COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 as regards conversion of the Farm Accountancy Data Network into a Farm Sustainability Data Network

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 22.6.2022
SWD(2022) 166 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 as regards conversion of the Farm
Accountancy Data Network into a Farm Sustainability Data Network
{COM(2022) 296 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0296 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
1
RESULTS OF THE TARGETED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
The consultation of stakeholders is an essential part of the consultation strategy set up for
the process of conversion from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) into the
Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN)1
. The consultation was targeted on the main
data providers and users of the FADN system. Member States, as main actors of the
network, were strongly associated in the consultation. The consultation took several forms,
among which were the publically available Roadmap2
and the written consultation via the
EU Survey targeted to all identified stakeholders, as well as the FSDN stakeholders’
workshop and the FADN Committee together with its three thematic Working Groups
(WGs). The present report summarizes the answers and feedbacks received.
1. Key outline of the consultation strategy, its objectives and specific activities
The FSDN consultation strategy was established in spring 2021 and it aimed at gathering
contributions to (1) inform about possible simplification paths and possible burden
reduction, (2) explore additional data needed for assessing environmental and social
practices and sustainability aspects at farm level, and (3) enhance the use of existing and
explore new data collection tools. It also aimed at (4) identifying incentives to enhance
farmers’ participation in the data network that would improve their farming practices. In
the Strategy the following three main stakeholders groups were identified: (1) data
providers (farmers), (2) data collectors (public authorities responsible for data collection,
submission and for access to administrative data in EU Member States (e.g. Member State
authorities, FADN Liaison offices, National Statistical Institutes) and (3) data users (e.g.
policy-makers, farm advisors, academia, researchers, evaluators, consultancies).
The following consultation activities took place in the process of preparing a proposal for
the conversion into the FSDN:
In February 2021, an initial workshop was organized in order to take stock of the Member
States, third countries, the Commission as well as other stakeholders (e.g. farmers’
organizations, NGOs) knowledge and experience as regards the above-mentioned
objectives.
In the next step, the FSDN Roadmap was published on 4 June 2021, with a four-week
feedback period, outlining the main objectives of the future FSDN proposal. At the end of
the feedback-period, 33 feedbacks were received.
A targeted written consultation in the form of an on-line questionnaire took place during
summer 2021 using dedicated EU Survey. It was addressed to all three main identified
1
In the Farm to Fork strategy (F2F), the Commission announced its intention to convert the Farm
Accountancy Data Network (FADN) into a Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN), with a view to also
collect farm level data, in line with the new objectives defined in the Green Deal and its F2F and
Biodiversity strategies, on environmental and social farming practices. The action plan specified that the
amended basic act is planned to be adopted by the Commission in the second quarter of 2022.
2
Already initiated with the publication of a roadmap setting out the issues under consideration (which was
available 4 June – 4 July 2021): Conversion to a Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN) (europa.eu).
2
stakeholders groups: (1) data providers, (2) data collectors and (3) data users. The
questionnaire covered aspects related to both the simplification of the current FADN
survey as well as to its conversion into the FSDN, by adding environmental and social
variables at a farm level, as specified in the Strategy objectives. More than 300 replies to
the EU Survey were received.
In September 2021, another workshop was organized, with around 160 participants. The
goal was to discuss the outcome of the previous consultation activities and to exchange on
concrete simplification and modernization proposals. All stakeholder groups were
represented; including farmers, who were represented by the umbrella organization COPA-
COGECA.
In the framework of the consultation activities, two FADN Committee meetings took
place in April and October 2021, where the conversion into the FSDN was discussed with
the FADN Committee members. In addition, the FADN Committee set up three dedicated
Working Groups (WGs). WG1 focused on reinforcing and simplifying FADN to screen
the current FADN variables and propose simplifications and methodological
improvements. WG2 more generally worked on the process of conversion of FADN into
FSDN, whereas WG3 tackled the FADN individual data request tool to deal with existing
issues related to access to individual FADN/FSDN data. An additional, long-standing
working group on the EU farm typology also contributed to this work. All above-
mentioned Working Groups are set up under the umbrella of the FADN Committee and
are composed of voluntary experts from the Member States, DG AGRI members and the
other Commission services such as Eurostat.
Finally, an FSDN Conference was due to take place at the beginning of 2022. However,
this event has been postponed:
1) Because of Covid pandemic restrictions, as well as
2) due to the fact that the scope of the planned Conference (e.g. presentation of the
results of the consultation activities, presentation of the initiative’s scope and
harvest feedback from all stakeholders) was already fully addressed with the FSDN
Stakeholders’ workshop (September 2021) and subsequent Working Groups
meetings (meeting during the period of November 2021 until March 2022).
It was decided that this event would be more valuable in autumn 2022. At that time, the
Commission will have adopted the FSDN initiative proposal (June 2022) and discussions
with the Council and the EP as regards the FSDN proposal will commence as from
September 2022. In addition, partial results from the on-going IPM2-FSDN pilot project3
will be submitted and informal discussions with the Member States will start. With that
timing, the above-mentioned event would suit better to harvest feedback from stakeholders
as regards the secondary legislation ideas.
3
The technical specifications of the pilot project are available here
3
2. Overview of the respondents to the consultation activities
There were 33 feedbacks received on the Roadmap. More than half of the feedback come
from either business organization or academic institutes (27% and 24%, respectively).
Feedback from business associations and NGOs constituted of 15% and 12% respectively,
whereas EU citizens – 12%, Public authorities – 6% and trade union – 3%. As regards the
coverage, the feedback came from 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United
Kingdom (see Chart 1).
Chart 1.
A total of 330 participants have answered the targeted written consultation via EU
Survey. The main contributors of the survey have been advisors (81 participants) and
farmers (64 participants). For a more detailed overview of the respondents to the EU
Survey, see Chart 2.
27%
24%
15%
12%
12%
3%
6%
Feedback received by type of organisation (%)
Company/Business organisation
Academic/Research institution
Business association
NGO (Non-Governmental Organisations)
EU citizen
Trade Union
4
Chart 2.
In the different thematic FADN Working Groups, a total of 20 Member States were
represented. Poland was overall most represented Member State with ten participants
throughout the Working Groups. The Czech Republic and Slovakia were represented with
nine participants each, followed by Germany and Spain with seven participants each.
Belgium, France and Italy were represented with six participants each, and Austria,
Bulgaria, and the Netherlands with three participants each. Finally, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal and Slovenia each had two
representatives or less.
The 160 participants to the workshops were from Member States (e.g. FADN liaison
offices), advisory services and research institutes. There were representatives from third
countries (e.g. the United States and New Zealand), from the different European
Commission services as well as from private companies.
3. Results of the stakeholders’ consultation by specific theme
The consultation process covered various themes, with often more than one stakeholder
group being involved in the process. In the following, the consultation process is
compartmentalized in themes, with each theme relating to objectives of the FSDN
initiative.
1) Theme One: Simplification (linked with reinforcing relevance of FADN)
The consultation process covered possible simplification paths. First, the FADN variables
were reviewed and assessed by the Commission. The following criteria were taken into
account: the present and future usefulness of the variables and possible other means of
collecting then (other than via the FADN farm return). Results of the work were presented
and discussed, at first, with the Member States representatives (at the FADN Committee
and the dedicated Working Group meetings). Secondly, with all stakeholders at the FSDN
81
64
66
19
54
Number of EU Survey respondents by category
Advisors
Farmers
FADN members (data collectors, statistician, data managers, accountants)
Policy makers (EU, national and regional level)
Academia (researchers and evaluators)
5
stakeholder workshop in September 2021. The discussion considered several possibilities
that could lead to reinforcing and simplifying FADN, among which a possibility:
- to stop collecting selected variables in the FADN farm return
- to aggregate selected variables where details are not needed
- to estimate some variables based on others data and/or sources
- to split some aggregated variables where it adds value
- to increase reporting of underreported variables
- to improve quality of reported variables.
The initial Commission review contained proposals and considerations of simplifications
and improvements. Several discussions took place on these proposals. Several Member
States’ representatives and policy makers shared their opinions and suggestions.
First, it was considered that one of a possible simplification path could be enhanced use of
administrative data that already exists or to make use of data from other sources.
Secondly, the simplification process should be addressed where the simplification will take
place: at farmers’ level, in Member States’ administration level or at EU level. A
subsidiarity principle was recalled that for collecting a variable at EU level, EU relevance
is to be assessed.
Moreover, at present for a given variable, a concrete data should be collected. However, in
the future for some representatives mentioned, if data cannot be collected, an estimation
may be consider as acceptable, but with its clear indication.
Finally, the discussion showed that the majority of Member States acknowledge the
importance of the simplification issues discussed and of the initiative as a whole. The
outcomes of these discussions showed that there is a potential to reduce the data collection
burden in certain areas of currently collected data (i.e. to stop collecting certain variables)
as well as areas of possible modifications and/or simplifications can be envisaged (i.e. to
use other means to collect certain variables).
On top of that, the targeted written consultation via EU Survey covered a series of
simplification path suggestions; the results are shown in table 1 below.
6
Table 1. Non-Farmers’ approach to ways suggested for simplifying and reducing
administrative burden
Overall, results from the targeted written consultations show that the non-farmers are rather
positive as regards four proposed simplification paths, but with different rate. Most of
favourable opinions are to ease the farmers obligations in order not to ask farmers twice
(around 90% of opinions of non-farmers). At the same time, the idea to share farm level
individual data with other public bodies for statistical purposes is less popular (around 70%
of opinions of non-farmers).
2) Theme Two: Reduce administrative burden (linked to the interoperability and use
of new technologies)
In line with the simplification paths, the consultation process also identified ways to
reduce administrative burden. Interlinking FSDN with other existing (or possible future
to be established) data management tools, such as the Integrated Administration and
Control Systems, national statistics sources as well as making use of new technologies
(e.g.: possibility of use of the geospatial data generated through the European Space
program) for data collection.
Through the workshops, the Commission learned from several Member States about
examples of the already collected environmental and social variables currently at the
Member State level to avoid duplication of collections. It has been found that there is a
need to use external data sources to limit administrative burden and to ensure data quality.
What’s more, the suggestion to limit the administrative burden has also been linked to
farmers’ willingness to cooperate.
The targeted written consultation via EU Survey has shown that farmer’s opinion on the
suggestion to reduce the administrative burden is strongly positive. Around 84% of
Suggestion/Agreementlevel
Completely
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Completely
disagree
No opinion
Farmers shouldnot be requestedto
provide data that are alreadyavailable in
the administration
68% 23% 5% 3% 1%
The collectedindividual data shouldbe
sharedwithotherpublic bodies for
statistical purposes.
39% 31% 15% 12% 3%
Enhancingthe use of remote data
collectiontools,suchas remote sensing
39% 36% 10% 4% 11%
Interlinkingdifferent existingsources of
information(interlinkingforexample
satellites,administrative anddata provided
byfarmers)
57% 29% 5% 3% 6%
7
respondents support the suggestion that they “[…] should not be requested to provide data
that are already available in the administration”. Farmers’ support for the suggestion that
“the collected individual data should be shared with other public bodies for statistical
purposes” shows that vast majority of farmers (around 58%) agree completely or tending
to agree with that statement. It is notable however, that 36% of respondents tend to disagree
or completely disagree on this point. About 58% of respondents completely agree or tend
to agree to “enhance the use of remote data collection tools, such as remote sensing”; and
67% of respondents agree or tend to agree to “interlink different existing sources of
information (interlinking for example satellite satellites, administrative and data provided
by farmers”. The responses are shown in detail in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Farmers’ approach to ways suggested for simplifying and reducing administrative
burden
When comparing results of opinions provided by farmers vs. non-farmers as regards
possible simplification paths (referring to both tables 1 and 2), the tendency is very similar
in both groups. Whereas, the non-farmers opinions look slightly more positive.
The same question (farmers are not asked to provide data that are already available in the
administration) has been answered by policy makers (at EU level, national or regional).
About 58% of policy makers stated that they completely agree with the suggestion, 26%
tend to agree and 16% tend to disagree. When asked about the relevance of using specific
surveys (i.e. dedicated modules, every 3 years and not annually) on certain topics in the
FSDN, in the light of reducing the number of yearly collected data, 37% of policy makers
responded positively (i.e. it is relevant), 16% of policy makers responded negatively (i.e.
it is not relevant). However, the most striking was that almost half of respondents (47% of
policy makers) gave no opinion. The suggestion to reduce administrative burden by not
collecting variables yearly, but instead e.g. every three years has been discussed with
Member States. Concerns have been raised regarding the feasibility of this simplification
and burden reduction path, as a less frequent data collection might lead to increased costs
and impair administrative knowledge.
Suggestion/Agreement level
Completely
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Completely
disagree
No opinion
Farmers should not be requested to
provide data that are already available in
the administration
67% 17% 6% 5% 5%
The collectedindividual data should be
shared withother public bodies for
statistical purposes.
20% 38% 20% 16% 6%
Enhancingthe use of remote data
collection tools,such as remote sensing
19% 39% 13% 9% 20%
Interlinkingdifferent existingsources of
information (interlinkingfor example
satellites,administrative and data provided
by farmers)
34% 33% 16% 6% 11%
8
3) Theme Three: financial costs and the budget aspects linked to FSDN
The consultation explored possible ways to limit financial costs of the additional data
collections by having a centrally placed FSDN system and its network covering all three
dimensions (economic, social and environmental) that describe the farms context. It further
tackled the question of sharing data and the use of other funds support to generate
synergies.
There have been several studies carried out to assess costs of FADN4
as well as for its
possible extension5
. A study on the costs of extending the FADN to FSDN6
has found that
collecting the sustainability data from all farms included in FADN would increase the cost
by about 40%. The study showed great differences between countries, depending on the
current costs of data collection and the expected additional work to include sustainability
indicators. Certain countries are already collecting some variables foreseen in the FSDN,
whereas others are not, and may thus face higher initial costs. The total expenditure of data
collection is thus not directly comparable between Member States. Ultimately, the
estimated changes in costs show a wide range, from countries such as Ireland (+10%) and
the Netherlands (+11%) to France (+124%) and Malta (+225%).
Through the targeted written consultation via EU survey, farmers were asked whether the
collected individual data should be shared with other public bodies for statistical purposes.
This would allow to interlink databases and to use additional tools to collect data. The
analysis of the answers shows that 20% of respondents completely agree, and 38% tend to
agree. 20% of respondents tend to disagree, 15% completely disagree, and 6% have no
opinion on this.
Finally, the specific Working Group discussed the costs and budget aspects related to the
current FADN as well as possible upcoming conversion into the FSDN. Firstly, it was
highlighted that the EU budget already contributes to the FADN. The Commission covers
the central IT system and provides Member States with the annual standard fee (currently
at the level of up to 180 EUR per farm return). The fee was slightly increasing over last 12
years. However, its was noted that the increase did not fully cover the inflation rate over
this period. Secondly, some Member States provided their cost estimates as regards their
FADN data collection costs. It appeared that on average the EU contribution covered up
to 30% of the Member States’ data collection costs. The discussion showed that in case of
the conversion into the FSDN (e.g. starting collecting new types of data related to
environmental and social farms dimensions), all types of costs (e.g. human resources, IT
adjustments/developments, new data collection methods) would be affected. It was noticed
that for some Member States, it would be actually an opportunity to adjust a long-waited
change of the current FADN system. The exchanges showed that possible increase of the
annual EU standard fee as well as a set-up financial aid for conversion into the FSDN
4
Cost of and good practices for FADN data collection https://op.europa.eu/s/vWnI
5
Flint research project https://www.flint-fp7.eu/
6
Cost of Extending the Farm Accountancy Data Network to the Farm Sustainability Data Network:
Empirical Evidence https://edepot.wur.nl/551988
9
system would be significant help for Member States and ultimately also for farmers. The
latter would benefit from the FSDN via better interlinks, enhanced data collection, ‘collect
data once, reuse multiple times’ principle (e.g. better re-use of administrative data) and use
of new technologies for collecting data.
4) Theme Four: environmental and social sustainability topics
The consultation process identified possible topics to address environmental and social
sustainability in FSDN, while also reassessing and reviewing economic variables.
Generally speaking, it can be said that there is an agreement between the different
stakeholders to add new variables to the FADN so as to assess not only the economic, but
also environmental and social practices. FADN has been identified as an efficient tool to
collect additional data at farm level. However, it has also been mentioned that farm level
data on environmental and social practices should remain realistic with respect to the way
they are accountable and collectable as well as with respect to its number, especially at the
initial stage of the conversion process.
Overall, FADN has been considered as an efficient and apt tool to collect additional
variables at farm level. With regards to the number of new variables to be added, a poll
among the stakeholders taking part in the workshops showed that about 36% of participants
were in favor of adding more than nine variables. However, much more participants
(around 74%) were for slightly modest approach where less new variables are added
(‘adding more than four variables’).
With regards to the willingness of data providers (i.e. farmers) to deliver additional data,
the analysis of the results of the targeted written consultation via EU survey shows that
around 70% of the farmers responding to the survey are willing to provide data on soil
management (such as tillage, winter soil cover, carbon content, crop rotation etc.). About
53% of the respondents are willing to provide data on biodiversity, water management and
renewable energy, and 52% are willing to provide data on animal welfare. A total of 31%
of respondents however are not willing to provide data on circular and bio economy, for
example adding value to bio-waste, by-products and increasing the circularity of resource
flow. Results are detailed in Table 3.
10
Table 3. Farmer’s willingness to provide data for possible environmental sustainability
topics
On the usefulness of collecting additional variables, it was found that 72% of the farmers
who participated in the survey already collect some additional data. When asked about the
kind of additional data they collect, it was found that 63% of the respondents keep record
of quantity data on pesticide use, and 61% keep record of quantity data on fertilizer use.
According to the survey results, 58% of the respondents keep record of the quantity of
pesticides and fertilizers they use at the same time. Additionally, 38% of farmer
respondents keep record of the way or the type of treatment, or on the timing of soil
management practices (see Table 4).
Environmental topic yes no
no
opinion
Soil management (such as tillage, winter
soil cover, carbon content, crop rotation…)
70% 11% 19%
Biodiversity 53% 22% 25%
Water management 53% 20% 27%
Renewable energy 53% 19% 28%
Animal welfare 52% 25% 23%
Climate change mitigation and adaptation 44% 25% 31%
Food loss and waste treatment 41% 30% 30%
Circular and bio economy (e.g. adding
value to bio-waste, by-products and
increase circularity of resource flow)
33% 31% 36%
11
Table 4. Environmental data already recorded by farmers
Data Group
Quantity
Type
of
product/practices
Frequency
Way/type
of
treatment
Timing:
preventive
or
treatment
Other
Pesticide use 63% 56% 45% 48% 45% 9%
Fertilizer Use 61% 50% 41% 34% 28% 9%
Antimicrobial use 33% 19% 16% 17% 16% 34%
Nutrient balance 42% 22% 23% 17% 14% 28%
Soil management practices (tillage, winter soil
cover, carbon content, crop rotation...)
36% 38% 27% 27% 22% 19%
The analysis of the survey results shows that farmers do not keep record of single data.
They appear to be recording at least two product groups’ quantity data: 31% of the
respondents keep record of all three groups of additional data (quantity of pesticide,
fertilizer and antimicrobial use) and 28% of them keep record of the quantity of pesticide
and fertilizer use. Another important intersection between different groups was the
respective quantities of pesticide and fertilizer and the type of treatment of soil
management. Similarly, 30% of the respondents keep track of all three of these
simultaneously.
12
On environmental sustainability variables, the consultation showed that different
stakeholders have different opinions. The lowest approval rate throughout all possible
topics was recorded on the suggestion to add variables on ‘Circular and bio economy’ (only
46% of non-farmers respondents were in favour of adding this topic. The highest approval
rate was received by the suggestion to add variables with respect to ‘soil management’
topic, with 89% respondents in favour (see Table 5, showing the respondents opinions and
needs, per possible environmental topic, all non-farmers stakeholder groups mixed).
Table 5: Non-farmers stakeholders needs to collect data on environmental sustainability
topics
Non-farmers needs by topic yes no
no
opinion
Soil management (such as tillage,
winter soil cover, carbon content,
crop rotation…)
89% 7% 5%
Water management 85% 8% 7%
Renewable energy 78% 8% 13%
Biodiversity 76% 12% 12%
Climate change mitigation and
adaptation
65% 19% 16%
Food loss and waste treatment 49% 25% 26%
Circular and bio economy (e.g.
adding value to bio-waste, by-
products and increase circularity
of resource flow)
46% 17% 37%
13
Policy makers were largely in favour of adding environmental sustainability topics. The
highest approval rate was reached with the suggestion to add variables on ‘Renewable
energy’ (90%), closely followed by ‘Biodiversity’ (89%), ‘Water management’ (89%),
and ‘Soil management’ (89%), which all appear to be equally relevant for the concerned
stakeholder group. Less approval, and thus higher disapproval rates were recorded with
the suggestion to add variables on ‘Circular and bio economy’ and on ‘Food loss and
waste management’ (see Chart 4).
Chart 4.
52%
26%
21%
63%
21%
15%
90%
5%
5%
89%
11%
0%
84%
11%
5%
89%
11%
0%
89%
11%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Circular
and
bio
economy
Food
loss
and
waste
anagement
Renewable
energy
Biodiversit
y
Climate
change
mitigation
&
adaptation
Soil
manageme
nt
Water
manageme
nt
On
which
additional
topics
that
can
impact
environmental
sustainability
of
farming,
should
farm-level
data
be
also
collected?
Policy makers' opinions on possible environmental sustainability
variables
14
Advisors answered somewhat similar, however, to them it was the suggestion to add
variables on ‘Soil management’ that appeared to be the most important (88% approval).
Adding variables on ‘Water management’ (81%), ‘Renewable energy’ (75%) and
‘Biodiversity’ (71%) was also deemed important. Adding variables on ‘Food loss and
waste management’ on the other side received the highest disapproval rate (27%). See
Chart 5.
Chart 5.
40%
16%
43%
43%
27%
29%
75%
10%
14%
71%
12%
16%
60%
18%
20%
88%
6%
6%
81%
5%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Yes
No
No opinion
Circular
and
bio
economy
Food
loss
and
waste
anageme
nt
Renewab
le
energy
Biodivers
ity
Climate
change
mitigatio
n
&
adaptati
on
Soil
manage
ment
Water
manage
ment
On
which
additional
topics
that
can
impact
environmental
sustainability
of
farming,
should
farm-level
data
be
also
collected?
Advisors' opinions on possible environmental sustainability
variables
15
Academia, including researchers and evaluators, responded in favour of adding variables
on ‘Soil management’ (94%) and ‘Water management’ (92%). They were also largely in
favour of adding variables on ‘Biodiversity’ (87%), ‘Climate change mitigation and
adaptation’ (79%) and ‘Renewable energy’ (79%). Again, it can be seen that the
suggestions to add variables on ‘Food loss and waste management’ and ‘Circular and bio
economy’ received considerably less approval (53% and 61% respectively). See Chart 6.
Chart 6.
61%
14%
24%
53%
18%
27%
79%
7%
12%
87%
7%
6%
79%
17%
4%
94%
6%
0%
92%
8%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
Circular
and
bio
econom
y
Food
loss
and
waste
anagem
ent
Renewa
ble
energy
Biodiver
sity
Climate
change
mitigati
on
&
adaptati
on
Soil
manage
ment
Water
manage
ment
On
which
additional
topics
that
can
impact
environmental
sustainability
of
farming,
should
farm-level
data
be
also
collected?
Academia's opinions on possible environmental
sustainability variables
16
FADN members, including data collectors, statistician, data managers, and accountants,
again responded somewhat similar to other stakeholder groups, with most members in
favour of adding variables on ‘Soil management’ (82%). The suggestions to add variables
on ‘Circular and bio economy’ and ‘Food loss and waste treatment’ again received less
approval, with only 30% and 46% in favour, respectively. What is striking, is that over
half of respondents indicated to not have an opinion ‘Circular and bio economy’ (51%),
see Chart 7.
Chart 7.
30%
17%
51%
46%
31%
23%
76%
7%
15%
64%
17%
17%
43%
25%
30%
82%
8%
10%
79%
12%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
Circular
and
bio
econom
y
Food
loss
and
waste
anagem
ent
Renewa
ble
energy
Biodiver
sity
Climate
change
mitigati
on
&
adaptati
on
Soil
manage
ment
Water
manage
ment
On
which
additional
topics
that
can
impact
environmental
sustainability
of
farming,
should
farm-level
data
be
also
collected?
FADN members' (data collectors, statistician, data managers,
accountants) opinions on possible environmental variables
17
On social sustainability, it has been found that non-farmers stakeholders are mostly in
favour of adding variables on the ‘Composition of the workforce’ (78% of respondents
in favour), such as age, gender, skills or origin. On the other hand, least stakeholders are
in favour of adding variables on ‘Health and well-being of the farm household’ (48% of
respondents in favour). See Table 6 below.
Table 6: Non-farmers stakeholders needs to collect data on social sustainability topics
Non-farmers' needs for social
sustainability topics
yes no
no
opinion
Composition of workforce (such as age,
gender, skills, origin…)
78% 13% 9%
Attractiveness of the farming sector for
newcomers and young generation
71% 14% 16%
Access to training and training participation
of farmers/workers
71% 15% 14%
Agricultural workers’ working conditions
(such as safety, working hours, wages,
housing conditions…)
67% 20% 12%
Health and well-being of farmers 55% 22% 23%
Access to essential services for
farmers/workers (such as hospitals,
schools,public transports, internet…
54% 24% 21%
Health and well-being of the farm
household
48% 28% 23%
18
Policy makers, overall tend to be largely in favour of adding variables on social
sustainability. The strongest approval was recorded with the suggestions to add variables
on ‘Access to essential services for farmers or workers (such as hospitals, schools, public
transports and internet)’, ‘Attractiveness of the farming sector for newcomers and young
generations’ and ‘Access to training and training participation’ (all three suggestions
scoring 84% approval rate). Equally important appeared the suggestion to add variables on
the ‘Composition of workforce’ (79% approval rate). Policy makers were less in favour
(or did not give an opinion) on the ‘Health and well-being of farmers’ (58% approval, 26%
have no opinion on this, see Chart 8).
Chart 8.
84%
10%
6%
68%
10%
22%
58%
16%
26%
79%
21%
0%
79%
21%
0%
84%
5%
11%
84%
5%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Attractiveness of
the farming
sector for
newcomers and
young
generation
Health and well-
being of farmers
Health and well-
being of the
farm household
Composition of
workforce (such
as age, gender,
skills, origin…)
Agricultural
workers’ working
conditions (such
as safety,
working hours,
wages, housing
conditions…)
Access to
training and
training
participation of
farmers/workers
Access to
essential services
for
farmers/workers
(such as
hospitals,
schools, public
transports,
internet…
On which topics that can affect social sustainability of farming should farm level data be collected?
Policy makers' opinions on possible social variables
19
Advisors on the other hand, when asked the same questions, responded largely in favour
of adding variables on the ‘Composition of workforce’ with 73% in favour, and only 13%
not in favour. Almost as many were in favour of adding variables on ‘Access to training
and training participation of farmers or workers’, with 67% of respondents endorsing the
idea. See Chart 9.
Chart 9.
65%
21%
14%
61%
29%
10%
52%
37%
11%
73%
13% 14%
63%
24%
13%
67%
13%
21%
46%
40%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Attractiveness of
the farming
sector for
newcomers and
young
generation
Health and well-
being of farmers
Health and well-
being of the
farm household
Composition of
workforce
Agricultural
workers’ working
conditions
Access to
training and
training
participation of
farmers/workers
Access to
essential services
for
farmers/workers
On which topics that can affect social sustainability of farming should farm level data be collected?
Advisors' opinions on possible social variables
20
Academia’s answered somewhat similarly, with the suggestion to add variables on the
‘Composition of the workforce’ being deemed very important (85% approval rate).
Adding variables on the ‘Access to essential services for farmers and workers’ and on
‘Health and well-being of the farm household’ on the other hand was deemed less
important, with 43 and 42% approval rates respectively. See Chart 10.
Chart 10.
66%
17% 17%
54%
20%
26%
42%
28% 30%
85%
6% 9%
78%
11% 11%
70%
15% 15%
43%
29% 28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Attractiveness of
the farming
sector for
newcomers and
young
generation
Health and well-
being of farmers
Health and well-
being of the
farm household
Composition of
workforce
Agricultural
workers’
working
conditions
Access to
training and
training
participation of
farmers/workers
Access to
essential
services for
farmers/workers
On which topics that can affect social sustainability of farming should farm level data be collected?
Academia's opinions on possible social sustainability variables
21
FADN members similarly to other stakeholder groups deemed the suggestion to add
variables on the ‘Composition of the workforce’ to be most important (73%). Once again,
the suggestion to add variables on the ‘Health and well-being of the farm household’ was
deemed least important (42% approval rate, 36% disapproval rate). See Chart 11.
Chart 11.
5) Theme Five: incentives for farmers to participate
The consultation process explored possible tools and incentives that could support
farmers’ participation to FSDN.
When asked about the relevance of a number of possible incentives for farmers to provide
the data for FSDN, it appeared that receiving financial compensation and being granted
selection priority for CAP supports under the rural development measures received the
highest approval rates. Indeed, 64% of respondents rated financial compensation “very
relevant”, or “somehow relevant”, and 61% of respondents rated the possibility of being
granted selection priority for CAP supports under the rural development measures “very
relevant”, or “somehow relevant”. The possibility of receiving tailor-made advice based
on the data provided was equally approved, with 60% of respondents rating it “very
relevant”, or “somehow relevant”. The least relevant appeared to be the suggestion of
better communication of the purpose of the data collection, with only 39% rating it “very
relevant”, or “somehow relevant”, and 23% rating it “somehow irrelevant” or “fully
irrelevant”. The full analysis of the responses is shown in Table 7.
64%
18% 18%
54%
26%
20%
42%
36%
22%
73%
19%
8%
60%
26%
14%
67%
18% 15%
54%
28%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Yes
No
No
opinion
Attractiveness of
the farming
sector for
newcomers and
young
generation
Health and well-
being of farmers
Health and well-
being of the
farm household
Composition of
workforce
Agricultural
workers’ working
conditions
Access to
training and
training
participation of
farmers/workers
Access to
essential services
for
farmers/workers
On which topics that can affect social sustainability of farming should farm level data be collected?
FADN members' opinions on possible social sustainable variables
22
Table 7. Ways to increase participation of farmers to the FADN/FSDN.
6) Theme Six: Tools to improve farming practices
Finally, the consultation process identified tools to improve farming practices by using
FSDN data, and by facilitating the use of farm-level data in farm advice, benchmarking,
training, research and innovation, with the aim of providing tailored advisory services. The
prospect of interlinking different existing sources of information (for example satellites,
administrative and data provided by farmers) is rather well supported by farmers, with 67%
of respondents completely agreeing or tending to agree, opposed to 22% of respondents
who tend to disagree or completely disagree.
Topic
Very
relevant
Somehow
relevant
Somehow
irrelevant
Fully
irrelevant
No opinion Weighted Score*
Receiving comparative feedback
with other similar farms
35.9% 45.3% 7.8% 7.8% 3.1% 47%
Receiving tailor made advice
based on the data provided
45.3% 42.2% 3.1% 4.7% 4.7% 60%
Better communication of the
purpose of the data collection
35.9% 34.4% 18.8% 4.7% 6.3% 39%
Benefitting from tailor made
trainings
31.3% 53.1% 7.8% 7.8% 0.0% 46%
Receiving financial compensation
54.7% 34.4% 6.3% 4.7% 0.0% 64%
Being granted selection priority for
CAP supports under rural
development measures 56.3% 25.0% 3.1% 6.3% 9.4% 61%
*In order to measure the results, respondents' approach have been weighted as presented below. Possible highest score(PHS) of this
approach shall be 2 or 200% (in the case of all "Very relevant"; 100% * 2) which is absolute agreement, and Possible Lowest Score shall be -
2 or -200% (in the case of all "Fuly irrelevant"; 100% * -2). The total score have been divided to PHS to measure percentage of agreement
level. In this context 100% means totaly relevant, -100% means totaly irrelevant.
23
4. Summary of written contributions by respondents
Respondents had opportunity to accompany their feedback to the Roadmap as well as
replies to the targeted written consultation via EU survey by submitting their specific
position papers. There, the respondents’ provided suggestions (including indicators and
data collection schemes) and reservations for the new FSDN. It is observed that
respondents’ perceptions on FADN/FSDN are different: some respondents perceive
FADN/FSDN as a monitoring tool while some perceive as a tool to collect all data
available at farm level. Perception of the respondents directly influenced the feedbacks
they provided. Main elements in the feedbacks from the position papers are summarised
below:
 A need for an impact assessment for Farm to Fork Strategy, and opposed to use
indicators in parallel with Farm to Fork strategy;
 Suggestion that some environmental indicators can’t be collected from all current
FADN farms due to diversity of regions, management practices and production
types;
 Integration of FADN/FSDN with other databases like Integrated Administration
and Control System (IACS) and Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS). In order
to reduce overlapping data collection, reduce administrative burden and increase
the functionality of FADN/FSDN (e.g. adding spatial or geographical data);
 Suggestion not changing the name of FADN since it has a brand value.
 The need for standardization across EU, sharing of best practices and trainings are
also pointed out.
Finally, some respondents provided a list of suggestions with examples of possible
variables and indicators to be considered by FSDN. The most suggested variable is
pesticides use or Plant Protection Products (PPPs). The second most suggested variable is
fertiliser use which is followed by energy use/production and GHG emissions, data on soil
(biodiversity and contamination), nitrogen use efficiency, land management/agro-
ecological practices and fiinally ammonia emissions.