). ‘What future for lowland 
farmland birds in the UK?’ RSPB Conservation Review, 9, 32-40. 

Faaij, A. (2006). ‘Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices.’ Energy Policy, 34, 322–
342. 

Faaij,  A.P.C.  (2018).  ‘Securing  Sustainable  Resource  Availability  of  Biomass  for  Energy 
Applications in Europe.’ Review of Recent Literature.  

Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., and Hawthorne, P. (2008). ‘Land clearing and the 
biofuel carbon debt.’ Science 319, 1235–1238. doi: 10.1126/science.1152747   

Fargione, J.E., Plevin, R.J. and Hill, J.D. (2010). ‘The Ecological Impact of Biofuels.’ Annual 
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41, 1, 351–377. 

Felten,  D.  and  Emmerling,  C.  (2011).  ‘Effects  of  bioenergy  crop  cultivation  on  earthworm 
communities—A  comparative  study  of  perennial  (Miscanthus)  and  annual  crops  with 
intensity.’  Applied  Soil  Ecology,  49,  167–177. 
consideration  of  graded 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.06.001  

land-use 

Ferchaud,  F.,  and Mary,  B. (2016).  ‘Drainage  and  nitrate  leaching  assessed  during  7  years 
under perennial and annual bioenergy crops.’ BioEnergy Research, 9, 656–670. 

Fernando,  A.  (2005).  ‘Fitorremediacao  por  Miscanthus  x  giganteus  de  solos  contaminados 
com metais pesados.’ PhD diss., Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon. 

Fernando, A.L., Costa, J., Barbosa, B., Monti, A., and Rettenmaier, N. (2018). ‘Environmental 
impact  assessment  of  perennial  crops  cultivation  on  marginal  soils  in  the  Mediterranean 
Region.’ Biomass Bioenergy, 111, 174–186. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.04.005  

148 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Forsell, N., et al. (2016). ‘Study on impacts on resource efficiency of future EU demand for 
bioenergy 
report.’  Project:  ENV.F.1/ETU/2013/0033.  Luxembourg: 
(ReceBio).  Final 
Publications Office of the European Union.   

Frank, S. et al. (2013). ‘How effective are the sustainability criteria accompanying the European 
Union 
doi:  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01188.x 

targets?’  GCB 

Bioenergy, 

306–314. 

biofuel 

2020 

3, 

5, 

Frelih-Larsen, A., C. Bowyer, S. Albrecht, C. Keenleyside, M. Kemper, S. Nanni, S. Naumann, 
R.,  D.  Mottershead,  R.  Landgrebe,  E.  Andersen,  P.  Banfi,  S.  Bell,  I.  Brémere,  J.  Cools,  S. 
Herbert, A. Iles, E. Kampa, M. Kettunen, Z. Lukacova, G. Moreira, Z. Kiresiewa, J. Rouillard, 
J. Okx, M. Pantzar, K. Paquel, R. Pederson, A. Peepson, F. Pelsy, D. Petrovic, E. Psaila, B. 
Šarapatka, J. Sobocka, A.-C. Stan, J. Tarpey, and R. Vidaurre (2016). ‘Updated Inventory and 
Assessment of Soil Protection Policy Instruments in EU Member States.’ Final Report to DG 
Environment. Berlin: Ecologic Institute. 

Garbo,  F.,  Lavagnolo,  M.C.,  Malagoli,  M.,  Schiavon,  M.,  and  Cossu,  R.  (2017).  ‘Different 
leachate  phytotreatment  systems  using  sunflowers.’  Waste  Management  59,  267–275.  doi: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.035  

Gauder, M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Graeff-Hoenninger, S., Claupein, W., and Wiegel, R. (2012). 
‘Soil-derived trace gas fluxes from different energy crops – results from a field experiment in 
Southwest Germany.’ GCB Bioenergy, 4, 289–301. 

Gelfand, I., Shcherbak, I., Millar, N., Kravchenko, A.N., and Robertson, G.P. (2016). ‘Longterm 
nitrous oxide fluxes in annual and perennial agricultural and unmanaged ecosystems in the 
upper Midwest USA.’ Global Change Biology, 22, 3594–3607. 

Gerwin,  W.,  Repmann,  F.,  Spyridon,  G.,  Despoina,  V.,  Gounairs,  N.,  Baumgarten,  W., 
Christiane,  V.,  Keramitzis,  D.,  Kiourtsis,  F.,  and  Freese,  D.  (2018).  ‘Assessment  and 
quantification of marginal lands for biomass production in Europe using soil quality indicators.’ 
Soil, 4, 267–290. 

Giannoccaro, G., Barbuto, A., Baselice, A. and Falcone, P.M., n.d. ‘Farmers’ Intention towards 
Energy Crops Adoption under Alternative Common Agricultural Policy: An Empirical Analysis 
in Andalusia, Spain.’  13. 

Glithero,  N.J.,  Wilson,  P.,  Ramsden,  S.J. (2013).  Prospects for  arable farm  uptake  of  Short 
Rotation  Coppice  willow  and  miscanthus  in  England.  Applied  Energy  107,  209–218. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.032 

‘Global Market Outlook for Solar Power 2019 – 2023.’ https://www.solarpowereurope.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/SolarPower-Europe-Global-Market-Outlook-2019-2023.pdf  

Glover, J. D., Culman, S. W., Dupont, S. T., Broussard, W., Young, L., Mangan, M. E., et al. 
(2010).  ‘Harvested  perennial  grasslands  provide  ecological  benchmarks  for  agricultural 
sustainability.’  Agriculture,  Ecosystems 
doi: 
10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.001  

and  Environment, 

3–12. 

137, 

149 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Graves, A.R., Burgess, P.J., Palma, J.H.N., Herzog, F., Moreno, G., Bertomeu, M., Dupraz, 
C., Liagre, F., Keesman, K., van der Werf, W., Koeffeman de Nooy and van den Briel, J.P. 
(2007).  ‘Development  and  application  of  bio-economic  modelling  to  compare  silvoarable, 
arable and forestry systems in three European countries.’  Ecological Engineering, 29: 434–
449.  

Haines, S.A., Gehl, R., Havlin, J., and Ranney, T. (2015). ‘Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilizer 
Effects  on  Establishment  of  Giant  Miscanthus.’  BioEnergy  Research,  8,  17–27.  doi: 
10.1007/s12155-014-9499-4 

Hart, K., Allen, B., Lindner, M., Keenleyside, C., Burgess, P., Eggers, J., Buckwell, A. (2013). 
‘Land  as  an  Environmental  Resource.’  Report  Prepared  for  DG  Environment,  Contract  No 
ENV.B.1/ETU/2011/0029, London: Institute for European Environmental Policy. 

Hartel, T., Dorresteijn, I., Klein, C., Máthé, O., Moga, C.I., Öllerer, K., Roellig, M., von Wehrden, 
H.,  Fischer,  J.,  (2013).  ‘Wood-pastures  in  a  traditional  rural  region  of  Eastern  Europe: 
characteristics, management and status.’ Biological Conservation, 166, 267–275. 

Harvey, M. and Pilgrim, S., (2011). ‘The new competition for land: Food, energy, and climate 
change.’ Food Policy, 36, S40–S51. 

Haughton,  A.J.,  Bohan,  D.A.,  Clark,  S.J.,  Mallott,  M.D.,  Mallott,  V.,  Sage,  R.,  et  al.  (2016). 
‘Dedicated biomass crops can enhance biodiversity in the arable landscape.’ GCB Bioenergy, 
8, 1071–1081. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12312  

Haughton, A.J., Bond, A. A. Lovett, T. Dockerty, G. Sünnenberg, S. J. Clark, D. A. Bohan, R. 
B. Sage, M. D. Mallott, V. E. Mallott, M. D. Cunningham, A. B. Riche, I. F. Shield, J. W. Finch, 
M. M. Turner and A. Karp. (2009). ‘A novel, integrated approach to assessing social, economic 
and environmental implications of changing rural land‐use: a case study of perennial biomass 
crops.’ Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 2, 315–322.  

Helliwell, R. (2018). ‘Where did the marginal land go? Farmers perspectives on marginal land 
and its implications for adoption of dedicated energy crops.’ Energy Policy, 117, 166-172. doi: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.011  

Hernández  Parrodi,  J.C.,  et  al.  (2019).  ‘Integration  of  resource  recovery  into  current  waste 
landfill  mining.’  Detritus  8,  141-156.  doi: 
management 
https://doi.org/10.31025/2611-4135/2019.13884   

(enhanced) 

through 

Holland 
https://hollandsolar.nl/gedragscodezonopland.  

‘Gedragscode 

(2019). 

Solar 

zon 

op 

land’ 

(in 

Dutch), 

Holland, J.M., Southway, S., Ewald, J.A., Birkett, T. and Begbie, M. (2002). ‘Invertebrate chick 
food for farmland birds: spatial and temporal variation in different crops.’ Aspects of Applied 
Biology, 67, 27-34. 

Hurford,  C.  (1997).  ‘Avian  use  of  stubble  and  root  crops  in  Wales  during  the  1993/94  and 
1994/95 winters.’ Welsh Birds, 1, 41-55. 

150 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

IEEP.  (2010).  ‘Manual  of  European  Environmental  Policy.’  London:  Institute  for  European 
Environmental Policy. 

IEEP, Alterra. (2010). ‘Reflecting Environmental Land Use Needs into EU Policy: Preserving 
and  Enhancing  the  Environmental  Benefits  of  ‘Land  Services’:  Soil  Sealing,  Biodiversity 
Corridors, intensification/Marginalisation of Land Use and Permanent Grassland.’ Final Report 
to the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENVB1/ETU/2008/0030. Institute 
for European Environmental Policy/Alterra Wageningen UR. 

Immerzeel, D.J. et al., 2014. ‘Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production: a state-of-the-
review.’  Global  Change 
doi: 
art 
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/gcbb.12067  

Bioenergy, 

83–209. 

Biology 

3, 

6, 

Ioffe,  G.  and  Nefedova,  T.  (2004).  ‘Marginal  Farmland  in  European  Russia.’  Eurasian 
Geography and Economics, 45:1, 45-59 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/1538-7216.45.1.45  

Jäger-Waldau, A., (2019). ‘PV Status Report 2019.’ EUR 29938EN. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. ISBN 978-92-76-12608-9, doi:10.2760/326629, JRC118058.  

Jodl,  S.,  Eppel-Hotz,  A.,  and  Kuhn,  W.  (2004).  ‘Miscanthus  als  nachwachsender  Rohstoff: 
Ergebnisse  aus  15-jähriger  Forschungsarbeit  in  Kurzfassung,  Bayerische  Landesanst.’  für 
Weinbau und Gartenbau, Abt. Landespflege. 

Jones,  N.  M.  (2015).  ‘Evaluation  of  effects  of  agri-environmental  measures  on  rangeland 
degradation  in  two  less  favoured  areas  in  Portugal.’  PhD  thesis,  Wageningen  University, 
978-94-6257-461-8 
161 
Wageningen, 
https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/360283  

ISBN: 

p. 

Jones, A., P. Panagos, M. Erhard, G. Tóth, S. Barcelo, F. Bouraoui, C. Bosco, O. Dewitte, C. 
Gardi, J. Hervás, R. Hiederer, S. Jeffery, V. Penizek, T. Strassburger, A. Lükewille, L. Marmo, 
L. Montanarella, C. Olazábal, J.-E. Petersen, M. Van Den Eeckhaut, M. Van Liedekerke, F. 
Verheijen, E. Viestova, Y. Yigini, E. (2012). ‘The state of soil in Europe: a contribution of the 
JRC  to  the  European  Environment  Agency's  environment  state  and  outlook  report  -  SOER 
2010.’ European Commission, JRC, Institute for Environmental Sustainability and European 
Environment Agency. Luxembourg: Publications Office.  

Jones, M. B., Finnan, J. and Hodkinson, T. R. (2015). ‘Morphological and physiological traits 
for higher biomass production in perennial rhizomatous grasses grown on marginal land.’ GCB 
Bioenergy, 7, 375–385. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12203.  

Junginger,  M.  (2007).  ‘Lessons  from  (European)  bioenergy  policies;  results  of  a  literature 
review for IEA Bioenergy Task 40.’ Utrecht : Utrecht University. 

Kay,  S.,  Crous-Duran,  J.,  Garcia  de  Jalon,  S.,  et  al.  (2017).  ‘Spatial  similarities  between 
European agroforestry systems and ecosystem services at the landscape scale.’ Agroforestry 
Systems, 92, 1075–1089. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0132-3  

Kazakov,  Y.,  Hrystova,  T.  and  Kazakova,  S.  (2000).  ‘Drought  tolerance  of  plants  and  the 
problem of its study.’ Issues Biol. Ecol., 5, 3–12. 

151 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Keenleyside, C. and Tucker, G. M. (2010). ‘Farmland Abandonment in the EU: An Assessment 
of  Trends  and  Prospects.’  Report  prepared  for  WWF.  London:  Institute  for  European 
Environmental Policy. 

King, M. (2010). ‘An investigation into policies affecting Europe’s semi-natural grasslands.’ A 
report commissioned by the Grassland Trust commissioned by the European Forum on Nature 
Conservation and pastoralism & co-funded by the European Commission (DG Environment).  

Kosmas, C., Kairis, O., Karavitis, C., Acikalin, S., Alcalá, M., Alfama, P., Salvati, L. (2015). ‘An 
exploratory analysis of land abandonment drivers in areas prone to desertification.’  Catena, 
- 
128, 
https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/5900113904 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.02.006 

252–261. 

Doi: 

LK 

Krčílková,  Š.  and  Janovská,  V.  (2016).  ‘Land  Tenure  as  a  Factor  Underlying  Agricultural 
Landscape Changes in Europe: A Review.’ Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica, 47(2), 68–81. Doi: 
https://doi.org/10.1515/sab-2016-0011 

Kuemmerle, T., Levers, C., Erb, K., Estel, S., Jepsen, M. R., Müller, D., Plutzar, C. Stürck, J., 
Verkerk,  P.,  Verburg,  P.,  Reenberg,  A.  (2016).  ‘Hotspots  of  land  use  change  in  Europe.’ 
Environmental  Research  Letters,  11(6),  1–14.  Doi:  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/11/6/064020 

Kuzyakov, Y., and Domanski, G. (2000). ‘Carbon input by plants into the soil: Review.’ Journal 
of  Plant  Nutrition  and  Soil  Science,  163,  4,  421-431.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-
2624(200008)163:4<421::AID-JPLN421>3.0.CO;2-R.  

Laborde,  D.  2011.  ‘Assessing  the  land  use  change  consequences  of  European  biofuel 
policies.’  Final  report  ATLASS  consortium.  Contract  no.  TRADE/07/A2;  Washington,  DC: 
IFPRI.  http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148289.pdf  (accessed  1 
July 2012)  

Lapola, D.M.D. et al., (2010). ‘Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from 
biofuels in Brazil.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 
America, 
at: 
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2840431&tool=pmcentrez&rendert
ype=abstract%5Cnhttp://www.pnas.org/content/107/8/3388.short  

3388–3393. 

Available 

107, 

8, 

Lasanta, T. (2002). ‘Los sistemas de gestión en el Pirineo central español durante el siglo XX: 
del  aprovechamiento  global  de  los  recursos  a  la  descoordinación  espacial  en  los  usos  del 
suelo.’ Ager 2, 173–195. 

Lasanta, T., J. Arnáez, N. Pascual, P. Ruiz-Flaño, M.P. Errea, and N. Lana-Renault. (2017). 
‘Space–time process and drivers of land abandonment in Europe.’ CATENA, 149, 3, 810-823. 
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.02.024 

Lasorella, M., Monti, A., Alexopoulou, E., Riche, A., Sharma, N., Cadoux, S., Diepen, C.A. van, 
Elbersen,  B.S.,  Atzema,  A.J.,  and  Elbersen,  H.W.  (2011).  ‘Yield  comparison  between 
switchgrass  and  miscanthus  based  on  multi-year  side  by  side  comparison  in  Europe.’ 

152 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Proceedings  of  the  19th  European  Biomass  Conference  and  Exhibition,  6-10  June  2011, 
Berlin. doi: 10.5071/19thEUBCE2011-VP1.3.59 

Leal  Filho,  W.,  M.  Mandel,  A.  Quasem  Al-Amin,  A.  Feher  and  C  J.C.  Jabbour.  (2017).  ‘An 
assessment  of the  causes and  consequences  of  agricultural  land  abandonment  in Europe.’ 
International  Journal  of  Sustainable  Development  &  World  Ecology,  24,  6,  554-560.  doi: 
10.1080/13504509.2016.1240113. 

Lefroy, E.C., Hobbs, R.J., Connor, M.H.O., and Pate, J.S. (1999). ‘What can agriculture learn 
from 
Doi: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006293520726 

ecosystems?’ 

Agroforestry 

425–438. 

Systems, 

natural 

45, 

Levers, C, Müller, D., Erb, K., Haberl H., Rudbeck Jepsen, M., Metzger, M. J., Meyfroidt, P., 
Plieninger,  T.,  Plutzar,  C.,  Stürck,  J.  Verburg,  P.H.,  Verkerk,  P.  J.,  Kuemmerle,  T.  (2015). 
‘Archetypical  patterns  and  trajectories  of  land  systems  in  Europe.’  Regional  Environmental 
Change, pp. 1–18. 

Lewandowski, I. (2016). ‘The role of perennial biomass crops in a growing bioeconomy.’ In S. 
Barth, D. Murphy‐Bokern, O. Kalinina, G. Taylor, and M. Jones (eds.) Perennial Biomass Crops 
for a Resource‐constrained World, 3–13. Cham: Springer Switzerland. 

Lewandowski, I., Clifton-Brown, J., and Murphy-Bokern, D. (2015) ‘Perennial biomass Crops 
for 
https://biomass2015.uni-
hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/biomass2015/Biomass2015_Conference_Results_02.
pdf 

Resource-Constrained 

world.’ 

a 

Liere, H., Kim, T.N., Werling, B.P., Meehan, T.D., Landis, D.A., and Gratton, C. (2015). ‘Trophic 
cascades in agricultural landscapes: indirect effects of landscape composition on crop yield.’ 
Ecological Applications, 25, 652–661. doi: 10.1890/14-0570.1 

Lourenço,  L.  (2018).  ‘Forest  fires  in  continental  Portugal.  Result  of  profound  alterations  in 
society  and  territorial  consequences.’  Http://Journals.Openedition.Org/Mediterranee,  (130). 
Doi: https://doi.org/10.4000/MEDITERRANEE.9958 

Manning, P., Taylor, G. and Hanley, M. (2015). ‘Bioenergy, Food Production and Biodiversity 
– An Unlikely Alliance?’ GCB Bioenergy, 7, 570–576. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12173  

MARD. (2020). ‘Grupurile de producători recunoscute în România.’ Ministry of Agriculture and 
Rural 
at: 
Romania, 
https://www.madr.ro/docs/agricultura/grupurile-producatorilor-recunoscute-update-
04.03.2020.pdf 

Development 

Bucharest. 

Available 

for 

McCalmont,  J.P.,  Hastings,  A., Mcnamara,  N.P.,  Richter,  G.M.,  Robson, P.,  Donnison,  I.S., 
and  Clifton‐Brown,  J.  (2017).  ‘Environmental  costs  and  benefits  of  growing  Miscanthus  for 
bioenergy in the UK.’ GCB Bioenergy, 9, 489–507.  

McIsaac, G.F., David, M.B., and Mitchell, C.A. (2010). ‘Miscanthus and switchgrass production 
in  central  Illinois:  impacts  on  hydrology  and  inorganic  nitrogen  leaching.’  Journal  of 
Environmental Quality, 39, 1790–1799. doi: 10.2134/jeq2009.0497  

153 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Meehan, T.D., Hurlbert, A.H., and Gratton, C. (2010). ‘Bird communities in future bioenergy 
landscapes of the Upper Midwest.’ PNAS, 107, 18533–18538. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008475107  

Mehmood,  M.A.,  Ibrahim,  M.,  Rashid,  U.,  Nawaz,  M.,  Ali,  S.,  Hussain,  A.,  et  al. 
(2017). ‘Biomass production for bioenergy using marginal lands.’ Sustainable Production and  
Consumption 9, 3–21. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2016.08.003  

Michel, H. (2012). ‘Editorial: The Nonsense of Biofuels.’ Angewandte Chemie,51, 2516–2518. 

Mihalcea, L., Radu, R.I. and Nastase, G. (2015).  The Capitalisation of the Romanian Land 
Fund in the context of European Integration.  In: Risk in Contemporary Economy, proceedings 
of an international conference organised by “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, Faculty of 
Economics 
at: 
Administration, 
Business 
https://ideas.repec.org/a/ddj/fserec/y2015p526-533.html 

Available 

526-533. 

and 

Moreno, G., and Pulido, F.J. (2009). ‘The function, management and persistence of dehesas.’ 
In Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., Mosquera, M.R.,  and  McAdam, J. (eds.)  Agroforestry  in Europe. 
Current Status and Future Prospects. Heidelberg: Springer, 127–160. 

Mosquera-Losadaa, M.R., Santiago-Freijanesa, J., Rois-Díaza, M, Morenod, G., den Herder, 
M.,  Aldrey-Vázquez,  J,  Ferreiro-Domíngueza,  N.,  Panteraf,  A.,  Pisanellig,  A.,  and  Rigueiro-
Rodrígueza,  A.,  (2018).  ‘Agroforestry  in  Europe:  A  land  management  policy  tool  to  combat 
climate change.’ Land Use Policy, 78,. 603-613. 

Nair, V.D., and Kalmbacher, R.S. (2005). ‘Silvopasture as an approach to reducing nutrient 
loading of surface water from farms.’ In Mosquera-Losada, M.R., McAdam, J., and Rigueiro-
Rodríguez, A. (eds.) Silvopastoralism and Sustainable Land Management. Wallingford: CABI.  

NIS  (2020a).  ‘TEMPO-Online  time  series  AGR101A  -  Land  fund  area  by  usage,  ownership 
form,  macroregions,  development  region  and  counties.’  National  Institute  for  Statistics  - 
ROMANIA, 
http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-
online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  

Bucharest. 

Available 

at: 

NIS  (2020b).  ‘TEMPO-Online  time  series  AGR108A  -  Area  cultivated  with  main  crops  by 
ownership  form,  macroregions,  development  regions  and  counties.’  National  Institute  for 
-  ROMANIA,  Bucharest.  Available  at:  http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-
Statistics 
online/#/pages/tables/insse-table  

Nunes, L., Stigter, T., Monteiro, J., and Teixeira, M. (2011). ‘Environmental Impacts on Soil 
and  Groundwater  at  Airports:  Origin,  Contaminants  of  Concern  and  Environmental  Risks.’ 
Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13, 3026-39. doi: 10.1039/c1em10458f  

OVAM.  (2013).  ‘Potentieelbepaling  Landfill  Mining  en  saneringsnoodzaak  stortplaatsen  in 
Vlaanderen 
2013.’ 
https://www.ovam.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/def-rapport-eddy.pdf  

Eindrapportage 

mei 

– 

Panagos, P., Borelli, P., Poesen, J., Ballabio, C., Lugato, E., Meusburger, K., Montanarella, L. 
and  Alewell,  C.  (2015).  ‘The  new  assessment  of  soil  loss  by  water  erosion  in  Europe.’ 

154 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Environmental 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.012 

Science 

& 

Policy, 

54, 

438-447. 

doi: 

Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Jones, A. and Montanarella, L. (2012). ‘European Soil Data 
Centre: Response to European policy support and public data requirements.’ Land Use Policy, 
29, 329–338. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.003  

Pancaldi, F., and Trindade, L.M. (2020) ‘Marginal Lands to Grow Novel Bio-Based Crops: A 
Plant Breeding Perspective.’ Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 227. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00227  

Paracchini, M.L., Petersen, J.E., Hogeveen, Y., Bamps, C.,  Burfield, I., and van Swaay, C. 
(2008). ‘High nature value farmland in Europe. An estimate of the distribution patterns on the 
basis  of  land  cover  and  biodiversity  data.’  European  Commission,  Joint  Research  Centre, 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability. EUR 23480 EN.  

Parvathaneni, L., Prayaga, L., and Karusala, A. (2017). ‘Selection of castor germplasm with 
important traits for drought tolerance under field conditions.’ Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 
22, 3, 295–303. doi: 10.1007/s40502-017-0302-3  

Pedroli, B., Elbersen, B., Frederiksen, P., Grandin, U., Heikkilä, R., Krogh, P.H, Izakovičová, 
Z.,  Johansen,  A.,  Meiresonne,  L.,  and  Spijker,  J.  (2013).  ‘Is  energy  cropping  in  Europe 
compatible  with  biodiversity?  Opportunities  and  threats  to  biodiversity  from  land‐based 
production of biomass for bioenergy purposes.’ Biomass Bioenergy, 55, 73–86. 

Pivato,  A.,  Garbo,  F.,  Moretto,  M.,  et  al.  (2018).  ‘Energy  crops  on  landfills:  functional, 
environmental, and costs analysis of different landfill configurations.’ Environmental Science 
and Pollution Research, 25, 35936–35948. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1452-1  

Plieninger,  T.,  and  Gaertner,  M.  (2011).  ‘Harnessing  degraded  lands  for  biodiversity 
conservation.’ Journal for Nature Conservation, 19, 18-23. 

Plieninger,  T.,  Hartel,  T.,  Martín-López,  B.,  Beaufoy,  G.,  Bergmeier,  E.,  Kirby,  K.,  Montero, 
M.J., Moreno, G., Oteros-Rozas, E., and Van Uytvanck, J. (2015). ‘Wood-pastures of Europe: 
Geographic  coverage,  social-ecological  values,  conservation  management,  and  policy 
Conservation 
implications.’ 
doi: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.014 

Biological 

70-79. 

190, 

Plutzar,  C.,  Kroisleitner,  C.,  Haberl,  H.,  Fetzel,  T.,  Bulgheroni,  C.,  Beringer,  T.,  Hostert,  P., 
Kastner,  T.,  Kuemmerle,  T.,  Lauk,  C.,  Levers,  C.,  Lindner,  M.,  Moser,  D.,  Müller,  D., 
Niedertscheider, M., Paracchini, M.L., Schaphoff, S., Verburg, P.H., Verkerk, P.J., Erb, K.H. 
(2016).  ‘Changes  in  the  spatial  patterns  of  human  appropriation  of  net  primary  production 
(HANPP)  in  Europe  1990-2006.’  Regional  Environmental  Change,  16(5),  1225–1238.  Doi : 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0820-3 LK - https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/6039644468  

Pointereau, P., Coulon, F., Girard, P., Lambotte, M., Stuczynski, T., Sánchez Ortega, V., and 
Del  Rio,  A.  (2008).  ‘Analysis  of  Farmland  Abandonment  and  the  Extent  and  Location  of 
Agricultural Areas that are Actually Abandoned or are in Risk to be Abandoned.’ EUR 23411EN 
– 2008, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, JRC. 

155 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Poláková, J., Tucker, G., Hart, K., Dwyer, J., and Rayment, M. (2011) ‘Addressing biodiversity 
and  habitat  preservation  through  Measures  applied  under  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy’. 
Report Prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Contract No. 30-CE-0388497/00-
44. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy. 

Porder, S., A. Bento, A. Leip, L. A. Martinelli, J. Samseth, and T. Simpson. (2009). ‘Toward an 
integrated  assessment  of  biofuel  technologies.’  In  Howarth,  R.W.,  and  Bringezu,  S.  (eds.) 
Biofuels: environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Proceedings 
of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels 
Project Rapid Assessment, 22-25 September 2008, Gummersbach, 233-248.  

Pulighe, G., Bonati, G., Fabiani, S., Barsali, T., Lupia, F., Vanino, S., Nino, P., Arca, P., and 
Roggero, P.P. (2016). ‘Assessment of the Agronomic Feasibility of Bioenergy Crop Cultivation 
on  Marginal  and  Polluted  Land:  A  GIS-Based  Suitability  Study  from  the  Sulcis  Area,  Italy.’ 
Energies, 9, 18. 

Pulighe,  G.,  Bonati,  G.,  Colangeli,  M.,  Morese,  M.M.,  Traverso,  L.,  Lupia,  F.,  Khawaja,  C., 
Janssen,  R.,  Fava,  F.  (2019).  ‘Ongoing  and  emerging  issues  for  sustainable  bioenergy 
production  on  marginal  lands  in  the  Mediterranean  regions.’  Renewable  and  Sustainable 
Energy Reviews, 103, 58–70. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.043 

Ramirez-Almeyda,  J.,  Elbersen,  B.,  Monti,  M.,  Staritsky,  I.,  Panoutsou,  P.,  Alexopoulou,  E, 
Schrijver,  R,  and  Elbersen,  W.  (2017).  ‘Assessing  the  potentials  for  non-food  crops.’  In 
Panoutsou,  C.  and  Langeveld,  H.  (eds.).  Modelling  and  Optimisation  of  Biomass  Supply 
Chains.  Top  down  and  bottom  up  assessment  for  agricultural,  forest  and  waste  feedstock. 
Elsevier, 219-251.  

Richards,  M.,  Pogson,  M.,  Dondini,  M.,  et  al.  (2017).  ‘High-resolution  spatial  modelling  of 
greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change to energy crops in the United Kingdom.’ GCB 
Bioenergy, 9, 627–644.  

Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., McAdam, J. and Mosquera-Losada, M.R. (Eds.) (2009). Agroforestry 
in Europe. Current Status and Future Prospects. Springer Science ISBN: 978-1-4020-8271-9.  

Robertson, G. P., Hamilton, S. K., Barham, B. L., Dale, B. E., Izaurralde, R. C., Jackson, R. 
D., et al. (2017). ‘Cellulosic biofuel contributions to a sustainable energy future: choices and 
outcomes.’ Science 356, eaal2324. doi: 10.1126/science.aal2324  

Robertson,  G.  P.,  Hamilton,  S.K.,  Del  Grosso,  S.J.,  and  Parton,  W.J.  (2011).  ‘The 
biogeochemistry  of  bioenergy  landscapes:  carbon,  nitrogen,  and  water  considerations.’ 
Ecological Applications, 21, 1055–1067. doi: 10.1890/09-0456.1  

Robinson, R.A., Wilson, J.D. and Crick, H.Q.P. (2001). ‘The importance of arable habitat for 
farmland birds in grassland landscapes.’ Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 1059-1069. 

Rokwood  (2015a).  ‘Energy  crops  in  Europe:  best  practice  in  SRP  biomass  from  Germany, 
Ireland, Poland, Spain, Sweden & UK.’ 

156 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Rokwood (2015b). ‘Resource efficient production and utilization of woody biomass from SRPs: 
European Best Practice and Key Findings.’  

Royal  Society.  (2008).  ‘Sustainable  biofuels:  prospects  and  challenges.’  Policy  document 
01/08, January. 

Ruf, T., Schmidt, A., Delfosse, P., and Emmerling, C. (2017). ‘Harvest date of Miscanthus x 
giganteus affects nutrient cycling, biomass development and soil quality.’ Biomass Bioenergy, 
100, 62–73. 

Rusu,  M.,  Florian,  V.,  Tudor,  M.,  Chitea,  M.,  Chitea,  L.  and  Rosu,  E.  (2011).    Land  related 
disputes and conflicts in Romania, Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 8(1), 127–
145.  Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/a/iag/reviea/v8y2011i1p127-145.html 

Săvulescu,  I.,  Mihai,  B.,  Vîrghileanu,  M.,  Nistor,  C.  and Olariu,  B.  (2019).  ‘Mountain  Arable 
Land Abandonment (1968–2018) in the Romanian Carpathians: Environmental Conflicts and 
Sustainability Issues.’ Sustainability, 11, 6679. doi:10.3390/su11236679  

Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.-F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Nita, V. (2015). ‘The role of biomass and 
bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: Policies and facts.’ Environmental Development, 15, 3–34. 
Doi : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.03.006 

Schneider,  M.,  Blanchard,  G.,  Levers,  C.  and  Kuemmerle,  T.  (2015).  ‘Spatial  Variation  of 
Drivers of Agricultural Abandonment with Spatially Boosted Models.’ Procedia Environmental 
Sciences, 27, 53–57. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.07.114 

Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., et al. (2008). 
‘Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-
use change.’ Science 319, 5867, 1238-1240.   

Shafiei-Koij, F., Mahdi Majidi, M., Mirlohi, A., Saeidi, G., Barthet, V.J., and Eskini, S. (2019). 
‘The  Use  of  Wild  Relatives  of  Safflower  to  Increase  Genetic  Diversity  for  Fatty  Acid 
Composition  and  Drought  Tolerance.’  Crop  Science,  59,  2109–2118  (2019).  doi: 
10.2135/cropsci2019.01.0068 

Sharma, S., and Chaubey, I. (2017). ‘Surface and subsurface transport of nitrate loss from the 
future  directions., 
selected  bioenergy  crop 
Agriculture-Basel, 7, 27. 

fields:  systematic  review,  analysis  and 

Silvis,  H.  and  Voskuilen,  M.  (2018).  ‘Agricultural  land  prices  in  the  EU  in  2016.’  Factsheet, 
Wageningen University & Research. https://edepot.wur.nl/446327  

Smeets,  E.,  Lewandowski,  I.  and  Faaij,  A.  (2009).  ‘The  economical  and  environmental 
performance  of  miscanthus  and  switchgrass  production  and  supply  chains  in  a  European 
setting.’ Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1230-1245. 

Stahl, J., Sikor, T. and Dorondel, S. (2007).  Transparency in Albanian and Romanian Land 
at:  
Administration. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255609850_Transparency_in_Albanian_and_Roma
nian_Land_Administration_1 

International 

Coalition, 

Available 

Rome. 

Land 

157 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Stolte,  J.,  Tesfai,  M.,  Øygarden,  L.,  Kvaernø,  S.,  Keizer,  J.,  and  Verheijen,  F.  (2016).  ‘Soil 
threats in Europe: status, methods, drivers and effects on ecosystem services. A review report, 
deliverable 2.1 of the RECARE project.’ https://doi.org/10.2788/488054 

Stringer,  L.C.,  and  Harris,  A.  (2014).  ‘Land  degradation  in  Dolj  county,  southern  Romania: 
environmental  changes,  impacts  and  responses.’  Land  Degradation  &  Development,  25(1), 
17–28. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2260 LK - https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/5534806671 

Sutcliffe, L. et al (2015). ‘Harnessing the biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European 
farmland.’ Diversity and Distributions, 21, 722–730. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12288.  

Terres, J.M., Nisini, L. and Anguiano, E. (2013). ‘Assessing the risk of farmland abandonment 
in the EU.’ JRC78131 EUR 25783 EN ISBN 978-92-79-28281-2 (pdf) ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 
doi:  LB-NA-25783-EN-N  Luxembourg:  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2013, 
European Union. 

Terres,  J.M.,  Hagyo,  A.,  Wania,  A.,  Confalonieri,  R.,  Jones,  B.  Van  Diepen  K.,  and  Van 
Orshoven J. (2014). ‘Scientific contribution on combining biophysical criteria underpinning the 
delineation of agricultural areas affected by specific constraints. Methodology and factsheets 
for plausible criteria combinations’. JRC92686. doi: 10.2788/844501. 

Terres, J.M., Van Orshoven, J., Toth, T., Jones, R., Le-Bas, C., Nachtergaele, F., Rossiter, D., 
Schulte, R., Velthuizen, H. (2014b). ‘Updated common bio-physical criteria to define natural 
constraints  for  agriculture  in  Europe.  Definition  and  scientific  justification  for  the  common 
biophysical  criteria.’  JRC  report  EUR  26638  EN.  Luxembourg:  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union. 

Terres, J. M., Scacchiafichi, L. N., Wania, A., Ambar, M., Anguiano, E., Buckwell, A., Zobena, 
A.  (2015).  ‘Farmland  abandonment  in  Europe:  Identification  of  drivers  and  indicators,  and 
development  of  a  composite  indicator  of  risk’  https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/7095073920. 
Land Use Policy, 49, 20–34. 

Tilman,  D.,  Socolow,  R.,  Foley,  J.  A.,  Hill,  J.,  Larson,  E.,  Lynd,  L.,  et  al.  (2009).  ‘Beneficial 
biofuels—the  food,  energy,  and  environment  trilemma.’  Science  325,  270–271.  doi: 
10.1126/science.1177970 

Torralba,  M.,  Fagerholma,  M.,  Burgess,  P.,  Moreno,  G.,  and  Plieninger,  T.  (2016).  ‘Do 
European  agroforestry  systems  enhance  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services?  A  meta-
analysis.’ Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 230, 150–161. 

Tóth, G., Adhikari, K., Várallyay, G., Tóth, T., Bódis, K. and Stolbovoy, V. (2008). ‘European 
Union Threats to Soil Quality in Europe.’ In: ‘Threats to Soil Quality in Europe’ (pp. 65–77). 
European Commission Joint Research Centre. 

Toth, G., Hermann, T., Szatmari, G. and Pasztor, L. (2016). ‘Maps of heavy metals in the soils 
of the European Union and proposed priority areas for detailed assessment.’ Science of the 
Total Environment, 565, 1054–1062. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.115. 

158 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

USDA National Wildlife Research Center (2005). ‘Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A 
Manual 
Personnel.’ 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=icwdm_usdanwrc 

Airport 

for 

Valentine,  J.,  Clifton-Brown,  J.,  Hastings,  A.,  Robson,  P.,  Allison,  G.  and  Smith,  P.  (2012). 
‘Food vs. fuel: the use of land for lignocellulosic ‘next generation’ energy crops that minimize 
competition  with  primary  food  production.’  GCB  Bioenergy,  4,  1–19.  doi:  10.1111/j.1757-
1707.2011.01111.x 

Valin, H., Peters, D., van den Berg, M., Frank, S., Havlik, P., Forsell, N. et al. (2015). ‘The Land 
Use Change Impact of Biofuels Consumed in the EU: Quantification of Area and Greenhouse 
Gas Impacts.’ Utrecht: ECOFYS. p. 261. 

Van  der  Sluis,  T.,  Pedroli,  B.,  Kristensen,  S.B.P.,  Lavinia  Cosor,  G.  and  Pavlis,  E.  (2016). 
‘Changing land use intensity in Europe - Recent processes in selected case studies.’ Land Use 
Policy, 
- 
https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/6777550992 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.005 

777–785. 

57, 

LK 

Van der Weijde, T., Kiesel, A., Iqbal, Y., Muylle, H., Dolstra, O., Visser, R.G.F., Lewandowski, 
I., and Trindade, L. M. (2017). ‘Evaluation of Miscanthus sinensis biomass quality as feedstock 
into  different  bioenergy  products.’  GCB  Bioenergy,  9(1),  176–190. 
for  conversion 
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12355.  

Van Eupen, M., Metzger, M.J., Perez-Soba, M, Verburg, P., van Doorn, A. and Bunce, R.G.H. 
(2012). ‘A rural typology for strategic European policies.’ Land Use Policy, 29, 473-482.  

Van Holst, F. (2011). ‘Comparative quick scan study: Pre-emption rights related to rural land.’ 
The Netherlands: DLG. 

Van Liedekerke, M., Prokop, G., Rabl‐Berger, S., Kibblewhite, M., and Louwagie, G. (2014). 
‘Progress  in the  Management  of  Contaminated  Sites  in  Europe.  EUR  26376.’  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union (68 pp). 

Van Vliet, J., de Groot, H. L. F., Rietveld, P. and Verburg, P. H. (2015). ‘Manifestations and 
underlying drivers of agricultural land use change in Europe.’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 
- 
133, 
https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/5627857093 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.001 

24–36. 

LK 

Verburg, P.H. and Overmars, K.P. (2009). ‘Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in 
land  use  modeling:  exploring  the  future  of  abandoned  farmlands  in  Europe  with  the  Dyna-
CLUE  model.’  Landscape Ecology,  24(9):  1167-1181.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-
9355-7.  

Verheijen, F.G.A., Jones, R.J.A., Rickson, R.J. and Smith, C.J. (2009). ‘Tolerable versus actual 
soil erosion rates in Europe.’ Earth-Science Reviews, 94 (1–4), 23–38.  

Viedma, O., Moity, N. and Moreno, J. M. (2015). ‘Changes in landscape fire-hazard during the 
second  half  of  the  20th  century:  Agriculture  abandonment  and  the  changing  role  of  driving 

159 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

factors.’ 
126–140. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.04.011 LK - https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/5899886239 

Environment, 

Ecosystems 

Agriculture, 

207, 

and 

Vinogradovs,  I.,  Nikodemus,  O.,  Elferts,  D.  and  Brūmelis,  G.  (2018).  ‘Assessment  of  site-
specific  drivers  of  farmland  abandonment  in  mosaic-type  landscapes:  A  case  study  in 
Vidzeme, 
113–121. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.016 LK - https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/7241033826 

Latvia.’  Agriculture,  Ecosystems 

and  Environment, 

253, 

Von Cossel, M., I. Lewandowski, B. Elbersen, I. Staritsky, M. Van Eupen, Y. Iqbal, S. Mantel, 
D. Scordia, G. Testa, S. Luciano Cosentino, O. Maliarenko, I. Eleftheriadis, F. Zanetti, A. Monti, 
D.  Lazdina,  S.  Neimane,  I.  Lamy,  L.  Ciadamidaro,  M.  Sanz,  J.E.  Carrasco,  P.  Ciria,  I. 
McCallum, L.M. Trindade, E.N. van Loo, W. Elbersen, A.L. Fernando, E.G. Papazoglou and 
E.  Alexopoulou  (2019a).  ‘Marginal  Agricultural  Land  Low-Input  Systems  for  Biomass 
Production.’ Energies, 12, 16, 3123. doi:10.3390/en12163123  

Von Cossel; M,  Wagner M.; Lask J.; Magenau E.; Bauerle A.; von Cossel V.; Warradh-Sagi 
K.; Elbersen B.; Staritsky I.; van Eupen M.; Iqbal Y.; Jablonowski N.D.; Happe S.; Fernando 
A.L.; Scordia D.; Cosentino S.L.; Wulfmeyer V.; Lewandowski I.; Winkler B. (2019b): Prospects 
of  Bioenergy  Cropping  Systems  for  A  More  Social-Ecologically  Sound  Bioeconomy.  DOI: 
10.3390/agronomy9100605 

Vorovencii, I. (2017). ‘Analysis of changes in the Metropolitan Area of Brasov, Romania, using 
Landsat multitemporal satellite images.’ Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 
16(2), 303-316. 

Werling,  B.P.,  Dickson,  T.L.,  Isaacs,  R.,  Gaines,  H.,  Gratton,  C.,  Gross,  K.L.,  et  al.  (2014). 
‘Perennial  grasslands  enhance  biodiversity  and  multiple  ecosystem  services  in  bioenergy 
landscapes.’ PNAS, 111, 1652–1657. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1309492111  

Weselek,  A.,  Ehmann,  A.,  Zikeli,  S.,  Lewandowski,  I.,  Schindele,  S.,  and  Högy,  P.  (2019): 
‘Agrophotovoltaic systems: applications, challenges, and opportunities. A review’, Agronomy 
for Sustainable Development, 39, Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0581-3 

Whithaker,  J.,  Field,  J.,  Bernacchi,  C.,  Cerri,  C.,  Ceulemans,  R.,  Davies,  C.,  Delucia,  E., 
Donnison, I., McCalmont, J., Paustian, K., Rowe, R., Smith, P., Thornley, P., and Mcnamara, 
N. (2018). ‘Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land 
use.’ GCB Bioenergy, 10, 3, 150–164, doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12488  

Wiegmann, K., Hennenberg, K.J., and Fritsche, U.R. (2008). ‘Degraded land and sustainable 
bioenergy feedstock production.’ Paper presented at the Joint International Workshop on High 
Natural Value Criteria and Potential for Sustainable Use of Degraded Lands, Paris. 

Zegada-Lizarazu, W., Elbersen, H., Cosentino, S., Zatta, A., Alexopoulou, E., and Monti, A. 
(2010).  ‘Agronomic  aspects  of  future  energy  crops  in  Europe.’  Biofuels,  Bioproducts  and 
Biorefining, 4, 674-691. 

160 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Zimmermann,  J.,  Dauber,  J.,  and  Jones,  M.  (2012).  ‘Soil  carbon  sequestration  during  the 
establishment phase of Miscanthus x giganteus: a regional-scale study on commercial farms 
using 13C natural abundance.’ GCB Bioenergy, 4, 453-461. 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

7.  ANNEX  I  OVERVIEW  OF  STATISTICAL  AND  SPATIAL  DATA 

SOURCES ON FARMLAND AT EU-WIDE LEVEL 

Eurostat – Farm Structure Survey (FSS) 
Eurostat is the European statistical office that provides strict guideline to all MS on how they 
have to report their data to FSS. It ensures that there is regular data reporting according to a 
consistent methodology between all EU Member States. The data on farming are published 
through  the  Farm  Structural  Survey  (FSS).  It  includes  data  on  agricultural  land  collected  at 
Member State and regional level.  

The Eurostat Farm structure survey (FSS) is carried out by all European Union (EU) Member 
States. The FSS is conducted consistently throughout the EU with a common methodology on 
a  regular  basis  and  provides  therefore  comparable  and  representative  statistics  across 
countries and time, at regional levels (NUTS0- NUTS 3 level). Every 3 or 4 years the FSS is 
carried  out  as  a  sample  survey,  and  once  in  ten  years  as  a  census.    The  last  census  was 
carried  out  in  2010.    Sample  surveys  of  2003,  2005  and  2007  covered  the  EU-27  Member 
States. In 2013 and 2016, the survey covered the EU28 Member States (including Croatia) 
and other non-EU countries like Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Montenegro, North Macedonia 
and Serbia.  

The  countries  collect  information  from  individual  agricultural  holdings  and  forward  these  to 
Eurostat. The information collected in the FSS covers all crop/land types on farm area, AA and 
UAA as presented in the tree in Figure 2.  

Minimum size threshold71: 

Until the FSS 2007, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 571/88, the countries 
which applied a threshold of above one hectare of utilised agricultural area (UAA) committed 
themselves to fix this threshold at a level excluding only the smallest holdings, which together 
contributed 1 % or less to the total standard gross margin (SGM). 

71 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Farm_structure_survey_%E2%80%93_survey_coverage#Thresholds_described_in_legislation.C2.A0 

Copied 

from: 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 13 Minimum farm and farm area coverage for registration in FSS before and after 2007 

Following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1166/2008, the minimum requirements for 
survey coverage from the 2009/2010 FSS onwards have been modified. Countries which used 
a survey threshold above one hectare of UAA were allowed to fix this threshold at a level that 
excludes only the smallest agricultural holdings which together contribute 2 % or less to the 
total UAA excluding common land, and 2 % or less to the total number of farm livestock units 
(LSU). In addition, in all cases, countries have to include in the survey populations all holdings 
which comply with at least one of the following set of physical thresholds, defined in Annex II 
of Regulation (EC) No 1166/2008: 

•  Utilised  agricultural  area  (arable  land,  kitchen  gardens,  permanent  grassland, 

permanent crops): 5 hectares  

•  Permanent  outdoor  crops  (fruit,  berry,  citrus  and  olive  plantations,  vineyards  and 

nurseries): 1 hectare 

•  Other intensive production: 

o  Fresh vegetables, melons and strawberries, which are outdoors or under low 

(not accessible) protective cover: 0.5 hectares 

o  Tobacco: 0.5 hectares 
o  Hops: 0.5 hectares 
o  Cotton: 0.5 hectares 

•  Crops under glass or other (accessible) protective cover: 

o  Fresh vegetables, melons and strawberries: 0.1 hectares 
o  Flowers and ornamental plants (excluding nurseries): 0.1 hectares 

•  Bovine animals (all): 10 heads 
•  Pigs (all): 50 heads 
•  Breeding sows: 10 heads 
•  Sheep (all): 20 heads 
•  Goats (all): 20 heads 
•  Poultry (all): 1 000 heads. 

Common land can be defined as utilised agricultural area used by the agricultural holding but 
not belonging directly to it, i.e. on which common rights apply. In general terms, common land 
is utilised agricultural area (UAA) owned by a public authority (state, parish, etc.) over which 

163 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

another  person  is  entitled  to  exercise  rights  of  common,  and  these  rights  are  generally 
exercisable in common with others. Common land is found in Mediterranean Member States 
(Greece,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Cyprus  and  Portugal),  in  mountainous  countries  (Austria, 
Norway  and  Switzerland),  in  some  East  European  countries  (Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Hungary, 
Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Montenegro  and  Serbia),  in  countries  which  have  extensive 
grassland areas (Ireland, United Kingdom and Iceland) and in Germany. 

Common  land  consists  mainly  of  permanent  grassland,  although  it  could  also  consist  of 
horticulture or arable land. A large percentage of these areas is used for grazing animals. In 
common land units, the area used by each holding is not individualised but is counted as part 
of the utilised agricultural area (UAA) in the FSS database.  

As to registration of common land in FSS not all countries register it in the same as part of 
UAA and some adjustments were introduced since 2010 (see Table 14) as some additional 
countries started registering it as part of the UAA. From Table 2.3 (in main report) it becomes 
clear that this can be quite significant areas. So this also creates inconsistencies between the 
definition and what is registered in FSS by every country. 

Table 14 Different ways common land is registered in FSS 

Common land:  

Method A: Area of 
common land rented 
by, or allotted to the 
agricultural holding 
(existence of written or 
oral agreement) (¹) 

included in FSS 
even 
before 
2010 

 Spain, Italy, Latvia, 
Poland 

included in FSS 
since 2010 (²) 

Hungary, Iceland, 
Serbia 

Method B: Area of common land neither rented by, nor 
allotted to the agricultural holding: actual common land 

Option 1: 
Allocated to 
agricultural 
holdings 

Germany (excl. 
Bavaria), 
Cyprus, 
Poland,  
Norway 

Croatia, 
Slovenia, 
Montenegro 

Option 2: 
Common land 
units - local 
units managing 
the common 
land 

Germany (excl. 
Bavaria), Spain,  
Italy, Cyprus, 
Austria, 
Portugal, 
Romania 

Bulgaria, 
France, Serbia 

Option 3: Common 
land units - 
aggregates of 
common land at 
regional level 

- 

 Ireland, 
 Greece, Croatia 
(2013 only), 
Hungary, United 
Kingdom 

common 

No 
land  

Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 
Netherlands, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden 

(¹) Not considered common land in statistics 

(²) Serbia carried out the 2010 FSS in 2012 

One conclusion from this table is that there are a lot of inconsistencies and movements in data 
that  almost  certainly  don’t  correspond to changes  on  the  ground.  Many statistical  artefacts, 
including  the  important  shift  from  estimates  to  more  consistent  use  of  EU  methodology  in 
several MS. 

DG-AGRI- Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) 
Another relevant EC data source is the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), that should 
be used with caution for determining the UAA, and  comparing it to other data sources. The 
UAA for which data is collected in FADN is based on the same definition as applied in FSS but 
the limitation is however the low representation of small farms in the FADN sample, because 
farms    have    to  be  above  an  economic  size  threshold,  which  is  also different  per  MS.  This 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

implies that it excludes parts of the UAA where small farms predominate. From the particular 
perspective of land abandonment this is even more of a limitation as we know that the drivers 
on farmland abandonment are most prominent in remote rural areas and in these type of areas 
there are relatively more farms with limited economic size and part-time farmers, particularly 
in the CEEC and Mediterranean countries. This implies a significant under-representation of 
farms and related UAA in areas with high risks of land abandonment.  

In FADN individual farm data are collected combining land use and production information and 
land management. The UAA for which data is collected in FADN is based on a similar definition 
as applied in FSS. Data or farms is only registered in FADN when they comply to the above 
minimum economic size threshold (see Table 15).  

Table 15 FADN includes farms which exceed a certain economic size and are defined as 
commercial. Because of the different farm structures in the European Union, it is necessary 
to specify separate thresholds for each Member State72. 
Economic  size  thresholds  (in  1000  EUR)  applied  by  the  Commission  according  to Regulation  (EC) 

1242/2008 from Year 
Belgium 
Bulgaria  
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany (*) 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece (*) 
Spain 
France (Guadeloupe) 
France 
France (La Réunion) 
France (Martinique) 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands (*) 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) 
United Kingdom 

72 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/methodology1_en.cfm 

165 

25 
4 
8 
15 
25 
4 
8 
4 
8 
15 
25 
15 
15 
4 
8 
4 
4 
4 
25 
4 
4 
25 
15 
4 
4 
2 
4 
25 
8 
15 
15 
25 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Integrated  Administration  and  Control  System  (IACS)The  Integrated  Administration  and 
Control  System  registers    agricultural  land  use  at  the  level  of  agricultural  parcel  on  farms. 
Because the CAP payments can only be linked to agricultural land which is ‘eligible’, it only 
registers  eligible  land  which  implies  that  the  UAA  registered  through  IACS/LPIS  is  mostly 
smaller than in FSS as was already illustrated in section 2.2.   

The  Integrated  Administration  and  Control  System  (IACS  and  its  GIS,  “the  Land  Parcel 
Identification  System”  (LPIS))  has  been  set  up  by  all  member  states  to  manage  the 
implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is operationalized by the paying agencies 
of each member state. The IACS ensures that payments of the EU Common Agricultural Policy 
(CAP)  are made correctly.  LPIS  identifies  and  quantifies  agriculture  land  for the  purpose  of 
allocating CAP payments. The data is gathered each year through individual  application forms 
that are filled out by every farmer claiming CAP payments. In IACS/LPIS the UAA definition 
applied  is  similar  to  that  of  Eurostat  statistics  and  FADN  sources,  however  again  the 
representation of farms is different. This is because the CAP payments can only be linked to 
agricultural land which is ‘eligible’. Therefore the CAP Regulation defines agricultural area and 
categorizes land for “eligible hectares”. 

Spatial data  

An overview of the most relevant spatial sources which provide data on agricultural land in the 
EU, both for current and for past situation are presented in  . 

Table 16 Main spatial data sources providing information on agricultural land 

Data source 

Description 

Suitable for UAA and AA quantification? 

Land  Use  and  Cover 
Area 
frame  Survey 
(LUCAS) 

Corine  Land  Cover 
(1990,  2000,  2006, 
2012, 2018) 

On a 2km grid sample points are selected and data 
on  land  use  and  land  cover  are  collected.  Sample 
points are classified into different categories of land 
use  and  land  cover  according  to  first  and  second 
dominant  class  per  point.  The  classifications  used 
are streamlined with other statistical standards, like 
the  Farm  Structure  Survey  and 
the  EUNIS 
classification. 

The  land  cover  information  is  derived  from  high 
resolution  satellite  data  (Landsat-TM)  by  computer 
assisted  visual  interpretation  in  combination  with 
ancillary data. The final CLC database consists of a 
geographical database describing land cover/use in 
44  classes  grouped  into  a  three  level  hierarchical 
structure.  The  CORINE  land  cover  nomenclature 
has 5 major categories at the first level, 15 land cover 
categories at the second level and 44 categories at 
the third level. 

GlobCover 

The GlobCover Land Cover Map was created by the 
ESA’s  GlobCover  Project.   The  map  displays  land 
classification  information  for  most  of  the  Earth’s 
surface at a resolution of  300 meter (9 ha per pixel) 
and contains 22 different land cover types, which are 
based on the predominant type of vegetation found 
at that location. The thematic legend is intended to 
be  compatible  with 
the  FAO  Land  Cover 
Classification System (LCCS) used for the GLC2000 
global land cover map.  The data was collected from 

This  database  registers  agricultural  land 
following the EU-CAP definition. However, it 
is not a suitable source to obtain a good area 
estimate  of  the  UAA  or  AA  because  it  is 
sample  based  and  registered  information  is 
aggregated and averaged to the sample grid.  

Very  suitable  EU  wide  database 
for 
understanding  land  use  and  land  cover 
changes in time as it has a full area coverage 
and is repeated every 6 years. However, data 
are  aggregated  and  averaged  to  100  meter 
grid,  many  land  uses  are  registered  as 
combined  classes  and  minimal  mappable 
units exclude the registration of land in small 
parcels. 

Total  agricultural  lands  registered  in  CLC 
never  correspond  to  the  total  AA  in  FSS  or 
IACS-LPIS.  

Similar to  CLC,  with smaller  number  of  land 
cover  classes  registered.  Good 
to  help 
understand  where  land  cover  changes  take 
place,  provided  the  area  they  cover  is  large 
enough to fit the minimal mapping unit.  

166 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

CCI-Land 
(1992-2015)73 

Cover 

the MERIS sensor on the ENVISAT satellite during 
2009. 

As a further improvement of the GlobCover map the 
the CCI-LC project delivers a new time series of 24 
consistent  global  LC  maps  at  300  m  spatial 
resolution  on  an  annual  basis  from  1992  to  2015, 
including 
land  surface  seasonality  products: 
greenness, seasonality, NDVI 

MODIS 2001-201774 

Modis  was  used  to  create  an  overview  of  land 
abandonment in the pan-European region. Cropped-
not-cropped  areas  within  a  time  frame  of  15  years 
where  analysed,  showing  patterning  of 
longer 
abandonment  and  short  term  (yearly)  set  aside 
production cycles 

GFSAD  30  meter 
Cropland mask75 

Global Food Security-Support Analysis Data at 30 m 
(GFSAD30) is a NASA funded project to provide high 
resolution global cropland data and their water use 
that contributes  towards  global  food  security  in the 
twenty-first  century.  The  GFSAD30  products  are 
derived  through  multi-sensor  remote  sensing  data 
(e.g.,  Landsat,  MODIS,  AVHRR),  secondary  data, 
field-plot  data  and  aims  at  documenting 
and 
cropland  dynamics 
to  2017.  The 
from  1990 
GFSAD30  collection,  based  on  Landsat  data,  
currently  provides  cropland  extent  data  across  the 
globe for nominal year 2015 at 30 meter resolution. 
Additionally, the validation dataset used  to conduct 
an  independent  accuracy  assessment  of  global 
cropland extent is available. 

Sen2-Agri system 

(mainly 
regional/case 
applications) 

for 
study  

system 

processing 

ESA’s Sentinel-2 for Agriculture project provides the 
Satellite  Sen2-Agri  system.  This  is  an  operational 
standalone 
generating 
agricultural  products  from  Sentinel-2  (A&B)  and 
Landsat  8  time  series  satellite  information.  The 
different  products  consist  of:  1)  monthly  cloud-free 
composites  of  surface  reflectance  at  10  –  20  m 
resolution;  2)  monthly  dynamic  cropland  masks, 
delivered from the agricultural mid-season onwards; 
3) cultivated crop type maps at 10 m resolution for 
main crop groups, delivered twice along agricultural 
seasons; 4) periodic vegetation status maps, NDVI 
and  LAI,  describing  the  vegetative  development  of 
crops  each 
is 
recorded.  The  Sen2-Agri  system  is  free  and  open 
source 

time  a  cloud-free  observation 

This data is suitable to detect changes in land 
use,  management  and  also  likely  signs  of 
abandonment  through  derived  indices  such 
as NDVI and greenness. However it is not a 
suitable source to detect the total area size of 
UAA and AA. It is only suitable to help assess 
what happens within the land and where it is 
located.  

This data is suitable to detect changes in land 
use,  management  and  also  likely  signs  of 
abandonment.  However  it  is  not  a  suitable 
source  to  detect  the  total  area  size  of  UAA 
and AA. It is only suitable to help assess what 
happens  within  the  land  and  where  it  is 
located. 

Interesting  source  to  obtain  information  on 
where cropland is and how it is managed. Not 
a  suitable  source  to  quantify  the  total  UAA 
area. 

This  data  is  suitable  to  use  for  analysis  of 
land  use  and  especially 
in 
changes 
management  and  also 
likely  signs  of 
abandonment.  However  it  is  not  a  suitable 
source  to  detect  the  total  area  size  of  UAA 
and AA. It is only suitable to help assess what 
happens  within  the  land  and  where  it  is 
located. 

73 See http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf 

74 Levers et al http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/2/024015/pdf 

75 See e https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/about/news_archive/release_gfsad_30_meter_cropland_extent_products 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

8.  ANNEX II ACTUAL UAA IN EU COUNTRIES AND CHANGES IN TIME 

BASED ON FSS AND FAO DATA SOURCES 

Table 17 UAA (Km2) 2005-2016 for EU28 Member States 

2005 

2007 

2010 

2013 

2016 

%  change 
in 
UAA 
since 2005 

%  change 
in 
AA 
since 
2005 

% 
change in 
farm area 
since 
2005 

Belgium 

1,386 

1,374 

1,358 

1,308 

1,354 

-2% 

1% 

0% 

Bulgaria 

2,729 

3,051 

4,476 

4,651 

4,492 

65% 

57% 

23% 

Czechia 

3,558 

3,518 

3,484 

3,491 

3,455 

Denmark 

2,708 

2,663 

2,647 

2,619 

2,615 

Germany 

17,035 

16,932 

16,704 

16,700 

16,715 

-3% 

-3% 

-2% 

-3% 

-1% 

-3% 

Estonia 

829 

907 

941 

958 

995 

20% 

13% 

-5% 

0% 

-2% 

6% 

Ireland 

4,219 

4,139 

4,991 

4,959 

4,884 

16% 

15% 

14% 

Greece 

3,984 

4,076 

5,178 

4,857 

4,554 

14% 

12% 

11% 

Spain 

24,855 

24,893 

23,753 

23,300 

23,230 

-7% 

-11% 

-9% 

France 

27,591 

27,477 

27,837 

27,739 

27,814 

1% 

0% 

0% 

Croatia* 

979 

1,316 

1,571 

1,563 

60% 

49% 

41% 

Italy 

12,708 

12,744 

12,856 

12,099 

12,598 

-1% 

-1% 

-7% 

Cyprus 

152 

146 

118 

109 

112 

-26% 

-32% 

-32% 

Latvia 

1,702 

1,774 

1,796 

1,878 

1,931 

13% 

Lithuania 

2,792 

2,649 

2,743 

2,861 

2,925 

Luxembourg 

129 

131 

131 

131 

131 

Hungary 

4,267 

4,229 

4,686 

4,657 

4,671 

Malta 

10 

10 

11 

11 

11 

5% 

1% 

9% 

9% 

1% 

3% 

1% 

4% 

4% 

1% 

2% 

0% 

1% 

3% 

Netherlands 

1,958 

1,914 

1,872 

1,848 

1,796 

-8% 

-2% 

-4% 

Austria 

3,266 

3,189 

2,878 

2,727 

2,670 

-18% 

-17% 

-19% 

Poland 

14,755 

15,477 

14,447 

14,410 

14,406 

Portugal 

3,680 

3,473 

3,668 

3,642 

3,642 

-2% 

-1% 

-6% 

-3% 

-7% 

-2% 

Romania 

13,907 

13,753 

13,306 

13,056 

12,503 

-10% 

-11% 

-10% 

Slovenia 

485 

489 

483 

486 

488 

Slovakia 

1,879 

1,937 

1,896 

1,902 

1,890 

1% 

1% 

-5% 

-1% 

-2% 

-1% 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
  
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

2005 

2007 

2010 

2013 

2016 

%  change 
UAA 
in 
since 2005 

%  change 
AA 
in 
since 
2005 

% 
change in 
farm area 
since 
2005 

Finland 

2,264 

2,292 

2,291 

2,258 

2,194 

-3% 

-11% 

-14% 

Sweden 

3,192 

3,118 

3,066 

3,036 

3,021 

-5% 

-11% 

-11% 

United 
Kingdom 

15,957 

16,043 

16,882 

17,096 

16,394 

3% 

7% 

12% 

EU 28 

171,996 

173,376 

175,815 

174,358 

173,052 

1% 

-1% 

-2% 

*% change calculated for 2007-2016 

Table 18 Permanent grassland and rough grazing (Km2) registered in FSS for 2005, 2013 
and 2016 for EU28 Member States 

Permanent grassland 

Rough grazing 

GEO/TIME 

2005 

2013 

2016 

2005 

2013 

2016 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

519 

74 

864 

193 

4,773 

237 

2,614 

278 

2,801 

6,830 

2,642 

0 

104 

891 

68 

260 

0 

775 

947 

2,176 

515 

4,223 

236 

485 

12 

464 

483 

571 

932 

103 

4,411 

216 

3,042 

216 

2,981 

6,434 

167 

2,163 

1 

173 

488 

67 

49 

0 

722 

858 

2,967 

536 

3,730 

221 

453 

10 

400 

473 

594 

695 

149 

4,506 

267 

3,979 

118 

2,868 

6,842 

146 

2,150 

0 

147 

568 

67 

26 

0 

691 

836 

2,908 

486 

3,725 

227 

466 

9 

404 

0 

33 

11 

5 

156 

0 

451 

546 

5,852 

1,301 

705 

0 

495 

0 

0 

208 

0 

33 

841 

844 

1 

632 

23 

29 

191 

0 

873 

1,879 

4,675 

1,808 

451 

1,125 

1 

399 

12 

0 

654 

0 

51 

435 

31 

2 

507 

241 

36 

171 

0 

444 

1,734 

4,458 

1,554 

460 

1,022 

1 

424 

17 

0 

641 

0 

39 

416 

62 

1,253 

307 

1,269 

256 

1,363 

265 

46 

45 

14 

46 

64 

46 

21 

48 

58 

44 

16 

48 

United Kingdom 

5,591 

5,849 

6,002 

4,218 

4,871 

4,246 

169 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 19Relative change in the area 2005-2016 in UAA, AA, Farmland, arable, permanent 
grassland and permanent crops. Source: FSS data 

GEO/TIME 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Germany  

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

EU 28 

Farm 
area 

AA 

UAA 

Arable land  Permanent 
grassland 

Permanent 
crops 

0% 

1% 

23% 

57% 

-5% 

0% 

-2% 

-3% 

-1% 

-3% 

6% 

13% 

14% 

15% 

11% 

12% 

-9% 

-11% 

0% 

41% 

49% 

-7% 

-1% 

-32% 

-32% 

1% 

2% 

0% 

1% 

3% 

1% 

3% 

1% 

4% 

4% 

-4% 

-2% 

-19% 

-17% 

-7% 

-2% 

-6% 

-3% 

-2% 

65% 

-3% 

-3% 

-2% 

20% 

16% 

14% 

-7% 

1% 

60% 

-1% 

-26% 

13% 

5% 

1% 

9% 

9% 

-8% 

-18% 

-2% 

-1% 

-10% 

-11% 

-10% 

-2% 

-1% 

-5% 

-1% 

-14% 

-11% 

-11% 

-11% 

12% 

-2% 

7% 

-1% 

1% 

1% 

-3% 

-5% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

30% 

-6% 

-6% 

-1% 

17% 

-60% 

-14% 

-4% 

0% 

18% 

1% 

-24% 

19% 

14% 

3% 

6% 

11% 

-8% 

-4% 

-4% 

-16% 

-12% 

1% 

2% 

-3% 

-4% 

-1% 

-2% 

-8% 

970% 

8% 

14% 

-5% 

28% 

44% 

126% 

-12% 

6% 

240% 

-3% 

214% 

6% 

-14% 

-1% 

47% 

0% 

-10% 

-30% 

5% 

6% 

-6% 

1% 

-1% 

0% 

-11% 

5% 

6% 

-3% 

24% 

-6% 

193% 

2% 

18% 

-7% 

-15% 

-3% 

-13% 

37% 

-4% 

-36% 

-70% 

-10% 

-1% 

-10% 

20% 

18% 

-2% 

19% 

9% 

-11% 

-2% 

-30% 

-23% 

3% 

11% 

-3% 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 20 UAA and NUAA in 2005 and 2016 
- 

UAA - 2005 

Km2 

NUAA 
2005 

UAA - 2016 

NUAA 
2016 

- 

7 

16 

5 

57 

26 

4 

52 

129 

221 

61 

37 

454 

14 

104 

22 

0 

53 

0 

1 

74 

138 

98 

104 

15 

16 

0 

0 

% 
change 
UAA  2005-
2016 

% 
change 
NUAA  2005-
2016 

-2% 

65% 

-3% 

-3% 

-2% 

20% 

16% 

14% 

-7% 

1% 

-1% 

-26% 

13% 

5% 

1% 

9% 

9% 

-8% 

-18% 

-2% 

-1% 

-10% 

1% 

1% 

-3% 

-5% 

3% 

-70% 

-90% 

-94% 

-22% 

-94% 

-96% 

-67% 

-43% 

-94% 

-89% 

-66% 

-61% 

-79% 

-83% 

-70% 

-89% 

-92% 

-97% 

-91% 

-91% 

-60% 

-80% 

-75% 

-78% 

-100% 

-100% 

126% 

BE - Belgium 

BG - Bulgaria 

CZ - Czechia 

DK - Denmark 

DE - Germany  

EE - Estonia 

IE - Ireland 

EL - Greece 

ES - Spain 

FR - France 

HR - Croatia 

IT - Italy 

CY - Cyprus 

LV - Latvia 

LT - Lithuania 

LU - Luxembourg 

HU - Hungary 

MT - Malta 

NL - Netherlands 

AT - Austria 

PL - Poland 

PT - Portugal 

RO - Romania 

SI - Slovenia 

SK - Slovakia 

FI - Finland 

SE - Sweden 

1,386 

2,729 

3,558 

2,708 

17,035 

829 

4,219 

3,984 

24,855 

27,591 

0 

25 

160 

87 

73 

417 

97 

158 

225 

3,404 

559 

0 

12,708 

1,325 

152 

1,702 

2,792 

129 

4,267 

10 

1,958 

3,266 

14,755 

3,680 

13,907 

485 

1,879 

2,264 

3,192 

1,354 

4,492 

3,455 

2,615 

16,715 

995 

4,884 

4,554 

23,230 

27,814 

1,563 

12,598 

112 

1,931 

2,925 

131 

4,671 

11 

1,796 

2,670 

14,406 

3,642 

12,503 

488 

1,890 

2,194 

3,021 

35 

488 

131 

1 

480 

2 

42 

796 

1,584 

249 

532 

59 

75 

940 

211 

329 

171 

UK - United Kingdom 

15,957 

16,394 

743 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 21 Development of UAA 1975-1990, 1991-2005, 2005-2016 & 1975-2016 
% 
change 
1991-
2005 

% 
change 
1975-
1990 

1975-
1977 

1990 

1991 

2005 

2005 

2016 

% 
change 
2005-
2016 

1975/ 
1990**** 

2016  % change 1975/ 
1990**** - 2016 

Belgium 

Bulgaria* 

Czechia** 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia**** 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia*** 

Italy 

Cyprus* 

Latvia**** 

Lithuania**** 

Luxembourg 

Hungary* 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria* 

Poland* 

Portugal* 

Romania* 

Slovenia*** 

1,517 

5,955 

4,479 

2,933 

1,379 

6,159 

4,287 

2,787 

18,794 

17,503 

1,366 

4,490 

5,175 

5,722 

5,683 

31,855 

30,340 

32,308 

30,432 

2,231 

2,404 

17,804 

17,868 

-9% 

3% 

-4% 

-5% 

-7% 

-22% 

-9% 

-5% 

-6% 

8% 

0% 

1,379 

6,159 

4,287 

2,787 

1,386 

2,729 

3,558 

2,708 

17,503 

17,035 

1,366 

4,490 

5,175 

829 

4,219 

3,984 

30,340 

24,855 

0% 

-56% 

-17% 

-3% 

-3% 

-39% 

-6% 

-23% 

-18% 

1,386 

2,729 

3,558 

2,708 

1,354 

4,469 

3,455 

2,615 

17,035 

16,715 

829 

4,219 

3,984 

995 

4,884 

4,554 

24,855 

23,230 

30,432 

27,591 

-9% 

27,591 

27,814 

2,404 

979 

-59% 

979 

1,563 

17,868 

12,708 

-29% 

12,708 

12,598 

180 

141 

-22% 

2,531 

3,513 

126 

132 

6,770 

6,466 

-4% 

-4% 

11 

-15% 

13 

2,084 

3,189 

1,995 

3,468 

19,224 

18,623 

3,956 

4,070 

14,946 

14,786 

891 

842 

-4% 

9% 

-3% 

3% 

-1% 

-5% 

141 

2,531 

3,513 

126 

6,466 

11 

1,995 

3,468 

152 

1,702 

2,792 

129 

7% 

-33% 

-21% 

2% 

152 

1,702 

2,792 

129 

112 

1,931 

2,925 

131 

4,267 

-34% 

4,267 

4,671 

10 

1,958 

3,266 

-7% 

-2% 

-6% 

-23% 

-10% 

10 

1,958 

3,266 

11 

1,796 

2,670 

14,755 

14,406 

3,680 

3,642 

19,197 

14,755 

4,070 

3,680 

-2% 

64% 

-3% 

-3% 

-2% 

20% 

16% 

14% 

-7% 

1% 

60% 

-1% 

-26% 

13% 

5% 

1% 

9% 

8% 

-8% 

-18% 

-2% 

-1% 

1,517 

1,354 

5,955 

4,469 

4,479 

3,455 

2,933 

2,615 

13,268 

16,715 

1,366 

995 

5,722 

4,884 

5,683 

4,554 

31,855 

23,230 

32,308 

27,814 

2,231 

1,563 

17,804 

12,598 

180 

112 

2,531 

1,931 

3,513 

2,925 

132 

131 

6,770 

4,671 

13 

11 

2,084 

1,796 

3,189 

2,670 

19,224 

14,406 

3,956 

3,642 

14,786 

13,907 

-6% 

13,907 

12,503 

-10% 

14,946 

12,503 

842 

485 

-42% 

485 

488 

1% 

891 

488 

172 

-11% 

-25% 

-23% 

-11% 

-11% 

-27% 

-15% 

-20% 

-27% 

-14% 

-30% 

-29% 

-38% 

-24% 

-17% 

-1% 

-31% 

-14% 

-14% 

-16% 

-25% 

-8% 

-16% 

-45% 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Slovakia** 

Finland* 

Sweden* 

2,912 

2,614 

3,726 

2,417 

2,549 

3,387 

-17% 

-2% 

-9% 

2,417 

2,549 

3,387 

1,879 

2,299 

3,192 

United Kingdom 

18,944 

16,963 

-10% 

16,963 

15,957 

*Data used from FAOSTAT for 1975 and rest of years derived from Eurostat 

-22% 

-10% 

-6% 

-6% 

1,879 

2,299 

3,192 

1,890 

2,233 

3,013 

15,957 

16,673 

1% 

-3% 

-6% 

4% 

2,912 

1,890 

2,614 

2,233 

3,726 

3,013 

18,944 

16,673 

-35% 

-15% 

-19% 

-12% 

**Data used from FAOSTAT from Former Czechoslovakia for 1975. Distribution over Czechia and Slovakia according to agricultural land use share in 1990 

*** Data used for FAOSTAT from former Yuguslavia for 1975. Distribution over Croatia and Slovenia according to agricultural land use share in 1990 of the 6 countries in which it was split. 

**** No data available for 1975 in FAOSTAT. Change in last column calculated for the period 1990-2016 instead of 1975-2016 as assessed for all other countries 

Data source: Eurostat FSS data 1975-2016. If data missing FAOSTAT data were used 

173 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

9.  ANNEX  III  LAND  COVER  FLOW  ANALYSIS  CHANGE  (LEAC)  TO 

DETECT SIGNS OF LAND ABANDONMENT IN EU REGIONS 

To understand from existing data sources what type of land cover changes are behind the 
declines in UAA a land cover flow analysis was done. This was done by comparing the CLC 
data layers at 100*100 m resolution from 2000 and 2018. We selected and grouped 
conversions from agricultural land to other land cover types using the classification of land 
cover flows (lcf) (conversions from one land cover type into another over a given period) 
according to the Land and Ecosystem Accounting system of the EEA (LEAC)76 (Table 22).   

Table 22 Grouped conversions from agricultural land based on the LEAC system 
 used to detect changes between 2000 and 2018 

Grouped LEC conversions 

LEAC conversions 

Internal conversion within agriculture  

Sign of shift to agricultural land abandonment  

Loss agricultural area to Urbanisation  

Longer term abandonment and afforestation  

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

lcf41 Extension of set aside fallow land and pasture  
lcf45 Conversion from arable land to permanent crops 
lcf46 Conversion from pasture to arable and permanent crops 
lcf61 Withdrawal of farming with significant woodland creation  
lcf62 Withdrawal of farming without significant woodland creation 
lcf13 Development of green urban areas 
lcf22 Urban diffuse residential sprawl 
lcf31 Sprawl of industrial & commercial sites 
lcf32 Sprawl of transport networks 
lcf33 Sprawl of harbours 
lcf34 Sprawl of airports 
lcf35 Sprawl of mines and quarrying areas 
lcf36 Sprawl of dumpsites 
lcf37 Construction 
lcf38 Sprawl of sport and leisure facilities 
lcf61 Withdrawal of farming with significant woodland creation 

A  summary  of  the  relative  LEAC  conversions  from  agricultural  land  per  EU  country  is  also 
presented in Table 23 in which LEAC conversions are also expressed in percentage of total 
AA in 2000.   

Only  ‘Shift  to  agricultural  land  abandonment’  in  Table  23  and  mapped  in  Figure  20  is 
considered ‘real’ agricultural land abandonment here. From the map in Figure 20 we conclude 
that  this  conversion  is  relatively  large  in  all  the  regions  on  the  Iberian  Peninsula,  Scotland, 
Wales,  Southern  England,  Northwestern  Ireland,  Many  regions  in  Germany,  all  regions  in 
Finland, Estonia, Lavia, Centru in Romania, Southern provinces of Bulgaria (Sofia & Plovdiv).   

To understand whether this process also involves a process towards more ‘rewilding’ a split is 
also made in shifts to agricultural land with (lcf61) and without forest formation (lcf62). From 
Table  23  it  becomes  clear  that  on  average  of  EU-28  abandonment  with  and  without  forest 
formation occurs in more or less the same share. However, in some countries abandonment 
with forest formation indicating more to long term abandonment occurs, like e.g. in Finland, 
Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal takes place. While in other countries abandonment without forest 
formation is more seen such as in Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Spain, Ireland, and UK.  

76 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/land-cover-and-change-statistics 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Abandonment within and outside N2000 areas: overall, in most EU countries the majority of 
this type of abandonment takes place outside N2000 (80% on average EU28).  

The other classes of land cover flows are not considered signs of land abandonment, either 
because the destination land cover type is a form of agricultural land use (Internal conversions 
within  agriculture),  or  because  the  conversion  leads  to  urbanisation  built-up  land.  The 
urbanisation of agricultural land has also been mapped in Figure 22.  

The  lcf41  involves  an  internal  agricultural  land  use  flow  in  which  cropping  land  moves  to  a 
more  extensive  class  which  can  be  fallow,  set-aside  or  pasture.  This  is  indeed  not  an 
abandonment  of  the  agricultural  land,  but  could  be  considered  as  first  signs  of  a  process 
towards abandonment or hidden abandonment. This category has therefore been mapped in 
Figure  21  and  shows  largest  concentrations  of  this  process  in  Germany,  UK,  Estonia  and 
Latvia.  

The conversions to urban are mapped in Figure 22. It shows that overall the urbanisation of 
agricultural land is small in total agricultural conversions, it took place in 2% of the agricultural 
area. This urbanisation of agricultural land has been most strong in The Netherlands, Valencia, 
Murcia,  Basque  region,  and  around  several  of  the  larger  cities.  At  national  level  these 
conversions  are  very  small  in  absolute  and  relative  terms,  certainly  compared  to  the 
conversions to abandonment and the internal conversions. However, at regional level these 
can be quite large, certainly around the big cities and in coastal regions.  

The  largest  total  conversions  of  agricultural  land  to  abandonment  between  2000  and  2018 
were  seen  in  Spain,  Finland,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Portugal,  Austria,  Ireland,  UK  and  Romania. 
Largest conversions within agricultural lands towards more extensive land uses, such as set-
aside,  pasture  and  fallow,  in  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Latvia, 
Portugal, Romania and UK.  

175 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 20 Land conversions with signs of shifts to land abandonment in 2018 
 with reference to agricultural area in 2000 (lcf61 & lcf62). 

Data source: CLC 2000 and CLC 2018. 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 21 Land conversions from cropping to set-aside, fallow and pasture (lcf41) 2000-2018 
with reference to agricultural area in 2000. 

Data source: CLC 2000 and CLC 2018 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 22 Land conversions from agricultural to urban 2000-2018  
with reference to agricultural area in 2000 

Data source: CLC 2000 and CLC 2018 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 23 Land conversions from agricultural to forest (lcf 61 Abandonment of agriculture 
with forest formation) 2000-2018 with reference to agricultural area in 2000. 

Data source: CLC 2000 and CLC 2018 

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 23 Overview of relative landcover flows per EU country 2000-2018 with reference to agricultural area in 2000.  Data source: CLC 2000 
and CLC 2018 

Country 

Agricultural  Area 
(AA) 2000 (km2) 

Extension  of  set-
aside-fallow  and 
land 
pasture 
(lcf41)  2000-2018 
(% of AA) 

Sign  of  shift  to 
abandonment 
2000-
(lcf62) 
2018 (% of AA) 

Sign  of  shift  to 
abandonment 
in  N2000 
(lcf62) 
2000-2018  (%  of 
AA) 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

 27,224  

 17,617  

 57,341  

 4,463  

 45,244  

 214,012  

 33,078  

 14,753  

 52,742  

 254,281  

 29,351  

 329,073  

 22,817  

 62,864  

 47,225  

 157,604  

 39,915  

 1,424  

 28,330  

 162  

 25,156  

4.25% 

0.16% 

3.59% 

3.13% 

0.39% 

0.59% 

2.67% 

2.87% 

3.00% 

9.50% 

7.24% 

0.31% 

1.92% 

1.29% 

5.07% 

2.39% 

2.40% 

2.04% 

2.76% 

2.17% 

1.86% 

8.1% 

0.5% 

6.6% 

6.6% 

6.9% 

0.9% 

4.9% 

8.3% 

45.0% 

1.0% 

5.8% 

9.0% 

4.9% 

9.2% 

4.5% 

17.1% 

7.7% 

5.6% 

2.2% 

2.7% 

0.6% 

0.6% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.1% 

0.2% 

0.5% 

1.9% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

0.3% 

0.7% 

0.6% 

0.2% 

0.5% 

0.3% 

0.5% 

0.5% 

180 

to 

shift 

Sign  of 
abandonment 
(lcf62)  NO  N2000 
2000-2018 (% of AA) 

Loss  agricultural 
area 
to 
Urbanisation 
2000-2018  (%  of 
AA) 

term 

Longer 
abandonment 
(Forest  formation 
(lcf61)  2000-2018 
(% of AA)  

Total 

3.7% 

0.1% 

2.5% 

2.9% 

0.4% 

0.3% 

2.5% 

2.7% 

2.5% 

7.5% 

7.2% 

0.3% 

0.9% 

1.0% 

4.4% 

1.8% 

2.2% 

1.5% 

2.5% 

1.7% 

1.4% 

2.94% 

0.77% 

0.78% 

3.67% 

0.88% 

3.47% 

1.42% 

0.83% 

2.51% 

1.83% 

0.96% 

1.68% 

1.40% 

0.96% 

0.87% 

1.48% 

0.80% 

3.31% 

1.56% 

0.67% 

3.44% 

1.78% 

0.16% 

2.07% 

0.58% 

0.35% 

3.93% 

1.90% 

3.90% 

1.85% 

6.02% 

13.59% 

0.38% 

2.20% 

3.26% 

2.37% 

0.93% 

4.57% 

2.96% 

11.71% 

0.00% 

0.47% 

12.7% 

1.2% 

8.5% 

9.0% 

5.7% 

20.1% 

7.7% 

20.8% 

9.8% 

20.1% 

21.8% 

3.2% 

6.3% 

8.0% 

20.8% 

6.7% 

14.9% 

19.6% 

25.3% 

3.2% 

6.2% 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

to 

shift 

Sign  of 
abandonment 
(lcf62)  NO  N2000 
2000-2018 (% of AA) 

Loss  agricultural 
to 
area 
Urbanisation 
2000-2018  (%  of 
AA) 

term 

Longer 
abandonment 
(Forest  formation 
(lcf61)  2000-2018 
(% of AA)  

Total 

1.5% 

3.4% 

3.7% 

0.3% 

1.5% 

2.3% 

3.6% 

2.5% 

3.62% 

1.02% 

1.20% 

0.84% 

2.00% 

1.74% 

2.65% 

2.00% 

3.47% 

5.12% 

2.63% 

0.50% 

2.76% 

2.90% 

2.67% 

11.7% 

16.5% 

15.5% 

1.8% 

8.1% 

9.6% 

19.2% 

2.97% 

12.5% 

Country 

Agricultural  Area 
(AA) 2000 (km2) 

Extension  of  set-
aside-fallow  and 
pasture 
land 
(lcf41)  2000-2018 
(% of AA) 

Sign  of  shift  to 
abandonment 
(lcf62) 
2000-
2018 (% of AA) 

Sign  of  shift  to 
abandonment 
(lcf62) 
in  N2000 
2000-2018  (%  of 
AA) 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

United 
Kingdom 
Grand Total 

 196,481  

 43,939  

 134,952  

 39,449  

 7,074  

 23,750  

 143,135  

 2,053,460  

1.80% 

4.31% 

4.94% 

0.39% 

2.28% 

2.83% 

4.06% 

3.10% 

5.9% 

13.4% 

8.3% 

0.0% 

6.2% 

6.3% 

23.3% 

8.1% 

0.3% 

0.9% 

1.2% 

0.1% 

0.8% 

0.5% 

0.5% 

0.6% 

181 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

10. ANNEX  IV  COUNTRY  FACT  SHEETS  ON  ACTUAL  UAA  FROM 

EUROSTAT-FSS AND NATIONAL SOURCES COMPARED 

National  statistical  offices  or  Ministries  of  Agriculture  are  usually  in  charge  of  reporting  the 
agricultural  land  use  data  to  Eurostat  for  FSS  according  to  the  uniform  guidelines  for  EU 
countries. The data are collected and are based on census and sample data. Since the data 
collected at national or regional level are the source of Eurostat and national statistical data 
publications it is interesting to compare the totals reported for UAA by Eurostat and national 
statistical data sources (Table 24).   

Table 24 UAA (km2) reported in Eurostat-FSS and national data sources  
and relative differences for UAA data published by Eurostat and national sources 

Country 

 Data source  

  2010   

  2013   

  2016   

Austria  
Austria 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Bulgaria 
Germany 
Germany 
Spain 
Spain 
Finland 
Finland 
France 
France 
Croatia 
Croatia 
Italy 
Italy 
Latvia 
Latvia 
Netherlands 
Netherlands 
Slovakia 
Slovakia 
UK 
UK 

 Eurostat  
 STATcube  
 Eurostat  
 STATBEL  
 Eurostat  
 NSI  
 Eurostat  
 BMEL  
 Eurostat  
 MAPA  
 Eurostat  
 Luke  
 Eurostat  
 Agreste  
 Eurostat  
 CBS  
 Eurostat  
 I.Stat  
 Eurostat  
 CSB Database  
 Eurostat  
 CBS-Statline  
 Eurostat  
 DATACube  
 Eurostat  
 DEFRA  

        28,782  
        28,799  
        13,580  
        13,558  
        44,755  
 -  
     167,040  
     167,040  
     237,527  
     238,687  
        22,910  
        22,615  
278,373  
290,957  
13,160  
13,705  
128,561  
- 
17,963  
18,159  
18,724  
18,723  
18,955  
19,220  
168,817  
172,341  

        27,269  
        27,286  
        13,079  
        13,366  
        46,509  
        49,951  
     166,996  
     166,996  
     233,002  
     235,230  
        22,576  
        22,587  
277,394  
289,438  
15,712  
15,994  
120,989  
124,260  
18,777  
18,725  
18,476  
18,476  
19,016  
19,285  
170,962  
172,591  

        26,698  
        26,712  
        13,543  
        13,508  
        44,919  
        50,214  
     167,153  
     166,589  
     232,297  
     234,566  
        21,942  
        22,745  
278,142  
289,015  
15,630  
15,714  
125,982  
125,982  
19,309  
19,323  
17,963  
18,159  
18,898  
19,189  
163,938  
173,603  

%  difference 
2010 

%  difference 
2013 

%  difference 
2016 

-0.06% 

-0.06% 

-0.05% 

0.17% 

-2.19% 

0.25% 

-7.40% 

-11.79% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.34% 

-0.49% 

-0.96% 

-0.98% 

1.29% 

-0.05% 

-3.66% 

-4.52% 

-4.34% 

-3.91% 

-4.14% 

-1.79% 

-0.54% 

-2.70% 

0.00% 

-1.09% 

0.28% 

-0.07% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

-1.09% 

-1.40% 

-1.41% 

-1.54% 

-2.09% 

-0.95% 

-5.90% 

Overall the differences in UAA area published by Eurostat and national data sources are very 
small. However, there are exceptions for certain countries and for specific years. The biggest 
differences between Eurostat and national levels are seen in Bulgaria, France and UK.  

To understand how differences occur between national and Eurostat data sources we discuss 
some national and regional examples in higher detail in the next sections.  

182 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Netherlands 

•  UAA is reported in the 2 national data sources of CBS Statline and Dutch LPIS and can 

be compared to Eurostat-FSS statistics is presented.  

•  When looking at the absolute figures an average size for UAA can be calculated from 
the three statistical sources for the recent years 2015-2018. This average amounts to 
17,963 km2 for Eurostat and 18,308 for CBS Statline as the maximum. The Dutch LPIS 
average is in-between Eurostat and CBS Statline and amounts to 18,222 km2. 
•  Differences in total UAA between the FSS and the 2 Dutch data sources are small. 
•  The  total  UAA  consists  of  arable  land,  permanent  grassland,  permanent  crops. 
Differences between FSS and the national data sources are relatively small for arable 
land, but larger for permanent grassland and even larger for permanent crops. The latter 
is related to a difference in definition between FSS and the CBS permanent crops.   

Sources: 

Eurostat-FSS 

CBS: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/economy/agriculture 

Basis registratie percelen Nederland 

Utilised Agricultural Area (2005-2019) in Netherlands  

Utilised Agricultural Area
km2

19800
19600
19400
19200
19000
18800
18600
18400
18200
18000
17800

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

Eurostat

CBS Statline landbouwtelling

BRP (officiële CAP definitie)

year 

Eurostat-
FSS 

CBS-
Statline 

BRP 
(NL-
LPIS) 

Difference 
%  FSS-
CBS 

2003 

20,073 

19457 

19581 

19377 

19143 

19143 

19264 

18476 

18476 

18456 

2005 

2007 

2013 

2016 

17963 

18159 

18252 

-1.1% 

Difference 
%  FSS  - 
BRP 
.. 

-0.6% 

0.1% 

-1.6% 

3.1% 

1.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

Arable land (2005-2019) in Netherlands  

183 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Arable land
km2

Eurostat

CBS Statline landbouwtelling

BRP (officiële CAP definitie)

11600
11400
11200
11000
10800
10600
10400
10200
10000
9800

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

year 

Eurostat-
FSS 

CBS-
Statline 

BRP 
(NL-
LPIS) 

Difference 
% 
FSS-
CBS 

2003 

2005 

2007 

2013 

2016 

11,011 

11288 

11170 

11428 

10592 

10936 

10788 

10379 

10745 

10402 

10282 

10664 

10146 

-2.5% 

-2.3% 

-3.2% 

-3.5% 

-3.7% 

Difference 
%  FSS  - 
BRP 
.. 

-1.9% 

-0.2% 

1.3% 

Permanent crops (2005-2019) in Netherlands  

Permanent crops
km2

500

400

300

200

100

0
2005

Eurostat

CBS Statline landbouwtelling

BRP (officiële CAP definitie)

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

year 

Eurostat-
FSS 

CBS-
Statline 

BRP 
(NL-
LPIS) 

Difference 
% FSS-CBS 

2003 

2005 

2007 

2013 

2016 

311 

323 

344 

366 

382 

219 

214 

220 

224 

222 

223 

395 

410 

29.6% 

33.9% 

36.1% 

39.0% 

41.8% 

184 

Difference 
%  FSS 
BRP 
.. 

- 

35.0% 

-7.9% 

-7.4% 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Permanent grassland and meadows (2005-2019) in Netherlands  

Permanent grassland
km2

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
2005

Eurostat

CBS Statline landbouwtelling

BRP (officiële CAP definitie)

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

year 

Eurostat-
FSS 

CBS-
Statline 

BRP 
(NL-
LPIS) 

Difference 
% FSS-CBS 

2003 

2005 

2007 

2013 

2016 

8,750 

8087 

8207 

7731 

7299 

7567 

7947 

7916 

7058 

6803 

8249 

7659 

7696 

13.5% 

1.7% 

3.6% 

8.7% 

6.8% 

Difference 
%  FSS 
BRP 
.. 

- 

-0.5% 

0.9% 

-5.4% 

185 

 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Spain 

•  UAA is reported in the 2 national data sources MAPA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca i 
Alimentacion)  and  SIGPAC  (Spanish  LPIS)  and  can  be  compared  to  Eurostat-FSS 
statistics is presented.  

•  Absolute and relative differences for UAA between the FSS and MAPA data are small. 

The difference between FSS, MAPA and the SIGPAC are larger however.  

•  The  total  UAA  consists  of  arable  land,  permanent  grassland,  permanent  crops. 
Differences between FSS and the national data sources are very large for all categories. 
The latter is related to differences in definition between FSS and the subcategories of 
UAA.   

•  One large difference for between SIGPAC and FSS and MAPA is related to the definition 
change of permanent grassland in the CAP allowing for inclusion of areas with shrubs 
and trees in permanent grassland surface eligible for CAP payments. In the statistical 
sources, most of the grasslands with tree and shrub cover are registered as forest land, 
rather than as agricultural.  

•  Another  large  difference  between  what  is  registered  as  arable,  permanent  crop  and 
permanent  grassland  may  be  related  to  the  unclear  definition  of  agroforestry  land.  In 
Spain large areas are covered with these dual systems in which trees are combined with 
arable, permanent crops and grazing. FSS does not register this class separately, nor 
has a definition for it.  

Sources: 

Eurostat-FSS 

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPA) https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/publicaciones/anuario-de-
estadistica/default.aspx SIGPAC 

Utilised Agricultural Area (2010-2016) in Spain 

MAPA

FSS- Eurostat

FAO

SIGPAC

 400,000

 350,000

 300,000

 250,000

 200,000

 150,000

 100,000

 50,000

 -

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 7

2 0 1 8

2 0 1 9

2010 

2013 

2016 

year 

Eurostat-
FSS 

CBS-
Statline 

237,527  238,687  

BRP 
(NL-
LPIS) 
.. 

Difference 
% FSS-CBS 

Difference 
%  FSS 
BRP 

- 

-0.49% 

233,002 

235,230   378,784  

-0.96% 

-62.57% 

232,298 

234,566  

373,755  

-0.98% 

-60.89% 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
  
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Arable land (2010-2016) in Spain  

MAPA

FSS- Eurostat

SIGPAC

 200,000

 150,000

 100,000

 50,000

 -

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 7

2 0 1 8

2 0 1 9

year 

Eurostat-FSS  MAPA 

SIGPAC  Difference 
FSS-

% 
MAPA 

Difference 
%  FSS  - 
SIGPAC 

2010 

2013 

2016 

112,860 

  172,214  

.. 

-52.59% 

112,946 

  171,328  

  142,190  

-51.69% 

-25.89% 

114,629 

  169,852  

  133,498  

-48.18% 

-16.46% 

Permanent crops (2010-2016) Spain 

MAPA

FSS- Eurostat

SIGPAC

 60,000

 50,000

 40,000

 30,000

 20,000

 10,000

 -

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 7

2 0 1 8

2 0 1 9

year 

Eurostat-FSS  MAPA 

SIGPAC  Difference 
%  FSS-
MAPA 

Difference 
%  FSS  - 
SIGPAC 

2010 

2013 

2016 

40,862 

  46,930  

.. 

-14.85% 

40,424 

  49,516  

  50,365  

-22.49% 

-24.59% 

41,497 

  47,311  

  52,298  

-14.01% 

-26.03% 

187 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Permanent grassland and meadows (2010-2016) in Spain 

MAPA

FSS- Eurostat

SIGPAC

 200,000

 180,000

 160,000

 140,000

 120,000

 100,000

 80,000

 60,000

 40,000

 20,000

 -

year 

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 7

2 0 1 8

2 0 1 9

Eurostat-
FSS 

MAPA 

SIGPAC  Difference 
%  FSS-
MAPA 

Difference 
%  FSS  - 
SIGPAC 

2010 

83,774 

 66,474  

.. 

20.65% 

2013 

79,620 

  63,902   186,230  

19.74% 

-133.90% 

2016 

76,160 

  64,714  

187,959  

15.03% 

-146.79% 

188 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Észak Magyarország – Hungary 

•  No  registration  of  UAA  available  from  the  Hungarian  Central  Statistical  Office 
because UAA is not defined in the Agricultural Census (although it is in the LPIS); 
•  Larger areas are in the database of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office than in 
Eurostat for all agricultural land use types. Differences are largest for arable land and 
permanent  grassland,  amounting  to  1296-1635  km2  in  the  period  2003-2007. 
Differences are smaller in the years of Eurostat census 2013 and 2016 (11-19% of 
areas in Eurostat for arable land and 1-12% for permanent grassland).  

•  Access  to  LPIS  for  individual  experts  is  not  possible  in  Hungary;  the  Ministry  of 

Agriculture shall be directly addressed with this issue by the Commission; 

•  Data on the area of (temporarily) unutilised land categories was not available from 

national/regional data sources.  

Sources: 

Case study report for Észak Magyarország, Hungary 

Eurostat 

Arable land 

year 

Eurostat 

2003 

2005 

2007 

2013 

2016 

3364 

3439 

3452 

4114 

3782 

Hungarian 
Central 
Statistical 
Office 
4999 

4965 

4980 

4585 

4498 

difference 
(km2) 

difference 
(% of area in 
Eurostat) 

-49% 

-44% 

-44% 

-11% 

-19% 

-1635 

-1526 

-1528 

-471 

-716 

189 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Permanent grassland 

year 

Eurostat 

2003 

2005 

2007 

2013 

2016 

663 

640 

608 

1059 

983 

Hungarian 
Central 
Statistical 
Office 
1990 

1936 

1964 

1070 

1100 

difference 
(km2) 

difference 
of 
area 
Eurostat) 

(% 
in 

-1327 

-1296 

-1356 

-11 

-117 

-200% 

-203% 

-223% 

-1% 

-12% 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Permanent crops 

year 

Eurostat 

2003 

2005 

2007 

2013 

2016 

367 

268 

250 

250 

259 

Hungarian 
Central 
Statistical Office 
347 

358 

342 

325 

308 

difference (km2)  difference  (%  of 
area in Eurostat) 

20 

-90 

-92 

-75 

-49 

5% 

-34% 

-37% 

-30% 

-19% 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Basse-Normandie – France 

•  Three  national  data  sources  are  available  on  scale  of  agricultural  land  use:  the 
statistical  service  of  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  in  France  (Agreste),  the  Land  use 
Parcel  Information  System  (LPIS)  and  Teruti-LUCAS,  a  point-based  annual  field 
survey.  

•  Only for the year 2013 data were available from Eurostat and one or more national 

data sources.  

•  Compared to Agreste, areas registered in Eurostat are 20% smaller for permanent 

grassland, but 21% larger for permanent crops.  

•  Compared to Teruti-LUCAS, areas registered in Eurostat are 23% larger for arable 
land,  but  20%  smaller for  permanent  grassland, and 136%  smaller  for  permanent 
crops.  

•  Discrepancies in the area of permanent crops between Teruti-LUCAS (189 km2 in 
2013)  and  Agreste  (63  km2)  remain  unexplained.  Both  databases  have  a  similar 
definition for this land use type.  

•  LPIS  holds smaller  areas  for  permanent  crops  and  permanent  grassland than  the 
data sources from Teruti-LUCAS and Agreste. This may be explained by the listing 
of agricultural areas of farms having at least one plot receiving support from the 1st 
pillar of the CAP or subject to measures under the 2nd pillar.  

•  From 2012 to 2015, administrative data from the LPIS were used to inform the Teruti 
points located in agricultural plots. Nevertheless, there is still a difference between 
the two sources of data[1], which could not be explained from the definitions of the 
land use types.  

Sources: 

Case study report for Basse-Normandie, France 

Eurostat 

Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) 
year 

Eurostat 

Agreste 

difference 
(km2) 

2013 

12075 

12930 

-855 

(% 
in 

difference 
area 
of 
Eurostat) 
-7% 

year 

Eurostat 

2013 

12075 

Teruti-
Lucas 
11566 

difference (km2) 

509 

difference  (%  of 
area in Eurostat) 
4% 

192 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Arable land 

year 

Eurostat 

Agreste 

difference 
(km2) 

difference  (%  of 
area in Eurostat) 

2013 

7160 

6947 

213 

3% 

year 

Eurostat 

Teruti-
Lucas 

difference 
(km2) 

difference  (%  of 
area in Eurostat) 

2013 

7160 

5546 

1614 

23% 

193 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Permanent grassland 

year 

Eurostat 

Agreste 

difference (km2) 

difference 
area in Eurostat) 

(%  of 

2013 

4834 

5810 

-976 

-20% 

year 

Eurostat 

Teruti-
Lucas 

difference (km2) 

difference 
area in Eurostat) 

(%  of 

2013 

4834 

5802 

-968 

-20% 

194 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Permanent crops 

year 

Eurostat 

Agreste 

difference (km2) 

difference  (%  of 
area in Eurostat) 

2013 

80 

63 

17 

21% 

year 

Eurostat 

Teruti-
Lucas 

difference (km2) 

difference  (%  of 
area in Eurostat) 

2013 

80 

189 

-109 

-136% 

[1] http://www.jms-insee.fr/2018/S23_4_ACTE_BALLET_JMS2018.pdf 

195 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Kontinentalna Hrvatska – Croatia 

•  Data on land use for the region Kontinentalna Hrvatska are available for the period 

• 

2005-2018; 
In 2007, the Utilised Agricultural Area registered in Eurostat was 20% smaller than 
in the database of the Croatian Bureau of Statistics. The difference decreased to 0-
0.3% in the years 2010, 2013, 2016.  

•  For the  years  2013  and 2016  differences  in  are between -3.7%  and +0.7%  of  the 

areas registered in Eurostat for all land use types. 

•  Differences between Eurostat and the LPIS (ARKOD) are larger, notably for Utilised 
Agricultural Area (13-16%) and permanent grassland (55-58%). This may relate to 
differences in definitions and parcels not being registered in LPIS due to ownership 
issues.  

Sources: 

Case study report for Kontinentalna Hrvatska, Croatia 

Eurostat 

Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) 

year 

Eurostat 

2007 

2010 

2013 

2016 

8640 

11113 

11038 

10954 

Croatian Bureau of 
Statistics 
10409 

difference 
(km2) 
-1769 

(%  of 

difference 
area in Eurostat) 
-20.5% 

11113 

11010 

10955 

0 

28 

-1 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

year 

Eurostat 

LPIS 
(ARKOD) 

difference 
(km2) 

2013 

2016 

11038 

10954 

9181 

9513 

1857 

1441 

difference 
(%  of  area 
in Eurostat) 
16.8% 

13.2% 

Arable land 

year 

Eurostat 

2013 

2016 

8460 

8435 

Croatian 
Bureau 
Statistics 
8429 

8378 

difference 
(km2) 

of 

difference  (%  of  area 
in Eurostat) 

31 

57 

0.4% 

0.7% 

year 

Eurostat 

LPIS (ARKOD)  difference 

2013 

2016 

8460 

8435 

7918 

8160 

(km2) 
542 

275 

difference  (%  of  area 
in Eurostat) 
6.4% 

3.3% 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Permanent grassland 

year 

Eurostat 

2013 

2016 

2196 

2152 

Croatian 
Bureau 
Statistics 
2196 

2196 

difference 
(km2) 

of 

0 

-44 

year 

Eurostat 

LPIS (ARKOD)  difference 

2013 

2016 

2196 

2152 

913 

974 

(km2) 

1283 

1178 

difference  (%  of 
area 
in 
Eurostat) 
0.0% 

-2.0% 

difference  (%  of 
area 
in 
Eurostat) 
58.4% 

54.7% 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Permanent crops 

year 

Eurostat 

2013 

2016 

367 

355 

Croatian 
Bureau  of 
Statistics 
368 

368 

difference 
(km2) 

-1 

-13 

year 

Eurostat 

LPIS 
(ARKOD) 

difference 
(km2) 

2013 

2016 

367 

355 

337 

367 

30 

-12 

(% 
in 

(% 
in 

difference 
of 
area 
Eurostat) 
-0.3% 

-3.7% 

difference 
area 
of 
Eurostat) 
8.2% 

-3.4% 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

11. ANNEX  V  DATA  SOURCES  THAT  REGISTER  UNUSED  OR 

ABANDONED LAND 

In Figure 24 and Figure 25 the total agricultural area and the land registered as ‘fallow and 
abandoned lands’ from LUCAS for different survey years are presented.  

From Figure 24 it becomes clear that LUCAS data show that the largest absolute area size of 
‘abandoned and unused areas’ is found in Spain, Sweden, Italy, France, UK, Finland, Greece, 
Poland and Croatia. Clear declines in UAA between 2009 and 2015 are particularly seen in 
Spain, UK, Italy, Poland and Ireland.  

When looking at relative shares of abandoned and unused lands (Figure 25)  the largest shares 
are in Cyprus, Croatia, Greece, Malta, UK, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Sweden. The largest relative 
declines  in  Agricultural  area  between  2009  and  2015  are  found  in  Ireland,  UK,  Spain  and 
Portugal. The latter does not necessarily imply a decline of agricultural land to an abandonment 
status. It could also be converted to urban, forestry or other land uses.  

When looking at Table 25 with the top 25 of Nuts 3 regions with the largest area of unused and 
abandoned land we conclude that these are mainly regions from Spain, Finland, Sweden, UK 
(Scotland), Italy, Greece, France, Croatia and Latvia. In conclusion: Countries that score high 
on all 3 LUCAS indicators are: Spain, Italy, UK and Greece. 

In the 9 regional case study regions data registering unused lands have also been identified. 
An overview of what came out of this inventory is presented in Table 26. 

200 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 24 Unused and abandoned land area in relation to other land use (km2).  

Unused and abandoned areas 2012

Unused and abandoned areas 2015

Services and residential & Heavy environmental impact 2009

Services and residential & Heavy environmental impact 2012

Services and residential & Heavy environmental impact 2015

Forestry 2009

Forestry 2012

Forestry 2015

Agriculture 2009

Agriculture 2012

Agriculture 2015

U
L

T
M

E
B

I
S

T
L

Y
C

K
D

L
N

Z
C

K
S

E
E

V
L

U
H

O
R

G
B

T
A

T
P

E
D

E
I

R
H

L
P

L
E

I
F

K
U

R
F

T
I

E
S

S
E

Luxembourg

Malta

Belgium

Slovenia

Lithuania

Cyprus

Denmark

Netherlands

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Estonia

Latvia

Hungary

Romania

Bulgaria

Austria

Portugal

Germany

Ireland

Croatia

Poland

Greece

Finland

United Kingdom

France

Italy

Sweden

Spain

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

201 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 25 Relative share of unused and abandoned lands of the total land area (%). 

U
H

K
D

I
S

K
S

E
E

V
L

L
N

R
F

G
B

I
F

T
A

T
P

E
S

E
I

T
I

K
U

S
E

T
M

L
E

R
H

Y
C

V
_
U
E

Hungary

Denmark

Slovenia

Slovakia

Estonia

Latvia

Netherlands

France

Bulgaria

Finland

Austria

Portugal

Sweden

Ireland

Italy

United Kingdom

Spain

Malta

Greece

Croatia

Cyprus

EU

Unused and abandoned areas 2012
Unused and abandoned areas 2015
Serv. and residential & Heavy env. impact 2009
Serv. and residential & Heavy env. impact 2012
Serv. and residential & Heavy env. impact 2015
Forestry 2009
Forestry 2012
Forestry 2015
Agriculture 2009
Agriculture 2012
Agriculture 2015

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

202 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 25 Top 10 of regions with the largest unused and abandoned land resource (in km2) in 
the EU according to LUCAS 2012 and 2015 

GEO/TIME 

Abandonend_2015 

Abandonend_2012 

SE33 - Övre Norrland 
FI1D - Pohjois- ja Itä-Suomi 
UKM6 - Highlands and Islands 
ES41 - Castilla y León 
EL6 - Kentriki Ellada 
ES24 - Aragón 
ES42 - Castilla-la Mancha 
ES61 - Andalucía 
FR82 - Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (NUTS 2013) 
HR03 - Jadranska Hrvatska 
SE32 - Mellersta Norrland 
ES51 - Cataluña 
EL5 - Voreia Ellada 
ES52 - Comunidad Valenciana 
IE01 - Border, Midland and Western (NUTS 2013) 
FR71 - Rhône-Alpes (NUTS 2013) 
FR81 - Languedoc-Roussillon (NUTS 2013) 
ITG2 - Sardegna 
ES11 - Galicia 
ITC1 - Piemonte 
LV - Latvia 
FR83 - Corse (NUTS 2013) 
UKM2 - Eastern Scotland (NUTS 2013) 
SE31 - Norra Mellansverige 
EL4 - Nisia Aigaiou, Kriti 

56832 
43992 
30638 
21435 
20198 
19758 
18713 
17795 
15014 
14892 
14720 
12445 
11786 
11613 
10003 
9900 
8921 
8653 
8298 
8218 
7359 
7348 
7197 
7023 
6857 

51530 
45238 
25528 
19802 
19802 
18905 
19078 
17790 
14126 

14735 
13069 
11732 
11191 
9241 
10466 
8404 
8718 
8229 
8190 
5833 
6285 
6759 
7164 
7375 

203 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 26 Statistical data registering unused, abandoned and degraded lands in the nine case study regions.  

Country-
case region  

Definition 

Type 1 

Source 

Bulgaria 
- 
Blagoevgrad 

Fallow  land:  Ploughed  land 
which is not cultivated, and no 
fertilizers are applied 

- 

Croatia 
Kontinentaln
a Hrvatska  

Fallow land 

https://www.
agrostat.bg/I
SASPublic/L
andUse 
Annual 
reports 
Croatian 
Bureau 
Statistic  

of 

Part  of 
UAA 

YES 

Area (Km2) 

81 Km2 (2019) 
for 
Blagoevgrad 
region 

- 

Definition 

Source 

Area (Km2) 

Type 2 

Unuses  land:  Calculated  as 
difference 
total 
Agricultural land and UAA 

between 

https://www.agrosta
t.bg/ISASPublic/Lan
dUse 
-  Annual 
reports 

Km2 
189 
(2019) 
for 
Blagoevgrad 
region 

Part  of 
UAA 

 NO 

 YES 

Km2 
for 

222 
(2019) 
Kontinentalna 
Hrvatska  

ARKOD 

Temporary unused  parcels 
registered  in  ARKOD  (HR-
LPIS).  Parcel  in  the  ARKOD 
is 
(LPIS)  system  which 
currently 
for 
not 
agricultural  activities,  nor 
maintained  for  grazing  and 
cultivation 

used 

 NO 

Km2 
for 

16 
(2019) 
Kontinentaln
a Hrvatska  

- 

France 
Basse 
Normandie 

Fallow  land:  rotational  fallow 
land 

Database 
Teruti-Lucas 
2006-2015 

56  km2  (2015) 
for 
Basse 
Normandie 

YES 

Hungary 
Eszak 

- 

.. 

Italy - Sicilia 

Fallow land 

Latvia 

Total  agricultural  land  and 
used  agricultural 
land  are 
registered.  By  subtracting  the 
last  from  the  first  unused  land 
can be estimated.  

670 
(2016) 
forSicilia 
2562 
(2019) 
Latvia 

http://dati.ist
at.it  

Rural 
Support 
Service, 
Survey 
agricultural 
land 

of 

.. 

km2 

YES 

Non utilised agricultural area 

http://dati.istat.it  

317 
(2016) 
Sicilia 

 NO 

km2 
for 

NO 

km2 
for 

204 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Definition 

Source 

Area (Km2) 

Part  of 
UAA 

Type 2 

Type 1 

Source 

Source: 
http://smi.ine
.pt/Conceito/
Detalhes?id=
1310&lang=
EN 

Part  of 
UAA 

YES 

Area (Km2) 

km2 
124 
(2009) 
for 
Beiras  e  Serra 
da Estrela 

Country-
case region  

Definition 

with 

Fallow  land:  Land  included  in 
crop  rotation,  which  may  be 
worked,  not  providing  crops  at 
any time in the season in order 
to  improve  it.  It  may  take  the 
form of a) land with no crops, b) 
land 
spontaneous 
vegetation sometimes used by 
animals  or  buried  or  c)  land 
sowed 
exclusive 
production  of  green  matter  for 
increase  soil's 
burying 
fertility. 
Source: 
http://smi.ine.pt/Conceito/Detal
hes?id=1310&lang=EN 
 Fallow land 

the 

for 

to 

Portugal 
Guarda 

- 

Spain - Soria 

Romania 
Braşov 

- 

69  km2  (2014) 
for 
Brasov 
county 

of 

NO 

Romanian 
National 
Institute 
Statistics 
(NIS) 

Fallow (arable) land: “land at 
rest  (fallow  and  not  seeded) 
and  generally  characterised 
by not being used for all of the 
agricultural year” 

Romanian  National 
Institute of Statistics 
(NIS) 

191 
(2019) 
Brasov 
county 

YES 

km2 
for 

agricultural 

Degraded  and  unproductive 
land  defined  as  '  Land  which 
has permanently lost the ability 
of 
production 
through  erosion,  pollution  or 
some  other  destructive  action 
of  anthropogenic  origin”  and 
“Land which is naturally eroded 
or  devoid  of  vegetation  (rocky 
slopes,  screes,  quick  sands, 
torrents, 
gullies, 
ravines, 
moors, 
quarries, 
swamps, 
dumps  and  other  degraded 
lands)” 

205 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

12. ANNEX  VI  MAPPING  DRIVERS  OF  ABANDONMENT  AT  REGIONAL 

LEVEL AND CASE STUDY SELECTION 

Drivers mapped 
Land abandonment is a complex process which often happens gradually. In chapter 3 of this 
report a review is presented of the main drivers of land abandonment as detected in former 
work by the JRC (Terres et al., 2013) and other literature and as experienced in the nine case 
study regions of this study.  

Several of these factors can be identified and further reviewed using EU wide statistical and 
spatial data, although the spatial detail at which these drivers can be identified is limited and 
usually not sufficient to directly link to abandonment processes as these are often very local in 
character. The several drivers on farm income and stability and also regional drivers have also 
been quantified at regional level for the EU in Terres et al. (2013) using statistical data. Also, 
these are based on data sources that refer to larger administrative regions. The coarseness in 
data is a limitation. However, it is still relevant to map the drivers, particularly showing those 
regions  where  many  drivers  come  together.  The  review  in  chapter  3  tells  us  that  the  more 
drivers apply the larger the risk is for agricultural land becoming unused, abandoned and/or 
degraded.  

In this Annex the drivers of abandonment based on existing EU wide sources are mapped in 
combination for two reasons: 

•  To identify hot spot regions of drivers of abandonment in the EU 
•  From this hotspot mapping select the nine case study regions used in this study for 
the collection of in-depth information on the process of abandonment of agricultural 
lands and policy information to prevent abandonment or option to bring unused, 
abandoned and degraded lands back into production.  

Given  that  land  abandonment  processes  can  be  very  local  and  may  have  different 
combinations of drivers it is logical to follow a three-step approach: 

1.  Formulation of approach for spatial/statistical analysis aimed at identifying to which 

extent the possible drivers of abandonment coincide (or not) with the hotspot regions 
of declining UAA as identified in task 2 and already presented in sections 2.4 and 2.5 
of this report. 

2.  Combine this information further with the mapped drivers of abandonment. 
3.  Combine with the regions with the highest incidence of land use change flows going 

towards loss of UAA and based on this selection of nine case study regions. 

Step 1   
Abandonment mapping is complex because it usually involves a gradual process of transition 
from  agricultural  land  to  shrubs  and  eventually  forest.  In  part  of  these  areas  natural 
regeneration of woodland on former farmland can be a deliberate choice rather  than simply 
abandonment,  which  makes  it  difficult  to  distinguish  from  abandonment  although  we  can 
assume  that  this  process  is  much  less  common  then  the  transition  to  full  abandonment. 
Overall, it is therefore difficult to determine when land has become abandoned completely or 
when it is still managed. This makes detecting abandonment based on land cover data alone 
practically impossible. Usually, a combination of statistical and different spatial data sources is 
needed from different time periods. We used a set of criteria to create a typology of regions 

206 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

with signs of land abandonment in the EU-28 (Figure 26). This typology builds very much on 
the  drivers’  study  by  Terres  et  al.  (2013)  and  is  used  to  identify  regions  with  unused, 
abandoned and degraded land resources with high or low potential for biomass production for 
energy and other non-food uses. The typology serves as a basis for the selection of nine case 
study regions with a diverse combination of factors leading to farmland becoming unused. The 
typology also ensures an even representation of all environmental zones in the final selection 
of the regional case studies.   

Figure 26 Criteria for the identification and classification of regions with regard to land 
abandonment (based on the review presented in chapter 3 of main report).  

The  proposed  classification  of  regions  in  profiles  of  land  abandonment  is  composed  of 
(numbers refer to Figure 26): 

•  criteria that provide indications or evidence of land abandonment (1, 2, 5, 6); 
•  criteria that reflect barriers or opportunities for the production of crops for biomass (3, 

4, 5, 6, 7) 

•  criteria  that  reflect  diversity  in  environmental  and  socio-economic  and  historical 

conditions (3, 4, 8, 9) 

The criteria are illustrated below together with the step wise selection of regions for the case 
studies. 

Criterion 1. Hotspot regions of declining UAA 

We  identified  hotspots  of  potential  land  abandonment  by  analysing  the  change  in  utilized 
agricultural  area  (UAA)  as  registered  in  the  Eurostat  database,  and  conversions  from 
agricultural  land  to  other  land  cover  types  using  the  Corine  Land  Cover  (CLC)  data.  The 
change in UAA was analysed over the long term (1975-2016) and short term (2005-2016) at 
the  level  of  NUTS2-  and  NUTS3-regions  (see  Sections  2.4  and  2.5  of  main  report).  The 
mapped results of this analysis are presented in Figure 9 in the main report.  

207 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

For some countries, no data were available for 1975 in the Eurostat database. The following 
operations were applied to obtain values for the UAA in 1975 for these countries: 

•  No Eurostat data for 1975, FAOSTAT data available: FAOSTAT data from 1975 were 

used (for example, Austria, Portugal, Romania); 

•  Countries that were part of a larger country in the first part of the period 1975-2016: 
FAOSTAT  data  from  1975  for  the  larger  country  were  disaggregated  based  on  the 
proportional area of smaller countries in 1990 (Czechia, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia). 

•  These operations were not applied for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania because of their 
small area compared to the larger previous country (USSR). For these countries the 
data on change in UAA were taken only for the period 1990-2016.  

Regions with large declines in UAA (>25%) in the period 1975-2016 are in Spain, France, Italy, 
Austria,  Slovenia,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Slovakia,  Bulgaria,  Estonia  and  Sweden.  Regions  with 
large  declines  in  UAA  (>10%  of  the  area  present  in  2006)  in  the  period  2005-2016  are  in 
Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria, Romania, Cyprus, Poland and The Netherlands.  

Step 2:  
Combine this information further with the mapped: 

Criterion 2. Signs of shift to abandonment and  
Criterion 3 In and outside protected nature 

This mapping is based on the Land Use Change Analysis (LEAC) based on Corine Land Cover 
comparison between 2000 and 2018 at 250 m grid resolution. This change analysis is already 
extensively discussed in Annex III of this report. The resulting maps (see Figure 20 to Figure 
23 in Annex III) were used as input in the hotspot mapping here but a further overlap of the 
map ‘sign of shift to abandonment’ has been made overlapping it with the location of Natura 
2000 sites (see Figure 20 in Annex III). Based on this overlap showing the share of land within 
a region with ‘signs of shift to abandonment’ outside and inside Natura 2000 areas (see  Annex 
III). The reason this distinction is made is that a conversion to a nature protection area can go 
together with a (deliberate) intensification or full withdrawal of farming. So, the reason behind 
the land use flow in Natura 2000 areas could be different from the shifts to abandonment seen 
outside  Natura  2000  areas.  Furthermore,  as  discussed  in  Chapter  4  and  5,  conversions  of 
biodiversity-rich unused and abandoned lands towards cropping for energy another non-food 
uses  is  not  recommended  from  a  sustainability  perspective.  By  making  this  distinction  we 
enable the selection of case studies to be made for areas where unused and abandoned lands 
are mainly located outside of Natura 2000 areas.  

From the Figure 20 in Annex III we conclude that the signs of abandonment between 2000 and 
2018  in  agricultural  land  are  spread  all  over  the  EU.  A  large  concentration  of  signs  of 
abandonment is seen in the southern part of the EU, particularly in northern and central regions 
of Spain and all regions in Portugal, with the exception of the Centro region, Northern Greece 
and Corsica. In central and eastern EU the regions with signs of abandonment outside Natura 
2000 standing out are Centru region of  Romania and Yugozopaden in Bulgaria. In the North 
of the EU the strongest sings of abandonment outside Natura 2000 were found in Scotland, all 
regions of Finland and Latvia.  

When  concentrating  on  signs  of  abandonment  that  can  be  linked  to  conversions  to  nature 
protection areas, so located within current Natura 2000 boundaries, there is a more diverse 
picture. Again, in southern EU strong signs are seen in all Spanish and Portuguese regions, in 
Italy  most  strongly  in  Sicilia,  Apulia,  Basilicata,  Liguria  and  Aosta,  in  Slovenia  and  the 
Mediterranean  region  of  Croatia  and  several  Northern  Greek  regions.  In  the  Central  and 

208 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Eastern part of the EU the regions with strongest signs within Natura 2000 are found in Austria 
in Tirol and Lower Austria, in most of Western part of Romania, Southwestern half of Bulgaria, 
Zachodniopomorskie and Podkarpackie regions in Poland and the eastern regions of Slovakia.   

Still we can also conclude that the distribution of signs of abandonment is much larger outside 
Natura 2000 areas then within Natura 2000 areas, as was already concluded in Annex III. 

Criterion 4 : In marginal land 

Many studies mention biophysical or agro-ecological conditions that negatively influence the 
suitability  of  land for  agricultural  activity,  or that directly limit  yields or  increase the costs  of 
farming as reasons for agricultural land abandonment in Europe. These include a.o. factors 
that  determine  the  productivity  and  economic  viability  of  agricultural  holdings  or  the  ready 
access to land. Examples are inherent limitations with regard to climate, soil, and topography, 
for which an overview for Europe is available in the framework proposed for identifying ‘areas 
of  natural  constraints’  by  the  European  Commission  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  (Van 
Oorschoven, et al., 2014 and Terres et al, 2014). These indicators are based on older land 
classification approaches from FAO-CGIAR and USDA-LCC, Mueller et al. (2010), Cai et al. 
(2010), Fischer, 2002 and 2008). The constraints developed in the JRC approach were taken 
as a key starting point for the mapping of marginal lands in the EU MAGIC project for the EU-
28  (29/30).  The  MAGIC  map  has  also  been  used  in  this  study  to  detect  where  natural 
constraints  are  important  in  driving  abandonment  of  farmlands  (see  Table  27)    here  the 
mapped results in MAGIC have been presented at regional level).  

The criteria proposed for biophysical constraints typical to marginal lands in MAGIC (Elbersen 
et al., 2018) have been identified for the classification of severe limitations; 18 single factors, 
grouped into 6 clustered factors:  

1  Adverse climate (low temperature and/or dryness)  
2  Excessive wetness (Limited soil drainage or excess soil moisture)  
3  Low soil fertility (acidity, alkalinity or low soil organic matter)  
4  Adverse chemical conditions (Salinity or contaminations)  
5  Poor rooting conditions (low rootable soil volume or unfavourable soil texture)  
6  Adverse terrain conditions (steep slopes, inundation risks) 

The 6 clusters are discussed below and summarized in Table 27.  

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 27 
Land area share (% of agricultural area)* of total and 6 clusters of biophysical 
constraints making up marginal lands for EU-28 (total) and per Environmental zone (Source: 
MAGIC – Elbersen et al., 2018) 

*Area share of the total marginal area in Europe that can be regarded ‘agricultural’ as it has been in continuous or 
discontinuous agricultural use (according to Corine Land Cover (CLC)) between 1990 and 2012 

The European map of marginal lands from MAGIC showed that 29% of the agricultural area is 
marginal  in  the  EU-28.  Of  the  natural  constraints  considered  in  the  classification,  the  most 
common are rooting limitations, with 12% of the agricultural area affected. The constraints of 
adverse  climate  and  excessive  soil  moisture  occur  in  respectively  11%  and  8%  of  the 
agricultural land (Table 27).  

Adverse climate (marginal land cluster 1) 
Farmland abandonment is often reported to be associated with adverse climatic conditions. 
Adverse  climate  conditions  for  agriculture  in  Europe  can  either  constitute  low  temperature 
limiting  crop  growth,  a  short  growing  season  (Fischer  et  al.,  2007)  (often  measured  as  the 
length or the thermal sum for the growing period), or dry conditions and water stress affecting 
crop physiological processes (Hassan and Dregne, 1997; Le Houerou, 2004), also expressed 
in the ratio  of the  annual  precipitation to  annual potential  evapotranspiration  (P/PET)  or the 
aridity index.  

Low  rainfall  is  reported  to  be  important  for  land  abandonment  in  mountain  areas  in  the 
Mediterranean, as as in arid and semi-arid areas in Southern Europe, imposing water shortage 
during  the  growing  period.  Land  abandonment  due  to  the  low  productivity  of  drylands  is 
reported to occur in semi-arid areas in south-eastern Spain (Romero-Díaz et al., 2007) and the 
centre-south of Portugal (Van Doorn and Bakker, 2007; Nunes et al., 2010). 

Excessive wetness is also reported as an adverse climate condition for agriculture, expressed 
in excess soil moisture or limited soil drainage in areas which are water logged for periods in 
the year in wet and cool areas in Europe, for example in Latvia (Nikodemus et al., 2005).  

In the framework of the indicator for risk of farmland abandonment by, low temperature, aridity 
and  excess  soil  moisture  are  considered  as  unsuitable  environmental  climatic conditions  in 
areas with natural handicaps. In the potential risk map of agricultural land abandonment in the 
EU  (Elbersen  et  al.,  2018  mapped  in  Figure  26  below),  abandonment  risk  due  to  climate 
limitations  is  mostly  found  in  the  Mediterranean  countries  where  soils  suffer  from  drought 
(Greece,  Italy,  Spain)  and  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  Scandinavia  (due  to  acidic  and 
waterlogged soils). 

210 

  1. Adverse climate 2. Excessive soil moisture 3. Adverse chemical comp. 4. Low soil fertility 5. Adverse rooting cond. 6. Adverse terrain Marginal Not marginal Alpine 40% 21% 0% 2% 45% 47% 61% 39% Atlantic 4% 14% 1% 1% 12% 5% 26% 74% Continental 1% 5% 2% 1% 5% 2% 14% 86% Mediterranean 13% 1% 1% 6% 18% 9% 34% 66% North 62% 14% 0% 3% 13% 3% 71% 29% Grand Total 11% 8% 1% 2% 12% 6% 29% 71%   
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

In  the  long-term,  further  abandonment  may  be  driven  by  climate  change,  especially  in 
southwest, southern-central and southeast Europe, where declines in yield are expected as a 
consequence of droughts and high temperatures. 

Soil properties (marginal land clusters 2, 3, 4, 5)   
Soil  properties  are  usually  divided  in  the  categories  of  physical,  chemical  or  biological  soil 
properties.  In  the  category  of  unfavourable  physical  conditions  related  to  agricultural  land 
abandonment,  limitations  in  rooting  are  mentioned,  caused  by  unfavourable  texture  and 
stoniness  and  shallow  rooting  depth.  Physical  soil  properties  determine  the  hydrologic 
behaviour  of  soils.  Limited  soil  drainage  (8)  and  excessive  soil  moisture  or  wetness  are  a 
separate  cluster  of  natural  constraints  in  the  classification  of  marginal  lands.  These 
characteristics were found responsible for crop production reduction (Schulte et al., 2005) and 
for farming restrictions (Earl, 1997; Fitzgerald et al., 2008; Jones and Thomasson, 1993).  

High moisture content is mentioned as a characteristic of abandoned fields in regions with peat 
or moraine soils in Baltic countries (IEEP and Veen, 2005).  

Among  the  adverse  chemical  composition  or  conditions  of  soils,  often  mentioned  are  low 
fertility  (1)  (6),  low  soil  organic  matter,  unfavourable  soil  pH,  acidity,  alkalinity,  salinity  and 
sodicity  and  contaminants  (29/30).  Low  organic  matter  content  is  reported  as  the  principal 
biophysical  constraint  for  low  grain  yields  (1.5  Mg/ha)  in  rainfed  arable  land  in  Spain. 
Salinisation  and  sodicification  are  mentioned  among  the  major  degradation  processes 
endangering the use potential of European soils. The salinity of soils is influenced by natural 
and  human-induced  factors.  Natural  factors  include  characteristics  of  the  area  (e.g. 
temperature,  rainfall,  geology,  relief,  hydrology)  and  natural  characteristics  of  the  soil  (e.g. 
structure, clay mineral composition, hydrophysical properies, salt content). 

Terrain (marginal land cluster 6) 
Characteristics of terrain (elevation, elevated and steep slopes) are also mentioned as factors 
rendering  land  unsuitable  for  agricultural  use  or  as  predictors  of  agricultural  abandonment. 
Cases  were  mentioned  in  Slovakia,  Spain,  Italy,  Portugal,  Ukraine  (Pazúr  et  al.  2014); 
(Corbelle-Rico et al. 2012); (Bakker & Van Doorn 2009); (Bakker et al. 2008); (Cocca et al. 
2012);  (Baumann  et  al.  2011).  But  also  in  flat  areas,  land  abandonment  is  reported  in 
coexistence with land use intensification in irrigated areas. In this case, the abandonment is 
closely linked to water scarcity problems, salinization, and low soil fertility. Fields positioned at 
the  bottoms  of  valleys  in  areas  with  excessive  water  accumulation  or  subject  to  inundation 
risks were also reported to be subject to abandonment in mountain areas in Central Europe 
(IEEP and Veen, 2005). 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 27 Marginal land in agricultural area. 

Source data MAGIC-EU project: Elbersen et al., 2018 

Criterion 5 Share of farm holders aged >65 in 2016 

The age of farm holders is generally acknowledged in the literature as an important driver for 
land  abandonment  (Kristensen  et  al.,  2004;  Mishra  et  al.,  2010;  Potter  and  Lobley,  1992; 
Baudry,  1991;  Van  Doorn  and  Bakker,  2007;  Baldock  et  al.,  1996;  Van  Doorn  and  Bakker, 
2007;  Kristensen  et  al.,  2004;  MacDonald  et  al.,  2000).  Farmland  extensification  and 
abandonment  are  reported  to  be  more  likely  to  occur  when  the  farmer  is  old  and  close  to 
retirement  ((Kristensen  et  al.,  2004;  Van  Doorn  and  Bakker  (2007),  in  56).  According  to 
(Baldock  et  al,  1996)  the number  of  farmers  near  the retiring age may reflect  the expected 
transition of the land and its structure in a period of 10 years. A high average age of farmers 
remaining after a rural exodus from mountain areas, and their lack of interest to increase the 
size of their farms was also mentioned in literature. In  

Figure 28 the proportion of farmers in the age of 65 years and older is mapped as an average 
per region. There are certainly many regions, particularly located in the more peripheral regions 
in the EU-28 with high concentration of old farmers. 

212 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 28 Share of farm holders aged >65 in 2016 (%). 

Source data: Eurostat.  

Criterion 6 Decline in population density 

Drivers in the regional context of rural regions, or beyond the farm enterprise and the region 
include economic opportunities in other regions or sectors, demographic trends, accessibility 
and rural  infrastructure, agricultural  and land markets.   Demographic  trends  and  settlement 
patterns  are  mentioned  in  relation  to  agricultural  land  abandonment  in  several  studies, 
manifesting in high emigration rate, a decline in rural population  (Cramer et al., 2008; García-
Ruiz & Lana-Renault, 2011; Svetlitchnyi, 2009) and a high average age of residents). In the 
EU, the rural population has declined from 38% in 1960 to 24% in 2018 by 17% between 1961 
and  2010  (FAOSTAT,  2019).  In    Figure  29  the  average  change  in  population  density  is 
presented  and  in  Figure  30  the  change  in  rural  households  which  are  both  indicators  of 
population decline.   

213 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 29 Average change in population density over the period 2011-2017 (persons per 
km2). 

Source data: Eurostat. 

214 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 30 Change in the number of rural households in the period 2000-2018 (% of total 
households). 

Source data: Eurostat.  

Criterion 7 Agricultural land price 

The agricultural land price is the result of the demand and supply of land. In regions where 
agricultural is abandoned, the land demand goes down, while the supply goes up which results 
in  lower  land  prices.  This  price  is  also  determined  by  the  quality  of  the  land.  If  it  overlaps 
strongly with marginal lands the yield and returns of these lands are low which also declines 
land rent levels. Finally, relative location of the agricultural land is influencing the price of land. 
In remote rural locations with low accessibility markets are difficult to reach for the production 
on  the  land.  This  also  lower  land  rent  prices,  even  of  high  quality  soils.  Given  these  three 
factors, land price is a good combined indicator for a combination of socio-economic driving 
forces of land abandonment discussed in Chapter 3.  

215 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Figure 31 Regional (NUTS 2 level) a) agricultural land prices (euro/ha) in the EU, 2016 b) a) 
The United Kingdom at NUTS 1 level; b) Italy 2015. 

Source: Eurostat and German statistical offices, processed by Wageningen Economic 
Research (Silvis and Voskuilen, 2018). 

Criterion 8 Year of entry in the EU 

In  Table  28  an  overview  is  given  of  the  regions  selected  and  the  year  of  entry  in  the  EU. 
Western EU countries have a longer history being part of the EU then CEEC countries.  

Criterion 9. Spread over biogeographical regions  

The Environmental Stratification of Europe (EnS; Metzger et al. 2005; Jongman et al. 2006) 
forms the latest statistical classification of the European environment, distinguishing 84 strata 
at  a  1 km2 resolution.  The  EnS  consists  of  84 strata,  which have been aggregated into  13 
environmental zones (EnZs) based on divisions of the mean first principal component score of 
the  strata.  The  only  exception  is  the  Mediterranean  mountain  zone,  which  was  separated 
based on altitude.  

The EnS has been constructed using tried and tested statistical procedures so that the strata 
are unambiguously determined and, as far as possible, independent of personal bias. Twenty 
of the most relevant available environmental variables were selected for the construction of 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

the stratification, based mainly on those identified by statistical screening (Bunce et al. 1996b). 
These  were  (1)  climate  variables  from  the  Climatic  Research  Unit  (CRU)  TS1.2  dataset 
(Mitchell et al. 2004), (2) elevation and slope data from the United States Geological Survey 
HYDRO1k  digital  terrain  model,  and  (3)  indicators  for  oceanicity  and  northing.  Data  were 
analysed at 1 km2 resolution. Principal component analysis (PCA) was then used to compress 
88%  of  the  variation  into  three  dimensions,  which  were  subsequently  clustered  using  an 
ISODATA  clustering  routine.  The  classification  procedure  is  described  in  detail  elsewhere 
(Metzger et al. 2005). The following 13 EnZs are distinguished and mapped in Figure 32. 

Here only 12 EnZs are important, as Anatolia (Turkey) is not covered in this project.  

Figure 32 Environmental Stratification of Europe 

Source : EnS; Metzger et al. 2005; Jongman et al. 2006 

Step 3  

217 

 
 
  
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Combine with the regions with the highest incidence of land use change flows going 
towards loss of UAA and based on this selection of nine case study regions 

The above presented mapped drivers of land abandonment were combined with the long-term 
and  short  term  decline  of  UAA  data  (see  Figure  9  in  the  main  report).  This  resulted  in  a 
selection of 20 regions in the EU with highest integrated scores on all drivers. These 20 regions 
are presented in the map in Figure 33. All regions are characterized by a decline in UAA over 
the period 1975-2016, but show different combinations of values on the other criteria. 

Figure 33 Preliminary selection of case study regions with farmland abandonment. 

To  limit  the  20  regions  to  the  nine  case  study  regions  for  this  study,  a  further  diversity  in 
selection was ensured by ensuring representation of regions in different Environmental zones 
and also coverage of ‘old’ EU Member States and more recently accessed EU Member States 
(see Table 28).   

218 

 
 
 
  
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 28 Combined scores for drivers of abandonment and other EU stratification factors for the nine selected regional case study regions 

219 

NUTS2NUTS3NUTS3NameNAME_ASCINAME_ENGLChange_UAA_longChange_UAA_shortLCF_Signs_shift_abandonmentLCF_Abandonment_inclN2KChange_popDensityChange_ruralHouseholdFarmholders>65MarginalAreasArableLandPriceYearOfEntryEnvZoneEnvZone2Average scoreCommentsAT21KarntenAustria11342321n.a.1995ALP2.1tourism gaining importance over agriculture?BG41YugozapadenBulgaria1111111212007CONALP1.1DEA5ArnsbergGermany2323134441958CONATL2.9inner-peripherical area between large cities in the core of Europe, outside main economic developmentES11GaliciaSpain1111231131986ATL1.6ES41ES417SoriaCastilla y LeonSpain3311232121986MED2.0representative of the region, available field dataES42ES421AlbaceteCastilla-La ManchaSpain2211341121986MED1.9representative of the region, available field dataFRD1Basse-NormandieFrance2344312321958ATL2.7relatively high score for France; what is going on?FRM0CorseFrance14124441n.a.1958MED2.6relatively high score for France; what is going on? Choice between SicilyHR03Jadranska HrvatskaCroatia1421231112013MED1.8available field dataHR04Kontinentalna HrvatskaCroatia1443112312013CON2.2available field dataHU31Eszak-MagyarorszagHungary1432112212004PAN1.9unique biogeographical region in the sleection; salinization; mining regionITF5BasilicataItaly1121221331958MED1.8ITG1SiciliaItaly1431311231958MED2.1LV00LV005LatgaleLatvijaLatvia2412132112004BOR1.9Estland could also have been selected, relatively large change in population density; border region with RussiaPL21MalopolskiePoland2123213322004CONATL2.1mining regionPT16Centro (PT)Portugal31211212n.a.1986MED1.6north-Portugal could also have been selected; here higher short term decline of UAA; mining area; forest firesRO12CentruRomania2111121212007CONALP1.3RO31Sud - MunteniaRomania2233111412007CONALP2.0SE33SE332NorbottenOvre NorrlandSweden1121241111995ATL1.6mining regionUKM6Highlands and IslandsUnited Kingdom2311332131973ALPBOR2.1grazing areas Average score1.62.42.01.91.92.31.82.01.9 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

13. ANNEX VII SUMMARY OF BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR BRINGING UNUSED, ABANDONED  AND 

DEGRADED LANDS BACK INTO USE 

Table 29 Summary of main barriers and opportunities for land conversions to biomass crops for energy and other non-food uses 

Land  use  conversions  & 
type of biomass crops 

Opportunities 

Barriers 

Socio-economic aspects 

Unused/abandoned 
degraded  lands  to  annual 
non-food 
& 
(oil 
multipurpose) crops 

Avoids  ILUC.  May  create  additional  employment,  income, 
income diversification particularly for high quality oil, starch, 
fibre crops where market demand is developed and market 
prices are high enough to cover cost. 

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands  to perennial 
herbaceous or woody crops 

Avoids  ILUC.  May  create  additional  employment,  income, 
income  diversification  and  may  help  to  local  energy 
resources 

Unused/abandoned/severely 
lands  
degraded 
agroforestry systems 

Avoids  ILUC.  May  create  additional  employment,  income, 
income  diversification  and  may  help  to  local  energy 
resources 

Limited  financial  attractiveness  for  farmers.  Farmers  are  not  familiar  with 
these crops. Economic returns may be too low particularly in beginning but 
also  if  lands  are  very  marginal.  If  perennials  and  agroforestry  systems  are 
established  it  may  take  several  years  before  returns  are  delivered  and 
investments can be earned back 

Soil quality aspects 

Unused/abandoned 
degraded  lands  to  annual 
non-food 
& 
(oil 
multipurpose) crops 

On  bare  (black)unused,  abandoned,  degraded  lands  the 
establishment of any crop that will create a soil cover will help 
stabilising the soil.   

Management in a rotational arable crop will imply more soil disturbance and 
therefore higher risk for loss of nutrients and carbon through wind and run-off 
erosion. Risks for soil quality loss in rotational arable systems are much larger 
as compared to leaving land unused that has already spontaneous vegetation 
growing on it on and soil loss.  

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands  to perennial 
herbaceous or woody crops 

Perennial  crops  are  effective  in  reducing  soil  erosion  and 
building  up  soil  carbon.  The  continuous  ground  coverage, 

The effect on soil carbon by perennials very much dependents on the land 
use  before.  Clearing  and  tillage  of  grasslands  long  abandoned  lands  with 
dense shrub and/or forest vegetation coverage or wetlands, for the purpose 
of perennial biomass crops results in serious decline in carbon (both above 

220 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Land  use  conversions  & 
type of biomass crops 

Opportunities 

Barriers 

the low soil disturbance, and the large rooting systems are 
reasons for this.   

and  below  soil).  These  carbon  losses  for  which  the  restoration  period  is 
variable  and  depending  on  the  yield  may  not  be  compensated  within  the 
plantation lifetime of the new perennial. 

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands agroforestry 
systems 

Agroforestry  are  better  in  erosion  control  and  overall 
maintenance  of  the  soil  fertility  then  conventional  single 
forestry, cropping or pasture systems. 

The effect on soil carbon by agroforestry systems very much dependents on 
the land use before, the type of agroforestry system and the establishment. 
(See above) 

Water quality aspects 

Unused/abandoned 
degraded lands to annual 
non-food (oil & 
multipurpose) crops 

No opportunities 

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands to perennial 
herbaceous or woody crops 

Perennials have low lower soil disturbance, year-round soil 
coverage and deep rooting which explains very low nutrient 
leaching to water. The deep and well branched roots in all of 
these perennials make that they hold large amounts of water 
and  nutrients.  Many  perennial  biomass  crops  have  an 
increased nitrogen uptake from air and/or through fine  root 
system and/or translocation of nutrients to the root system 
In  perennials  water 
before 
transpiration rates are high and this reduces water drainage 
and leaching. 

is  harvested. 

the  crop 

221 

In arable (row) crops there is very frequent multi-annual field activities. This 
involve strong disturbance of the soil or leave the soil bare for a shorter or 
longer time, which enhances turnover of nutrients, increase the potential risk 
of  loss  of  nitrogenous  and  phosphorus  compounds,  through  surface  runoff 
and soil erosion into water resources.  

Inputs in arable crops that  may affect  water quality  are always  higher  then 
when  lands  are  left  unused,  unless  these  crops  are  established  on  bare 
unused  and  degraded  soils  where  any  newly  create  a  soil  cover  will  help 
stabilising the soil.    

Cropping  activities,  even  in  perennial  crops  always  lead  to  some  soil 
disturbance  and  losses  of  inputs  (fertilisers  &  pesticides)  through  surface 
runoff  and  soil  erosion  into  water  resources  and  through  air.  So  even  in 
perennials the effect on water quality will mostly be higher than when lands 
are  left  unused,  unless  these  crops  are  established  on  bare  unused  and 
degraded soils where any newly create a soil cover will help stabilising the 
soil.    

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Land  use  conversions  & 
type of biomass crops 

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands agroforestry 
systems 

Opportunities 

Barriers 

Adverse  water  quality  effects  of  agroforestry  systems  are 
very limited as in several studies it is indicated that the use 
of  herbicides,  pesticides  and  nutrient  inputs  is  generally 
lower in agroforestry systems as compared to mono-cultural 
cropping systems and intensive grazing systems 

Cropping activities, even in agroforestry, always lead to some soil disturbance 
and losses of inputs (fertilisers & pesticides) through surface runoff and soil 
erosion into water resources and through air. So in sylvoarable agroforestry 
the  effect  on  water  quality  will  mostly  be  higher  than  when  lands  are  left 
unused, unless these crops are established on bare unused and degraded 
soils where any newly create a soil cover will help stabilising the soil.    

Water quantity 

Unused/abandoned 
degraded lands to annual 
non-food (oil & 
multipurpose) crops 

There are several industrial oil crops (producing non-edible 
oils), that are drought tolerant. The yields may not be so high 
in these circumstances, but plants at least survive. 

Non-food crops can be irrigated with waste water. 

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands to perennial 
herbaceous or woody crops 

The  building  up  of  below  ground  biomass  (and  facilitates 
access to water resources particularly in arid circumstances.  
Perennial  biomass  crops,  particularly 
those  of  C4 
photosynthetic group are more water efficient which implies 
that they transpire less water per unit biomass.  

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands agroforestry 
systems 

Non-food crops can be irrigated with waste water. 

Agroforestry  entails  integrating  woody  with  crop  and/or 
animal production systems to create shading which reduces 
the  water  loss  through  evaporation  and  enables  higher 
efficiency in water use. The deep rooting system in trees and 
shrubs  ensure  that  these  systems  cope  well  with  long 
drought periods. 

In  drought  prone  areas  additional  establishment  of  crops  may  increase 
unsustainable water use through irrigation. 

In  drought  prone  areas  additional  establishment  of  crops  may  increase 
unsustainable water use. This may happen when irrigation is used, but also 
in rainfed situation where deep rooting perennials may deplete   ground water. 

In drought prone areas additional establishment of trees, shrubs and/or crops 
may increase unsustainable water use. This may happen when irrigation is 
used,  but  also  in  rainfed  situation  where  deep  rooting  trees  may  deplete 
ground water. 

Unused/abandoned 
degraded lands to annual 

Some  compensation  for  the  GHG  emissions  in  the  crop 
phase can be reached when annuals are used as feedstock 

Application  of  fertilizers,  manure  in  arable  crops  leads  to  nitrification  and 
denitrification in the field through N2O (and NOx) that is released to the air are 

Air and climate 

222 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Land  use  conversions  & 
type of biomass crops 

Opportunities 

Barriers 

non-food (oil & 
multipurpose) crops 

for  energy  or  other  non-food  applications  which  are 
otherwise based on fossil feedstock.  

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands to perennial 
herbaceous or woody crops 

Perennials  can  compensate  the  emissions  of  GHG  in  the 
cropping phase through the strong capture of carbon below 
and above ground during the plantation phase and through 
use  as  alternative  to  fossil  feedstock  to  avoid  fossil  based 
emissions.  

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands agroforestry 
systems 

The  perennial  crops  used  in  agroforestry  systems  can 
compensate  the  emissions  of  GHG  in  the  cropping  phase 
through  the  strong  capture  of  carbon  below  and  above 
ground  and  when  it  delivers  biofeedstock  for  use  as 
alternative 
fossil  based 
emissions. 

feedstock 

to  avoid 

fossil 

to 

Unused/abandoned 
degraded lands to annual 
non-food (oil & 
multipurpose) crops 

New bioenergy plantations can be created in a more strategic way 
that  considers  landscape  context  and  is  sensitive  as  to  how  they 
affect  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services.  This  involves  planning 
the spatial arrangement of bioenergy plantations so that they interact 
positively with other landscape units. 

Biodiversity 

always  higher  then  when  lands  are  left  unused.  Furthermore,  annual  row 
crops,  particularly  in temperate  climates,  have a  long period  of  absence  of 
plants  and  thus  plant  uptake  of  nitrogen  which  increases  N2O  emissions 
further. 

Perennial biomass crops, even though they require low levels of fertilisation 
and  mechanisation,  certainly  as  compared  to  annual  crops,  still  release 
nitrous oxide and CO2 to the atmosphere during cropping. 

Perennial and annual crops in agro-forstry systems, even though they require 
low  levels  of  fertilisation  and  mechanisation,  still  release  nitrous  oxide  and 
CO2 to the atmosphere during cropping. 

If a shift takes place from no land use to a rotational arable crop this may lead to higher 
input use and tillage. This will have negative implications for  overall habitat quality in 
terms of soil, water quality on soil and water quality and subsequently soil organisms. 
A shift from  vegetated abandoned lands to rotational arable will diminish shelter and 
breeding  opportunities for  mammals  and  birds  and  will  diminish  the  floristic  diversity 
that  was  present  in  the  abandoned  land.  Introduction  of  rotational  crops  on  unused 
lands may lead to loss of fallow lands, which are an important habitat for species from 
a range of biota. If permanent grasslands are converted to arable this will have negative 
impacts on biodiversity and especially ground nesting birds. 

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands to perennial 
herbaceous or woody crops 

Some species (certain birds and small mammals) might profit from 
introduction  of  perennial  crops 
typical  open  monotonous 
permanent  grassland  or  arable  landscapes  as  they  provide 
additional new landscape structural diversity and shelter and nesting 
opportunities. 

in 

Any  shift  from  abandonment  to  perennial  biomass  cropping  will  generally  lead  to 
increases in input uses, more mechanisation and changes of landscape structure. This 
will have negative implications for habitat quality and landscape structure. If degraded 
lands  are  exchanged  with  perennials,  the  effects  for  biodiversity  could  be  beneficial 
however.  

223 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Land  use  conversions  & 
type of biomass crops 

Unused/abandoned/severely 
degraded lands agroforestry 
systems 

Opportunities 

Barriers 

As  compared  to  unused,  abandoned  and  degraded  lands  the 
introduction  of  agroforestry  systems  will  provide  a  more  diverse 
landscape structure creating wider diversity which may be beneficial 
for  a  wider  range  of  species  in  different  biodiversity  strata.  This 
applies both in relation to more open unused and abandoned lands, 
but  also  as compared  to  unused and  abandoned  lands  with  a  full 
shrub and/or tree cover.    

224 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD 
CROPS 

14. ANNEX VIII CASE STUDY DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL  

Information on the occurrence of unused, abandoned and degraded land in the case 
study  regions  and  drivers  was  derived  from  interviews  with  65  stakeholders.  The 
numbers of respondents according to type of stakeholder and country and the number 
of responses are shown in Table 30 and Table 31.   

Table 30 Number (nr) of respondents in case studies according to stakeholder type. 
Nr of respondents 

Stakeholder type 

cadastral office 

environmental NGO 

expert 

farm advisor 

farmer 

farmer association 

local  government  official  (municipal 
level) 
local  government  official  (regional 
level) 
local rural development organisation 

national government official 

Researcher 

technician  from  national  government 
institute 
regional research office 

Total 

3 

5 

1 

5 

7 

10 

6 

9 

8 

3 

6 

1 

1 

65 

Table 31  Number (nr) of respondents in case studies per country and for questions 
on occurrence of land types, drivers of abandonment/non-use and degradation.  

Country 

Region 

Nr 
respondents 

of 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

France 

Hungary 

Italy 

Latvia 

Portugal 

Spain 

Blagoevgrad  

Kontinentalna 
Hrvatska  
Normandie 

Észak-
Magyarország 
Sicily 

Latgale 

Beiras e Serra 
da Estrela 
Soria 

Romania 

Braşov 

Total 

6 

10 

7 

11 

6 

5 

8 

6 

6 

65 

of 

Nr 
respondents 
occurrence 
6 

of 

Nr 
respondents 
drivers 
6 

of 

Nr 
respondents 
degradation 
6 

5 

6 

6 

6 

5 

6 

5 

6 

6 

7 

4 

6 

5 

7 

6 

7 

1 

6 

5 

4 

4 

5 

6 

1 

51 

54 

38 

225 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

15. ANNEX IX  POLICY OVERVIEW 

Table 32 EU policies with the potential to influence land transitions in and out of agricultural use 

Policy 

Potential way it influences land use transitions 

Policies providing financial assistance to rural areas and rural land 

Common 
Agricultural Policy 

Regulation (EU) No 
1305/2013 

- 
- 

Pillar 1 support 
Pillar 2 support  

Regulation (EU) No 
1306/2013 

Pillar 1 support provides direct payments to farmers to support incomes, with an option to provide additional 
support to small farms, young farmers and areas facing natural constraints as well as coupled for certain 
crops and livestock in most Member States. 30% of direct payments are allocated to ‘greening’ measures 
currently. In the future it is proposed these will be replaced by an ‘eco-scheme’. These measures support 
the  viability  of  farming  activities  and  as  such  can  help  maintain  land  under  agricultural  use  that  might 
otherwise be abandoned, particularly in systems that are economically vulnerable.  

Regulation (EU) No 
1307/2013 

Proposals  for  the 
CAP  for  the  2022-
are 
period 
27 
currently 
under 
negotiation. 

Pillar 2 support provides a range of different types of support targeted at economic, social and environmental 
/ climate objectives, including area payments (agri-environment-climate / organic farming), compensation 
payments to Areas facing Natural Constraints (ANC), as well as payments for investments on farm,  support 
for business start-up, diversification, forest creation and management, support for the establishment costs 
and initial maintenance of agroforestry systems, cooperation, advice etc.  Member States have the freedom 
to use and design these measures to meet their priorities, including to counter drivers of land abandonment, 
but also to increase the area of woodland on both agricultural and non-agricultural land.   

Structural Funds 

Regulation (EU) No 
1300/2013 

- 
- 

Cohesion Fund 
European 
Regional 
Development 
Fund 

Regulation (EU) No 
1301/2013 

The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the 
European Union by correcting imbalances between its regions. Action to promote low-carbon economies, the 
environment  and  strengthening  research,  technological  development  and  innovation  are  amongst  the  11 
priority  themes  for  the  2014-2020  period.  Investments  can  be  made  that  strengthen  the  bioeconomy, 
including finding way of increasing the production of sustainable biomass and the infrastructure that supports 
this. 

The Cohesion Fund (CF) is aimed at Member States whose Gross National Income (GNI) per inhabitant is 
less  than  90  %  of  the  EU  average.  It  aims  to  reduce  economic  and  social  disparities  and  to  promote 
sustainable  development.  Environmental  projects  are  a  key  category  for  investment,  including  projects 

226 

 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

related to energy, as long as they clearly benefit the environment in terms of inter alia the use of renewable 
energy. 

LIFE Programme 

Regulation (EU) No 
1293/2013 

The  LIFE  programme  can  provide  financial  support  to  achieve  environmental/climate  goals  under  its  sub 
programmes.  These  may  directly  or  indirectly  support  bringing  back  land  into  active use  or  preventing  it 
from becoming abandoned. Funding is of two types: grants of around 55-60% for traditional, integrated and 
preparatory projects; and financial instruments, for example the Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF), 
that provides tailored loans and investments, backed by an EU guarantee. 

Environmental policies 

Habitats Directive 

Directive 92/43/EC  The Habitats Directive requires the establishment of the Natura 2000 network to maintain and restore Annex 
1  habitats  and  Annex  II  species  to  favourable  conservation  status  and  to  manage  features  in  the  wider 
landscape of major importance for flora and fauna. Since achieving favourable conservation status of many 
of the relevant habitats and species, as well as the landscape features on which they depend, relies on the 
continuation of agricultural practices, the designation of the Natura 2000 network and requirements for the 
management  of  these  areas  should  help  keep  land  under  appropriate  agricultural  management  and  help 
constrain  it  from  becoming  abandoned.  In  other  cases  there  may  be  a  requirement  to  cease  certain 
agricultural practices, if not to abandon farming. 

Birds Directive 

Directive 
2009/147/EC 

Floods Directive 

Directive 
2007/60/EC 

The conservation measures (Art 3, 4) require the preservation, maintenance or re-establishment of habitats 
necessary to protect the birds covered by the Directive and to avoid the pollution or deterioration of these 
habitats.    Since  a  number  of  these  habitats  involve  areas  of  farmland,  the  measures  taken  should  help 
maintain land under appropriate agricultural management and help constrain it from becoming abandoned. 
(previous point re 92/43 applies here too) 

Member  States  are  obliged  to  put  in  place  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans.  The  tools  adopted  by  Member 
States should help manage flood risk, thereby reducing the resilience of land to flood events and helping 
avoid the degradation of these areas and their potential loss from agricultural production. The plans could 
also  promote  the  development  of  woodland  areas  to  mitigate  flood  risk,  which  would  take  land  out  of 
agricultural production. 

Water  Framework 
Directive 

Directive 2000/60/EC  Member States are obliged to develop River Basin Management Plans under the Water Framework Directive. 
These  set  out  the  objectives and actions required to protect and improve the water environment to meet the WFD 

227 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

objectives  (namely  to  enhance  the  status  and  prevent  further  deterioration  of  aquatic  ecosystems  and  associated 
wetlands, promote the sustainable use of water and reduce water pollution and ultimately to achieve good ecological 
status of all water bodies. Since water and land resources are closely linked river basin management plans also inform 
decisions on land-use planning and work alongside other strategies, such as flood risk management plans 

Climate Policies 

The Recast RED II sets a  binding target of 32% for renewable energy sources in the EU’s energy mix by 
2030. It includes sustainability criteria for biomass feedstocks if they are to be eligible to contribute to the 
EU target, GHG criteria for solid and gaseous biomass fuels and defines feedstocks with high risk of Indirect 
Land  Use  Change  (ILUC).  The  Directive  states  that  if  energy  crops  grown  on  abandoned  or  degraded 
agricultural land (as defined) would be considered as meeting the sustainability criteria and therefore may 
indirectly influence abandoned or degraded land being brought back into production for this purpose. 

Covers  emissions  and  removals  from:  managed  forest  land,  afforested  land,  deforested  land,  managed 
cropland, managed  grassland, managed wetlands,  settlements and other land, harvested wood products. 
The Regulation establishes a ‘no-debit’ target for Member States, which means that any debit in the LULUCF 
sector must be compensated by credits. This may influence Member States in their decisions relating to land 
use,  particularly  to  improve  the  sustainable  management  of  agricultural  (and  forest)  areas  to  minimize 
carbon emissions and to increase their forest area to meet the ‘no-debit’ target. This could be at the expense 
of agricultural land.  

RED (to end 2020) 

Recast RED II 

Land Use, Land Use 
Change 
and 
Forestry Regulation 
(LULUCF) 

Directive 
(in 
2009/28/EC 
force to end 2020) 

Directive 
2018/2001 
Delegated 
Regulation 
2019/807 

(EU) 
and 

(EU) 

Regulation 
2018/841 

(EU) 

No 
Decision 
529/2013/EU 
(in 
force  to  end  2020 
only) 

Effort 
Regulation 

Sharing 

Regulation 
2018/842 

(EU) 

The ESR establishes national binding emission reduction targets for each Member State. It also establishes 
limited flexibility  for MS to use credits from the LULUCF sector to achieve the national targets. Although 
there are no sector specific targets set for agriculture, in some Member States where agriculture contributes 
to a significant proportion of GHG emissions, these targets may influence choices about land use, potentially 
influencing  the  sustainable  management  of  soils  (thereby  preventing  land  degradation)  or  increasing  the 

228 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

prevalence  of  woody  features  or  tree  planting,  thereby  taking  land  out  of  agricultural  production,  but 
potentially to produce another form of energy feedstock. 

EU 
Strategy 

Adaptation 

COM(2013) 
final 

216 

Aims to make the EU more climate-resilient by encouraging Member States to prepare for and reduce their 
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.   

Regulation  on  the 
Governance  of  the 
Energy  Union  and 
climate action 

Regulation 
(EU)2018/1999 

Requires Member States to prepare National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) for the period 2021-2030 – 
in these they must set out how agriculture and forests will contribute to the EU’s 2030 climate targets. The 
actions identified in these will influence land use /management choices nationally, including decisions about 
increasing forest area and potential land use changes away from agriculture. 

EIA Directive 

Directive 
2011/92/EU 

Planning Policies 

This requires Member States to act to minimise environmental damage from agricultural developments and 
other ‘projects’ in rural areas including the restructuring of agricultural land, the conversion of uncultivated 
or semi-natural habitats to intensive agricultural management, and initial afforestation and deforestation for 
the purposes of conversion to another type of land use. As such it should protect environmentally valuable 
sites  from  being  cultivated  or  their  management  and  land  use  intensified  or  substantially  changed.  In 
practice,  the  frameworks  and  criteria  introduced  by  Member  States  for  screening  whether  or  not  a  full 
environmental assessment of projects for restructuring or intensifying or afforesting agricultural land have 
been found to be generally weak, effectively exempting most such projects (COWI, 2009; IEEP, 2010).   

State  Aid 
rules 
relating  to  certain 
categories of aid in 
the agriculture and 
forest sectors 

Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 
702/2014 

These State Aid rules allow for funding to be provided by the public sector to be provided to the agricultural 
and  forest  sector  that  are  outside  the  scope  of  Article  42  of  the  Treaty  insofar  as  such  aid  is  granted  in 
accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 and is either co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development (EAFRD) or granted as additional national financing for such co-financed measures’ 

It specifically allows for the following types of aid relevant to land abandonment or the use of agricultural 
land for biomass production:  

- 

Investments in tangible assets or intangible assets on agricultural holdings linked to primary agricultural 
production  in  certain  circumstances  as  long  as  certain  criteria  are  met.  Investments  for  which  aid  is 
permitted  include those for the production at farm-level of biofuels or of energy from renewable sources, 
provided that such production does not exceed the average annual consumption of fuels or energy of 
the given farm (Article 14).  This allows for investments necessary to support bioenergy production at 
farm level  

229 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY 
AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

- 

- 
- 
- 

Aid  for  agricultural  land  consolidation  (Article  15)  which  can  be  used  to  reduce  fragmentary 
abandonment. 
Aid for investments concerning the relocation of farm buildings (Article 16)  
Start-up aid for young farmers and the development of small farms (Article 18) 
Aid for agroforestry systems (Article 33) 

230 

 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

16. ANNEX X NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND  

The shortlist selection criteria are: (1) size of available land, (2) expected practical feasibility, 
(3) level of interference with ongoing activities, (4) expected financial viability.  

Table 33 Longlist of non-agricultural land categories and reasoning for inclusion or 
exclusion from shortlist. 
Selected 
for short 
list? 

Reasoning for exclusion from short list 

Description 

Category 

Closed landfills 

YES 

historic  waste  landfills  that  are 
currently closed 

high order of magnitude of available land area 

City  greening 
plans 

YES 

city/municipal  plans  for  green 
spaces in urban areas 

high order of magnitude of available land area 

Military terrain 

YES 

military  owned  land  used  for 
training, etc. only partially used 

high order of magnitude of available land area 

PV farms 

YES 

photovoltaic  plants  with  solar 
panels 

high  order  of  magnitude  of  available  land  area  and 
financial viability 

Former  mining 
facilities 

YES 

land  formerly  used  for  mining  of 
materials  such  as  metals  or 
minerals 

high order of magnitude of available land area and co-
benefits of remediation 

Roadside 

YES 

strips  of  land  along  roads  and 
highways 

area  is  already  landscaped  by  government  and  has 
unused waste streams 

Desertified land 

YES 

degraded  land  in  drylands  with 
bioproductivity loss 

high order of magnitude of available land area 

Closed quarries 

YES 

former aggregate mines 

potential co-benefits of remediation 

Airports 

YES 

unused land at airports, e.g. along 
runways 

financial viability and high practical feasibility  

Railroads sides 

YES 

strips of land along railway lines 

area  is  already  landscaped  by  government  and  has 
unused waste streams 

Brownfields 
general 

YES 

developed 

previously 
land 
(typically  industrial)  that  is  often 
contaminated 

co-benefits of remediation 

Closed 
mines 

coal 

YES 

former 
facilities 

surface 

coal  mining 

potential  co-benefits  of  remediation  and  public 
support  

Saline land 

YES 

land with reduced soil fertility due 
to accumulation of salts 

high order of magnitude of available land area 

Onshore  wind 
farms 

NO 

wind turbine farms that are on land  high  perceived  level  of  interference  with  ongoing 
activities-  most 
is  already  agricultural  and/or 
topography is not suitable for biomass growth 

Burned areas 

NO 

land  that  has  been  burned  due  to 
wildfires or other causes 

most is previously forested or agricultural and some 
MS have legislation to return back to natural land  

Golf courses 

NO 

recreational areas for golf 

low practical feasibility  

231 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Green roofs 

NO 

building  partially  or  completely 
covered with vegetation  

small  order  of  magnitude  of  available  land  area  and 
low  practical  feasibility- grouped  with  city greening 
plans 

Power plants  

NO 

electricity generating plants 

small order of magnitude of available land area 

Abandoned salt 
pans 

Peatland 

Sound  panels 
roadside 

Abandoned  car 
parks 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

land  previously  used  for  salt 
production 

still suitable for algae, but likely not for crops 

degraded  or  drained  peatlands 
with potential for restoration 

peat restoration focused on maintaining carbon stocks 
and no harvesting of grown biomass, negative public 
support 

panels on highways used to block 
noise pollution 

small  order  of  magnitude  of  available  land  area  and 
low practical feasibility  

land  previously  used  for  parking 
for cars 

most will be developed as they are primarily in urban 
areas 

Flood 
land 

prone 

NO 

land prone to flooding 

other  crops  more  suitable  for  flood  prevention  and 
much of this land overlaps with agricultural land 

Acidic soils 

NO 

degraded 
acidity 

land  with  high  soil 

large overlap with agricultural land 

Land with open 
permitting 

Land 
reclamation 

NO 

NO 

temporarily  unused  land  while 
permitting being processed 

difficult  to  estimate  available  area  and  may  overlap 
too much with other categories 

new  land  created  from  filling 
oceans, seas, riverbeds or lakes 

potentially infinite available area and low feasibility 

Unstable land 

NO 

land prone to landslides 

low  practical  feasibility  and  other  crops  are  more 
suitable for landslide prevention 

Energy 
infrastructure 

NO 

unused  land  in  areas  of  energy 
generation or distribution 

small  order  of  magnitude  of  available  land  area  and 
large overlap with other categories 

232 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Table 34 Details of barriers and opportunities for shortlist non-agricultural land categories 
(green indicates opportunity and red indicates barrier). 
Land 
category 
group  

Barrier/Opportunity 
category 

Land category 

Description 

Environmental 

Potential to remediate contaminated soils. 

Ongoing initiative 

There  are  existing  European  to  integrate  and  improve  policy 
instruments  for landfill management projects.[1]  Also, bioenergy crop 
cultivation  for  landfill  remediation  has  been  demonstrated  by  waste 
management companies.[2] 

Economic 

Bioenergy  crop  cultivation  could  help  to  reduce  costs  of  landfill 
remediation projects by generating additional income. 

Closed landfills 

Policy and regulation 

The  Landfill  Directive  requires  operators  are  responsible  for  the 
maintenance,  monitoring,  and  control  of  the  landfill  and  its  potential 
hazards.[3] Also, the revised waste proposal includes "A binding landfill 
target  to  reduce  landfill  to  maximum  of  10%  of  municipal  waste  by 
2030" so it is expected that the number of closed landfills will increase 
in the coming decades.[4] 

Public perception  

The public generally supports the closing of landfills and rehabilitation 
of these. 

Environmental 

Landfills have contaminated soils and could limit crop yields. 

Ongoing initiative 

There are EU circularity projects focused on the enhanced mining of 
landfills.[5]  Cultivating  bioenergy  crops  would only  be  possible  after 
the landfills have been mined for their secondary raw materials which 
could delay bioenergy crop cultivation. 

Environmental 

Bioenergy crop could aid in rehabilitating land, such as improving soil 
quality and biodiversity. 

Brownfields 

Ongoing initiative 

There  are  EU  initiatives  focusing  on  transitioning  coal  region,  that 
assists  regions  to  prepare  and  implement  transition  activities,  and 
bioenergy could be part of this transition package.[6] 

Closed coal 
mines 

Economic 

Decommissioning  coal  mines  has  associated  job  losses  and  socio-
economic  decline  which  additional  income  and  jobs  for  bioenergy 
growth could mitigate.[7] 

Public perception  

The  public  generally  supports  the  closing  of  coal  mines  and 
rehabilitation of these. 

Environmental 

Closed coal mines have very contaminated soils which could limit crop 
yields. 

Economic 

Bioenergy cultivation could be more costly if yields are low. 

Environmental 

Bioenergy crop could aid in rehabilitating land, such as improving soil 
quality and biodiversity. 

Ongoing initiative 

Aggregate  companies  (like  cement)  are  active  in  rehabilitation 
projects.[8] 

Economic 

Bioenergy  crop  cultivation  could  help  to  reduce  costs  of  quarry 
remediation projects by providing additional income. 

Closed quarries 

Ongoing initiative 

Environmental 

Economic 

Environmental 

Closed mining 
waste facilities 

Many  quarry  rehabilitation  projects  highly  focus  on  increasing 
biodiversity  and  might  be  opposed  to  monoculture  bioenergy 
crops.[9],[10] 

Rocks  and  minerals  are  mined  from  quarries  so  soil  might  not  be 
suitable for bioenergy crop growth. 

Bioenergy cultivation could be more costly if yields are low due to low 
soil quality. 

Bioenergy crop could aid in rehabilitating land, such as improving soil 
quality and biodiversity. 

Economic 

Bioenergy crop cultivation could help to reduce costs of mining waste 
remediation projects by providing additional income. 

233 

 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Land 
category 
group  

Land category 

Barrier/Opportunity 
category 

Description 

Ongoing initiative 

There is good documentation of closed waste facilities from extractive 
industries,  as  it  is  part  of  a  directive  (Article  20  of  Directive 
2006/21/EC). There is also funding from the European Development 
Fund and the  Cohesion Fund for  the  decontamination of  brownfield 
sites, including for abandoned mining waste facilities.[11] 

Public perception 

Could be well perceived by the public. 

Policy and regulation 

Environmental 

Economic 

Environmental 

Ongoing initiative 

Plans for closure and site clean-up are part of the permitting of the site, 
so new bioenergy projects would mostly likely only be possible for new 
mines that eventually close. 

Mining waste typically consists of tailings and waste-rock which may 
not be conducive for biomass growth because of the rocky material, pH 
levels, and other contaminants. 

Bioenergy cultivation could be more costly if yields are low due to low 
soil quality. 

Bioenergy crop could aid in rehabilitating land, such as improving soil 
quality and biodiversity. 

There  are  several  European  and  various  national  initiatives  for  the 
rehabilitation  of  brownfields.  DG  ENV  is  actively  working  on  this 
topic.[12] Successful pilots using biomass to remediate brownfields have 
also been demonstrated in the EU.[13] 

Economic 

Bioenergy  crop  cultivation  could  help  to  reduce  costs  of  brownfield 
remediation projects by creating additional income. 

Public perception 

Could be well perceived by the public. 

Environmental 

Brownfields are typically contaminated or degraded. These conditions 
(pH, metal content) may limit crop yields. 

Ongoing initiative 

Desertification is being recognised as a larger and larger problem and 
the  countries  that  have  declared  desertification  a  problem  are 
Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.[14] 

Environmental 

Bioenergy crop could aid in rehabilitating degraded land. 

Brownfields 
general 

Abandoned 
agricultural 
land 

Desertified land 

Ongoing initiative 

Economic 

Environmental 

Environmental 

Ongoing initiative 

Much of desertified land is previously agricultural land and will aim to 
be restored back to this. 

Bioenergy cultivation could be more costly if yields are low due to low 
soil quality. 

By  definition,  desertified  land  is  land  that  has  been  wrought  with 
drought and is no longer able to sustain conventional agricultural crops. 
Only very drought resistant bioenergy crops could be used on this type 
of land. 

Salinated land may increase N20 emissions and reduce carbon storage, 
so the cultivation of bioenergy crops on this type of land could mitigate 
these issues. 

The EU Halosys Project focuses on cultivation of selected halophytes 
species  on  salt-affected  soils  with  the  aim  of  developing  new  value 
chains from obtained biomass.[15] 

Saline land 

Economic 

Bioenergy  crop  cultivation  could  help  to  reduce  costs  of  salinisation 
remediation projects by providing additional income. 

Economic 

Environmental 

Bioenergy cultivation could be more costly if yields are low due to low 
soil quality. 

There is limited productivity due to the toxicity of dissolved salts or the 
destruction  of  soil  structure  which  reduces  water 
infiltration 
capacity.[16] 

Ongoing initiative 

Roadsides  are  already  maintained  by  governments  and  have  unused 
waste streams. 

Infrastructure 
landscaping 

Roadside 

Ongoing initiative 

Economic 

Crops needs to be at a safe distance from drivers and keep visibility for 
the safety of drivers. 

The costs of cultivation could be high as roadside areas are narrow and 
cover long distances. 

234 

 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Land 
category 
group  

Land category 

Barrier/Opportunity 
category 

Description 

Ongoing initiative 

Railsides  are  already  maintained  by  governments  and  have  unused 
waste streams. 

Railside 

Ongoing initiative 

Railsides need to kept clear so that there is no obstruction of trains. 

Economic 

The costs of cultivation could be high as railside areas are narrow and 
cover long distances. 

Environmental 

Bioenergy crops in urban areas could help improve air quality. 

Green city 
planning 

Ongoing initiative 

Many  cities  have  city  greening  plans  ambitions  in  place  in  which 
bioenergy crops could be integrated. 

Ongoing initiative 

City  greening  plans  may  prioritize  functional  (for  residents)  and 
utilizable green space over cropland. 

Policy and regulation 

Agricultural  operation  in  urban  areas  might  not  be  allowed  in  all 
instances. 

Economic 

Bioenergy crops could create additional income for PV farm developers 
or operators. 

PV farms 

Economic 

Other 

Economic 

Bioenergy  crops  require  high  upfront  investment  which  may  be 
undesirable for developers. Crops could potentially cause shading and 
reduce the electricity produced. 

There is a risk of crops damaging PV equipment. 

In hot climates where flights are sometimes cancelled, bioenergy crops 
can have cooling effect. Crops also provide additional income. 

Combined 
business 

Airports 

Environmental 

Bioenergy  crops  could  improve  air  quality  around  airports  which 
experience  high  emissions  from  fuel  combustion  and 
increase 
biodiversity. 

Policy and regulation 

Strict regulations concerning airport access and clearing (among others) 
could be restrictive. 

Ongoing initiative 

Airport  farming  could  increase  local  animal  population  leading  to 
collision hazards. 

Other 

Military  terrain  cannot  be  used  for  most  other  activities  besides 
agriculture because of security restrictions. 

Military terrain 

Economic 

Bioenergy crops provide additional income. 

Policy and regulation 

Access  to  military  terrains  could  be  restricted  at  times  because  of 
security reasons. 

 [1] Consortium for a Coherent European Landfill Management Strategy. 
https://www.interregeurope.eu/cocoon/ 
 [2] Energy Crops Harvested from FCC Landfill Sites (2013). https://waste-management-
world.com/a/energy-crops-harvested-from-fcc-landfill-sites 
[3] European Commission, Review of Waste Policy and Legislation. 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/target_review.htm 
 [4] European Commission, Landfill Waste. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm 
 [5] EU training Network for Resource Recovery Through Enhanced Landfill Mining. https://new-
mine.eu/project/ 
 [6] European Commission, Coal regions in transition. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/oil-gas-and-
coal/EU-coal-regions/coal-regions-transition 

235 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Description 

Land category 

Barrier/Opportunity 
category 

Land 
category 
group  
 [7] JRC, EU coal regions: opportunities and challenges ahead. 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC112593/kjna29292enn.pdf 
 [8] CemBureae, Rehabilitating quarries. http://useofcement.cembureau.eu/2018/11/19/rehabilitating-
quarries-restoring-biodiversity-portugal-national-parks/ 
 [9] UEPG, Biodiversity. http://www.uepg.eu/key-uepg-topics/case-studies/biodiversity 
 [10] European Network for Sustainable Quarrying and Mining, Biodiversity. 
https://ensqm.weebly.com/biodiversity.html 
 [11] European Commission, Closed and abandoned waste facilities. 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/mining/implementation.htm  
 [12] JRC, Conference on brownfield redevelopment in the EU. 
https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/event/conference-brownfield-redevelopment-eu 
 [13] Megharaj, Mallavarapu, and Ravi Naidu. "Soil and brownfield bioremediation." Microbial 
biotechnology 10.5 (2017): 1244-1249. 
 [14] Courthouse News, EU warned to do more on desertification. https://www.courthousenews.com/eu-
warned-to-do-more-on-desertification/ 
 [15] HalSYS Project. http://www.halosys.eu/ 

 [16] JRC, Soil salinization. https://wad.jrc.ec.europa.eu/soilsalinization   

17. ANNEX XI EXPERT INTERVIEW LISTS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL 

LAND CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 

Expert interviews were held to gain more insights in the three case studies presented in this 
chapter.  For transparency,  the  lists  of  experts  including  organisations  and  affiliations are 
presented here. 

Case study: Closed Landfills 

Name 

Organisation 

Affiliation 

Eddie Wille 

Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM) 

Negotiator Brownfieldconvenants 

236 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

Michaël Van Raemdonck 

Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM) 

Projects: RAWFILL, COCOON 

Jan Frank Mars 

Ministry  of 
management (The Netherlands) 

infrastructure  and  water 

Department: Accountteam Bodem+  

Projects: COCOON 

Projects: RAWFILL, COCOON 

Case study: Airport land 

Name 

Organisation 

Affiliation 

Rosanne Blijleven 

Royal Schiphol Group  

Compliance Specialist EASA 

Howard Davis 

WisDOT Bureau of Aeronautics (USA) 

Manager Airport Compliance 

Michael Menon 

WisDOT Bureau of Aeronautics (USA) 

Airport Safety & Operations Manager 

Yanniek Huisman 

Rotterdam  The  Hague  Innovation  Airport 
(RHIA) 

Program coordinator 

Case study: Utility scale PV farms 

Name 

Organisation 

Wijnand van Hooff 

Holland Solar 

Affiliation 

Director 

TKI Urban Energy (The Netherlands) 

Program manager ‘Solar’  

Maximilian Trommsdorff 

Fraunhofer ISE (Germany) 

Project  Manager  Agrophotovoltaics 
Project: APV-RESOLA, SHRIMPS, 

Stephan Schindele 

Fraunhofer ISE (Germany) 

Project manager Agrophotovoltaics 

237 

 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

18. ANNEX XII AREA DETAILS ON AIRPORTS 

Table 35 Overview of total land area of airports per EU country and average 
imperviousness*. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Irish Republic 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Grand total 

Total  area  of 
airports (km2)  

62.9 

129.6 

69.5 

32.0 

23.7 

137.6 

123.1 

36.5 

217.0 

933.3 

871.8 

135.3 

70.4 

59.5 

367.7 

37.0 

18.7 

7.9 

5.2 

173.9 

308.1 

82.0 

88.4 

50.5 

17.2 

327.4 

283.9 

836.2 

5506.4 

Total  area  non-
impervious (km2) 
46.6 

102.1 

59.6 

25.3 

19.9 

111.8 

100.4 

30.3 

170.1 

742.4 

636.9 

106.7 

61.4 

47.9 

277.2 

34.6 

15.0 

5.1 

3.7 

136.9 

262.1 

59.9 

74.3 

44.0 

14.0 

237.7 

220.9 

658.5 

4305.3 

% imperviousness  Number 

of 

airports 

(excluding grass-only) 

26.0% 

21.2% 

14.3% 

20.9% 

16.0% 

18.8% 

18.4% 

17.0% 

21.6% 

20.5% 

26.9% 

21.1% 

12.8% 

19.5% 

24.6% 

6.7% 

20.1% 

36.1% 

29.8% 

21.3% 

14.9% 

26.9% 

15.9% 

12.9% 

18.3% 

27.4% 

22.2% 

21.3% 

21.8% 

84 

52 

64 

43 

6 

374 

98 

12 

61 

1722 

965 

61 

65 

51 

555 

76 

67 

3 

2 

67 

254 

90 

58 

67 

27 

262 

255 

478 

5919 

*Source: Open street map: “Aeroways=aerodrome”  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aeroway?uselang=en  

238 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL LAND AVAILABILITY IN THE EU; TRENDS IN UNUSED, ABANDONED AND 
DEGRADED (NON-)AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USE FOR ENERGY AND OTHER NON-FOOD CROPS 

239 

 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact 
this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local 
information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. 
Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
M
J
-
0
4
-
2
0
-
1
0
5
-
E
N
N

-

ISBN 978-92-76-27531-2