agriculture and environment - european commission · 5 1. agriculture and input use farming...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Agriculture and environment
Contents 1. Agriculture and INPUT USE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Farming intensity ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Livestock density ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Energy use in agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Energy use in the food industry .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Production of renewable energy ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Fertilizer consumption .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Pesticides consumption ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
2. Agriculture and SOIL ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Soil quality ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Average Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) stock in agricultural soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Soil erosion by water ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Soil erosion by wind ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Soil sealing ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Potential threats to soil biodiversity in croplands and grasslands ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
3. Agriculture and CLIMATE/AIR........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Emissions from agriculture ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Air pollutant emissions ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
NH3 emissions per total agricultural area (UAA) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
NH3 emissions per amount of protein produced (emission intensity)................................................................................................................................................... 26
GHG emissions ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
2
Extreme weather events ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Risk of forest fires ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
4. Agriculture and WATER ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Water abstraction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Water exploitation and water stress .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Water quality ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 36
Nitrogen water pollution ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Nitrates in fresh and ground water ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Phosphorus water pollution ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 41
5. Agriculture and BIODIVERSITY .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43
Number of agriculture-related habitats protected under the Habitats Directive .................................................................................................................................... 43
Conservation status of protected agriculture-related habitats ................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Farmland birds index ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 45
Grassland butterfly index.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Protected forest ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
6. Agriculture and LANDSCAPE ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Presence of linear elements ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Farmland Heterogeneity Index ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 49
Useful links ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
CAP Context Indicators: report and methodological fiches ..................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Eurostat: Environment statistics ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
The Joint Research Centre: European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC) .............................................................................................................................................................. 53
The European Environment Agency ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54
3
Figures Figure 1: Share of agricultural area managed by low, medium and high intensity farms, 2015 ..................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Share of UAA used for extensive grazing, 2013 ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Energy use in agriculture and forestry and share of total energy consumption, 2014 ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Energy use per ha of UAA and forest area ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Energy use in the food and tobacco industry and share of total energy consumption ..................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6: Production of renewable energy from agriculture and forestry ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 7: Cereal yields and nitrogen fertilizer consumption, EU-15 ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 8: Sales of pesticides (in tonnes) in the EU, 2015 ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 9: Sales of pesticides (in tonnes) by EU groups, 2011-2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 10: Soil organic carbon stock, 2013 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 11: Soil loss by water erosion ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 12: Soil erosion in agricultural lands, 2012 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 13: Soil loss due to wind erosion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 14: Agricultural land converted to artificial land, 2006 and 2012 ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 15: Threats to soil biodiversity in cropland ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 16: Threats to soil biodiversity in grassland ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 17: Relative contributions of manure management, manure spreading+organic fertilizer, and mineral fertilizer to total NH3 emissions, 2016. ............ 20
Figure 18: NH3 emission distance in 2020 to 2020 and 2030 targets ........................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 19: NH3 emissions for 2005-2020 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 20: Relative NH3 emission intensity indicators, 2010. ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 21: NH3 emission density, 2010. ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 22: Evolution of GHG emissions and share of agriculture in total emissions in the EU ................................................................................................... 28
Figure 23: Evolution of GHG emissions from agriculture in the EU-28 ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 24: Greenhouse gas emission intensity of beef production................................................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 25: Global frequency of extreme weather events ............................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 26: Current and projected state and trend of fire danger .................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 27: Water abstraction in agriculture ................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 28: Irrigation requirements ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 29: Water exploitation index .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 30: Estimation of nitrogen water pollution from agriculture and other sources ................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 31: Trend of gross nutrient balance - surplus of nitrogen in the EU, 2003-2013 .............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 32: Gross nitrogen balance - surplus of nitrogen by Member State, 2003-2014* (4 year averages) ................................................................................. 37 Figure 33: Concentration of nitrates in surface waters (rivers), 2012 ........................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 34: Trends of concentration of nitrates in rivers and groundwater .................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 35: Nitrogen diffuse emission ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 39
4
Figure 36: Nitrates directive EU-27 - annual average nitrate concentration (2008-2011) ............................................................................................................ 40 Figure 37: Nitrates directive EU-27 - maximum nitrate concentration, 2008-2011 ..................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 38: Estimation of phosphorous water pollution from agriculture and other sources ......................................................................................................... 41 Figure 39: Trend of gross nutrient balance - surplus of phosphorus in the EU, 2003-2014 (4-year averages) ............................................................................ 42
Figure 40: Gross Phosphorus balance - surplus of phosphorus in the Member States, 2003-2014 .............................................................................................. 42
Figure 41: Number of agriculture-related habitats protected under the Habitats Directive, 2007-2012 ....................................................................................... 43 Figure 42: Conservation status of habitats depending on agriculture ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 43: Change in the farmland bird index, 2000-2013 and average annual rate of change 1990-2000 and 2000-2013 ........................................................ 45 Figure 44: European grassland butterfly indicator ........................................................................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 45: Absolute and percentage change of protected FOWL area, 2000-2015 ...................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 46: Average number of linear elements per transect with agriculture as main land cover, 2015 ...................................................................................... 48 Figure 47: Farmland heterogeneity index...................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
Tables Table 1: Soil organic matter in arable land, 2012 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Table 2: Soil erosion by water, 2012 ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 3: National emission reduction commitments (%) for NH3 ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Table 4: Greenhouse gas emissions in the EU agricultural sector ................................................................................................................................................ 29 Table 5: Greenhouse gas emissions in EU agriculture by Member State and emission source .................................................................................................... 30 Table 6: Water quality, 2010-2012 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38
This document does not necessarily represent the official views of the European Commission
Contact: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Unit Farm Economics
Tel: +32-2-29 91111 / E-mail: [email protected]
© European Union, 2018 - Reproduction authorised provided the source is acknowledged
5
1. Agriculture and INPUT USE
Farming intensity
Farm input intensity is used as a "proxy" of
agricultural intensification, meaning an increase in
agricultural input use (fertilisers, pesticides and
feedstuff) per ha of land. Farms are classified into
intensity categories according to an estimate of input
volume per hectare of UAA. Then, each farm is
classified according to its average level of input use
per ha (high intensity if > 300 constant EUR/ha, low
intensity if <130 constant EUR/ha, otherwise
medium intensity).
In 2013, the agricultural area in the European Union
managed by farms with low input intensity
represented 41.3% of the total Utilised Agricultural
Area (UAA) while the area with farms using
medium and high levels of inputs was 29.2% and
29.5% respectively.
The most significant share of UAA managed by low
intensity farms was observed in Bulgaria (60.8%),
Spain (63.8%), Lithuania (66.7%), Latvia (66.9%),
Romania (80.1%) and Portugal (83.6%). These countries registered input expenditures around or
below EUR 150 per ha in constant input prices, with
the exception of Spain where the level of input
expenditure was EUR 242 per ha in constant input
prices.
In Belgium and in the Netherlands the average level
of input expenditure was very high, ranging from
EUR 1200 to EUR 1800 per ha in constant input
prices.
Figure 1: Share of agricultural area managed by low, medium and high intensity farms, 2015
See also Common Context Indicator 33: Farming intensity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE IE EL
ES
FR IT CY
LV LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO SI
SK FI
SE
UK
%
UAA with low input intensity per ha UAA with medium input intensity per ha UAA with high input intensity per ha
6
Livestock density
Areas of extensive grazing are classified here as
areas where the stocking density of grazing livestock
does not exceed 1 livestock unit per ha of forage
area.
In 2013, 29.4% of the UAA in the EU-28 was
devoted to extensive grazing, with a total amount of
51.3 million hectares, of which around 70% was
located in the EU-15.
At regional level, there was a concentration of
extensive grazing in Scotland, Wales and Highlands
and Islands, northern Scandinavia, the Baltic
countries, in the mountainous regions in Slovakia,
Austria, and Italy, in the West part of Ireland and in
the whole of Portugal and large parts of Spain and
Romania.
Figure 2: Share of UAA used for extensive grazing, 2013
See also Common Context Indicator 33: Farming intensity
7
Energy use in agriculture
In 2014, the direct energy use in agriculture and forestry in the EU-28
accounted for 23.608 kilotons of oil equivalent (ktoe), which amounts to
2.2% of total final energy consumption. Nearly 75% of this was used in
the EU-15 countries (17.537 ktoe or 2% of their total energy
consumption).
France, Poland and the Netherlands have the highest direct use of energy
in agriculture and forestry, between 3 383 and 4 237 kilotonnes. The
Netherlands and Poland show the highest share of agriculture/forestry in
the total final energy consumption, at 7.2% and 5.6% respectively (no
data are available for Germany).
Figure 3: Energy use in agriculture and forestry and share of total
energy consumption, 2014
Figure 4: Energy use per ha of UAA and forest area
Energy use per ha of agricultural or forest land is particularly high in the
Netherlands (1 527 kg/ha), probably due to the intensive use of
greenhouses for the production of vegetables.
See also Common Context Indicator 44: Energy use in agriculture,
forestry and the food industry
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE IE EL
ES
FR
HR IT CY
LV LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO SI
SK FI
SE
UK
EU
-28
EU
-15
EU
-N13
kg of oil equivalent
kg of oil equivalent per ha of (UAA + forestry)
8
Energy use in the food industry
The direct use of energy in the food and tobacco industry in 2014 accounted for 28 191 kilotonnes for the EU-28, with the EU-15 taking a share of 83.8%
of this value.
The EU-28 Member States with the highest direct use of energy in food production are Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy, with values
ranging from 2 621 to 5 001 ktoe.
As a share of direct use of energy in food of the total final consumption of energy, the countries with the highest share were the Netherlands and
Denmark, with 4.2%. The next highest countries were Ireland and Belgium, both with 3.9%. The equivalent EU-28 value is 2.7%, with little difference
between the EU-15 and EU-N13.
Figure 5: Energy use in the food and tobacco industry and share of total energy consumption
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE IE EL
ES
FR
HR IT CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO SI
SK FI
SE
UK
EU
-28
EU
-15
EU
-N13
% KTOE
Food and tobacco Share of food and tobacco
9
Production of renewable energy
In 2013 European production of renewable energy from agriculture and forestry continued to increase by 4% compared to 2012, mainly coming from the
agricultural sector (+14.2), rather than from forestry (+1.9%).
In 2013 the contribution from forestry amounted to 88 million tonnes of oil equivalent (or 45.9% of the total), the one from agriculture to 20.9 million
tonnes of oil equivalent (or 10.9% of the total).
The share of forestry in the total production of renewable energy showed a decreasing trend, the share of agriculture has grown at an average annual rate
of 4% since 2008.
The EU-15 production accounted for 87.4% of the total in the agricultural sector of the EU-28, whilst the production in the EU-N13 represented 12.6%.
In the forestry sector the production of renewable energy in the EU-15 and in the EU-N13 represented 76% and 24% respectively, of the total production
in the EU-28.
Figure 6: Production of renewable energy from agriculture and forestry
Production of renewable
energy from agriculture
and forestry and as a
share of the total
production of renewable
energy, 2008-2013 See also Common
Context Indicator 43:
Production of renewable
energy from agriculture
and forestry
10
Fertilizer consumption
While overall consumption of nitrogen
fertiliser has decreased over the last decades,
cereal yields have shown an increasing trend,
indicating a more efficient use of fertiliser.
Figure 7: Cereal yields and nitrogen fertilizer consumption, EU-15
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
6 000
7 000
8 000
9 000
10 000
11 000
12 000
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Ce
real
yie
lds,
10
0 k
g/h
a
N-f
ert
ilize
r, 1
00
0 t
on
ne
s Nitrogen fertilizer consumption (left axis) Cereal yield (right axis)
11
Pesticides consumption
Consumption of pesticides is measured by the
sales of pesticides in tonnes. The term
"pesticides" refers to the plant protection
product and covers the following categories:
fungicides and bactericides, herbicides, haulm
destructors and moss killers, insecticides and
acaricides, molluscicides, plant growth
regulators and other plant protection products.
The total quantity of pesticides sold
significantly increased (with variations among
+16% to +40%) between 2011 and 2015 in
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia,
Malta, Slovakia, and Finland.
The pesticide sales decreased (from - 15% also
to -50%) from 2011 to 2015 in Denmark,
Ireland, Luxembourg, and Portugal.
More in general, the EU-15 countries showed a
more stable path in 2011-2015, with a higher
level of consumption compared to the EU-N13
which had an increasing trend in the same
period, but with lower volumes.
Figure 8: Sales of pesticides (in tonnes) in the EU, 2015
Source: Eurostat, DG AGRI calculations
Figure 9: Sales of pesticides (in tonnes) by EU groups, 2011-2015
Source: Eurostat, DG AGRI calculations.
12
2. Agriculture and SOIL1
Soil quality
Soil organic matter is a key component of soil
as it influences its structure, aggregate stability,
nutrient availability, water retention and
resilience.
In 2012, the total organic carbon of arable land
in the EU-27 (data for Croatia are not
available) amounted to 14 017 megatons, with
a mean value per kg ranging from 14.4 in Spain
to 84.9 g per kg in Ireland.
Among the categories of land use, grassland
registered the largest organic carbon content in
arable land of the EU-28, while permanent
crops had the smallest value.
See also Common Context Indicator 41: Soil
organic matter in arable land
1 For information on land cover and agricultural land use, see the
dedicated chapter "Land cover and land use"
Table 1: Soil organic matter in arable land, 2012
13
Average Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) stock in
agricultural soils
This map depicts the SOC stock in the topsoil
layer (0-30 cm), derived from the aggregation at
NUT3 level of a high resolution map (1 km2)1.
A higher soil organic carbon stock is beneficial
for climate change (carbon sequestration) and
for soil fertility.
The values were generated by a large-scale
modelling with a state-of-the-art process based
model1. The model was ran in agricultural areas
(arable, orchard and grassland) of the EU
and validated with ground-based measurements.
In general, Mediterranean countries registered
lower SOC stock compared to northern
countries.
Comparing the different land uses, the average
SOC stock was 64, 55 and 150 t/ha of C in
arable, orchard and grassland, respectively.
Figure 10: Soil organic carbon stock, 2013
See also: 1 http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/pan-european-soc-stock-agricultural-soils
14
Soil erosion by water
Soil erosion by water is one of the most
widespread forms of soil degradation in Europe.
In 2012, the estimated average rate of soil loss
by water erosion in the EU-28 amounted to 2.4
t/ha/year and was higher in the EU-15 (2.7
t/ha/year) than in the EU-N13 (1.7 t/ha/year).
The erosion has decreased between 2000 and
2012 mainly due to the application of GAEC
and agricultural practices (reduced tillage, plant
residues, cover crops, etc.) Data show a
moderate decrease at EU-28 level (-0.29
t/ha/year) with a slight difference between the
EU-15 (-0.31) and the EU-N13 (-0.23 t/ha/year).
Table 2: Soil erosion by water, 2012
15
Around 6.6% of the EU-28 total agricultural area was estimated to suffer from moderate to
severe erosion (>11 t/ha/year) in 2012. This
share is higher in the EU-15 (7.7%) than in the
EU-N13 (4.3%). Cultivated land (arable and
permanent cropland) is more affected (7.5%)
than permanent grasslands and pasture (4.2%).
The share of agricultural land estimated to suffer
from moderate to severe erosion is the highest in
SI (42.2%), IT (32.6%) and AT (20.9%) while it
is very low 5<0.1% in FI, DK, NL, EE, LT and
LV
See also Common Context Indicator 42: Soil
erosion by water
Figure 11: Soil loss by water erosion
16
This map is a further elaboration of the soil
erosion by water depicted above.
This map classifies the NUTS3 per % of severe
erosion in agricultural lands. As severe
erosion, it is considered the rate of higher than
11 tonnes per ha annually.
The great majority of NUTS3 (43.3%) have less
than 0.5% of their agricultural land under severe
erosion. Most of those areas are in North and
Central Europe. In almost ¾ of the NUTS3
areas the share of agricultural land estimated to
suffer from severe erosion (>11 t/ha/year) in less
than 5%.
In Italy, Slovenia and Austria are the majority of
the NUTS3 regions having high share of
agricultural land under severe erosion. In
conclusion, around 153 NUTS3 have more than
20% of their agricultural lands under severe
erosion.
Figure 12: Soil erosion in agricultural lands, 2012
17
Soil erosion by wind
This map is the first quantitative assessment of soil loss by wind in
European Union. The map focused in EU arable lands.
The main factors that are influencing wind erosion (included in the
GIS-RWEQ model) are: Climate (wind speed and direction, rainfall
amount and evapotranspiration), soil characteristics (texture, calcium
carbonate, organic matter, soil moisture and water –retention capacity)
and Land use (land use type, vegetation cover and landscape
roughness).
The average annual soil loss predicted in the EU arable land totalled
0.53 t ha-1
yr-1
. The 2nd
quaintly is equal to 0.3 and the 4th
quantile
equal to 1.9 t ha-1
yr-1
.
The highest mean wind erosion rates are in Denmark, Netherlands and
Bulgaria. In northern Europe, the locations most susceptible to wind
erosion were found along the North Sea coasts of Denmark, UK, the
Netherlands, Germany, France and Belgium. In the Mediterranean
area, higher erosion rates occurred in certain zones (Aragón, Castilla y
Leon, Apulia, Tuscany, Sardinia, the Provence in France, Central and
Eastern Macedonia and Thrace).
Wind erosion rates were at their peak between December and February
(57% of total)
Figure 13: Soil loss due to wind erosion
18
Soil sealing
Agricultural land (in 2006) converted to artificial
land (in 2012)
This map depicts the conversion of agricultural
lands into artificial areas derived from the
aggregation at NUT3 level of the CORINE
Land Cover (CLC) Change 2006-2012 map.
The values were generated by summing, at
NUT3 level, the areas that changed their cover
from 2006 to 2012, passing from one of the
CLC agricultural classes (i.e. CLC class 2) to
one of the artificial classes (i.e. CLC class 1)1.
The sums were then recalculated as percentage
of the NUT3 region in which modified areas
were located, that means where agricultural
soil sealing took place.
In general, common soil sealing trends are not
present. Indeed, the areas subjected to higher
soil sealing rate are distributed across the
European Union.
Figure 14: Agricultural land converted to artificial land, 2006 and 2012
For more information on CLC classes refer to: http://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover
19
Potential threats to soil biodiversity in croplands and grasslands
These maps depict the potential threats to soil biodiversity, derived from the aggregation at NUT3 level of a high resolution map (500m)1. A healthy soil
biodiversity may ensure the provision of several ecosystem services (e.g. food production and nutrient cycling regulation).
The values are averaged from risk maps covering potential threats to three categories: soil microorganisms, fauna, and biological functions. The risk
accounts for 13 potential threats to soil organisms that were analysed and ranked by scientific experts.
In general, northern countries showed higher potential risks compared to southern ones, with the exception of Spain.
Figure 15: Threats to soil biodiversity in cropland Figure 16: Threats to soil biodiversity in grassland
20
3. Agriculture and CLIMATE/AIR
Emissions from agriculture
Air pollutant emissions
Ammonia (NH3) affects human health through
the formation of ammonium-nitrate particulate
matter and ecosystems through nitrogen
deposition.
In 2016, agricultural NH3 emissions in the
European Union amounted to 3 849 ktonnes.
This accounts for about 92 % of total EU-28
NH3 emissions for that year (EEA, 2018)2.
High shares of agriculture in total NH3
emissions are found in Ireland (99 %), Poland
(97 %), Germany (95 %) and (France (94%),
while lower shares are shown by Portugal
(79%), the United Kingdom (87%) and
Sweden (88 %).
In the EU-28 the manure management
contributes by 45 % to the total emissions,
manure spreading and grazing 30% and
inorganic fertilizer emissions by 17 %. with a
somewhat larger share of manure management
emissions in the EU-N13 than EU-15.
2 Preliminary 2018 submission of EU member states under NECD –
data received 23 May 2018. Data pertain to 2016 and backwards in
time. Data are subject to revisions. Courtesy European Environment
Agency.
Figure 17: Relative contributions3 of manure management, manure spreading+organic
fertilizer, and mineral fertilizer to total NH3 emissions4, 2016.
3 Manure management NFR category 3B; mineral fertilizer 3DA1, manure spreading+organic fertilizer,3DA2, 3DA3,3F and 3I.
4 2016 emissions of Malta- extrapolated from 2015 in the 2017 submission. 2016 emissions of Greece are taken equal to the latest
submission with emissions values pertaining to 2014.
21
The current (2001) National Emission
Ceiling Directive (NECD) will be in place
until 31 December 2019, and replaced by
the 2016 NECD5 in 2020. The 2016 NECD
sets the countries’ emission targets for
2020-2029 and beyond 2030 relative to the
reference year 2005 (Table 1)., Reduction
targets range between 1 and 24 % for
individual member states, with an average
for the EU-28 of 6 %. After 2030, the
aspirational NH3 emission reductions are
on average 19 %, ranging between 1-32 %.
These targets pertain to economy wide NH3
emissions, however they are of direct
relevance for agriculture due to the high
contribution of agriculture to the overall
NH3 emissions. The NECD improves, but
does not solve all environmental issues
related to NH3 and other air pollutant
emissions. Since the residence time of NH3
and the particulate matter formed from it is
in the order of hours to days, it is important
to know where the emissions are taking
place to understand the exposure of
population and vegetation to air pollution.
5 NECD, 2016/2284/EU)
Table 3: National emission reduction
commitments (%) for NH3
2020 2030
Austria 1 12
Belgium 2 13
Bulgaria 3 12
Croatia 1 25
Cyprus 10 20
Czech
Republic 7 22
Denmark 24 24
Estonia 1 1
Finland 20 20
France 4 13
Germany 5 29
Greece 7 10
Hungary 10 32
Ireland 1 5
Italy 5 16
2020 2030
Lithuania 10 10
Luxembourg 1 22
Malta 4 24
Netherlands 13 21
Poland 1 17
Portugal 7 15
Romania 13 25
Slovakia 15 30
Slovenia 1 15
Spain 3 16
Sweden 15 17
United
Kingdom 8 16
EU28 6 19
National emission reduction commitments [%] for NH3
relative to the base year 2005 under the 2016 National
Emissions Ceiling Directive 2016/2284/EU.
22
In the following we provide 3 indicators:
1) Distance MS NH3 emissions to the targets set in the 2016 NECD.
2 NH3 emission density per unit of agricultural land and
3) per unit of crop and meat production (scaled to protein content) -
absolute and relative to the EU-28 average.
Distance-to-target indicator
Here we focus on the revised 2016 NECD, as it will influence air
pollution policy in the next decade. Detailed country time-series of
sectorial emissions (including NH3) are reported for 1990-2016
including the base year 2005.
This dataset provides for each country reported NH3 emissions in all
sectors, including agriculture. The difference of the extrapolation of
the linear trend between 2005-2016 to 2020 and the 2020 NECD
targets is the distance to target (in percent). For 2030 we did not
extrapolate emissions trends beyond 2020, demonstrating the
additional effort required in the period 2021 to 2030.
Distances in 2020 range between 15 % positive (target reached)
and -20 % meaning emissions to be further reduced. 10 countries have
a substantial distance to 2020 target, Among these are Austria,
Denmark, France, Spain and Germany. In contrast, for instance
Belgium, the Netherlands and Poland will likely reach their 2020
targets.. Almost all countries will have to achieve further emission
reductions beyond 2020 to meet the 2030 targets. EU-28 wide NH3
emissions are about reached for 2020 and -19% away from the target
for 2030.
23
Figure 18: NH3 emission distance in 2020 to 2020 and 2030 targets
NH3 emissions distance to 2020 and 2030 targets [%] in the 2016 NEC Directives (operational in 2020)6. Emissions in 2020 are estimated from linear extrapolation of timeseries
between 2005-2016. Comparison of the 2020 emissions to 2030 target shows the additional effort required in this decade..
6 Emissions in 2020 are estimated from linear extrapolation of time series between 2005-2016 to account for likely trends (see Figure 19). Comparison of the estimated 2020 emissions to
the 2030 target shows the additional effort required between 2020-2030.
24
Figure 19: NH3 emissions for 2005-2020
MS NH3 emissions for 2005-2020: Total (all sector- green), agricultural emissions (red), and linear fit through the total emissions
(dashed black), 2020 NECD target (blue symbol) for France, Denmark, Germany and Finland.
25
Agricultural land area and production weighted NH3 emissions
"Efficiency" indicators.
A second set of emission ”intensity” indicators relates agricultural NH3
emissions to utilized agricultural area and agricultural production of
meat and crops (scaled to the their protein content) and provides
insights on the feasibility of further emission reductions, when
compared to the ‘best-practice’ performance in the EU MS and at
NUTS2.
Disaggregation of reported NH3 manure and mineral fertilizer
emissions (EEA)7 for 2010 to NUTS2 regions used animal statistics
(Livestock Units) and cereal crop area (ha), taken from the
EUROSTAT Farm Structure Survey for 2010 (FSS2010).
7 Based on 2016 submission under the old NECD and pertaining to 2010 inventory data.
Figure 20: Relative NH3 emission intensity indicators, 2010.
Member state relative NH3 emission intensity [%] (red) per protein produced
(compared to EU average) and relative NH3 emission density relative to EU average
(blue). Positive numbers indicate larger than average emission intensities and densities.
26
NH3 emissions per total agricultural area (UAA)
The sum of total manure and mineral fertilizer related NH3 emissions
in a MS or NUTS2 region per total agricultural area (UUA) represent
agricultural NH3 emission area density [kg/ha]. This indicator is
somewhat hypothetically assuming that all agricultural NH3 emissions
can be attributed to agricultural land- whereas in reality a large fraction
of NH3 emissions occur from manure handling at the farm. Values
range from <10 to ca. 130 kg NH3/ha/yr. We note that inconsistencies
may exist in the national animal and fertilizer statistics underlying the
reported NH3 emission inventories, and the FSS2010 farm statistics.
The relative emission area density compares the MS and NUTS2
intensity to the EU average of 20.9 kg NH3 emission/ha/yr, with a
range of ca. -90 to more than 100 % (Figure 20, blue bars). Positive
percentages denote relatively large emissions compared to the EU
average, typically related to high livestock density decoupled from
crop production- e.g in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium.
Lower NH3 emissions per agricultural area are found in the UK, Spain,
and Poland.
Figure 21 a and c show that emission densities disaggregated on
NUTS2 are high in the Benelux, parts of Germany, Central Europe,
Bretagne, some regions of Spain.
We note that if the agricultural area (and the associated emissions) is
relatively small compared to the total area in the MS or NUTS2 region,
the air quality impacts may be limited. On the other hand, several
neighbouring high emission intensity regions will amplify the impacts.
Further important factors are meteorological conditions and emissions
of other air pollutants that form particulate matter in the atmosphere.
NH3 emissions per amount of protein produced (emission intensity)
Meat (beef, pork, poultry) and milk production for 2010, as well as
cereal and oil crop production were used to estimate total protein
production for NUTS2 regions based on data from EUROSTAT as
included in the CAPRI model. To avoid double counting, cereal and
oil crop production used in fodder were discounted. In countries with
large imports of cereals for fodder (e.g. the Netherlands) we assumed
that all production was fed to animals.
The MS ammonia emissions relative to the amount of protein produced
in cereal crops, beef, pork, and poultry, shown in Figure 20 (red bars),
indicate that the UK, Poland, Finland Denmark, Belgium are relatively
efficient in terms of agricultural production of proteins. On the other
hand less efficient are: Spain, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, and
Ireland.
Figure 21b and d show substantial fluctuations of the absolute and
relative NH3 emissions per unit of protein production. NUTS2 region
in Southern Europe and Ireland stand out as particularly inefficient
with regard to losses of NH3 per protein produced. We note that
uncertainties and inconsistencies in reported emissions, animals, area
and production statistics may have contributed to these variations,
which should be interpreted as indicative and with caution.
27
Figure 21: NH3 emission density, 2010.
a
c
b
d
Figure 21– NH3 emission
density kg NH3 per ha
Utilized Agricultural Area
(a), relative to EU average
(b), and NH3 emission
density intensity g/kg
protein produced (c), and
relative to the EU average
(d).
28
GHG emissions
In 20158 agricultural emissions of GHG9 in the EU-28 amounted to
430 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents. This accounts for 10.2% of
total EU-28 emissions for that year.
In the EU-28, long term agricultural GHG emissions over the period
1990-2015 decreased by 21% from 542 Mio tons of CO2eq in 1990
to 430 Mio tons of CO2eq in 2015. Decreases can be observed for
almost all member states, except for Spain (+1%). Decreases are
generally higher in the Eastern Europe, ranging from 32% to 68% -
with the exception of Slovenia (-9%), while in the EU-15 decreases
are more modest, exceeding 20% only for the Netherlands and
Greece.
Comparing the last two decades, from 1990 to 2000 and from 2000
to 2010, the decreasing trend shows a general slowdown. The
average annual rate of decrease passed from -1.67% in the first
period to -0.87% in the second. From 2010 onwards the trend starts
increasing at a slow pace, with an average annual rate of 0.46 (See
Figure 23).
Methane emissions, more or less constantly over time, represent
around 55% of total agricultural emissions, N2O emissions around
43%. Non-energy CO2 emissions, with around 2% of the agricultural
emissions, are less important in the sector. 45% of total emissions
are methane emissions from enteric fermentation (the share is
slightly decreasing over time), while manure management (methane
and N2O) contributes with 15%, and soils by 40%. Other emission
sources are negligible.
8
EEA, 2017. Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990 – 2015 and
inventory report 2016. Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat. Technical report No 15/2016. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at:
https://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-
2017
9 Agricultural emissions refer to IPCC sector 3. Carbon stock changes in agricultural soils
are under the UNFCCC reporting system included under the LULUCF sector (IPCC sector
4). Further emissions are e.g. related to energy use and industrial fertilizer production
included in IPCC sectors 1 and sector 2. Life cycle assessment of emissions includes all
emissions related to production.
Figure 22: Evolution of GHG emissions and share of agriculture in total
emissions in the EU
Figure 23: Evolution of GHG emissions from agriculture in the EU-28
400 000
450 000
500 000
550 000
600 000
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
kt C
O2 e
qu
ival
ent
Average annual rate of decline (1990-2015): -0.93%
29
Table 4: Greenhouse gas emissions in the EU agricultural sector
Based on agro-economic modelling with CAPRI, from 2005-2030 emissions are projected to decrease by 3.2% in the EU-28, not accounting for specific
mitigation technologies. The development, however, is quite diverse among the Member States, and ranges from an expected 25% emission increase in
Estonia to an expected decrease of 17% in Malta. N2O emissions and emissions from soils are increasing according to the projections, while methane
emissions from livestock will decrease. The shifts from beef to pork and poultry meat production, as well as significant milk yield increases per head
both reduce emissions from livestock production, while the growth of emissions from soils is related to crop production increases, particularly in the
Member States that joined the EU after 2004.
Greenhouse gas emissions in the EU agricultural sector from 1990 – 20230* by member states and gases (in 1000 tons of CO2eq). Agricultural emissions refer to IPCC sector 3, and do not include carbon stock changes.
Enteric ferm
ManMan
Soils N2O CH4 CO2 Total GHG emissions
Change (Total GHGs)
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 1990 2005 2015 2025* 2030* 2005-2030*
Denmark 35% 25% 40% 45% 53% 2% 12673 10818 10392 10975 11146 3.0% Germany 37% 15% 45% 47% 48% 5% 79398 63254 66690 61535 61181 -3.3% Greece 48% 12% 40% 42% 58% 0% 10140 8959 7846 8757 9062 1.2% Spain 41% 26% 34% 36% 62% 1% 34160 36594 34533 35617 36630 0.1% France 45% 9% 46% 46% 51% 3% 82980 78031 77808 74410 73697 -5.6% Ireland 58% 10% 32% 32% 66% 2% 19514 18754 18744 20059 20714 10.5% Italy 47% 18% 36% 36% 63% 1% 35078 32083 29435 29228 28111 -12.4% Netherlands 45% 24% 30% 34% 66% 0% 25016 18353 18787 18063 18028 -1.8% Austria 58% 12% 30% 35% 64% 2% 8189 7104 7178 6913 6888 -3.0% Portugal 52% 13% 34% 34% 65% 1% 7144 6760 6725 7513 7555 11.7% Sweden 44% 9% 48% 51% 47% 2% 7630 7040 6864 6406 6434 -8.6% Finland 33% 12% 56% 57% 40% 3% 7525 6461 6491 6062 6017 -6.9% UK 52% 17% 30% 34% 63% 3% 49999 44401 41922 39285 38465 -13.4% Cyprus 48% 25% 26% 40% 60% 0% 476 541 465 609 659 21.9% Czech Rep. 35% 19% 45% 51% 44% 4% 15898 7803 8158 7501 7452 -4.5% Estonia 40% 10% 49% 53% 46% 1% 2665 1117 1343 1358 1397 25.1% Hungary 31% 17% 52% 56% 41% 3% 9878 6067 6671 5949 5847 -3.6% Lithuania 35% 10% 54% 58% 41% 1% 8935 4185 4617 4482 4480 7.1% Latvia 32% 7% 61% 63% 36% 1% 5612 2340 2672 2627 2677 14.4% Malta 47% 24% 30% 46% 54% 0% 77 75 66 61 62 -17.4% Poland 42% 12% 45% 50% 48% 2% 47156 29512 29546 32961 33166 12.4% Slovenia 53% 20% 27% 31% 68% 1% 1933 1780 1754 1791 1841 3.4% Slovakia 38% 13% 49% 52% 45% 3% 6068 2610 2565 2209 2174 -16.7% Croatia 41% 21% 37% 41% 57% 2% 4398 3321 2875 2899 2962 -10.8% Bulgaria 25% 10% 65% 71% 29% 1% 12462 5170 6236 6275 6306 22.0% Romania 57% 12% 27% 31% 69% 1% 34222 20506 18612 18386 18223 -11.1% Belgium 46% 19% 35% 40% 58% 2% 12288 10319 10089 9537 8971 -13.1% Luxemburg 58% 14% 28% 32% 67% 1% 774 684 736 643 610 -10.8%
EU28 44% 15% 40% 42% 55% 2% 542287 434640 429820 422110 420757 -3.2%
Greenhouse gas emissions in the EU agricultural sector by
member states and gases, 1990-2015
Source: EEA, 2017. Annual European Union greenhouse gas
inventory 1990 – 2015 and inventory report 2016. Submission to
the UNFCCC Secretariat. Technical report No 15/2016.
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Available at:
https://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/european-union-
greenhouse-gas-inventory-2017.
* For 2025 and 2030 we have used relative emission projections
carried out with the CAPRI model by JRC.D4, and applied the
relative changes to inventory numbers (three years average
2007-2009).
30
In order to assess the regional potential for improvements, a measure on emission efficiency (emissions per product) is more meaningful than total emissions, which vary in first line with total production.
Table 5: Greenhouse gas emissions in EU agriculture by Member State and emission source
Total N2O emissions Total CH4 emissions Total CO2 emissions
1990 2005 2015 2025* 2030 1990 2005 2015 2025* 2030 1990 2005 2015 2025* 2030
Denmark 6469 4912 4676 5221 5313 5586 5685 5539 5545 5623 619 222 177 209 211
Germany 33477 28876 31325 29672 29770 42737 32053 32294 29715 29346 3184 2325 3071 2147 2066
Greece 5165 3962 3278 3627 3737 4915 4965 4545 5104 5299 60 32 23 26 26
Spain 11675 11894 12584 12129 12187 21986 24283 21445 23014 23986 499 417 505 474 457
France 38766 36570 36055 34949 34216 42448 39661 39750 37880 37986 1765 1800 2003 1581 1496
Ireland 6352 6263 6042 6589 6765 12763 12196 12281 13077 13546 400 295 421 393 403
Italy 13289 12473 10522 11444 11082 21323 19089 18475 17383 16662 466 521 438 401 367
Netherlands 10158 7006 6308 6130 6071 14675 11272 12411 11886 11916 183 75 69 47 42
Austria 2685 2391 2496 2499 2513 5409 4610 4570 4292 4251 94 103 112 123 124
Portugal 2604 2242 2303 2598 2644 4506 4488 4371 4858 4852 34 30 52 57 59
Sweden 3930 3481 3482 3351 3372 3523 3442 3258 2950 2957 178 117 124 105 105
Finland 4082 3632 3727 3569 3534 2796 2538 2582 2201 2192 647 291 182 292 291
UK 17337 15069 14220 14294 14132 31319 27721 26431 23452 22861 1343 1612 1271 1538 1472
Cyprus 207 222 187 224 229 268 318 278 384 429 2 1 0 0 0
Czech Rep. 7152 3873 4183 4229 4140 7450 3791 3623 3048 3097 1296 139 352 223 215
Estonia 1258 528 713 760 784 1394 575 620 584 599 13 15 11 14 15
Hungary 4498 3297 3768 3698 3744 4995 2627 2715 2104 1949 385 142 187 147 153
Lithuania 3898 2132 2663 2608 2622 4980 2014 1915 1826 1805 56 38 39 48 52
Latvia 2836 1489 1686 1788 1856 2411 848 959 831 811 365 3 26 9 10
Malta 34 33 31 27 27 43 42 35 34 35 0 0 0 0 0
Poland 20714 14533 14747 18447 18505 23848 13687 14062 13533 13689 2593 1292 736 981 972
Slovenia 603 575 546 504 506 1277 1180 1189 1271 1319 53 25 20 16 16
Slovakia 2877 1238 1345 1219 1227 3132 1342 1144 942 899 60 29 76 47 48
Croatia 1762 1475 1175 1249 1275 2586 1760 1630 1580 1619 50 85 69 69 68
Bulgaria 6771 3079 4417 4643 4726 5645 2073 1788 1589 1536 45 18 31 43 44
Romania 10248 6243 5737 6929 7089 23791 14125 12780 11242 10908 183 139 94 215 227
Belgium 5399 4326 4059 4201 3861 6710 5827 5854 5151 4930 179 166 176 185 180
Luxemburg 287 232 237 231 213 486 448 494 407 393 1 4 6 4 4
EU28 224535 182045 182512 186827 186141 302999 242660 237036 225886 225493 14753 9934 10272 9396 9123
Source: EEA, 2017. Annual European Union
greenhouse gas inventory 1990 – 2015 and
inventory report 2016. Submission to the
UNFCCC Secretariat. Technical report No
15/2016. European Environment Agency,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Available at
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-
union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2017
For the year 2025 we have used relative emission
projections carried out with the CAPRI model by
JRC.D4, and applied the relative changes to
inventory numbers (three years average 2007-
2009).
31
According to a study carried out in 2010 by the JRC10
average EU-
27 emissions amount to 22 kg of CO2eq per kg of beef produced
(for 2004), the agricultural product with the highest contribution to
GHG emissions. That study included not only emissions accounted
under the agricultural sector in the inventories, but also emissions
from land use and land use change related to feed (including
carbon sequestration on grassland), as well as emissions from
energy use on the farm, feed transport, and fertilizer production.
Consideration of all life-cycle emissions is important to estimate
the impact on climate, given that emissions can ‘leak’ from the EU
to other world regions or other economic sectors might counteract
emission savings within the agricultural sector.
Methane accounts for 40% of emissions from beef production,
N2O for 26%, while 34% are CO2-emissions, from which 18% are
from land use and land use change, and 16% from energy use,
fertilizer production and feed transport.
Figure 24 presents the regional emission intensities of beef related
to the EU average (with 100 % the EU average). Generally,
regions with more efficient production systems show lower per-
product emissions (i.e. the Netherlands or Italy). However, there is
also a trade-off since very efficient production systems frequently
rely on imported protein-rich feed. This can create high emissions
from land use change (i.e. in Belgium), while slightly less efficient
grass-based systems can compensate disadvantages by removals
via carbon sequestration (i.e. Austria, Ireland, United Kingdom).
Medium or low efficient production systems with high dependence
on imported feed show the highest emission intensities (i.e. Spain,
Portugal, Finland, Latvia, Bulgaria).
10 Leip, A., Weiss, F., Wassenaar, T., Perez, I., Fellmann, T., Loudjani, P., Tubiello, F.,
Grandgirard, D., Monni, M., Biala, K., (2010): Evaluation of the livestock sector’s
contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS), Final report of the
administrative arrangements AGRI-2008-0245 and AGRI-2009-0296.
Figure 24: Greenhouse gas emission intensity of beef production
32
Extreme weather events
Figure 25: Global frequency of extreme weather events
The global frequency of extreme weather events (storms, floods, droughts and forest fires) has increased from just above 200 in 1980 to almost 700 in 2016.
Source: © 2017 Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Geo Risks Research, NatCatService (January 2017)
33
Risk of forest fires
Fire risk depends on many factors, including climatic
conditions, vegetation, forest management practices and
other socio-economic factors.
The burnt area in the Mediterranean region increased from
1980 to 2000; it has decreased thereafter.
In a warmer climate, more severe fire weather and, as a
consequence, an expansion of the fire-prone area and
longer fire seasons are projected across Europe. The impact
of fire events is particularly strong in southern Europe.
See https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/forest-fire-
danger-2/assessment
Figure 26: Current and projected state and trend of fire danger
34
4. Agriculture and WATER
Water abstraction
Agriculture accounts for more than half (51.4% in 2014)
of the freshwater use in Europe, more than all other
sectors combined.
Contrary to other sectors, water use in agriculture is
seasonal, occurring mainly during the growing season
between April and September.
Irrigation is the primary water use of agriculture.
In the EU-28, the total water used for irrigation by
agricultural holdings was around 40 billion m3 in 2010.
Countries in the EU-15 account for 98% of this volume
while the EU-N13 represents only 2%.
This difference is particularly important between southern
and northern European countries. Spain, Italy, Greece,
Portugal and France together account for more than 96%
of the total water used for irrigation in the European Union, whilst all the other Member States show an
average share of 0.2% each.
Figure 27: Water abstraction in agriculture
See also Common Context Indicator 39: Water abstraction in agriculture
and the dedicated page on the use of freshwater resources of the European
Environmental Agency.
35
Water exploitation and water stress
Most of irrigation occurs in areas affected by
water stress, and where water scarcity might
increase under future climate change.
The Water Exploitation Index plus (WEI+)
compares water use against renewable water
resources. An interactive map is available
from the European Environment Agency
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/indicators/use-of-freshwater-resources-
2/assessment-2)
Around 40 % of the inhabitants in the
Mediterranean region lived under water
stress conditions in the summer of 2014.
Groundwater resources and rivers continue to
be affected by overexploitation in many parts
of Europe, especially in the western and
eastern European basins.
A positive development is that water
abstraction decreased by around 7 % between
2002 and 2014.
Figure 28: Irrigation requirements
Source: DG JRC D2. Estimations refer to 2010.
Figure 29: Water exploitation index
Water Exploitation Index (WEI, De Roo et al. 2017). It is defined as the ratio of water abstraction over
average freshwater resources, indicates areas where water stress occurs (high values of the index).
36
Water quality
Pollution by nitrates and phosphates shows the impact of
agriculture on water quality. It gives an indication of the
potential risk to the environment due to these two inputs
surplus.
Nitrogen water pollution
Agriculture contributes a significant amount of nutrients
into freshwater resources, impairing their
ecological status and leading to eutrophication, especially
in lakes and coastal waters11
.
It is estimated that European rivers export about 4 million
tons of nitrogen per year to coastal waters, more than half
of which is originated by agriculture (estimated 55% in
2005 in the work in reference).
A point source is a single identifiable source of air, water, thermal, noise or
light pollution. A point source has negligible extent, distinguishing it from
other pollution source geometries. The sources are called point sources
because in mathematical modeling, they can be approximated as a
mathematical point to simplify analysis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_source_pollution
11
Important point sources are urban wastewater and waste of certain food
processing industries. The other contributions originate from atmospheric
deposition, scattered dwellings and biological fixation.
Figure 30: Estimation of nitrogen water pollution from agriculture and other sources
DG JRC D2. Estimation of nitrogen water pollution coming from agriculture compared to other
sources. Spatial unit: EU river basins. Reference year 2005. The analysis is based on modelling.
For more information, see: Bouraoui et al. 2011
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC62873/lbna24726enc.pdf;
Grizzetti et al. 2012 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02576.x/epdf.
37
Contribution of agriculture to N water pollution can
be very important in quantity and share in certain
regions/ water basins with high livestock density
such as the UK, Ireland, North Western Europe
(North France, Belgium, the Netherlands), North
Spain, Catalonia and North Italy.
Between 2010 and 2013 the average nitrogen
surplus for the EU-28 was 51 kg nitrogen per ha (kg
N/ha). It was much lower in the EU-N13 (27 kg
N/ha, 2009-2012 average) than in the EU-15 (59 kg
N/ha). The nitrogen surplus decreased by 15.6%.
The nitrogen surplus decreased by 7.4% between
2003 and 2013 in the EU-28, from an estimated
average of 55 kg N/ha in the period "2003-2006" to
51 kg N/ha in the period "2010-2013". This is
mainly caused by the EU-15, where the nitrogen
surplus steadily decreased by 12% during this
period. In the EU-N13 it increased by 1.6% between
2003 and 2012.
*For EU-28, EU-15, EU-N13, DE, IE, SE no data for 2014; for EU-N13 no data for
2013; for EU-28 no data for 2003.
Figure 31: Trend of gross nutrient balance - surplus of nitrogen in the EU, 2003-2013
Figure 32: Gross nitrogen balance - surplus of nitrogen by Member State, 2003-2014*
(4 year averages)
38
Nitrates in fresh and ground water Agriculture is the greatest contributor to elevated nitrate levels in
freshwater in the EU
In 2012, the average nitrate concentration in rivers in all Member
States for which data are available was below the 11.3 mg-N/L limit
(equivalent to 50 mg-NO3/L) enshrined in the Nitrates and Drinking
Water Directives.
The Member States with the lowest concentrations are Finland (0.3
mg-N/L), Sweden (0.5 mg-N/L) and Latvia (0.6 mg-N/L), which
together with Slovenia (1.1 mg-N/L), Romania (1.2 mg-N/L), Ireland
(1.3 mg-N/L) and Italy (1.3 mg-N/L) are the only ones that show levels
of concentration close to the natural one (about 1 mg-N/L).
Figure 33: Concentration of nitrates in surface waters (rivers), 2012
In 2012, average groundwater nitrate concentrations at national level
were still well below the 50 mg-NO3/L limit of the Nitrates and
Drinking Water Directives. Only 4 Member States, Finland (0.9 mg-
NO3/L), Lithuania (1 mg- NO3/L), Estonia (7.1 mg-NO3/L) and the
United Kingdom (5.1 mg-NO3/L), show average concentrations in line
with the natural level (below 10 mg-NO3/L).
Table 6: Water quality, 2010-2012
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
BE BG DK DE EE IE FR IT CY LV LT LU NL AT PL RO SI SK FI SE UK
mg-N/L
39
Figure 34: Trends of concentration of nitrates in rivers and
groundwater
(3-year moving average, base 1992-1994 = 100), 1992-2012
The 3-year average for 2010-2012 for nitrates in rivers shows a
reduction of 18% compared to that registered for 1992-1994, with an
annual average decrease of 1.1%.
The data for 2012 are in line with the trend registered for the last 20
years. Nitrate concentrations in groundwater have remained relatively
stable across the countries with available data.
See also Common Context Indicator 40: Water quality
Figure 35: Nitrogen diffuse emission
Spatial unit: catchments (~180 km2)
Reference year: 2005.
The analysis is based on modelling (Bouraoui et al. 2011; Grizzetti et
al. 2012)
Source JRC, 2017
40
Figure 36: Nitrates directive EU-27 - annual average nitrate
concentration (2008-2011)
Source European Commission, 2013
Report of the European Commission on the implementation of Council Directive
91/676/EEC (Nitrates Directive) for the period 2008-2011. SWD(2013) 405 final
Figure 37: Nitrates directive EU-27 - maximum nitrate concentration,
2008-2011
Source European Commission, 2013
Report of the European Commission on the implementation of Council Directive
91/676/EEC (Nitrates Directive) for the period 2008-2011. SWD(2013) 405 final
41
Phosphorus water pollution
It is estimated that European rivers export about
0.2 million ton of phosphorus per year to coastal
waters, originated by both by point sources and
agriculture (the share of agriculture in the total load
is estimated to be around 25% in 2005).
Figure 38: Estimation of phosphorous water pollution from agriculture and other
sources
Draft version. DG JRC D2. Estimation of phosphorus water pollution coming from agriculture
compared to other sources. Spatial unit: EU river basins. Reference year 2005. The analysis is based on
modelling.
For more information, see: Bouraoui et al. 2011
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC62873/lbna24726enc.pdf;
42
Contribution of agriculture to P water pollution
can be very important in quantity and share in
certain regions / water basins such as Northern
Italy, Ireland or Scotland, while limited in other
areas like southern Spain and Portugal,
Germany or Scandinavia. Indeed, While the
EU-N13 actually had a deficit of -1 kg P/ha
(average 2009-2012), the surplus amounted to 2
kg P/ha in the EU-15.
The average phosphorus surplus decreased by
50% between 2004 and 2013 in the EU-28,
being steady at 2 kg P/ha from 2008 onwards.
While the EU-15 experienced on average a
similar reduction (-59%), in the EU-N13 this
decrease went from 0 to -1 on average in the
same period All Member States experienced a
reduction of the phosphorus surplus between
2003 and 2014, except Cyprus, which increased
the value and Austria and Latvia which kept the
same value all over the period.
*For EU-28, EU-15, EU-N13, DE, IE, SE no
data for 2014; for EU-N13 no data for 2013; for
EU-28 no data for 2003.
Figure 39: Trend of gross nutrient balance - surplus of phosphorus in the EU, 2003-2014
(4-year averages)
Figure 40: Gross Phosphorus balance - surplus of phosphorus in the Member States,
2003-2014
43
5. Agriculture and BIODIVERSITY
Number of agriculture-related habitats protected under the Habitats Directive
Under the Habitats Directive
92/43/EEC, 63 habitat types are
protected, which depend on the
continuation of agricultural activities.
Such habitats are threatened by
intensification and abandonment of
agricultural practices.
Identified habitats mostly depend on
mowing and grazing and are
grassland habitats.
Article 17 of the Habitats Directive
requires Member States to report
every six years about the progress
made with the implementation of the
Habitats Directive.
The map shows the occurrence of
protected agriculture-related habitats
in a 10 km x 10 km grid (MS data,
reporting period 2007-2012).
Large parts of the EU host up to 6
different habitats in each 100 km2
cell (yellow colour range); in
particular, mountain areas and the
Boreal zone are hotspots of grassland
habitat richness.
Figure 41: Number of agriculture-related habitats protected under the Habitats Directive, 2007-2012
For more information, see: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/indicators-biodiversity-agroecosystems-insights-article-17-
habitat-directive-and-iucn-red-list
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-011-9989-z
44
Conservation status of protected agriculture-related habitats
Habitats conservation status is classified as either ‘Favourable’ (FV),
‘Unfavourable-inadequate’ (U1) and ‘Unfavourable-bad’ (U2).
’Favourable Conservation Status’ is defined in the Habitats Directive
as a situation where the habitat or species is prospering (in both quality
and extent) and this trend is expected to continue in the future.
‘Unfavourable-Inadequate’ describes a situation where a change in
management or policy is required to return the habitat/species to
favourable status but there is no danger of extinction in the foreseeable
future; ‘Unfavourable-Bad’ is for habitats or species in serious danger
of becoming extinct, at least regionally.
The map shows the average conservation status (based on
structure/function parameter) of selected habitats in each 10 km x 10
km cell, where FV=1, U1=2, U2 =3
Results show that the Atlantic zone is the one mostly characterised by
habitats in Unfavourable-bad conservation status, while the
Mediterranean zone has a higher percentage of habitats in Favourable
conservation status.
For species and habitats protected by EU law, the last Natura 2000
report (2007/2012) shows that only 11% of habitats of Community
interest associated with agricultural ecosystems are in favorable
conservation status12
and 39 % have deteriorated in comparison to the
previous reporting period.
12
MTR Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (COM (2015) 478 final), p 9 http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0478&from=EN. Staff
Working Document (SWD (2015) 187 final) page 19 http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5254559f-68eb-11e5-9317-
01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_2&format=PDF
Figure 42: Conservation status of habitats depending on agriculture
Source: JRC elaboration, 2017
45
Farmland birds index
Figure 43: Change in the farmland bird index, 2000-2013 and average annual rate of change 1990-2000 and 2000-2013
At EU level, a decline in the farmland bird population was registered from 1990 to 2010, continuing also between 2010 and 2013 at a more stable pace,
with a reduction of 2.9 points over the last four years.
Since 2000, the downward trend seems to have slowed down compared to the previous period:-15.6 points from 2000 to 2013 compared to -22.8 points
from 1990 to 2000. The annual average change remained the same (-1.63) between 1990-2000 and 2000-2013.
See also Common Context Indicator 35: Farmland Birds Index (FBI)
46
Grassland butterfly index
Figure 44: European grassland butterfly indicator
Grassland butterflies have shown a significant rate of decline of 30 % between 1990 and 2013 in Europe (21 European countries). In the last 10 years,
the rate of loss is slowing down.
See also http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/abundance-and-distribution-of-selected-species/abundance-and-distribution-of-selected-4
47
Protected forest
In 2015, the area of forest and other wooded land (FOWL) protected
for biodiversity, landscape and specific natural elements accounted for
around 24.5 million ha and represented around 17% of the total area of
FOWL.
13% of FOWL were protected for biodiversity (MCPFE class 1). 85%
of this protected area was located in the EU-15. Within this objective,
the share of the category "conservation through active management"
(MCPFE Class 1.3) was visibly the highest (6.8% of the total FOWL)
while the category "no active conservation" (MCPFE Class 1.1)
covered only 2.2% of the total FOWL area in the EU-28.
FOWL protected for landscape and specific natural elements (MCPFE
class 2) amounted to 5.9 million ha (4.2% of the total FOWL). The
share of FOWL under this objective was higher in the EU-N13
(10.9%) than in the EU-15 (2.2%).
Between 2000 and 2015, the area of protected FOWL in the EU-28
decreased by 4 million ha (18%). This change is mainly due to a
decrease of the MCPFE class 1.3 (-31.6%) and of MCPFE class 2 (-
82.6%).
See also Common Context Indicator 38: Protected Forest
Figure 45: Absolute and percentage change of protected FOWL area,
2000-2015
48
6. Agriculture and LANDSCAPE
Presence of linear elements
The LUCAS survey includes information on the presence of linear
elements, recorded by a surveyor who walks a transect of 250m from
the point to the east direction, recording all transitions of land cover
and existing linear features.
The map shows the density of linear features in agricultural land per
NUTS3 region (average number of linear elements per point),
according to the following list:
Heath/Shrub, tall herb fringes < 3m
Single bushes, single tree
Avenue trees
Conifer hedges < 3 m
Bush/tree hedges/coppices, visibly managed (e.g. pollarded) < 3 m
Bush/tree hedges, not managed, with single trees, or shrubland
deriving from abandonment < 3 m
Grove/Woodland margins (if no hedgerow) < 3 m
Dry stone walls
Ditches, channels < 3 m
Rivers, streams < 3 m
Ponds, wetlands < 3 m
Rock outcrops with some natural vegetation
Only points having agriculture (cropland or grassland) as main land
cover have been considered.
The map shows in yellow and orange the regions with a low density
the linear elements listed above. In some cases this is related to the
presence of large Alpine pastures.
Figure 46: Average number of linear elements per transect with
agriculture as main land cover, 2015
Source: JRC, 2017
49
Farmland Heterogeneity Index
The Farmland Heterogeneity Index (FHI) was derived from
segmentation and landscape metrics (edge density and image texture
respectively) of IMAGE 2006 (549 tiles)13
. The indicator assesses the
density of field edges or other structural elements that delineate
agricultural patches (roads, buildings,etc.) and are detectable from
satellite-based spectral remote sensing data for agricultural lands. By
showing the density of borders of homogeneous patches, the higher the
number of borders, the smaller the objects.
The map legend describes the approximate patch size (lower and upper
limits) per each of five percentile classes. Such measures are linked to
field size.
The map shows that there are areas in the EU where agricultural
patches are larger than in surrounding regions, in particular it is
interesting to note the marked difference in former West and East
Germany.
13 Source: Weissteiner C.J., Garcia-Feced C., Paracchini M.L. (2016). A new view on EU agricultural landscapes: Quantifying patchiness to assess farmland heterogeneity. Ecological Indicators 61(2): 317-327
Figure 47: Farmland heterogeneity index
FARMLAND HETEROGENEITY INDEX
50
Useful links
CAP Context Indicators: report and methodological fiches https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-indicators/context_en
51
Eurostat: Agri-environmental indicators
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicators
52
Eurostat: Environment statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Environment
53
The Joint Research Centre: European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC)
http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
