Archive:Agri-environmental indicator - intensification - extensification

Data from November 2012. Most recent data: Further information, Main tables and Database.

This article provides a fact sheet of the European Union (EU) agri-environmental indicator "Intensification/extensification". It consists of an overview of recent data, complemented by all information on definitions, measurement methods and context needed to interpret them correctly. The Intensification/extensification article is part of a set of similar fact sheets providing a complete picture of the state of the agri-environmental indicators in the EU.

The intensity of a farm can be defined as the level of inputs used by the farm per unit of factor of production (in general land). Intensification is defined as the increase in farm intensity,
while the extensification describes the opposite trends.

Main indicator:

Trend in the shares of the agricultural area managed by low, medium and high intensity farm.

Supporting indicator:

Average inputs expenditures per hectare in constant input prices.

Indicators are broken down by EU group, Member States, type of farming and less favoured area (LFA) .

Main statistical findings

Key messages

In the EU-15, a continuous trend towards extensification (decrease of utilised agricultural area (UAA) share managed by highly intensive farms and increase of UAA share managed by low input farms) has been observed since 2004. In the 10 Member States which joined the EU in 2004 (EU-N10), the share of UAA managed by medium and high intensity farms increases whereas the one managed by low intensity farms decreases, which indicates intensification. However, the UAA managed by low intensity farms (as defined in this note) represents around a half of the total EU-N10 UAA.
The trend by Member State can be significantly different from the EU-group average. In the EU-15, extensification is observed to a more or less extent in 12 Member States over the period studied. In the EU-N10, the share of UAA managed by low intensity farms is decreasing in 5 Member States. In the others, no clear trend can be identified over the period studied.
The average inputs expenditures per hectare are very linked to the IRENA type of farming: Cropping fallow land and grazing livestock permanent grass farms have on average lower input levels and pigs and poultry and horticulture farms have higher input levels. The trend (intensification or extensification) is more explained by the EU-group or country than by the IRENA type of farming.
In the EU-15 overall it is difficult to identify any trend towards intensification or extensification by Less Favoured Area (LFA) class over the period studied, even though there seems to be a trend towards extensification over the end of the period. In the EU-N10, intensification can be observed in the three LFA classes. However the speed of intensification seems higher for the non LFA class, medium for LFA not mountain and low for LFA mountain. This might reflect a higher intensification in the most productive regions where you can increase more efficiently productivity than in LFA.
In Bulgaria and Romania, no trend is available yet at the time of drafting the fact-sheet (FADN contains data only from the year of accession).

Assessment

The indicator is studied by:

EU group
Member States
IRENA type of farming (more adapted to study environmental issues than the general typology)
Less Favoured Area (LFA): in order to address the different types of environmental concerns (intensification versus land abandonment) in the different types of zones.

The detailed results are annexed in separate excel file. The fact sheet presents the main results. The series of tables "Synthesis of XX results" provide an overall view of the situation. They show information on the trend towards intensification/extensification over the period studied (columns "Main indicator"). Yet, to properly interpret and qualify the trends for the main indicator, it is necessary to look at the average level of intensity in the country/region. That's why these tables also present information on the average level of intensity (inputs expenditure per hectare in constant input prices 2 000 EUR per ha) in the last available year (column "supporting indicator") .
It should be noted that given the availability of data at the time of preparing this fact-sheet, the period studied differs according to the EU group: for the EU-15 1995-2007, for the EU-N10 2004-2007, for Bulgaria and Romania only 2007 was available at the time of carrying out the analysis. Therefore it was not possible to assess a trend at this stage.

Analysis at EU group level
Overall for the EU-15 the shares of UAA managed by low, medium and high intensity farms do not change radically during the period studied. The share oscillates between 31 % and 36 % (Figure 1). Since 2000 the share of UAA managed by high intensity farms has decreased, very slightly but regularly, from 34 % to 31 %. The share of UAA managed by low intensity farms has fluctuated between 31 % and 34 % during the period 1995-2003. After this date it has increased, also slightly but regularly, from 31 % in 2003 to 36 % in 2007. Therefore in the EU-15 the trend towards extensification is very slight but continuous since 2004.
The trend is different for the EU-N10: the share of UAA managed by medium and high intensity farms are progressing (+3 percentage points and +5 respectively), whereas the one managed by low intensity farms is decreasing (-8 percentage points between 2004 and 2007). It indicates intensification. However, the UAA managed by low intensity farms (as defined in this note) represents around a half of the total EU-N10 UAA.

As mentioned above, the trend should actually be put in perspective with a measure of the absolute level of "intensity". In this note, it is estimated with the inputs expenditures per hectare in constant input prices. Table 1 sums up the results for the EU groups. This table reads as follows: in EU-15, where the share of UAA managed by low intensity farms increased between 1995 and 2007 while the share of UAA managed by high intensity farms decreased, there is a trend towards extensification; yet the average level of input expenditure per ha in constant input prices – that is, the level of "intensity" - remains high in 2007.

Analysis at Member State level
The trend by Member State can be significantly different from the EU group average. In the EU-15, extensification (decrease of UAA share managed by highly intensive farms and increase of UAA share managed by low input farms) is observed in 12 Member States over the period 1995-2007 (see tables and graphs in the annexed excel file). It is particularly clear and constant over the period in Greece, Austria and Finland (increase by 24 percentage points of the UAA share managed with low intensity farms). In Austria extensification occurred in the late 90s and the situation remained fairly stable afterwards. Similarly in the Netherlands, we can observe reduction of intensification in the early 2000s and a quite stable situation after. In Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy and Luxembourg, we observe a stable or slight fluctuation until 2003 and a slight extensification process after 2003. Germany and Spain show slight intensification (small increase of UAA share managed by high input farms and decrease of UAA share managed by low or medium inputs per ha). Finally, in the United Kingdom, the data show intensification during 1995-2000 and a reverse process during 2001-2007.
In the EU-N10, we can observe intensification in 5 Member States: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Slovakia. In Cyprus, Malta, Lithuania, Slovenia and Hungary, no clear trend can be identified (stable or slightly fluctuating).
However, to properly interpret the trend in each country, it is necessary to have in mind the starting "intensity" level. In the EU-15, Greece, Ireland, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Spain have on average lower inputs expenditures per hectare than Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark. In the EU-N10, Cyprus and Malta have on average high input levels per ha whereas these are low in the Baltic countries.
Obviously the average level may hide big differences between regions. The Map 1 shows the regional average level of inputs expenditures per hectare and the trend when available and clearly identifiable. It should be noted that since the trend is assessed by comparing averages in given years (respectively 1995 vs 2007 for EU-15 and 2004 vs 2007 for EU-N10) for the Table 2 and three-year averages (1995-1996-1997 vs 2005-2006-2007) for the Map 1, the overall picture may look a bit different.

Analysis by IRENA type of farming
The trends by IRENA type of farming observed in the EU-15 and in the EU-N10 are often very different, with more cases of extensification in the EU-15 and of intensification in the EU-N10 (see tables and graphs in the annexed excel file). However, EU-15 and EU-N10 do not have the same average level of intensity, as explained above, EU-15 having on average higher input levels than the EU-N10. Bulgaria and Romania have even lower average intensity level in 2007.
In the EU-15, a clear extensification can be observed for grazing livestock temporary grass farms from 2003 onwards. Pigs and poultry farms started with a highly intensive level, but we can observe a slight yet continous extensification process since the late 90s. For cropping fallow land farms and cropping mixed crops farms, there are fluctuations with a general trend towards extensification over the period. For horticulture, mixed cropping and livestock, permanent crops, fluctuations are observed with a more extensive management in the end of the period. No clear trend can be identified for cropping specialist crops, grazing livestock forage crops and grazing livestock permanent grass farms.
In the EU-N10, intensification at different degree is observed for cropping fallow land, cropping cereals, cropping specialist crops, grazing livestock forage crops, grazing livestock permanent grass, mixed cropping and livestock and pigs and poultry farms, as well as for permanent crops farms (from 2005). Horticulture is the only type of farming in the EU-N10 showing extensification.

Analysis by Less Favoured Area class
Results are analysed by Less Favoured Area zones in order to address the different types of environmental concerns (intensification versus land abandonment) in the different types of zones.
In the EU-15 on total it is difficult to identify any trend towards intensification or extensification by Less Favoured Area (LFA) class. The shares of UAA managed by low, medium and high intensity farms fluctuate a bit but do not change radically. However, since 2005, there seems to be a trend towards extensification in the three classes.
In the EU-N10, we can observe intensification in the three LFA classes. However the speed of intensification seems higher for the non LFA class, medium for LFA not mountain and low for LFA mountain. This might reflect a higher intensification in the most productive regions where you can increase more efficiently productivity than in LFA.
Finally, similarly as for types of farming, it should be highlighted that LFA classes do not have the same average intensity level. For EU-15 and EU-N10, the intensification level is higher for non LFA, intermediate for LFA not mountain and lower for LFA mountain. For Bulgaria and Romania, results by LFA are not displayed given the low number of sample farms in LFA and the improbable results. In Bulgaria, a lot of grazing livestock farms located in mountain areas use indeed a lot of common land for their grazing livestock. This area is not counted in the UAA. It triggers high levels of input per hectare of UAA but does not correspond to real intensity.

Please note:

The inputs expenditures per hectare in constant national input prices allow approaching the trend in volume of inputs used per hectare, since price fluctuations and inflation are deducted. However, it does not capture differences of inputs' prices between countries and the differences of prices within each category of inputs (for example between a pesticide A and a pesticide B). Therefore it does not give the exact volume of inputs used for a year in a country. Yet, to properly interpret and qualify the trends for the main indicator, it is necessary to look at the average level of intensity in the country/region. Intensification in a country with very low intensity does not mean the same for the environment than intensification in a country with high intensity. That is the purpose of the supporting indicator: average inputs expenditures per hectare in constant input prices. It is not the ideal measurement of intensity; however it is the best estimate that can be obtained until now from the available data.
All inputs are not included: water use could not be included because there is no consistent information on it. Energy use is not included since it is addressed in another specific Agri-environmental indicator and since it would have been more difficult to interpret the results.
It should be noted that common land is not included in the area used for the indicator. The area of common land used (but not rented) by the farm is actually very difficult to estimate. This can have an impact on the results for Spain, Greece, the United Kingdom and Bulgaria in particular. The area used by the farm may be underestimated. It means that the ratio of inputs per hectare may be overestimated. Therefore the share of area managed by medium and high intensity farms may be overestimated in these countries, leading to an underestimation of the share of area managed by low intensity farms.
Each farm is classified according to the level of input expenditure per ha. The thresholds distinguishing high/medium/low intensity farms have been set in such a way that the EU-15 utilised agricultural area is equally divided into the three categories for the first year of the analysis (1995 for the EU-15). These levels do not pretend to represent the borders of what is extensive and intensive farming. They are just set in order to study the trends of shares in area managed by different categories of intensity farms.
These thresholds having been set without taking into account the different price levels between countries, two similar farms in terms of real input use may be classified differently according to the country they are located in: due to a higher price level of inputs in high income countries, the farm in a high income country may be classified as low, while the farm with the same real input use in a low income country may be classified as medium. There are, however, no clear differences in price level between the EU-15 and the 12 Member States which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 (EU-N12).
It should be highlighted that the change of each indicator between the extreme years of the period covered may be misleading because of various trends during the period studied. That is why annual data covering the whole period studied are displayed and looked at.
Last but not least, it should be underlined that the potential environmental damage is not always proportionate to the volume or to the expenditure of inputs: for example, one litre of a certain pesticide might be more damaging for the environment than 5 litres of another one. Therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.

Data sources and availability

Indicator definition

The intensity of a farm can be defined as the level of inputs used by the farm per unit of factor of production (in general land). Intensification is defined as the increase in farm intensity. It is a complex concept involving the monitoring of the trend over time of inputs for which consistent data are not systematically available. That is why the concept had to be simplified for the purpose of this indicator.

In this note, intensity is estimated by dividing input expenditures per hectare by the input price indexes in the year and country in question. Intensification/extensification is measured by the trend in the shares of the agricultural area managed by low, medium and high intensity farms. The inputs taken into account are fertilisers, pesticides and purchased feed. It allows covering both crop and livestock productions. Water use could not be included because there is no consistent information available. Energy use is not included since it is addressed in another specific Agri-environmental indicator and it would have been difficult to interpret the results.

Measurements

Main indicator:

Trend in the shares of the agricultural area managed by low, medium and high intensity farm.

Supporting indicator:

Average inputs expenditures per hectare in constant input prices.

Links with other indicators

The agri-environmental indicator "Intensification/extensification" is linked to the following other indicators:

AEI 05 - Mineral fertiliser consumption	AEI 11.1 - Soil cover	AEI 16 - Risk of pollution by phosphorus
AEI 6 - Consumption of pesticides	AEI 11.2 - Tillage practices	AEI 17 - Pesticide risk
AEI 10.1 - Cropping patterns	AEI 11.3 - Manure storage	AEI 18 - Ammonia emissions
AEI 10.2 - Livestock patterns	AEI 15 - Gross nitrogen balance

Data used and methodology

The main data source for this indicator is the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN). FADN is a European system of sample surveys conducted every year to collect structural and accountancy data on farms, with the aim of evaluating the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy. It covers only farms above a minimum size. In 2006 FADN farms represented 43 % of the farm population in the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), but 93 % of Utilised Agricultural Area and 94 % of Livestock Units. The rules applied aim to provide representative data from three dimensions: region, economic size and type of farming. FADN is the only source of micro-economic data that is harmonised, i.e. applies the same book-keeping principles in every EU country. The complementary source used for this indicator is the database about price indices of the means of agricultural production from Eurostat (agri).
Methodology on input levels per ha:
Farms are classified into intensity categories according to an estimate of inputs' volume per hectare of Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA). The inputs considered are fertilisers, pesticides and other crop protections and purchased feed. It allows covering both crop and livestock productions. Water use could not be included because there is no consistent information on it. Energy use is not included since it is addressed in another specific AEI and since it would have been difficult to interpret the results.
Fertilisers' expenditure (purchased fertilisers and soil improvers) is divided by the fertilisers' price index in the country of the same year in order to estimate the volume used. Similarly, crop protection expenditure (plant protection products, traps and baits, bird scarers, anti-hail shells, frost protection) is divided by the pesticides' price index in the country of the same year. Purchased feed cost is also divided by the feed price index in the country of the same year. The indices used are available from the Eurostat database (Economic Accounts for Agriculture (aact_eaa)). The result is thus expressed in "constant 2000 inputs prices € per ha". The method allows not only deducting inflation, but also the inputs' prices fluctuation. Thus it allows approaching the trend in volume of inputs used per hectare. However, it does not capture differences of inputs' prices between countries and the differences of prices within each category of inputs (for example between a pesticide A and a pesticide B). Therefore it does not give the exact volume of inputs used for a year in a country.
But to properly interpret and qualify the trends for the main indicator, it is necessary to look at the average level of intensity in the country/region. Intensification in a country with very low intensity does not mean the same for the environment than intensification in a country with high intensity. That is the purpose of the supporting indicator, average inputs expenditures per hectare in constant input prices. It is not the ideal measurement of intensity; however it is the best estimate that we can obtain until now from the available data.
It should be underlined that Member States do not all have Euro and that changes in the exchange rate may explain some differences between Member States.
For the denominator, the total Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) has been chosen after testing other options, especially one excluding the permanent pasture and rough grazing, supposed commonly not to receive particularly high volumes of fertilisers or pesticides. However the results for some Member States were too unrealistic to validate this option. It should be noted that, for the period studied, common land is not included in the UAA. The area of common land used by the farm is actually very difficult to estimate. This can have an impact on the results for Spain, Greece, the United Kingdom and Bulgaria in particular. The area used by the farm may be underestimated. It means that the ratio of inputs per hectare may be overestimated and therefore the share of area managed by medium and high intensity farms in these countries. At farm level, when the UAA is null, which can happen in certain very intensive livestock farms with only buildings and no agricultural area, inputs are divided by the other area of the holding (ground occupied by buildings).
Finally it should be underlined that the potential environmental damage is not always proportionate to the volume or expenditures of inputs: for example, one litre of a certain pesticide might be more damaging for the environment than 5 litres of another one. Therefore the results should be interpreted with care.

Classification of farms according to their intensity:
Each farm is classified according to the level of input use per ha. The thresholds have been set in such a way that the EU-15 UAA is equally divided into the three categories for the first year of the analysis (1995 for the EU-15 ). If it is higher than 295 constant Eur per ha, the farm is qualified high. When it is below 125 constant eur per ha, it is classified low. Otherwise, it is medium. These levels do not pretend to represent the borders of what is extensive and intensive farming. They are just set in order to study the trends of shares in UAA managed by different categories of intensity farms. The same thresholds are used for each EU group, country, type of farming and LFA class. It allows comparing the trends between them.

IRENA typology of farms:
For this fact-sheet, we have used the typology of farms developed in the IRENA project since it is more adapted to study environmental issues than the general Community typology . It is based on it and on additional criteria related to fodder, the area of fallow and the type of crops. These additional criteria are used to better discriminate types of farm from an environmental point of view. It is described hereunder.
IRENA Type of farm Community typology Other criteria
GrazingLivestockPermGrass 4 >= 55% of UAA grass and < 40% of grass in temporary grass
GrazingLivestockTempGrass 4 >= 55% of UAA in grass and >= 40% of grass in temporary grass
GrazingLivestockForageCrops 4 Not GrazingLivestockPermGrass or GrazingLivestockForageCrops
PigsPoultry 5
CroppingFallowLand 1+6 < 55% of UAA in grass and >= 12.5% of UAA in fallow)
CroppingCereals 1+6 < 55% of UAA in grass and < 12.5% of UAA in fallow and >= 55% of UAA in cereals)
CroppingSpecialistCrops 1+6 < 55% of UAA in grass and < 12.5% of UAA in fallow and < 55% of UAA in cereals and >= 25% of arable land in Specialised Crops (Sugar beet, oil seed, seeds for sowing, potato, cotton and tobacco)
CroppingMixedCrops 1+6 Not Cropping Cereals, cropping specialist crops or cropping fallow land
Horticulture 2
PermanentCrops 3
MixedCroppingLivestock 7+8

AEI 02 - Agricultural areas under Natura 2000	AEI 11.3 - Manure storage	AEI 22 - Genetic diversity
AEI 03 - Farmers’ training level and use of environmental farm advisory services	AEI 12 - Intensification/Extensification	AEI 23 - High Nature Value farmland
AEI 04 - Area under organic farming	AEI 14 - Risk of land abandonment	AEI 24 - Renewable energy production
AEI 05 - Mineral fertiliser consumption	AEI 15 - Gross nitrogen balance	AEI 25 - Population trends of farmland birds
AEI 6 – Consumption of pesticides	AEI 16 – Risk of pollution by phosphorus	AEI 26 - Soil quality
AEI 09 - Land use change	AEI 17 - Pesticide risk	AEI 27.1 - Water quality - Nitrate pollution
AEI 10.1 - Cropping patterns	AEI 18 - Ammonia emissions	AEI 27.2 - Water quality - Pesticide pollution
AEI 10.2 - Livestock patterns	AEI 19 - Water quality - Pesticide pollution	AEI 28 - Landscape - state and diversity
AEI 11.1 - Soil cover	AEI 20 - Water abstraction
AEI 11.2 - Tillage practices	AEI 21 – Soil erosion

Context

Intensification is an important restructuring process that has characterised European agriculture for several decades (e.g. European Commission, 1999). Intensification is in here understood as an increase in agricultural input use per hectare of land, which usually leads to an increase in the level of production per unit of land, livestock unit and agricultural working unit. Intensification often goes together with an increase in efficiency in the use of inputs during the agricultural production process. If the yield increase grows more than the use of fertilisers, pesticides and water for irrigation then improved crop varieties, better management and technological development have made the utilisation of inputs more efficient. However, intensification may nevertheless result in negative externalities to the environment.
The proposed indicators are used as a “proxy” of agricultural intensification. The total value of inputs (in this analysis the costs of fertilisers, pesticides, and feedstuff) in constant national input prices purchased by the holding as a whole is only a proxy indicator, in absence of data about trends in the volumes of inputs used in specific production activities undertaken by a holding. Furthermore, the overall “intensity” of a farming system is the result of very diverse parameters including a wide range of farm (and field) management practices. Thus, for instance, the “intensity” of a livestock farm is the result of the input use (fertilisers, concentrate feed, etc.), livestock patterns (the type of animal reared), cropping patterns (the composition of the forage system, pastures or maize), stocking density, and management practices (waste, use of manure…). Some of these processes are covered by other indicators.
The process of intensification has been driven by several factors. In the period just after the Second World War an important driver has been the decline of the agricultural labour force that stimulated the introduction of labour saving technologies and continuous technological development (e.g. Clout, 1972; Hoekveld, et al., 1973, Yruela, 1995 and CEAS, 2000). In the last decades, the main driver for intensification has been the need for economic efficiency gains in farming, supported by price support and import restrictions provided by the Common Agricultural Policy. However, recent CAP reforms have led to farm income support that is largely de-coupled from production, which minimises policy incentives for further intensification.

Policy relevance and context

The primary role of agriculture is to supply food. Given that demand worldwide will continue rising in the future, the EU should be able to contribute to world food demand. Therefore it is essential that EU agriculture maintains its production capacity and improves it while respecting EU commitments in international trade and Policy Coherence for Development. EU agriculture finds itself today in a considerably more competitive environment, as the world economy is increasingly integrated and the trading system more liberalized. This trend is expected to continue in the coming years. This represents a challenge for EU farmers, but also offers an opportunity for EU food exporters. Therefore, it is important to continue to enhance the competitiveness and productivity of the EU agriculture sector. Favourable in the medium-term, the perspectives for agricultural markets are expected nonetheless to be characterised by greater uncertainty and increased volatility. On the other hand, agriculture and forestry play a key role in producing public goods, notably environmental such as landscapes, farmland biodiversity, climate stability and greater resilience to natural disasters such as flooding, drought and fire. At the same time, some farming practices have the potential to put pressure on the environment, leading to soil depletion, water shortages and pollution, and loss of wildlife habitats and biodiversity. The challenge ahead is to continue to meet the demand for food while at the same time reduce the pressures on the environment. The policy is currently addressing this challenge through the cross-compliance system for direct payments but also more and more consistently through instruments like the agri- environment measures.

Agri-environmental context

Some of the characteristics of the intensification process are for example an increase in the use of chemical inputs (fertilisers and crop protection), machinery, water and energy. In general these changes have led to a higher pressure on the environment, for example, through increased application of nitrogen and pesticides (see the relevant agri-environmental indicators).
The intensification process often coupled with improved efficiency has been a key response of farmers in the drive for participating in the economic progress of society at large. As other commercial activities, agriculture is aimed principally at production, which relies on the availability of natural resources and, in exploiting these resources, places environmental pressure on them. Intensification has therefore had overall a negative impact on the state of the farmed environment in the European Union in terms of pollution of soil, water and air and damage done to certain eco-systems (Poiret, 1999; Pau Vall, 1999). On the other hand, intensification in most agricultural areas was also accompanied with extensification of agricultural land use or even complete abandonment of land in other areas (Baldock, 1996; MacDonald, 2000). This process is also linked with important environmental impacts which are connected, such as landscape change and lack of grassland management, which are generally undesirable (MacDonald et al., 2000).

Further Eurostat information

Publications

Title of the publication

Main tables

Title of top Main tables folder, see:

Title(s) of second level folder (if any)

Title(s) of third level folder (if any)

Database

Title of top Database folder, see: