EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Directorate E. Economic analysis, perspectives and evaluation; communication
E.3. Economic analysis of EU agriculture
Brussels, September 2014
EU FARM ECONOMICS OVERVIEW
FADN 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an overview of key economic developments in the European agricultural
sector based on 2011 data, the latest available in the Farm Accountancy Data Network
(FADN).
After the sharp decline in farm net value added (FNVA)1 in 2009, recovery started in 2010
and continued in 2011. Overall, FNVA slightly increased due to higher agricultural output
prices and an increase in agricultural production. However, significant income disparities
persisted across European regions as well as across different types of farming. Despite the
high cost of animal feed in 2011, farms specialised in granivores (pigs and poultry) and field
crop farms generated the highest FNVA per annual work unit (AWU). From 2010 to 2011
FNVA per AWU increased for farms specialised in field crops, wine, milk and grazing
livestock (mainly due to higher producer prices and volumes in crop and milk production in
2011), it decreased for farms specialised in horticulture, other permanent crop.
Following a slight increase in 2010, the income gap between the EU-N102 and EU-15
appeared to narrow again in 2011. However, remuneration of family labour per family work
unit3 (FWU) in the EU-15 was still three times higher than in the region that registered the
highest income per FWU in the EU-N10.
Finally, in comparison to the previous year, the proportion of direct payments in total
receipts in the EU-27 decreased from 12.7 % to 11.9 % in 2011. One of the reasons for this
was the increase in agricultural output.
1
Farm net value added (FNVA) is used to remunerate the fixed factors of production (labour, land and
capital) whether they are external or family factors. In order to obtain a better measurement of the
productivity of the agricultural workforce and to take into account the diversity of farms, FNVA is also
calculated per annual working unit (AWU). This is one of the FADN’s main income indicators.
2
EU-N10 refers to the ten Member States that joined the EU in 2004.
3
Remuneration of family labour is equal to: FNVA + balance of subsidies and taxes - wages paid - paid rent estimated costs of own land and own capital. The value is given per family work unit (FWU).
1
Income developments
The EU-27 average farm net value added (FNVA) increased by 4 % from 2010 to 2011,
mostly due to increases in agricultural output and prices. Compared to 2009, FNVA was
34 % higher in 2011. Average FNVA per annual work unit (FNVA/AWU) increased by
around 4 %, from EUR 17 400 in 2010 to EUR 18 100 in 2011.
This slight increase was driven by the increase in FNVA, with labour input remaining stable.
It was primarily influenced by an increase in agricultural output prices (in particular in the
crop, milk and meat sectors), reflecting the continued recovery of commodity markets in 2011
after the low point in 2009. Remuneration per family work unit (i.e. income available after
remuneration of all external production factors — labour, land and capital — and adjusted for
the opportunity cost of capital) stood at around EUR 12 600 in 2011, up from EUR 11 700 in
2010.
This income increase masked substantial differences across Member States, regions and
types of farming. Holdings in Denmark, northern France and the UK (England) generated the
highest FNVA/AWU in 2011. Denmark and the Champagne-Ardennes region had the highest
average FNVA/AWU in the EU. The regions with low FNVA/AWU (i.e. below EUR 10 000)
were mostly situated in the EU-N10. Only two regions in the EU-15, namely Norte e Centro
(Portugal) and Abruzzo (Italy), had an average FNVA/AWU below EUR 10 000.
On average, farms specialised in granivores, field crops, wine, milk and horticulture had the
highest FNVA/AWU, while the FNVA/AWU of farms specialised in other permanent crops,
grazing livestock (other than milk) and mixed activities remained below the EU-27 average.
In 2011, FNVA/AWU decreased for farms specialised in horticulture, other permanent crops,
granivores and mixed farms (crops and livestock), and increased for farms specialised in field
crops, wine, milk and other grazing livestock. This increase was due to higher producer prices
and greater volumes in crop and milk production in 2011. Looking at the distribution of
FNVA/AWU in the EU-N10 and EU-24, the average income per worker in these
countries remained significantly below the EU-15 level. In more than 96 % of farms in the
EU-2 and around 92 % of farms in the EU-N10, FNVA/AWU was below the EU-15 average.
In the EU-N10, average FNVA/AWU stood at around EUR 8 300, but was under EUR 4 400 in
more than 50 % of farms (median income). FNVA/AWU was less than EUR 2 600 in 50% of
farms in the EU-2.
Role of direct payments
Direct payments helped to even out the variability in EU farm income. The average amount of
direct payments received in 2011 was EUR 9 150 per farm. The proportion of direct payments
in total revenue (output value plus subsidies minus taxes) in the EU-27 decreased from 12.7 %
in 2010 to 11.9 % in 2011 as total farm receipts increased, while the level of public support
decreased by only 0.1 %. This proportion varies between Member States, with Irish, Greek
and Finnish farms’ total receipts being proportionately most dependent on subsidies (which
represent nearly 20 % of total revenue).
4
EU-2 refers to Bulgaria and Romania.
2
The proportion of direct payments in FNVA was highest in Finland. On the other hand, direct
payments represented only 4 % of FNVA in the Netherlands, showing that Dutch agriculture
is more focussed on the more profitable sectors that are less dependent on direct payments,
such as horticulture and pig and poultry production. The proportion of direct payments in
agricultural income also fluctuates markedly with the type of farming. In particular, direct
payments represent a substantial part of FNVA in grazing livestock, mixed and field crop
farms as a result of historical orientation of the CAP (53-40%). On the other hand, subsidies
account for only a very limited part of total revenue in wine and horticulture holdings (8-3 %).
Farm structure
The structure of European farms varies markedly in several ways:
 Asset value. The average farm size in terms of asset value was highest in Denmark and in
the Netherlands (EUR 2 500 000 and EUR 2 200 000, respectively), reflecting very high
land prices and the importance of sectors which typically need considerable investment
(such as milk, granivores and horticulture). In contrast, farms in Romania had the lowest
total asset values (below EUR 40 000) due to low land prices, small farm sizes and less
capital-intensive types of farming. Bulgaria almost doubled the asset value of its farms in
the last two years. The land price level in the EU-2 remains well below the EU-27
average.
 Labour input. According to the FADN survey, the average number of workers employed
per farm in the EU-27 stood at 1.6 AWU in 2011. However, it varied significantly across
Member States, ranging from 12.9 AWU in Slovakia to 1.1 AWU in Ireland. The average
number of workers per farm in horticulture (the sector with the highest labour input) was
approximately 2.4 times higher than in permanent crops other than wine holdings (the
sector with the lowest labour input). Family labour accounted for 78 % of the total labour
force in the EU-27 and represented the most prevalent form of labour in all Member
States except for Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Estonia. In these Member
States, the proportion of family labour in the total labour force was below 50 %. The
average hourly wage of farm workers stood at EUR 7 in the EU-27 during 2011, up 4.3 %
from the previous year. This nominal wage increase more than compensated for the
general increase in prices (EU-27 HICP5 inflation stood at 2.7 % in 2011).
 Land use. According to the FADN survey, the average EU farm size was 32 ha in 2011,
only a slight change from 2010. However, it varied considerably across Member States,
ranging from 546 ha per farm in Slovakia to 3 ha per farm in Malta. Rented land
accounted for 54 % of total agricultural area in the EU-27 in 2011. The land rents in the
EU-27 have increased by 7 % since 2009, to EUR 155 per ha in 2011. Land rents were
particularly high (above EUR 700 per ha) in the Netherlands and the Canarias (Spain), but
remained under EUR 40 per ha in the Baltic countries. They also differed markedly across
types of farming: the level of rent per hectare in horticulture and the wine sector was 8 to
9 times higher than the rental price paid by grazing livestock farms.
5
The Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) is an economic indicator constructed to measure the
changes over time in the prices of consumer goods and services acquired by households. It provides the
official measure of consumer price inflation in the euro-zone for the purposes of monetary policy in the euro
area and assessing inflation convergence as required under the Maastricht criteria.
3
The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) is a European system of sample surveys
that are run each year to collect structural and accountancy data of farms; its aim is to monitor
the income and business activities of agricultural holdings and to evaluate the impacts of the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
The scope of the FADN survey covers only farms whose size exceeds a minimum threshold
so as to represent the largest possible proportion of agricultural output, agricultural area and
farm labour, of holdings run with a market orientation. For 2011, the sample consisted of
approximately 80 000 holdings in the EU-27, which represent nearly 5.0 million farms (40 %)
out of a total of 12.2 million farms included in the FSS6.
The rules applied seek to provide representative data for three criteria: region, economic size
and type of farming. The FADN is the only harmonised source of micro-economic data,
which means that the accounting principles are the same in all EU Member States.
The most recent FADN data available for this report are for the 2011 accounting year, due to
time lags stemming from data collection, control and processing.
For further information see: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/index.cfm
6
FSS is the abbreviation of the Farm structure survey. It is carried out every 3 or 4 years as a sample survey
and once in ten years as a census by all Member States. The purpose of the survey is to obtain reliable data
on the structure of agricultural holdings in the European Union, in particular on land use, livestock and
labour force.
4
CONTENTS
1.
ECONOMIC SITUATION OF FARMS..................................................................... 6
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
2.
Farm income ...................................................................................................... 6
Distribution of income .................................................................................... 14
Income components ......................................................................................... 21
Return on assets ............................................................................................... 23
IMPORTANCE OF DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR FARM INCOME ....................... 26
2.1. Proportion of direct payments in total revenue ............................................... 26
2.2. Proportion of direct payments in FNVA ......................................................... 27
3.
FARM STRUCTURE ............................................................................................... 30
3.1. Financial structure ........................................................................................... 30
3.1.1. Total asset value ................................................................................ 30
3.1.2. Total liabilities................................................................................... 32
3.1.3. Development of farm net worth ........................................................ 34
3.1.4. Solvency ............................................................................................ 35
3.1.5. Current and fixed assets .................................................................... 36
3.2. Labour ............................................................................................................. 39
3.2.1. Labour force ...................................................................................... 40
3.2.2. Remuneration of farm workers.......................................................... 42
3.3. Land ................................................................................................................. 44
3.3.1. Farm size ........................................................................................... 44
3.3.2. Importance of rented land.................................................................. 45
3.3.3. Level of land rents ............................................................................. 46
5
1.
ECONOMIC SITUATION OF FARMS
This chapter reviews the economic situation of farms across EU Member States, focusing
predominantly on the level, development and distribution of farm income. It also discusses
the various farm income components and the return farmers receive on their investment.
1.1.
Farm income
For the purpose of this report, the income of agricultural holdings is measured using farm net
value added and the remuneration of family labour.
Farm net value added (FNVA) is equal to gross farm income minus costs of depreciation. It
is used to remunerate the fixed factors of production (labour, land and capital), whether they
are external or family factors. As a result, agricultural holdings can be compared regardless
of the family/non-family nature of the factors of production used.
FNVA = output + Pillar I and Pillar II payments + VAT balance - intermediate consumption
- farm taxes (income taxes are not included) - depreciation.
The value is calculated per annual work unit (AWU) in order to take into account the
differences in the scale of farms and to obtain a better measure of the productivity of the
agricultural workforce.
Remuneration of family labour: In the agricultural sector, the bulk of the workforce consists
of family members who do not receive a salary but have to be remunerated from the farms’
income. As the FNVA is required to finance not only family labour but all fixed production
factors, another way of estimating income (the remuneration of family labour) is calculated
as follows:
Remuneration of family labour = FNVA + balance of subsidies and taxes - wages paid - rent
paid - interest paid - estimate of the costs of own land - estimate of the costs of own capital.
The value is calculated per family work unit (FWU). Only farms that use unpaid labour
(which in most cases means family members) are included in the calculation.
Results by Member State
FNVA varied significantly across EU Member States in 2011. Slovakia ranked highest, with
EUR 160 900. This is 23 times higher than in Romania, the country with the lowest value.
Denmark, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic also had high values. The EU-27 average
was at around EUR 28 000 (see Figure 1.1). FNVA’s main advantage as an indicator for
measuring income developments lies in its relative simplicity, but it fails to account for
differences in farm size, type of farming or structural decreases in the labour force employed
in agriculture. To do this, FNVA is usually expressed per annual work unit (AWU), which
can be seen as a measure of partial labour productivity. Viewed from this angle, the general
picture of sizeable income variability within the EU remains unaffected, though the ranking of
Member States changes somewhat (Figure 1.2): Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK
registered the highest FNVA per AWU, at EUR 85 600, EUR 45 900 and EUR 44 700
respectively. This is more than two or, in the case of Denmark, even four times the value of
the average FNVA per AWU for the EU-27 (EUR 18 100), showing the predominance of
granivore production, specialist horticulture and milk sectors in these three countries’
agricultural sectors. At the other end of the spectrum, Malta, Slovenia and Romania had the
lowest FNVA per AWU (EUR 6 000, 5 100 and 5 000 respectively), because their agriculture
has remained largely oriented towards less productive types of farming, namely mixed
farming and other permanent crops.
6
It is worth noting that, within the EU-15, only Greece and Portugal – Member States
characterised by a large number of small farms – had an FNVA per AWU below the EU-27
average.
Figure 1.1: Farm net value added by Member State in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
An alternative measure of agricultural income is the remuneration of family labour, as a high
proportion of work in the agricultural sector is carried out by family members. This is
expressed per family work unit (FWU) and is calculated by deducting from FNVA the costs
of wages, rent and interest paid, and the opportunity costs of own land and capital. The
Member States with the highest remuneration of family labour per FWU were Denmark
(EUR 49 900), the UK (EUR 43 900) and Luxemburg (EUR 35 500). The remuneration of
family labour and the income per unit of paid labour was approximately the same in the Baltic
countries, Cyprus, Luxemburg and in the UK. At EU-27 level, the average remuneration of
family labour per FWU stood at EUR 12 600 in 2011.
Figure 1.2: FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family labour per FWU, by Member
State in 2011
(average in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN
7
Results by EU group
Agricultural income in the EU-15 continued to recover from the 2009 low point (EUR 21 000
FNVA per AWU). It increased to EUR 26 600 in 2010 and even reached EUR 27 200 in 2011.
This growth was the outcome of increases in both the volume of agricultural output (1.4 %)
and prices (5.7 %) in the agricultural sector,7 with labour input remaining relatively stable.
While total labour input increased in the EU-N10, farm income developments closely
mirrored the general pattern seen in the EU-15, albeit at a lower level: FNVA per AWU
increased from EUR 4 600 to EUR 9 300 and the remuneration of family labour per FWU
increased from EUR 2 800 to EUR 6 600.
In absolute terms, FNVA per AWU increased by EUR 5 600 or 26 % in the EU-15 in 2004-11,
and by EUR 4 700 or 103 % in the EU-N10 — a stronger increase in relative terms, but a
widening gap due to the fact that income in the EU-15 grew more in absolute terms. Looking
at the 2004-11 period, no tangible convergence in nominal farm income can be observed
between the two groups of EU Member States.
In line with the general increasing trend seen in the EU-25, FNVA per AWU in the EU-2 rose
by roughly 72 % between 2009 and 2011, to EUR 5 300. The remuneration of family labour
stood at EUR 3 400 in 2011, an increase of 97 % compared to 2009.
Figure 1.3: Long-term developments in FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family
labour per FWU
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Regional differences
7
Source: Agriculture in the EU, Statistical and Economic Information Report 2011.
8
Map 1.1 shows the regional differences in FNVA per AWU in the EU-27 in 2011. Based on
this indicator, the agricultural holdings with the highest income per working unit were mainly
located in Denmark, northern France, the UK (England), north-western Germany, the
Netherlands, northern Italy and Belgium (Wallonie). On the other hand, regions with very low
farm income (below EUR 10 000 per year) were mostly, situated in the EU-N10. Only two
regions in the EU-15, Norte e Centro (Portugal) and Abruzzo (Italy), registered average farm
income below EUR 10 000.
Map 1.1: FNVA per AWU by FADN region in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
When measured by the remuneration of family labour per FWU, the differences in income
between the EU-15 and the EU-N10 appear to be less pronounced (see Map 1.2). However,
there are some regions in the EU-15 with extremely high income per unit of family labour,
such as the England-East region in the UK (EUR 86 211) and the Champagne-Ardennes (EUR
76 524) and Ile de France (EUR 62 411) regions in France. The highest income per FWU in
the EU-15 is three times higher than in the Közép-Magyarország region in Hungary, which
registered the highest income per FWU (EUR 27 821) in the EU-N10. The highest income per
unit of family labour at regional level in the EU-15 is more than eight times higher than the
lowest, while the highest value in the EU-N10 is fourteen times higher than the lowest income
level. Income levels are lowest in Bulgaria and Romania. The southern and western regions of
Bulgaria (with EUR 1927 and EUR 2605, respectively) and the southern region of Romania
(EUR 2930) have especially low levels of remuneration of family labour per FWU.
9
Map 1.2: Remuneration of family labour per FWU, by FADN region in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Results by type of farming
Figure 1.4 shows significant discrepancies in average FNVA across different types of
farming. In particular, average farm income was approximately four times higher in the
horticulture sector than in the mixed crops and livestock sector. One possible explanation for
the relatively low income of mixed farms is that many of them are very small and mainly
located in the EU-N10, where income levels are generally lower. On the other hand,
horticulture holdings appear to be more frequent in the EU-15.
When measured by FNVA per AWU, the general picture of income distribution by type of
farming changes (see Figure 1.5). The granivore, field crop, wine, milk and horticulture
sectors have above-average income, while permanent crops other than wine, grazing livestock
and mixed farm income per worker remain below average. In 2011, FNVA per AWU
decreased for horticulture, permanent crops other than wine, granivores and mixed farms,
while income increased for field crops, wine, milk and other grazing livestock farms. The
increase is due to higher producer prices and volumes in crop and milk production in 2011.
The remuneration for family labour per FWU does not significantly alter the picture of
relative productivity differences across various types of farming. While holdings specialised
in granivores and field crops remain at the top of the spectrum and mixed farms at the bottom,
wine-producing farms do slightly better than milk farms in terms of remunerating family
labour.
10
Figure 1.4: Average FNVA in EU-27 by type of farming in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Figure 1.5: FNVA per AWU by type of farming in 2011
(in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
11
Results by organisational form and EU group
From an organisational point of view, holdings in the FADN are divided into three groups: (1)
family farms, where the profits cover unpaid labour and own capital of the holder and the
holder’s family; (2) partnerships, where the profits cover the production factors brought into
the holding by a number of partners (at least half of whom participate in the work of the farm
as unpaid labour); and (3) other holdings with no unpaid labour or which are not included in
the other two groups (e.g. legal persons).
The results show that, on average, non-family farms generated higher FNVA than family
farms, with income disparities particularly visible in the EU-N10 and, to a lesser degree, in
the EU-15 and EU-2. The observed disparities across and within the three groups of Member
States mainly reflect differences in farm size. In the EU-N10, holdings classified as ‘other’
had the highest levels of FNVA. Income in these large commercial farms in the EU-N10
significantly exceeded the FNVA created by the corresponding group of holdings in the
EU-15 and EU-2 (EUR 261 000 as compared to EUR 79 900 and EUR 47 400, respectively).
On the other hand, on average, partnership farms in the EU-2 had significantly higher income
(EUR 189 800) than their counterparts in the EU-15 and EU-N10. On average, family farms
had the lowest FNVA levels out of all the organisational forms in each EU group.
Figure 1.6: FNVA by EU group and organisational form in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
When FNVA is weighted by AWU, non-family farms still tend to have higher income than
family farms across different EU groups (see Figure 1.7). However, in this case partnership
farms show higher values than the ‘other’ types (i.e. legal entities). This is due to the fact that
‘other’ types of holdings employ mostly paid labour. In general, FNVA per worker is greater
in the EU-15 than in the EU-N10 or EU-2, irrespective of the organisational type of farm.
This can be partially explained by the larger labour force employed by holdings in the new
Member States.
12
Figure 1.7: FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family labour per FWU by EU group
and organisational form of the holding
(in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
13
1.2.
Distribution of income
As depicted by the ‘box-plots’8 in Figure 1.8, agricultural income varies considerably across
farms. The general pattern shows that a high proportion of farms have a relatively low income
level per worker, while a small proportion of holdings record a very high income level per
worker. For instance, the average FNVA per AWU in the EU-15 stood at around EUR 27 200
in 2011. However, 10 % of farms had an income per worker of more than EUR 56 000, and
50% recorded an FNVA per AWU below EUR 15 000.
Average income per worker in the EU-N10 and EU-2 remained significantly below the EU-15
level. It should be emphasised that the value of FNVA/AWU was extremely high in some
regions of the UK, Ireland. These outliers are due to the low value of AWU which pushed the
mean value of income per working unit upward. The mean of EU-N10 and EU-2 figures is in
the upper 25 % of data, which means that these box-plots are also skewed to the right. The
EU-N10 average income per worker stood at around EUR 8300, though 50 % of holdings had
an income per worker of less than EUR 4400 In the EU-2, half of the farms reported an FNVA
per AWU of less than EUR 2600.
Figure 1.8: Distribution of FNVA per AWU, by EU group in 2011
(in EUR/AWU)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Figure 1.9 shows developments in income distribution for the EU as a whole in 2004-11.
Until 2007, income discrepancies in the EU-27 were gradually increasing, along with average
farm income per AWU. From 2007 to 2009, the average level of income dropped and income
discrepancies narrowed noticeably, which can be traced back to the fall in agricultural output
prices combined with a slight decrease in the overall agricultural output volume and a
remarkable increase in input (mainly energy) prices, especially in 2008.
8
In the box plots, the inter-quartile range (between 25 % and 75 % of farms) is indicated by the yellow box;
the limits of 10 % of farms and 90 % of farms correspond to the end of lines (whiskers); the median (50 % of
farms) is the line crossing the yellow boxes, and the mean is shown by the ‘+’ sign.
14
The impact of the sizeable drop in agricultural output prices is visible in the 2009 data, and
explains the significant narrowing of the distribution of income per AWU. After 2009, an
upward tendency can be observed, leading once again to a wider distribution of average
income per worker in 2010 and in 2011.
Figure 1.9: Distribution of FNVA per AWU by year
(in EUR/AWU)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Figure 1.10: Distribution of FNVA per AWU by type of farming in the EU-27 in 2011
(average in EUR/AWU)
Legend:
1 = Field crops
2 = Horticulture
3 = Wine
4= Other permanent crops
5= Milk
6= Other grazing livestock
7= Granivores
8= Mixed
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Figure1.10 shows the distribution of FNVA/AWU by type of farm in the EU-27 in 2011. In
general terms, income distribution remains asymmetrical within each of the eight sectors
distinguished in the FADN (i.e. a small proportion of farms with very high income and a large
proportion of farms with low income9).
9
Within a given sample, a single outlier will actually distort the average but will have no impact on the
median.
15
The degree of these discrepancies varies greatly across different types of farming. The most
pronounced differences between the mean and median values of FNVA/AWU are observed
for granivores. The distribution of FNVA/AWU is also highly uneven for field crop and dairy
farms (i.e. sectors with a larger inter-quartile range for FNVA/AWU). For wine holdings and
mixed farms, the best performing 25 % of farms have a larger impact on the average than the
remaining 75 % (their mean values are outside the boxes).
The trend in the distribution of FNVA/AWU over time varies from sector to sector. As shown
in Figure 1.11, the distribution of FNVA/AWU for specialised dairy farms became
increasingly asymmetric over the 2005-07 period. In 2007, income discrepancies were
particularly pronounced, and were accompanied by a significant increase in mean and median
levels. In 2008 and 2009, the degree of asymmetry decreased, as did mean and median
income. These developments were predominantly driven by increasing input prices in 2008
and the 2009 decrease in milk prices. From 2010 to 2011, FNVA/AWU increased, with the
mean income per worker approaching its 2007 level after a significant recovery in prices and
output during this period.
Figure 1.11: Distribution of FNVA/AWU of dairy farms in the EU-15 by year
(in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
16
Figure 1.12: Distribution of FNVA/AWU of field crop farms in the EU-15 by year
(in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Figure 1.12 presents the average FNVA/AWU of specialised field crop farms. This ratio
fluctuated in 2004-11, with a high point in 2007. The income peak was due to the fact that the
2007 agricultural year was marked by a very sharp and remarkable increase in the prices of
many agricultural commodities, both in EU and world markets.
In the following two years (and especially in 2009), FNVA/AWU fell to the 2006 level, and
income distribution narrowed. In 2010-11, it returned to its 2007 level, and income
distribution became wider again. This recovery was the result of higher cereals prices and
volumes in 2010-11.
For farms specialised in granivore production (Figure1.13), average FNVA/AWU fell to a
low level in 2007 and 2008, as the dampening effect of extremely high feed prices more than
outweighed the favourable impact of higher output prices. After reaching their lowest points
in 2008, the median and mean values started to increase in 2009 and continued to do so in
2010-11. This increase can be explained by higher volume and higher producer prices
(particularly for pig meat).
17
Figure 1.13: Distribution of FNVA/AWU of granivore farms in the EU-15 by year
(in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Figure1.14 shows the distribution of income (FNVA) among the labour force (AWU) in the
EU-27 in 2011 using a Lorenz curve.10 As the 2011 income levels of a large part of the farm
labour force were negative, so too was the cumulated proportion of income, up to a certain
point.
The Lorenz curve shows that income is unevenly distributed among the labour force:11 80 %
of the labour force generated approximately 34 % of the whole agricultural sector’s income.
The remaining 20 % therefore generated 66 % of FNVA. Note that FNVA/AWU was negative
for around 47 % of total AWU employed in EU agriculture.
10
In order to draw the Lorenz curve, the income estimates are sorted in ascending order. Each observation is
weighted according to the weighting factor of the farm and the number of workers employed.
11
If income were equally distributed within the labour force, the Lorenz curve would become a straight line
linking the origin to the top right corner in the Figure.
18
Figure 1.14: Lorenz curve of the distribution of FNVA in the EU-27 in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
An alternative measure of the statistical distribution of income is the Gini index,12 which can
be between 0 and 1. The coefficient of 0 expresses perfect equality of income among the
labour force, while the coefficient of 1 reflects maximum concentration or inequality (with
one work unit capturing all the income in a sector).
Table 1.1 shows that income concentration in the EU-15 is typically lower than in the EUN10 or EU-2. The highest income concentration exists in the EU-2, which shows an unequal
distribution among farms. Although comparisons between groups should be made with
caution, the observed differences partly reflect disparities in the structure of the farm sector.
For instance, the sample includes very small farms in the EU-N10 and EU-2, and these are
mostly excluded in the EU-15.
Looking at the development of the coefficient over time within each EU group, income
concentration has increased in the EU-15 since 2004. In the EU-N10, there have been minor
fluctuations in income distribution, which fell slightly in 2010-11.
The economic crisis in 2009 seems to have increased income concentration in all EU groups,
but the EU-N10 was particularly affected by unequal income distribution. With the economic
recovery, income inequality narrowed in 2010, however there was still a slight concentration
in 2011. In the EU-2, farm income inequalities were most apparent in the accession year
(2007) and narrowed over time due to the increase of direct payments during the phasing-in
process
12
The Gini coefficient is usually based on the Lorenz curve. It can be thought of as the ratio of the area that
lies between the line of equality and the Lorenz curve over the total area below the line of equality.
19
Table 1.1: Development of the Gini coefficient of FNVA per AWU by EU group
EU15
EU-N10
EU2
2004
0.604
0.899
2005
0.603
0.872
2006
0.589
0.927
2007
0.614
0.911
0.796
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN
20
2008
0.667
0.821
0.734
2009
0.677
0.970
0.782
2010
0.646
0.711
0.761
2011
0.677
0.720
0.730
1.3.
Income components
Results by EU group
Figure 1.15 shows the composition of farm receipts and expenses by EU group in 2011. On
average, expenses (including the remuneration of own factors of production) were higher than
receipts for farms in the EU-15, while the average farm in the EU-N10 generated a small
profit.13
On the revenue side, average receipts per farm in the EU-27 stood at EUR 77 100, out of
which total output represented EUR 66 200 (86 %) and subsidies14 EUR 10 900 (14 %). These
aggregated figures hide large differences between the EU groups, both in absolute and relative
terms: the average farm revenue in the EU-2 was roughly 2.7 times lower than in the EU-N10
and 6.5 times lower than in the EU-15. In relative terms, subsidies accounted for more than
18 % of average farm revenue in the EU-N10, compared to roughly 14 % in the EU-15 and
11 % in the EU-2.
Figure 1.15: Income components per farm by EU group in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
On the cost side, average farm expenses totalled EUR 78 000 in the EU-27. While this
aggregated figure again reflects highly contrasting price levels in the EU groups, the cost
structure as such has been found to be broadly similar across all countries. Intermediate
consumption represented approximately 50 % of total expenses.
13
Farm profit corresponds to the amount remaining after remuneration of all production factors, including the
opportunity cost of family labour (estimated).
14
Subsidies include the sum of net current and investment subsidies. They include EU coupled and decoupled
payments, less favoured area (LFA) payments, rural development payments and national aid. Net means the
balance of current subsidies and taxes plus the balance of subsidies and taxes on investment.
21
Depreciation and expenses for external factors15 accounted for approximately 11 % each. The
remainder was accounted for by the (estimated) opportunity costs of own factors (family
labour, own land and own capital). While the EU-N10 and EU-15 show a similar distribution
of cost factors as the EU-27, for farms in the EU-2 intermediate consumption accounts for a
smaller part of total farm expenses (44 %) but opportunity costs account for a larger part of
total own factors (35 %).
Results by type of farming
In 2011, on average, farms specialised in field crops, milk, granivores and wine were
operating at a profit, as shown in Figure 1.16. Granivore farms had the highest output of all
farm types in the EU-27 (EUR 248 100). On the other end of the spectrum, farms specialised
in permanent crops other than wine generated the lowest output, namely EUR 28 700. Grazing
livestock farms recorded the highest average loss per farm (EUR -5 900).
As concerns average direct payments per holding, specialised dairy farms benefitted most
from subsidies (EUR 16 900 per farm), followed by field crops and livestock farms
(EUR 15 100 and EUR 14 400 per farm, respectively). On the other hand, the horticulture
sector received, on average, the lowest amount of subsidies (EUR 2 600 per farm). The most
subsidised dairy farm received five times more subsidies than the least subsidised
horticultural farm.16 These discrepancies in subsidies across sectors still reflect the past
features of the CAP, which provided support in particular for the production of cattle and field
crops. However, note that horticultural farms have significantly higher receipts than dairy or
field crops farms and might therefore be less reliant on public support.
Figure 1.16: Income components per farm, by type of farming in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN.
Note. Receipts (Rec), Expenses (Exp).
15
Expenses for external factors include wages, rent and interest paid.
16
This observation is based on the absolute value of subsidies for the average dairy and horticultural farm
disregarding the differences in the farm size of these two types of farming.
22
The cost structure varies markedly between sectors, reflecting differences in farm size,
technological processes and input prices. Granivore farms (typically large in economic size,
with technological processes involving a high turnover of animals) had the highest costs for
intermediate consumption due to feed costs (driven by higher prices for feeding stuffs), both
in absolute and in relative terms (EUR 185 000 or nearly 72 % of total expenses).
On the other hand, intermediate consumption on average totalled EUR 10 300 (or less than
30 % of total costs) for other permanent crop farms. Depreciation costs were, in relative terms,
broadly constant across sectors, amounting to around 11 % of total expenses. Granivore farms
spent least on depreciation (8 % of total expenses) while wine holdings spent most (13 %).
The proportion of external factors (wages, rent and interest paid) in total costs was
particularly high in the horticulture (21 %) and wine sectors (19 %), mainly due to the high
cost of external labour. On the other hand, other grazing livestock and granivore farms had
the lowest proportion of expenditure on external factors (around 8 %). In absolute terms,
horticulture holdings had the highest external factor costs (EUR 33 400), while farms
specialised in other grazing livestock, mixed and other permanent crops had the lowest (less
than EUR 6 000). Finally, the estimated costs of own production factors (family labour, own
land and own capital) as a proportion of total costs were highest for permanent crop farms
(44 %) and lowest for granivore farms (12 %).
1.4.
Return on assets
Return on assets (ROA) measures the
effectiveness of a company’s assets in
generating revenue. It is defined as the ratio
of net income over total assets, with net
income being defined as the sum of FNVA
and net subsidies minus wage costs, rent
paid and the opportunity costs of own
labour.
ROA=
FNVA
+ Balance of subsidies and taxes
- Wages paid
- Paid rent
- Opportunity costs of family labour
Total assets
Results by Member State
The ROA of an average farm in the EU-27 reached 1.9 % in 2011, up from 1.8 % in 2010 (and
only 0.34 % in 2009). Holdings in Hungary, Lithuania and Estonia had the highest ROAs,
mainly due to relatively low levels of opportunity costs and fixed asset values (such as land
and quotas). In 2010, six Member States registered a negative ROA, with the lowest value
recorded in Slovakia. In 2011, Malta, Sweden, Finland and Slovenia had the lowest ROAs in
the EU (see Annex 8 for more details).
23
Figure 1.17: Return on assets by Member State in 2010-11
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Results by type of farming
Granivore, field crop and milk farms had ROAs above 2.5 %, but this figure dropped below
1 % for holdings specialised in other permanent crops, mixed crop-livestock and grazing
livestock (see Figure 1.18)
Figure 1.18: ROA in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Trends by EU group
As shown in Figure 1.19, the ROA fluctuated not only across EU groups but also over time
for each group. It decreased drastically for all countries in 2007-09 (except Bulgaria and
Romania) and then started to recover for all EU groups, albeit with varying intensity.
24
While in the EU-15 all growth took place between 2009 and 2010, the recovery process
continued in 2011 for the EU-N10, reaching its highest value in that year, including in
absolute terms (3 %). After an upward trend in 2010, the average ROA decreased in 2011 in
the EU-2, mainly due to investment in new plantations and equipment.
Figure 1.19: Changes in the ROA by EU group
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
25
2.
IMPORTANCE OF DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR FARM INCOME
This chapter analyses the impact of direct payments on the income situation of European
farmers. Two economic indicators are used to express this: farm revenue and farm net value
added (FNVA). In our calculations, direct payments include total subsidies on operations
linked to production, with the exception of investment.
2.1.
Proportion of direct payments in total revenue
Results by Member State
The average amount of direct payments in 2011 was EUR 9 150 per holding. The proportion
of direct payments in total revenue (output plus net current and investment subsidies) in the
EU-27 stood at 11.9 % in 2011, down from 12.7 % in 2010, as total farm receipts increased
substantially while the level of public support decreased by only 0.1 %. This proportion varies
between Member States. Irish, Greek and Finnish farms’ total receipts are proportionately
most dependent on subsidies (which represent nearly 20 % of total revenue there). The
importance of crops such as grain maize, wheat, spelt and industrial crops, which used to be
strongly supported before decoupling, explains the high proportion of direct payments in
Greece’s total revenue. In Finland, the high proportion of public support in total receipts
mainly reflects substantial national payments, which are granted in addition to EU direct
payments (national aid for southern Finland, northern aid and national aid for crop
production17). Finally, direct payments account for the lowest proportion of total revenue in
the Netherlands (close to 4 %), where sectors with a lower proportion of direct payments in
total revenue, such as horticulture, pig and poultry production, are a significant part of total
agricultural output.
Figure 2.1: Proportion of direct payments in total receipts, by Member State in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN
17
Farming and Food in Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2011.
26
Results by type of farming
As already stated, the proportion of direct payments in revenue varies markedly across types
of farming, reflecting mainly differences in average farm size. In addition, in the EU-15 the
historical model of the CAP was characterised by asymmetrical direct support across sectors
— a feature which has gradually been reduced following the 2004 reform. Figure 2.2 shows
that direct payments account for the highest proportion of total revenue in grazing livestock
(19 %) and field crop farms (17 %). On the other hand, they represent only a very limited part
of total revenue in the wine and horticulture sectors (4 % and 2 %, respectively).
Figure 2.2: Proportion of direct payments in total receipts by type of farming in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
2.2.
Proportion of direct payments in FNVA
The role direct payments play in sustaining farm income becomes even more apparent when
we look at their proportion in FNVA — a concept which measures net farm income, i.e.
income after costs are deducted (see Annex 2). Consequently, if all other factors remain equal,
changes in direct payments will have a much greater impact on FNVA than on total farm
revenue.
Results by Member State
In 2011, on average, direct payments accounted for nearly 32 % of FNVA in the EU-27, down
from 34 % in 2010 (Figure 2.3). This slight decrease was caused by a slight increase in FNVA
and an insignificant decrease in direct payments in 2011. The proportion of direct payments in
FNVA was highest in Finland (76 %). In Slovakia, after being extremely high in
2009 (444 %), the proportion of direct payments in FNVA decreased, but was still the secondhighest in the EU-27 (70 %) in 2011, after Finland. On the other hand, direct payments
accounted for only 14 % of FNVA in the Netherlands, which showed that the country was
more focused on its highly profitable and less subsidised sectors, such as horticulture and pig
and poultry production.
27
Map 2.1 shows the regional differences in the proportion of direct payments in FNVA. The
lowest figure was seen in Hamburg (1 %), followed by Liguria and Trentino (3 % and 7 %,
respectively).
Figure 2.3: Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by Member State in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Map 2.1: Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by FADN region in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
28
Results by type of farming
For total revenue, the proportion of direct payments in FNVA also fluctuates markedly with
the type of farming (Figure 2.4). In particular, direct payments represent a substantial part of
FNVA for grazing livestock, mixed and field crop farms, due to their average farm size and
historical orientations of the CAP. These types of farm recorded below-average FNVA, and
the highest average amounts of direct payments in 2011, which led to the highest proportion
of direct payments in FNVA. On the other hand, direct payments play only a limited role in
sustaining income within the wine and horticulture sectors, which had the highest FNVA in
2011.
Figure 2.4: Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by farm type in the EU-27 in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
29
3.
FARM STRUCTURE
3.1.
Financial structure
This chapter analyses the financial structure of agricultural holdings within the EU with
respect to two main dimensions (country and type of farming) and using a number of financial
indicators derived from farm balance sheets.
3.1.1. Total asset value
Total assets are the property of the agricultural holding and are calculated as the sum of
current and fixed assets. Current assets in the FADN include non-breeding livestock, stock of
agricultural products and other circulating capital, holdings of agricultural shares, and
amounts receivable in the short term or cash balances in hand or in the bank. Fixed assets are
agricultural land, permanent crops, farm and other buildings, forest capital, machinery and
equipment, and breeding livestock.
Long-term developments by EU group
Figure 3.1 shows that the value of total assets has been following an upward trend in both the
EU-15 and the EU-N10. In the EU-15, the average value of total assets rose by more than
40 % in 2004-11, while in the EU-N10 it doubled between 2004 and 2011.
Figure 3.1: Long-term developments in the value of total assets (TA) and total
liabilities18 (TL)
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
18
The concept of total liabilities will be discussed in section 3.1.2.
30
Results by Member State
As shown in Figure 3.2, the value of total assets of an average farm in the EU-27 stood at
approximately EUR 311 700 in 2011. However, this average masks sizeable variations across
Member States, reflecting differences in the structure of national agricultural sectors.
On average, Danish and Dutch farms held the highest amount of assets (around
EUR 2 500 000 and EUR 2 200 000, respectively), reflecting very high land prices and the
importance of the types of farming that typically need considerable investment, such as milk,
granivores and horticulture production. In contrast, farms in Romania and Bulgaria had the
lowest value of total assets (under EUR 100 000) as they are characterised by less capitalintensive types of farming. These low values of total assets were partly due to the lower land
price levels in the EU-2.
Figure 3.2: Average total asset value per farm by Member State in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Results by type of farming
Dairy and granivore farms have typically held the highest amounts of total assets —
approximately three times the asset value of farms growing other permanent crops, which had
the lowest values. These disparities are partly due to differences in capital intensity across
sectors.
31
Figure 3.3: Average total asset value by type of farming in the EU-27 in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
3.1.2. Total liabilities
In the EU-27, total liabilities have on average accounted for a small proportion of farms’
funding sources. In this respect, it is worth pointing out that while the 2004 and 2007
enlargements have affected the average level of total liabilities per farm, the impact has been
substantially smaller than on total assets per farm.
Results by Member State
In line with the general trend for total asset values (see Figure 3.1), total liabilities have also
increased. In the EU-15, the average value of total liabilities increased by 49 % in 2004-11,
while in the EU-N10 it rose by 63 % during this period.
In the EU-27, average liabilities per agricultural holding rose to EUR 46 816 in 2011, up from
EUR 44 994 in the previous year. As illustrated in Figure 3.4, both the total amount and
composition of liabilities show wide variations across Member States. In absolute terms, the
Danish and Dutch farms had, on average, the highest total liabilities within the EU. In
contrast, total liabilities per farm remained very low in many Mediterranean Member States,
which may reflect difficulties farmers have in accessing credit markets in these countries.
However, these very low observed levels could also have resulted from different accounting
practices, where liabilities are typically included in farmers’ private rather than farm accounts.
In relative terms, agricultural holdings relied mostly on medium- and long-term loans, which
represented more than 90 % of total liabilities in Cyprus, Belgium, Slovenia, Italy, Denmark,
and Finland. Short-term loans to finance agricultural activities were prominent in Hungary,
Romania, Slovakia, Portugal and Lithuania (with short-term loans on average accounting for
around half of total liabilities).
32
Figure 3.4: Composition of liabilities per farm by Member State in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Results by type of farming
As shown in Figure 3.5, farms specialised in granivores, specialised dairy and horticulture
had, on average, the highest total liabilities (EUR 209 500, EUR 100 400 and EUR 95 800,
respectively), which in fact mirrored the high total asset values observed in these farm types.
Permanent crop holdings recorded the lowest liabilities in 2011 (EUR 6 800).
Medium- and long-term loans were the dominant kind of liability for all farm types. Shortterm loans only played a significant role in wine holdings, where they accounted for around
46 % of total liabilities.
Figure 3.5: Composition of liabilities per farm in the EU-27, by type of farming in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
33
3.1.3. Development of farm net worth
Results by Member State
Farm net worth is defined as the difference between total assets and total liabilities at the end
of the accounting year. In 2011, the average farm net worth stood at approximately
EUR 265 000 in the EU-27 (+4 % compared to 2010). The average net worth per agricultural
holding was highest in the Netherlands, the UK and Denmark (Figure 3.6), reflecting the
importance of the granivore and milk sectors, which are characterised by above-average net
worth values per farm (Figure 3.7). Romanian and Bulgarian farms had the lowest values.
Figure 3.6: Farm net worth by EU group and Member State in 2010 and 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Figure 3.7: Farm net worth in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
34
Farm net worth for mixed farms (crops and livestock) was lowest, and remained significantly
below the EU-27 average, reflecting these farms’ lowest asset value in comparison with other
sectors.
3.1.4. Solvency
In this analysis, solvency is measured using the liabilities-to-assets ratio, which indicates the
percentage of an agricultural holding’s assets that is financed through debt. This gives an
indication of a farm’s ability to meet its obligations in the long term (or its capacity to repay
liabilities if all of the assets were sold). The results should be interpreted with caution as a
high liabilities-to-assets ratio is not necessarily a sign of a financially vulnerable position. In
fact, a high ratio could also be an indication of a farm’s economic viability (i.e. its ability to
access outside financing), though there is certainly a threshold beyond which indebtedness
will compromise a farm’s financial health.
A high liabilities-to-assets ratio typically reflects heavy recourse to outside financing (i.e.
taking out loans). While the higher leverage (the amount of debt used to finance assets) helps
a farm to invest and typically increase its profitability, it comes at a greater risk as leveraging
magnifies both gains (when investment generates the expected return) and losses (when
investment moves against the investor19).
As is the case for other financial indicators used, the liabilities-to-assets ratio varies
significantly across Member States and in some cases even within Member States, as shown
on Map 3.1. Farms in Denmark, France and the Netherlands had the highest liabilities-toassets ratio (at 59 %, 39 % and 37 %, respectively). The lowest average solvency levels were
observed in many Mediterranean Member States, as well as in Ireland, Romania and Slovenia
(below 3 %).
As has already been stated, these very low levels of indebtedness, and by extension of
solvency, could stem from the fact that in these Member States liabilities are typically not
included in the farm accounts but in farmers’ private accounts. However, in the case of
Ireland, low solvency levels mainly reflect relatively high asset values. As shown in Figure
3.8, the level of solvency also varies markedly across farm types, with farms specialised in
granivores, horticulture, and dairy production having the highest liabilities-to-assets ratios.
19
For example, due to unfavourable weather conditions or outbreaks of animal diseases.
35
Map 3.1: Average liabilities-to-assets ratio per farm by FADN region in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Figure 3.8: Farm solvency in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
36
3.1.5. Current and fixed assets
Results by Member State
Fixed assets20 account for the largest proportion of total assets in all Member States (see
Figure 3.9). In particular, total farm assets in Greece, Ireland, Malta and Slovenia consist
almost exclusively of fixed assets (more than 90 %). The proportion of fixed assets was lowest
in Slovakia (48 %).
Figure 3.9: Composition of assets by Member State in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Figure 3.10: Composition of fixed assets by Member State in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
20
Fixed assets include agricultural land, farm and other buildings, forest capital, machinery and equipment and
breeding livestock.
37
The composition of fixed assets across Member States depends on the structure of the
agricultural sector. As shown in Figure 3.10, ‘land, permanent crops and quotas’ was the
largest component in most Member States in 2011. In particular, this category made up more
than 80 % of fixed assets in Ireland, Cyprus, the United Kingdom and Spain. On the other
hand, ‘buildings’ were of major importance in Austria, Romania, Slovakia, and the Czech
Republic (ranging from 45 % to 51 %). ‘Machinery’ accounted for the largest proportion of
fixed assets in Lithuania (more than 50 %). Finally, ‘breeding livestock’ was the smallest
component of fixed assets in all Member States (ranging from 15 % in France to 1.5 % in
Italy).
However, it should be stressed at this point that accounting practices vary markedly across
Member States. For instance, quotas are not marketable in some countries (e.g. France), so
they are not recorded as a farm’s separate asset, although their value is partly included in the
land value. Consequently, the value of the ‘land, permanent crops and quotas’ component is
underestimated compared to countries with marketable quotas (e.g. the Netherlands). There
are also differences in how land-related data is recorded. For example, in France, farmers in
some cases set up holdings that rent land to their members, and in this case the value of the
land is not included in these holdings’ total assets. This accounting practice thus increases the
relative proportion of other assets.
Results by type of farming
As shown in Figure 3.11, fixed assets accounted for 80 % of total assets in 2011. This
proportion varied slightly between types of farming, ranging from 83 % in specialised dairy
farms to 66 % in wine holdings.
Figure 3.11: Composition of assets by type of farming in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
38
For the composition of fixed assets, Figure 3.12 shows that ‘land, permanent crops and
quotas’ was the largest component in all farm types, though the proportion varied from more
than 81 % in farms growing other permanent crops to about 50 % in granivore farms. On the
other hand, granivore farms had the largest proportion of ‘buildings’ (33 %) and farms
growing other permanent crops had the lowest (10 %). Mixed holdings recorded the largest
proportion of ‘machinery’ in fixed assets (about 16 %), while the proportion of ‘machinery’ in
fixed assets for farms growing other permanent crops was around 9 %, at the other end of the
spectrum. Finally, ‘breeding livestock’ accounted for the highest proportion of total assets in
grazing livestock and dairy farms (broadly 9 %).
Figure 3.12: Composition of fixed assets by type of farming in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
3.2.
Labour
This section analyses the structure of the labour force employed by EU farms, focusing on the
average size of the labour force employed per farm, its composition, and wages paid. The
results show that the proportion of non-family labour in the total workforce is gradually
increasing in the EU-15, reflecting structural changes and increasing farm sizes. A similar
development can be observed in the EU-N10. In addition, there is significantly higher
variability across EU-N10 Member States, due to the predominance of very large farms often
organised as legal entities in many eastern European countries. There are Member States
where the proportion of family labour is higher than the EU-27 average in both the EU-15 and
the EU-N10. In terms of the proportion of unpaid working hours, Ireland and Austria take the
lead (94 %), while in Denmark and in the Netherlands this proportion is around 50 %, showing
balanced labour distribution between family and non-family labour hours. The highest
proportion of unpaid working hours (89 %) can be observed in Romania. Slovakia (6 %) and
the Czech Republic (22 %) are at the other end of the scale, due to the predominance of very
large farms, which are often organised as legal entities.
39
3.2.1. Labour force
Results by Member State
The labour input of holdings stood at 1.6 AWU in 2011, virtually unchanged from the
previous year. As shown in Figure 3.13, it varied considerably across countries, ranging from
14.3 AWU in Slovakia to 1.1 AWU in Ireland. Czech farms had significantly higher labour
input compared to the remaining Member States (6.5 AWU), reflecting the predominance of
very large non-family agricultural holdings.
Figure 3.13: Labour input per farm (in AWU) by Member State in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Results by type of farming
Figure 3.14 shows that labour input by type of farming was fairly close to the average
1.6 AWU per farm in all sectors apart from horticulture (with nearly twice as much labour
input) and for granivore farms, where the AWU per farm was 25 % higher than the average.
Figure 3.14: Labour input per farm (in AWU) by type of farming in the EU-27 in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
40
Results by Member State
Traditionally, a significant part of the labour force employed in agriculture is family labour.
Family labour as a proportion of total labour represents the prevalent form of labour in most
Member States with the exception of Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia and
Bulgaria. As Figure 3.15 shows, the proportion of paid labour in the total labour force in these
five countries was higher than 50 % — sometimes significantly so.
Figure 3.15: Proportion of working hours of paid and unpaid labour by Member State
in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Results by type of farming
As shown by Figure 3.16, the proportion of paid labour is highest in horticulture holdings,
reflecting the typical recourse to seasonal workers. The proportion of paid labour is typically
lowest in grazing livestock, mixed (crops and livestock) and dairy farms.
Figure 3.16: Proportion of working hours of paid and unpaid labour in the EU-27 by
type of farming in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
41
3.2.2. Remuneration of farm workers
Results by EU group
As shown in Figure 3.17, the nominal hourly wage followed an upward trend in the EU-15
and in the EU-N10. In the EU-15, the average nominal hourly wage rose by 19 % between
2004 and 2011, from EUR 8.26 to EUR 9.85. In the EU-N10, it stood at EUR 3.91 in 2011,
up from EUR 2.09 in 2004 (an increase of some 87 %). The average EU-2 nominal hourly
wage came to around EUR 1.82 over the 2007-11 period. Finally, the average EU-27 nominal
hourly wage stood at EUR 6.99 in 2011, compared to EUR 6.70 in 2010 and EUR 6.26 in
2009; this was an increase of about 11.7 % over this period. The average nominal hourly wage
in the EU-15 was approximately 2.5 times higher than in the EU-N10 and five times higher
than in the EU-2. Note that changes in the nominal wage more than compensated for price
increases over this period, so that the real hourly wage rose by around 7.3 % between 2009
and 2011 (EU-27 HICP21 inflation stood at around 4.3.% during this time).
Figure 3.17: Long-term developments in average nominal wages
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Results by Member State
As Figure 3.18 shows, the average hourly nominal wage differs widely within the EU-27. In
2011, it was highest in Denmark (EUR 23.42) and lowest in Romania (EUR 1.89). Note that
wages in the EU-N10 and the EU-2, as well as in Greece and Portugal, were below the EU-27
average (EUR 6.99). Map 3.2 shows that the level of wages was highest in the north-west of
Europe: Denmark (EUR 23.42), Sweden (EUR 18-19.76), the French Champagne-Ardenne
region (EUR 16.60) and the Netherlands (EUR 15.45). At the other end of the scale were
Romania (EUR 1.89), Bulgaria (EUR 1.71), and the eastern regions of Poland (EUR 2.2).
21
The Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) is an economic indicator constructed to measure the
changes over time in the prices of consumer goods and services acquired by households. It provides the
official measure of consumer price inflation in the euro-zone for the purposes of monetary policy in the euro
area and assessing inflation convergence as required under the Maastricht criteria.
42
Figure 3.18: Average nominal wages of paid labour in 2011
(EUR/hour)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
Map 3.2: Average nominal wage by FADN region in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN
43
3.3.
Land
For most farm types, access to agricultural land is a precondition for economic activity. This
subsection analyses the amount of agricultural land available per farm, trends in the
ownership of land, and the cost of renting land.
3.3.1. Farm size
While it has already become clear throughout this report that the structure of farms varies
significantly across Member States, one of the most telling indicators of these differences is
the physical size of farms, measured by the amount of agricultural land per farm. Based on
2011 data, an average farm in Slovakia was more than 180 times larger than its counterpart in
Malta (546 ha vs 3 ha — see Figure 3.19). The average EU farm size was 32 ha in 2011, little
changed from the previous year. The average farm size was mostly below the EU-27 average
in the Mediterranean countries, and in some of the Eastern European countries such as
Poland, Romania and Slovenia.
Figure 3.19: Total farm UAA22 by Member State in 2011
(average per farm in ha)
Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN
The average utilised agricultural land area was largest in field-crop farms, followed by
grazing livestock farms. At the other end of the spectrum, horticultural farms were the
smallest. The average field crop farm (52 ha) was nearly nine times as large as the average
horticultural farm (6 ha) in 2011. However, it is important to stress that horticultural farms
generate a higher level of revenue per unit of land.
22
UAA is the abbreviation of utilised agricultural area, which describes the area used for farming.
44
Figure 3.20: Total UAA of farms by type of farming in 2011
(average per farm in ha)
Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN.
3.3.2. Importance of rented land
Structural change is ongoing in the agricultural sector, as reflected by the steadily decreasing
number of farms. Consequently, the remaining active farms tend to get larger as they buy or
rent the land previously used by farms which have ceased farming.
Figure 3.21: Long-term developments in the proportion of rented land in 2011
(average per farm in %)
Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN.
As shown in Figure 3.21, the proportion of rented land in the EU-15 showed an upward trend,
rising from about 51.4 % in 2004 to 54 % in 2011. This indicates that more than half of the
land available on the EU-15 market is rented rather than sold. The proportion of rented land in
the EU-N10 remained broadly stable over 2004-11, at slightly below 50 %.
45
Note that these averages for different EU groups mask considerable national and regional
disparities, as shown on Map 3.3. Rented land as a proportion of total UAA is very high in
Slovakia (95 %23), the Czech Republic, France, Bulgaria, Cantabria, and in the eastern and
central regions of Germany. Conversely, it is below 30 % in many southern European regions
as well as in Ireland, Wales, Denmark, north-eastern Poland and Austria.
Map 3.3: Proportion of rented land in total UAA, by FADN region in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN.
3.3.3. Level of land rents
As land prices are often influenced by factors originating outside the agricultural sector, the
annual rent farmers have to pay for one hectare of land is typically considered as the best
proxy for the cost of land. Map 3.4 shows that the level of land rents differs markedly across
EU regions. In 2011, the highest average land rent per ha was observed in the Canarias and
the Netherlands (approximately EUR 1 246 and EUR 707, respectively). Land rents were also
very high in the Hamburg region (Germany) and in Denmark, where they were well above
EUR 500 per ha. On the other hand, rents were particularly low in Latvia and Estonia (below
EUR 30 per ha) and in many regions with unfavourable conditions for intensive agricultural
production, such as dry and mountainous areas.
23
This very high proportion of rented land in total UAA reflects the business structure of Slovak agricultural
holdings (i.e. cooperatives renting land from their members).
46
In so far as the rental value of land reflects land scarcity, its level can be used as an indicator
of the risk of land abandonment. For instance, if land rents are high, it can be assumed that
farming is profitable and that there are enough farmers willing to use the land. On the other
hand, if rents are low, this indicates that there is little potential for making economically
profitable use of the land. Hence, adverse changes in the economic environment are highly
likely to result in land abandonment.
Map 3.4: Average land rent levels in the FADN regions in 2011
Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN.
Results by farm type
The level of land rent depends on several factors, such as the scarcity of land, the degree of
competition between farmers in the local land market and the strength of demand for land in
different sectors. In areas where horticulture or wine production is of importance, suitable
land is scarce and land rents are much higher than, for example, in areas with extensive
grassland. Similarly, in areas with intensive livestock production, land prices tend to be higher
because additional land is often a precondition for expanding this production. This is mirrored
in the average level of land rents per farm type shown in Figure 3.22.
47
Figure 3.22: Average land rent by farm type in 2011
(in EUR per ha)
Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN
Developments in land rent levels by EU group
As shown in Figure 3.23, the level of land rents in the EU-15 increased very gradually over
2004-11, from around EUR 174 per ha to EUR 185 per ha. However, this trend was more
pronounced in the EU-N10, despite a small decrease in 2009: average land rent per hectare
increased by more than 90 % during this period, from around EUR 32 to EUR 61. In the EU-2,
land rents fell to nearly EUR 62 in 2009 before increasing to EUR104 in 2011 (+ 67 %). It is
interesting to observe that the level of land rents has been, on average, higher in the EU-2
than in the EU-N10 (over the period for which data are available). All in all, average land
rents have gradually increased in the EU since 2007 and stood at around EUR 155 per hectare
in 2011 (+7.5 %). Finally, note that the land rent figures discussed in this subsection are
averages and do not therefore necessarily reflect prices in new rental contracts (which may be
well above the average level observed in the FADN).
Figure 3.23: Long-term developments in land rent levels
(in EUR per ha)
Source: DG AGRI EU- FADN.
48
FIGURE INDEX
Figure1.1:
Farm net value added by Member State in 2011 ................................................ 7
Figure 1.2:
FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family labour per FWU by Member
State in 2011 ....................................................................................................... 7
Figure 1.3:
Long-term developments in FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family
labour per FWU .................................................................................................. 8
Figure 1.4:
FNVA per farm in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011 ............................... 11
Figure 1.5:
FNVA per AWU by type of farming in 2011 ................................................... 11
Figure 1.6:
FNVA by EU group and organisational form in 2011 ..................................... 12
Figure 1.7:
FNVA per AWU and remuneration of family labour per FWU by EU group
and organisational form .................................................................................... 13
Figure 1.8:
Distribution of FNVA per AWU by EU group in 2011 ................................... 14
Figure 1.9:
Distribution of FNVA per AWU by year ......................................................... 15
Figure 1.10:
Distribution of FNVA per AWU by type of farming in the EU-15 in 2011 .... 16
Figure 1.11:
Distribution of FNVA per AWU of dairy farms in the EU-15 by year ............ 17
Figure 1.12:
Distribution of FNVA per AWU of field crop farms in the EU-15 by year .... 17
Figure 1.13:
Distribution of FNVA per AWU of granivore farms in the EU-15 by year ..... 18
Figure 1.14:
Lorenz curve of the distribution of FNVA in the EU-27 in 2011 .................... 19
Figure 1.15:
Income components per farm by EU group in 2011 ........................................ 21
Figure 1.16:
Income components per farm by type of farming in 2011 ............................... 22
Figure 1.17:
Rate of return on assets by Member State in 2010 and 2011 ........................... 23
Figure 1.18:
ROA in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011 ............................................... 24
Figure 1.19:
Development of the ROA by EU group ........................................................... 25
Figure 2.1:
Proportion of direct payments in total receipts by Member State in 2011 ....... 26
Figure 2.2:
Proportion of direct payments in total receipts by type of farming in 2011 ..... 27
Figure 2.3:
Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by Member State in 2011 ................. 28
Figure 2.4:
Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by farm type in the EU-27, 2011 ..... 29
Figure 3.1:
Long-term developments in the value of total assets (TA) and total liabilities
(TL) 30
49
Figure 3.2:
Average total asset value per farm by Member State in 2011 .......................... 31
Figure 3.3:
Average total asset value by type of farming in the EU-27 in 2011................. 32
Figure 3.4:
Composition of liabilities per farm by Member State in 2011 ......................... 33
Figure 3.5:
Composition of liabilities per farm in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011 . 33
Figure 3.6:
Farm net worth per farm by EU group and Member State in 2010 and 2011 .. 34
Figure 3.7:
Farm net worth per farm in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011 ................. 34
Figure 3.8:
Farm solvency in the EU-27 by type of farming in 2011 ................................. 36
Figure 3.9:
Composition of assets by Member State in 2011 ............................................. 37
Figure 3.10:
Composition of fixed assets by Member State in 2011 .................................... 37
Figure 3.11:
Composition of assets by type of farming in 2011 ........................................... 38
Figure 3.12:
Composition of fixed assets by type of farming in 2011 .................................. 39
Figure 3.13:
Labour input per farm (in AWU) by Member State in 2011 ............................ 40
Figure 3.14:
Labour input per farm (in AWU) by type of farming in the EU-27 in 2011 .... 40
Figure 3.15:
Proportion of working hours of paid and unpaid labour by Member State in
2011 .................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 3.16:
Proportion of working hours of paid and unpaid labour in the EU-27 by type of
farming in 2011 ................................................................................................ 41
Figure 3.17:
Long-term developments in average nominal wages ....................................... 42
Figure 3.18:
Average nominal wages of paid labour in 2011 ............................................... 43
Figure 3.19:
Total farm UAA by Member State in 2011 ...................................................... 44
Figure 3.20:
Total UAA of farms by TF in 2011 .................................................................. 45
Figure 3.21:
Long-term developments in the proportion of rented land in 2011 .................. 45
Figure 3.22:
Average land rent by farm type in 2011 ........................................................... 48
Figure 3.23:
Long-term developments in land rent levels ............................................ 48
TABLE INDEX
Table 1.1:
Development of the Gini coefficient of FNVA per AWU by EU group ............ 20
50
MAP INDEX
Map 1.1:
FNVA per AWU by FADN region in 2011 ............................................................ 9
Map 1.2:
Remuneration of family labour per FWU by FADN region in 2011 .................... 10
Map 2.1:
Proportion of direct payments in FNVA by FADN region in 2011 ...................... 28
Map 3.1:
Average liabilities-to-assets ratio per farm by FADN region in 2011 .................. 35
Map 3.2:
Average nominal wage by FADN region in 2011 ................................................. 42
Map 3.3:
Proportion of rented land in the total UAA by FADN region in 2011 .................. 45
Map 3.4:
Average land rent in the FADN regions in 2011................................................... 46
ANNEX INDEX
Annex 1:
Methodology ......................................................................................................... 51
Annex 2:
Income calculation ................................................................................................ 54
Annex 3:
Threshold by Member State in 2011 (SO: Standard Output) ................................ 55
Annex 4:
FNVA and remuneration of family labour per AWU by Member State and
organisational form in 2011 .................................................................................. 56
Annex 5:
Number of holdings by type of farming in 2011 ................................................... 57
Annex 6:
Breakdown of revenue and costs of EU farms in 2011 ......................................... 58
Annex 7:
Balance sheet components in FADN..................................................................... 59
Annex 8:
Indicators by Member State in 2011 ..................................................................... 60
51
Annex 1: Methodology
Revenue items recorded in the FADN accounts
Output: includes crops and livestock production as well as other output if it is directly linked
to the farm’s activity, e.g. farm tourism, forestry, renewable energy, etc. It does not include
the household’s non-farm income.
Pillar I and Pillar II-type payments: in the context of this analysis, Pillar I and Pillar II-type
payments refer not only to the part financed by the EU but also to subsidies financed by
Member States, including national aid. The FADN does not allow for a clear distinction
between EU and national payments over such a long time period.
Investment subsidies: investment subsidies could be regarded as part of the Pillar II
payments. However, they are shown separately because they are treated differently in the
calculation of the income estimates. As in the case of the Pillar I and Pillar II-type payments,
they include national payments.
Costs items recorded in the FADN accounts
Intermediate consumption: total specific costs and overheads arising from production in the
accounting year. Intermediate consumption for example includes the costs of feed, fertilisers,
crop protection and energy.
Depreciation: depreciation of capital assets estimated at replacement value.
(Net) Farm taxes: farm taxes, except VAT, and other taxes on land and buildings. Subsidies
on taxes are deducted. Personal income taxes are not taken into account.
(Net) Taxes on investment: taxes not arising from current productive activity in the
accounting year, net of subsidies.
Wages: wages and social security charges. Amounts received by workers considered as
unpaid workers (wages lower than a normal wage) are excluded.
Rents: rent paid for farm land and buildings and rental charges.
Estimation of the imputed unpaid family factors costs
Family labour cost: this cost is estimated on the basis of wages which the owner of the farm
would have to pay if s/he were to hire employees to do the work carried out by family
members.
It is estimated as the average regional wage per hour based on the FADN data24 multiplied by
the number of hours worked by family workers on the farm.
24
If there are not enough farms (fewer than 20) with paid labour at regional level, the national average is used.
52
It is commonly acknowledged that the number of hours worked by family workers is typically
overestimated. Thus, a ceiling of 3 000 hours per Annual Work Unit is applied (this is the
equivalent of 8.2 hours a day, 365 days a year, and corresponds more or less to the time that
can be spent on a farm by farmers milking cows).25
The use of hours makes it possible to give a manager more remuneration than an employee if
s/he works more hours.
Reliable family labour cost estimates are difficult to obtain as records of hours worked on the
farm might be overestimated and it is not easy to determine what an appropriate remuneration
for family labour is. Farmers may agree to be remunerated at a below-average wage if they
consider farming as a way of life or have other sources of income for their household (e.g.
other gainful activities directly related to the holding, spouse working outside the farm, etc.).
Own capital cost
– Own land cost: this cost is estimated on the basis of the rent that the owner of the farm
would have to pay if he were to rent the land he is using. It is estimated as the owned area
multiplied by the rent paid per hectare on the same farm or, if there is no rented land on the
farm, by the average rent paid per hectare in the same region and for the same type of
farming.26
– Cost of own capital (except land): the cost of own capital (permanent crops, buildings,
machinery and equipment, forest land, livestock and crop stocks) is estimated at its
opportunity cost. That is how much money the farmer could earn if he were to invest the
equivalent of its capital value in ‘safe’ financial assets.
The interest paid on the capital is not known, as this information is optional in the FADN
farm return. Nevertheless, in order to take into account the actual interest rate paid on the
farm, a ‘weighted’ interest rate is calculated as the weighted average of this interest rate for
liabilities and the long-term interest rate obtained from Eurostat. It should be noted that if the
‘weighted’ interest rate is lower than the long-term interest rate (which means that the
calculated rate of interest paid is lower than the long-term interest rate), the long-term interest
rate is used instead of the ‘weighted’ interest rate.
25
A constraint of this estimation method is that if a farmer were to receive a salary he would probably work
less.
26
If there are not enough farms (fewer than 20) in a given region for a given type of farming, the national rent
per hectare for this type of farming is used (based on the TF8 classification).
53
Own capital value (excluding land and land improvement) is estimated as the average value of
the assets (closing plus opening valuation divided by two) multiplied by the real interest
rate.27 The correction is made by subtracting the inflation rate28 from the nominal interest rate.
The value of total circulating capital is not taken into account in the estimation process as data
are not sufficiently reliable in some Member States. The crop stocks value is included,
however.
To calculate unpaid capital costs, the interest paid is deducted from the sum of the own land
cost and the cost of own capital except land to avoid double counting. The total capital cost
has to be at least equal to the interest paid:
Imputed unpaid capital costs = Max (interest paid; own land cost + estimated cost for own
capital except land - interest paid)
27
Any increase in the value of assets is excluded from income calculations. For example, land appreciates in
value over time, which is one of the reasons why investors invest in land. This gain is not included in the
income; therefore it would not be consistent to include it in the cost of capital. In addition, in the FADN
assets are valued at replacement value. Depreciation is based on this replacement value and therefore
already takes the increase in prices (inflation) into account. Consequently, it would be double counting to
include the inflation part of interest in the cost of capital.
28
The inflation rate is based on the Eurostat annual average rate of change in the Harmonised Indices of
Consumer Prices (HICPs), available from 1997. Inflation rates based on a GDP deflator and on a deflator of
gross fixed capital consumption have been tested, but were found to lead to very high negative costs for
capital, mainly in the EU-N10. An inflation rate calculated on the basis of price indices for gross fixed
capital consumption has been tested, as it seemed to be more closely related to assets. However, this rate has
been fluctuating widely over the years for certain Member States. In addition, land is one of the most
important assets which does not depreciate. It follows that the inflation rate of gross fixed capital
consumption may not have a closer relationship with the change in the price of agricultural assets than with
the consumer price indices.
54
Annex 2: Income calculation
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
55
Annex 3: Threshold by Member State in 2011 (SO29: Standard output)
Member State
Threshold (in 1000 EUR)
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
Estonia
France
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
Slovakia
Slovenia
Romania
United Kingdom
25
2
4
8
15
25
4
4
4
25
4
8
4
4
25
4
4
25
8
4
4
8
15
15
4
2
15
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
29
The Standard Output (SO) is the average monetary value of the agricultural output at farm-gate price of each
agricultural product (crop or livestock) in a given region. The SO is calculated by Member State per hectare
or per head of livestock, by using basic data for a reference period of five successive years. The SO of the
holding is calculated as the sum of the SO of each agricultural product present in the holding multiplied by
the relevant number of hectares or heads of livestock of the holding. The SO coefficients are expressed in
euros and the economic size of the holding is measured as the total standard output of the holding expressed
in euros.
56
Annex 4: FNVA and remuneration of family labour per AWU by Member State and organisational form in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN
Note. Where no information is displayed in a column, this is for confidentiality reasons (i.e. there were fewer than 15 holdings in the given category of the 2011 sample).
57
Annex 5: Number of holdings by type of farming in 2011
Type of farming
Field crops
Horticulture
Wine
Other permanent crops
Milk
Grazing livestock
Granivores
Mixed (crops and livestock)
Total groups
Farms represented
Sum
1 123 014
178 536
265 484
665 884
558 987
822 580
160 960
1 076 857
4 852 303
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN
58
Sample farms
Sum
23 315
5 144
4 485
6 329
13 716
11 140
5 631
11 991
81 751
Annex 6: Breakdown of revenue and costs of EU farms in 2011
(average per farm in EUR)
Source: DG AGRvI EU-FADN.
Note: Receipts (Rec), Expenses (Exp).
59
Annex 7: Balance sheet components in the FADN
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN
60
Annex 8: Indicators by Member State in 2011
Member
State
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
DE
EL
ES
EE
FR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
FI
SE
SK
SI
UK
EU27
EU15
EU-N10
EU2
FNVA
FNVA per
AWU
EUR
80 304
16 197
15 460
125 249
143 519
73 900
14 722
28 646
33 577
75 602
29 978
28 849
28 503
15 203
70 400
14 841
8 345
128 959
33 488
12 716
14 625
6 745
33 755
48 757
160 900
7 491
92 829
28 347
41 293
16 929
7 687
EUR/AWU
37 957
6 812
10 335
19 354
85 571
35 353
12 466
20 499
16 691
37 603
19 411
25 668
22 150
8 697
39 930
7 451
6 009
45 961
23 263
7 414
9 170
4 980
26 199
34 785
11 257
5 056
44 681
18 131
27 207
9 321
5 278
Income
remaining
per FWU
(*)
EUR/FWU
25 714
3 132
9 538
17 011
49 887
22 523
4 365
16 124
15 355
32 225
17 552
4 790
18 743
9 736
35 533
7 781
5 072
29 677
20 598
5 597
5 640
3 464
16 365
12 079
18 833
2 059
43 896
12 570
19 443
6 639
3 431
Return
on
assets
%
3.6 %
5.4 %
1.8 %
4.4 %
2.0 %
2.2 %
3.9 %
2.1 %
6.7 %
5.4 %
10.8 %
0.3 %
0.4 %
7.7 %
2.0 %
4.9 %
-3.6 %
1.0 %
2.5 %
1.8 %
1.7 %
0.0 %
-1.1 %
-2.1 %
1.4 %
-0.7 %
2.3 %
1.9 %
1.8 %
3.0 %
1.2 %
Proportion
DIRECT
PAYMENTS
in revenue
%
8.3 %
12.4 %
8.3 %
14.8 %
7.5 %
11.5 %
19.8 %
15.5 %
13.6 %
12.7 %
15.7 %
19.0 %
9.5 %
14.4 %
13.7 %
15.4 %
5.7 %
3.8 %
10.2 %
13.7 %
13.7 %
10.3 %
18.9 %
12.6 %
15.5 %
12.5 %
11.8 %
11.9 %
11.6 %
14.3 %
10.8 %
Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN.
(*) After deducting all economic costs except the opportunity costs for family labour.
61
Proportion
DIRECT
PAYMENTS
in FNVA
%
27.0 %
29.4 %
21.6 %
47.8 %
24.4 %
39.3 %
40.0 %
32.0 %
45.7 %
36.8 %
40.6 %
46.7 %
19.1 %
41.5 %
47.4 %
60.2 %
23.6 %
13.8 %
27.3 %
37.5 %
32.2 %
22.1 %
76.2 %
54.3 %
70.0 %
56.1 %
35.7 %
32.3 %
31.6 %
41.3 %
23.7 %
Average
asset
value
Average
liabilities
Net worth
EUR
612 637
94 571
225 280
885 277
2 536 817
777 292
114 307
310 426
210 879
424 390
153 760
778 494
381 821
109 276
1 107 222
118 014
175 568
2 195 514
414 905
149 375
121 871
37 045
408 244
833 581
1 034 518
187 517
1 495 190
311 742
479 790
164 430
42 776
EUR
185 156
18 365
6 517
206 012
1 489 097
148 914
588
7 639
61 344
165 579
28 783
18 347
2 824
14 455
218 688
36 680
7 472
804 927
46 450
8 949
3 890
778
111 877
253 089
162 771
3 320
155 687
46 816
76 986
15 654
2 530
EUR
427 481
76 206
218 763
679 265
1 047 719
628 378
113 720
302 787
149 535
258 811
124 978
760 147
378 997
94 821
888 534
81 334
168 096
1 390 586
368 455
140 427
117 981
36 267
296 367
580 493
871 747
184 198
1 339 503
264 926
402 804
148 777
40 246
Paid
labour
input
%
17.9 %
49.5 %
28.5 %
78.4 %
49.4 %
37.8 %
16.0 %
25.2 %
51.0 %
29.0 %
53.7 %
6.1 %
20.3 %
18.3 %
16.1 %
33.3 %
9.5 %
44.9 %
6.3 %
12.3 %
18.4 %
11.0 %
17.5 %
20.2 %
94.1 %
4.6 %
37.0 %
22.0 %
24.7 %
22.5 %
15.9 %
Unpaid
labour
input
%
82.2 %
50.5 %
71.5 %
21.6 %
50.6 %
62.2 %
84.0 %
74.8 %
49.0 %
71.0 %
46.3 %
93.9 %
79.7 %
81.7 %
83.9 %
66.7 %
90.6 %
55.1 %
93.7 %
87.7 %
81.6 %
89.0 %
82.5 %
79.8 %
5.9 %
95.4 %
63.0 %
78.0 %
75.3 %
77.5 %
84.1 %
Wages /
hour
EUR/hour
10.2
1.7
3.6
6.3
23.4
10.1
3.3
7.3
5.0
13.0
3.6
10.2
8.8
2.6
10.9
3.1
5.1
15.5
7.1
2.7
4.3
1.9
13.8
18.5
5.4
3.3
10.8
7.0
9.8
3.9
1.8
Average
UAA
Proportion
of rented
land
Level of
rents
ha
48.0
33.6
8.4
228.5
96.3
80.4
9.1
37.1
119.6
87.6
47.0
43.3
15.8
46.6
82.4
71.4
2.6
35.2
30.7
18.5
25.0
9.8
54.3
98.5
545.9
11.1
155.3
32.2
41.6
29.8
12.2
%
73.8 %
89.5 %
62.8 %
83.6 %
29.2 %
68.3 %
50.3 %
35.9 %
61.7 %
87.4 %
58.3 %
18.2 %
41.4 %
55.3 %
53.3 %
50.0 %
82.5 %
41.0 %
29.1 %
27.4 %
30.1 %
54.1 %
35.0 %
53.6 %
95.3 %
33.4 %
41.4 %
53.9 %
54.0 %
48.7 %
63.8 %
EUR/ha
268.8
133.3
170.0
63.8
595.6
227.8
216.8
112.3
18.1
162.2
101.5
255.8
176.3
36.5
209.6
18.3
67.5
707.1
223.1
61.9
89.6
84.8
203.2
190.9
41.1
91.0
128.6
155.0
184.6
61.1
103.5