Needs of young farmers : report I of the pilot project : exchange programmes for young farmers, final.
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Subjects: EU programme, agricultural situation, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, data collection, farming sector, regional economy, report, young farmer, youth exchange scheme

Needs of young farmers 

Report I of the Pilot project: Exchange 
programmes for young farmers 

Final 

Marie-Jose Zondag & Sacha Koppert (Ecorys Netherlands) 

Carolien de Lauwere (LEI-Wageningen UR) 

Peter Sloot (Aequator Groen & Ruimte) 
Andreas Pauer (Ecorys Brussels) 

November 2015 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

E-mail:  agri-evaluation@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

2 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Needs of young farmers 

Report I of the Pilot project: Exchange 
programmes for young farmers 

Final 

Ecorys Netherlands, Sacha Koppert & Marie-Jose Zondag 

LEI-Wageningen UR, Carolien de Lauwere 

Aequator Groen & Ruimte, Peter Sloot 

Ecorys Brussels, Andreas Pauer 

November 2015 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
Pilot Project – Exchange programmes for young farmers 

2015 

EUR     EN 

 Needs of young farmers 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the 
official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in 
this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held 
responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

 ISBN 978-92-79-50608-6 
doi: 10.2762/13075 

© European Union, 2015 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Printed in the Netherlands 

1 

 Needs of young farmers 

Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 5 

2.  METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 7 

2.1.  Data collection ............................................................................................. 7 
2.2.  Content of the survey ................................................................................... 8 
2.3.  Data analysis ............................................................................................... 9 
2.4.  Focus groups to validate the analysis .............................................................. 9 

3.  THE NEEDS OF YOUNG FARMERS BASED ON THE LITERATURE REVIEW .......... 10 

3.1.  Challenges for (young) farmers across the EU ................................................. 10 
3.2.  Knowledge needs of (young) farmers ............................................................. 10 
3.3.  Addressing the needs of young farmers .......................................................... 12 

4.  THE NEEDS OF YOUNG FARMERS BASED ON THE SURVEY AND THE FOCUS 

GROUP DISCUSSIONS .............................................................................. 13 

4.1.  General needs of young farmers in the EU ...................................................... 13 
4.2.  Knowledge needs of young farmers in the EU ................................................. 15 
4.3.  Sources from which to obtain knowledge for young farmers in the EU ................ 19 
Information sources for young farmers in the EU ............................................. 27 
4.4. 
4.5.  Hindrances for young farmers to obtaining information .................................... 31 
4.6.  Participation in exchange schemes by young EU farmers .................................. 33 
4.7.  Attitude  of  young  EU  farmers  to  participation  in  a(n)  (inter)national 

exchange scheme ........................................................................................ 35 
4.8.  The intention of young EU farmers of joining an exchange scheme .................... 37 
4.9. 
Issues that hinder young EU farmers in joining an exchange scheme ................. 39 
4.10.  Expectations  of  young  EU  farmers  about  participation  in  an  exchange 

scheme  41 

4.11.  Distribution of agricultural sectors over EU regions .......................................... 43 
4.12.  Needs of young farmers in different agricultural sectors ................................... 44 
4.13.  The influence of the education level of the interviewed young farmers ............... 46 
4.14.  The influence of the farm situation ................................................................ 47 
4.15.  The influence of the type of area ................................................................... 49 
4.16.  The influence of the type of farm (conventional or organic) .............................. 50 
4.17.  High and low intenders for joining an exchange scheme ................................... 51 
4.18.  Hindrances for young farmers to obtaining information .................................... 55 

5.  REFLECTION ON THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY .......................................... 56 

5.1.  General  and  knowledge  needs  of  young  farmers  and  their  intention  of 

joining an exchange scheme ......................................................................... 56 
5.2.  Differences between EU-15 and new MS ......................................................... 58 
5.3.  Other factors affecting the needs of young farmers in the EU ............................ 59 
5.4.  High intenders and low intenders .................................................................. 60 
5.5.  Some conclusions based on the survey .......................................................... 60 

6.  NEEDS OF YOUNG FARMERS ASSESSED BY FOCUS GROUPS ......................... 62 

6.1.  General ...................................................................................................... 62 
6.2.  Needs ........................................................................................................ 62 
6.3.  Communication ........................................................................................... 66 
6.4.  Exchange schemes ...................................................................................... 67 

2 

 Needs of young farmers 

7.  CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  ON  THE  BASIS  OF  THE  NEEDS 

ANALYSIS AND THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ....................................... 69 

7.1.  Most important needs of young farmers ......................................................... 69 
7.2.  Knowledge ................................................................................................. 69 
Information sources ..................................................................................... 70 
7.3. 
7.4.  Exchange schemes ...................................................................................... 70 

LITERATURE .................................................................................................. 72 

ANNEXES....................................................................................................... 75 

Annex I.1 – I.28 Country reports ............................................................................ 75 
Annex I.29 Survey results in more detail ................................................................. 75 
Annex I.30 Questionnaire and data analysis of the results of the survey ...................... 75 

3 

 
 Needs of young farmers 

1.  Introduction 

Objective of the Pilot Project study on young farmers 

The “Pilot Project: Exchange programmes for young farmers” has been commissioned 
for  Agriculture  and  Rural 
by  the  European  Commission,  Directorate-General 
Development  (DG  AGRI)  to  identify  the  needs  of  young  farmers,  get  an  overview  of 
the existing exchange schemes for young farmers and develop a guide to establish or 
improve exchange schemes for young farmers (DG AGRI, Tender No AGRI-2012-Eval-
03). The study has been implemented by Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator 
Groen & Ruimte in 2014-2015.  

The aims of this study were: 

•  To provide a comprehensive assessment of the specific needs of young farmers 

across the EU (this report); 

•  To describe and assess existing schemes and initiatives for the exchange of young 

farmers; 

•  To identify specific results of exchange schemes and specific support measures 

that have proved to be effective and efficient; 

•  To provide recommendations on the design, implementation and delivery of 

exchange programmes and schemes. 

Some context 

in 

rural  areas 

The background to the study is that the evolution and specialisation of agriculture and 
forestry  and  the  particular  challenges  faced  by  micro-,  small-  and  medium-sized 
forest  producers,  winegrowers, 
enterprises 
horticulturalists,  etc.)  require  an  appropriate  level  of  technical  and  economic  training 
(DG  AGRI,  Tender  No  AGRI-2012-Eval-03).  The  regulatory  framework  for  EU  rural 
development  2014-2020  has  stipulated  that  knowledge  transfer  and  information 
actions should not so much be provided in the form of traditional training courses, but 
rather be adapted to the needs of rural actors (European Commission, 2013).  

farmers, 

(e.g. 

to  achieve 

Appropriate training is especially important for young farmers because it is this group 
specifically  that  can  contribute  the  most  to  fostering  the  innovation  and  resource-
the  EU20201  objectives  (Dellapasqua,  2010). 
efficiency  needed 
Furthermore,  young  farmers  face  specific  challenges  linked  to  the  high  investments 
needed in the start-up phase, difficulties in accessing finance and low turnover in the 
first years of business. Combined with prolonged generational renewal and diminished 
access  to  land,  this  can  reduce  the  interest  of  young  farmers  in  entering  the  sector. 
Moreover,  the  decreasing  number  of  young  people  in  the  agricultural  sector  creates 
specific  difficulties  for  generational  renewal  and  raises  concerns  regarding  the loss  of 
valuable  skills  and  knowledge  as  older,  but  experienced  people,  leave  the  sector. 
According to the ‘Overview of CAP2 reform 2014-2020’, only 14% of European farmers 
are aged under 40 (European Commission, 2013). 

1   EU2020 = Main European strategy for 2020. 
2   CAP = Common Agricultural Policy. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
 Needs of young farmers 

This needs analysis 

In this report, the needs of young farmers are presented based on a survey of 2 205 
young  farmers  and  focus  group  discussions  in  EU-28.  This  needs  analysis  brings 
together  a  vast  quantity  of  information,  collected  during  a  wide  range  of  activities  in 
2014 and 2015, including: 

•  Literature review study and desk research on exchange schemes; 

•  Study of publicity and communication on exchange schemes; 

• 

Interviews with stakeholders throughout the European Union; 

•  Survey of 2 205 young farmers in 28 Member States; 

•  Focus group discussions and consultations in 28 Member States. 

The  methodology  used  for  the  survey  is  described  in  chapter  two,  the  results  of  the 
survey are given in chapter three and a reflection on the results of the survey are in 
chapter four. The results of the focus group discussions are given in chapter five and 
conclusions and recommendations are provided in chapter six.  

The report is targeted at policy officers and other stakeholders interested in getting an 
insight into the needs of young farmers. 

The analysis of the survey results per country is described extensively in the Annexes 
I.1-I.29. A country report on the needs of young farmers, based on the survey and the 
focus  groups,  has  been  drafted  for  each  Member  State.  Furthermore,  Annex  I.29 
contains  the  background  data  used  for  the  figures  in  this  report  broken  down  by 
Member State.  

The  survey  questionnaire  and  the  approach  used  for  the  data  analysis  is  included  in 
Annex I.30. 

Where to find more information 

In  total  there  are  four  main  reports  in  the  Pilot  Project:  Exchange  programmes  for 
young farmers: 

0.  Synthesis; 
I.  Needs of young farmers (this report) (including 28 country reports); 
II.  Analysis of existing exchange schemes for young farmers (including a description 

and contact details of all exchange schemes and 22 case studies); 

III.  A guide to designing exchange schemes for young farmers, taking country-specific 

differences into account. 

These are available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/index_en.htm. 

6 

 
 
 
 Needs of young farmers 

2.  Methodology 

2.1.

  Data collection 

In the spring of 2014, a survey was carried out among 2 205 farmers under the age of 
40  (referred  to  hereafter  as  ‘young  farmers’)  in  all  28  EU  Member  States.  Initially, it 
was  decided  to  carry  out  the  questionnaires  over  the  phone.  This,  however,  did  not 
work in all EU Member States. The farmers therefore were also given the opportunity 
to  finish  the  questionnaire  by  email  or  through  a  web-based  questionnaire.  This 
resulted  in  1  518  completed  phone  questionnaires,  657  completed  web-based 
questionnaires and 30 completed questionnaires by email (Table 2.1). 

The  number  of  collected  questionnaires  per  country  was  set  beforehand  on  the  basis 
of the following criteria:  

•  The total number of collected questionnaires should be 2 100; 

•  At least 25 questionnaires should be collected per country; 

•  50 questionnaires should be collected in a country if the percentage of Utilised 

Agricultural Area (UAA) that is defined as a less favoured area (LFA) is less than 
50% and the number of holdings with a standard output of more than EUR 8 000 is 
20 000 or lower; 

•  75 questionnaires should be collected in a country if the percentage of UAA that is 

defined as LFA is less than 50% and the number of holdings with a standard 
output economic size class of more than EUR 8 000 is higher than 20 000; 

•  50 questionnaires should be collected in a country if the number of holdings with a 

standard output of more than EUR 8 000 is lower than 10 000; 

•  25 extra questionnaires should be collected in a country if the percentage UAA that 

is defined as LFA is more than 50%; 

•  25 extra questionnaires should be collected in a country if the number of holdings 

with a standard output of more than EUR 8 000 is higher than 100 000. 

Most  countries  succeeded  in  collecting  the  number  of  responses  agreed  on  (or 
collecting  more  questionnaires).  Only  in  France,  Ireland  and  Malta  did  the  response 
rate fall short (Table 2.1). 

Table  2.1  Achieved  versus  planned  number  of  completed  questionnaires  per 
country 

Country 

Planned 
Number 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus  (the  Greek 
part) 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 

75 
75 
75 
75 
50 

50 
75 
50 
75 
100 
100 
100 

By 
email 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Completed questionnaires 
Total 
By 
phone 
28 
76 
77 
73 
52 

By 
internet 
75 
3 
0 
0 
0 

104 
79 
77 
73 
52 

49 
26 
0 
57 
47 
104 
0 

8 
48 
51 
27 
22 
21 
101 

57 
74 
51 
84 
69 
125 
101 

% of 
planned 
138.7 
105.3 
102.7 
97.3 
104.0 

114.0 
98.7 
102.0 
112.0 
69.0 
125.0 
101.0 

7 

 
 
 Needs of young farmers 

Country 

Planned 
Number 

Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
The Netherlands 
United Kingdom 
Total EU-28 

75 
75 
100 
75 
75 
25 
25 
100 
75 
100 
50 
75 
100 
75 
75 
100 
2 100 

By 
email 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
29 
0 
0 
0 
30 

2.2.

  Content of the survey 

Completed questionnaires 
Total 
By 
phone 
75 
0 
101 
75 
75 
22 
9 
100 
73 
101 
52 
71 
36 
68 
76 
0 
1 518 

By 
internet 
1 
31 
1 
0 
0 
1 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
71 
59 
1 
127 
657 

76 
31 
102 
75 
75 
23 
12 
100 
73 
101 
52 
72 
136 
127 
77 
127 
2 205 

% of 
planned 
103.0 
41.3 
102.0 
100.0 
100.0 
92.0 
48.0 
100.0 
97.3 
101.0 
104.0 
96.0 
136.0 
169.3 
102.7 
127.0 
105.0 

The  biggest  part  of  the  questionnaire  was  made  up  of  structured  questions  with  pre-
programmed answers to guarantee that all questions were asked in the same way in 
each country and to make it possible to analyse the data in a statistically sound way. 
Some open questions were asked at the end of the questionnaire about the age of the 
farmers  and  the  mean  hectares  (ha)  of  owned  and  rented  UAA  (Utilised  Agricultural 
Area).  Besides  this,  at  the  beginning  of  the  telephone  interviews,  questions  were 
asked to determine whether the farmer on the phone met the criteria for participation 
in the survey.  

These criteria were: 

•  The farmer should be less than 40 years of age (otherwise he/she would not 

qualify according to the EU definition); 

•  The farmer should sell most of his/her products to the market; this means that 

self-subsistence farms are excluded from the survey. 

The structured questions focused on: 

•  The general needs of the farmers; 

•  The likelihood that the farmers would develop certain skills (knowledge needs); 

•  The sources that the farmers use to obtain knowledge; 

•  The information sources that the farmers use; 

• 

Issues that hinder the farmers in obtaining information; 

•  The farmers’ participation in and awareness of exchange schemes and the extent 

to which they were content about these exchange schemes; 

•  The farmers’ attitude about participation in a(n) (inter)national exchange scheme; 

• 

Issues that hinder the farmers in participating in an exchange scheme; 

•  The farmers’ intention of joining a(n) (inter)national exchange scheme; 

8 

 
 
 
 Needs of young farmers 

•  The farmers’ expectations about participation in an exchange scheme. 

The questionnaire is given in Annex I.30. 

2.3.

  Data analysis 

The data were analysed by country, the moment of accession to the EU (EU-15 or new 
Member State3) and by sector. Moreover, the following elements were checked to see 
if  they  affected  the  results:  education  level,  the  farm  situation  (owner  of  the  farm, 
partnership  with  parents  or  others,  being  an  employee  on  a  farm  or  parents’  farm), 
the  type  of  area  (favourable/flat  or  less  favourable/hilly/mountainous/NATURA2000) 
and the type of farm (conventional or organic). The results of the analysis are included 
in chapter three. The data analysis was carried out in seven steps (see Annex I.30 for 
more details).  

An additional analysis was carried out on: 

•  Whether there are differences between countries applying for a Single Payment 

Scheme (SPS) and countries applying for a Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS).4 
They hardly differed from the variations found between EU-15 and new Member 
States; 

•  Whether the distribution method of the survey (telephone, internet or email) 
affected the results. Although some differences were found, this only slightly 
affected the final results.5 

2.4.

  Focus groups to validate the analysis 

Focus groups were organised in almost all EU countries (one focus group per country). 
During  the  focus  groups,  the  main  outcomes  of  the  survey  were  validated  and 
explanations for deviations from the general EU results were sought.  

Besides  young  farmers,  the  focus  groups  were  attended  by  representatives  of  young 
farmers’  organisations  and  other  agricultural  organisations.  In  five  countries,6  it  was 
not possible to arrange focus groups. In those countries, interviews with stakeholders 
were  carried  out  instead.  In  general,  the  participants  of  the  focus  groups  (or 
interviewed  experts)  endorsed  the  results  of  the  survey.  The  results  of  the  focus 
groups are included in the country reports (Annex I.1-I.28). 

3   Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, 
Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom belong to EU-15, and Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Malta, Romania, Slovakia and 
Slovenia belong to the new Member States (new MS). In total 1 332 of the interviewed farmers came 
from EU-15 and 873 of them came from one of the new MS.  

4   All EU-15 countries and Malta, Croatia and Slovenia make use of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS). 
The other new MS countries make use of the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS). In total, 1 489 of 
the interviewed young farmers lived in SPS countries and 716 of them lived in SAPS countries. 

5   Of the 2 205 finished questionnaries,1 518 were finished by phone, 657 through the internet and 30 by 

email. 

6   Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and United Kingdom. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
 Needs of young farmers 

3.  The needs of young farmers based on the literature review  

3.1.

  Challenges for (young) farmers across the EU 

According to the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU, ‘EU agriculture needs to attain 
higher  levels  of  production  of  safe  and  quality  food,  while  preserving  the  natural 
resources  that  agricultural  productivity  depend  upon.  This  can  only  be  achieved  by  a 
competitive  and  viable  agricultural  sector  operating  within  a  properly  functioning 
supply  chain  which  contributes  to  the  maintenance  of  a  thriving  rural  economy’ 
(European Commission, 2013). Consumer demands and governmental legislations are 
becoming stricter and agricultural entrepreneurs need to commit increasing resources 
to animal welfare, environmental measures and landscape maintenance. Furthermore, 
farmers have to face challenges of: increased competition due to the gradual opening 
of  markets,  the  need  for  integration  within  the  agricultural  chain,  the  diminishing 
attractiveness  of  the  sector  as  an  employer  and  the  increasing  flexibility  of  working 
hours and contracts (De Lauwere, 2005; Fuller-Love, 2006; Batterink et al., 2006).  

Agricultural  entrepreneurs  are  indeed  facing  many  challenges.  Many  of  these  have 
been identified by the Common Agricultural Policy as economic in nature, such as food 
security  and  globalisation,  a  declining  rate  of  productivity  growth,  price  volatility, 
pressures  on  production  costs  due  to  high  input  prices  and  the  deteriorating  position 
of  farmers  in  the  food  supply  chain.  Other  challenges  are  environmental  in  nature, 
relating  to  resource  efficiency,  soil  and  water  quality,  and  threats  to  habitats  and 
biodiversity.  Others  still  are  territorial,  especially  where  rural  areas  are  faced  with 
demographic,  economic  and  social  developments, 
including  depopulation  and 
relocation of businesses (European Commission, 2013).  

3.2.

  Knowledge needs of (young) farmers 

The  evolution  and  specialisation  of  agriculture  and  forestry,  and  the  particular 
challenges  faced  by  micro-,  small-  and  medium-sized  enterprises  in  rural  areas  (e.g. 
farmers,  forest  producers,  winegrowers,  horticulturalists,  etc.)  require  an  appropriate 
level  of  technical  and  economic  training  (DG  AGRI,  Tender  No  AGRI-2012-Eval-03). 
This  training  not  only  should  comprise  technological  and  managerial  skills,  but  also 
entrepreneurial skills (Martin, 1987; Klair et al., 1998). Verstegen and Huirne (2001) 
divide the competences of farmers into three categories: craftsmanship, management 
and  entrepreneurship.  Craftsmanship  relates  to  knowledge  and  experience  on  the 
technical level (regarding the product and means of production), management relates 
to the arrangement and organisation of the production process, and entrepreneurship 
relates  to  strategic  choices.  In  the  past,  knowledge  development  often  focused  on 
craftsmanship  and  management,  while  much 
to 
entrepreneurship.  It  is  however  generally  accepted  that  the  development  of 
entrepreneurship  is  important  to  enable  socially  responsible  farming  (Lans  et  al., 
2004;  De  Lauwere,  2005;  Nuthall,  2006;  McElwee,  2008;  Alsos  and  Carter,  2006; 
Lans, 2009), as well as other strategic choices such as those related to the succession 
of  the  farm,  diversification  of  the  business  and  investment  decisions  that  have  an 
impact on the overall competitiveness of the farm.  

less  attention  was  paid 

The  regulatory  framework  for  EU  rural  development  2014-2020  has  stipulated  that 
knowledge  transfer  and  information  actions  should  not  so  much  be  provided  in  the 
form of traditional training courses, but rather be adapted to the needs of rural actors 
(European  Commission,  2013).  The  importance  of  fine-tuning  agricultural  training 
programmes  to  the  needs  of  farmers  has  been  mentioned  previously  (Brent  and 
Adams, 1999; Duram and Larson, 2001; Obaa et al., 2005). Brent and Adams (1999) 
for example stated that ‘it is certain that it would be beneficial to pay more attention 

10 

 
 
 Needs of young farmers 

to  what  the  farmer  perceives  as  his/her  needs  if  extension  services  are  to  be  more 
effective.’ Other authors also emphasise the importance of taking the needs of farmers 
into account in other situations, for example for the grounding of agricultural research 
(Nederlof  et  al.,  2004)  or  the  successful  implementation  of  field  margin  measures 
(Mante and Gerowitt, 2009). 

However,  it  is  not  only  important  to  adapt  training  programmes  or  other  forms  of 
knowledge transfer to the needs of (young) farmers. It is equally important to know to 
whom  the  knowledge  is  being  provided,  as  different  types  of  farmers  need  different 
kinds  of  knowledge  and  learning  methods  (Chase  et  al.,  2006;  Noar  et  al.,  2007; 
Hawkins et al., 2008; Jansen et al., 2010). Interactive educational programmes, such 
as exchange programmes may not be suitable for all kinds of farmers. This suitability 
will  depend  on  the  farmer’s  competences  (Man  et  al.,  2002)  but  also  on  context-
specific  factors,  such  as  the  institutional  environment  a  farmer  has  to  deal  with,  the 
availability  of  resources  and  the  opportunities  and  threats  that  farmer  perceives. 
According  to  Vanclay  (2004)  ‘an  understanding  of  social  issues,  the  social  nature  of 
farming,  and  the  social  basis  of  adoption  is  needed  if  agricultural  extension  is  to  be 
effective  in  addressing  natural  resource  management  issues,  and  in  promoting 
sustainability in its triple bottom line conceptualisation.’ 

The above findings lead to the conclusion that training programmes for farmers should 
be based on their needs as well as on their preferred learning methods. This is in line 
with Klair et al. (1998) who stated in 1998 that the information needs of farmers are 
closely  linked  to  the  evolution  of  the  CAP.  They  stated  that  ‘different  approaches  to 
managing  the  agricultural  sector  involve  the  need  for  a  different  information  system 
for  farmers.  It  means  not  only  new  content  in  information,  but  also  new  ways  to 
inform  and  do  technical  assistance.’  According  to  these  authors,  the  primary 
information  needs  from  1998  centred  on  farm  management,  risk  management,  EU 
programmes  and  measures,  quality  production,  low  input  and  organic  farming, 
marketing  and  advertising  management,  new  technology  introduction,  structural 
adjustment  funds  management,  investment  decisions,  rural  tourism  and  recreational 
activities  management  (Klair  et  al.,  1998).  The  authors  stated  that  ‘providing 
information  has  become  the  most  important  part  of  the  extension  activity’  and  that 
‘information  must  include  trainings  sessions,  demonstrations  in  the  field  and 
assessment,  together  with  the  farmers,  of  the  activities  and  the  results  obtained.’ 
Brent and Adams (1999) also emphasised the importance of good communication and 
the transfer of information. Although communication channels at that time would have 
been different to today.  

11 

 
 
 
 Needs of young farmers 

3.3.

  Addressing the needs of young farmers 

Appropriate training is especially important for young farmers because it is this group 
specifically  that  can  contribute  the  most  to  fostering  the  innovation  and  resource-
efficiency needed to achieve the EU2020 objectives (Dellapasqua, 2010). Furthermore, 
they  face  specific  challenges  linked  to  the  high  investments  needed  in  the  start-up 
phase, difficulties in accessing finance and low turnover in the first years of business. 
Combined with prolonged generational renewal and diminished access to land, this can 
reduce the interest of young farmers in entering the sector.  

Moreover,  the  decreasing  number  of  young  people  in  the  agricultural  sector  creates 
specific  difficulties  for  generational  renewal  and  raises  concerns  regarding  the loss  of 
valuable  skills  and  knowledge  as  older,  but  experienced  people,  leave  the  sector. 
According  to  the  ‘Overview  of  CAP  reform  2014-2020’,  only  14%  of  EU  farmers  are 
aged  under  40  (European  Commission,  2013).  Sotte  (2003)  already  stated  in  2003 
that  ‘the  presence  of  young  people  is  declining  practically  everywhere,  both  in 
absolute terms and in relation to older age groups.’ Therefore, according to Sotte, the 
issue of young people entering agriculture and rural areas should be the starting point 
of  the  implementation  of  European  agricultural  policies.  The  recent  SCARLED  project 
highlighted  how  the  farming  population  is  likely  to  continue  ageing,  given  the 
tendency for the young, educated and mobile to seek alternative employment outside 
of the agriculture sector in the industrial or service sectors (van Herck, 2009). 

The  above  issues  demonstrate  that  young  farmers  are  facing  specific  challenges  that 
require advice and knowledge adjusted to their particular situation (Sotte, 2003). 

12 

 
 
4.  The needs of young farmers based on the survey and the focus 

group discussions 

4.1.

  General needs of young farmers in the EU 

Land  (to  buy  and  to  rent) is  the  most  important  general  need  of  the  interviewed  young 
farmers throughout the EU. Subsidies, credit and qualified labour are also quite important 
general needs for the interviewed young farmers (Figure 4.1).  

Compared  to  EU-28,  qualified  labour,  seasonal  workers,  machinery,  advice  of  private 
consultants and access to insurance are perceived relatively often as problematic in new 
MS and perceived relatively infrequently as problematic in EU-15 (Table 4.1).  

Figure 4.1 General needs of young farmers in the EU - percentage of interviewed 
young farmers who perceived the issues mentioned in the figure below as problematic 

Availability of land to buy

Availability of land to rent

Subsidies

Access to credits

Qualified labour

Machinery

Other legal issues

National inheritance law

Access to new and useful knowledge

Seasonal workers

Access to useful trainings/ workshops/ networks

Advise of extension services

Access to insurance

Interventions of my parents/ other persons

Advise of private consultants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

New MS

EU15

All countries
EU-28 

13 

 
 
 
  
Table 4.1 General needs of young farmers in the EU – percentage of respondents 
who perceived the issues mentioned in the table below as problematic 

A cell is coloured red if the % of farmers who answered that an issue is problematic is significantly higher in 
comparison with EU-28 and coloured green if this percentage is significantly lower. 

Availability of land to buy 
Availability of land to rent 
Access to credits 
Subsidies 
Machinery 
Qualified labour 
Seasonal workers 
Advice of extension services 
Advice of private consultants 
Access to new and useful knowledge 
Access to insurance 
National inheritance law 
Other legal issues 
Interventions of my parents/other persons 
Access to useful trainings/ workshops/ networks 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

EU-28 
(n=2205) 
60.8 
56.8 
33.4 
38.4 
27.0 
33.0 
20.6 
18.3 
11.1 
21.3 
14.7 
22.3 
23.0 
14.6 
18.8 

EU-15 
(n=1332) 
59.6 
58.0 
31.7 
38.1 
23.3 
27.7 
16.2 
17.0 
8.7 
19.4 
11.8 
23.3 
22.4 
14.0 
17.3 

New MS 
(n=873) 
62.5 
55.0 
36.1 
38.8 
32.6 
41.1 
27.4 
20.3 
14.7 
24.2 
19.1 
20.6 
23.8 
15.5 
21.0 

Availability  of  land  seems  to  be  less  problematic  in  Sweden,  Denmark,  Poland,  Austria, 
Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Italy than in other EU countries (Figure 4.2). This may be 
related to the main agricultural sectors in some of these countries. In Bulgaria, Italy and 
Greece,  the  interviewed  young  farmers  grow  permanent  crops  relatively  often;  an 
intensive  sector  for  which  not  much  land  is  needed.  In  addition,  results  from  the  focus 
groups show that the low need for land in Austria can be explained by the fact that the 
country  is  characterised  by  small  farms  which  do  not  produce  sufficient  output  for  the 
young  farmer  and  his/her  family.  Therefore  most  farmers  have  jobs  in  addition  to  their 
farm,  which  are  for  the  most  part  not  related  to  agriculture.  This  is  accepted  by  young 
farmers  and  they  do  not  feel  the  need  to  expand  their  farms.  In  Bulgaria,  the  need  for 
land is not so significant (yet) due to the ‘Agricultural Land and Ownership and Use Act’, 
which came into force in 1991 and regulates restitution of agricultural land to the persons 
(or  to  their  inheritors)  who  were  forced  to  put  their  land  under  collective  control  after 
1945. As a result, citizens became owners of parcels of land after 1991 and rent or sell it, 
meaning  the  availability  of  land  has  exceeded  demand  for  many  years.  In  Sweden, 
Denmark and Poland, the focus group members do not  confirm a low need for land. On 
the  contrary,  they  mention  that land is  hard  to  obtain  because  it  is  very  expensive  and 
therefore  specifically  causes  difficulties  for  young  farmers.  The  Romanian  focus  group 
members  also  mention  that  land  is  hard  to  get  in  Romania  and  that  it  is  expensive. 
However,  they  confirm  that  land  is  not  such  an  urgent  need  at  the  moment  because 
there is a sufficient amount for young farmers to develop farming activities.  

14 

 
 
 
Figure 4.2 Percentage of interviewed young farmers who perceived the 
availability of land (to buy and to rent) as problematic 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Conclusion  

The  interviewed  young  farmers  in  EU-15  in  general  seem  to  have  fewer  general  needs 
compared to EU-28, while the interviewed young farmers in new MS seem to have more. 
Land  (to  buy  and  to  rent)  is  an  exception.  This  seems  to  be  a  general  need  in  most 
countries.  

4.2.

  Knowledge needs of young farmers in the EU 

The  knowledge  needs  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  are  presented  in  Figure  4.3. 
Looking  at  EU-28  reveals  that  all  interviewed  young  farmers  are  fairly  interested  in 
(further)  developing  their  skills.  More  than  50%  of  them  perceive  it  as  likely  that  they 
will develop the skills mentioned in Figure 4.1 and more than 60% of them perceive it as 
likely that they will develop skills to obtain specific technological knowledge necessary for 
the farm and skills related to the development of a farm strategy. Skills related to foreign 
languages  seem  to  be  an  exception.  These  are  mentioned  only  by  41%  of  the 
respondents (Table 4.2). 

15 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.3 Knowledge needs of young farmers in the EU – percentage of 
respondents who answered that it was likely that they will develop the skills mentioned in 
the figure below through trainings, courses, workshops, study groups or participation in 
an exchange scheme 

Obtain specific technological knowledge necessary for…

Develop a farm strategy

Skills related to applying for subsidies/ grants/ credit

Financial skills

Management skills

Communication skills

Networking skills/ ability to create partnership

Resource and nature/ environment management

Marketing skills

Skills related to the improvement of animal welfare

Foreign languages

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

New MS

EU15

All countries
EU-28 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

With  regards  to  the  young  farmers’  knowledge  needs,  there  are  differences  within  the 
EU.  Compared  to  EU-28,  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  EU-15  are  less  interested  in 
the development of skills related to foreign languages and the interviewed young farmers 
in new MS are more interested in the development of these skills (Table 4.2).  

Table 4.2 Knowledge needs of young farmers in the EU – percentage of 
respondents who answered that it was likely that they will develop the skills mentioned in 
the table below  

A cell is coloured red if the % of farmers who answered that they will develop a certain skill is significantly 
lower in comparison with EU-28 and coloured green if this percentage is significantly higher. 

EU-28 
(n=2205) 
52.2 
55.9 
54.3 
54.1 
62.5 
68.9 

Marketing skills 
Financial skills 
Communication skills 
Networking skills/ability to create partnership 
Develop a farm strategy 
Obtain specific technological knowledge necessary 
for the farm 
Management skills 
Resource and nature/environment management 
Skills related to the improvement of animal welfare 
Foreign languages 
Skills related to applying for subsidies/ grants/ 
credit 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

55.4 
54.0 
51.2 
41.0 
56.5 

EU-15 
(n=1332) 
51.5 
58.8 
54.1 
52.9 
62.4 
68.7 

New MS 
(n=873) 
53.2 
51.4 
54.8 
55.9 
62.7 
69.2 

58.3 
56.2 
50.9 
36.4 
53.4 

51.0 
50.6 
51.7 
48.0 
61.3 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Looking  at  the  country  level  reveals  that,  in  most  countries,  more  than  50%  of  the 
interviewed  young  farmers  perceive  it  as  likely  that  they  will  develop  marketing, 
financial,  networking  and  communication  skills  (referred  to  as  ‘entrepreneurial  skills’). 
However,  in  Sweden,  Finland,  Estonia,  Poland,  Lithuania,  Czech  Republic,  Slovakia, 
Cyprus, Malta, France and Spain 50% or less of the respondents perceive it as likely that 
they  will  develop  these  skills  (Figure  4.4).  It  is  obvious  that  more  interviewed  young 
farmers are interested in the development of skills related to the development of a farm 
strategy,  obtaining  technological  knowledge,  improving  animal  welfare  and  applying  for 
subsidies,  managerial  skills  and  environmental  skills  (referred  to  as  ‘technical  and 
managerial skills’. More than 50% of the interviewed young farmers perceive it as likely 
that they will develop these skills in almost all countries except Sweden, Finland, Estonia, 
Poland and Cyprus (Figure 4.5). According to the focus groups, there are several reasons 
for relatively low knowledge needs in the countries mentioned above: 

•  The young farmers generally have a high level of education (Estonia, Finland); 

• 

It is quite easy to obtain knowledge and information because the knowledge 
infrastructure for farmers is well-organised in their country (Estonia, Finland); 

•  Young farmers do not see that they would use specific knowledge, for example for 

marketing and communication because they live ‘in the middle of nowhere’, far from 
consumers (Finland); 

•  Young farmers are not aware that they need specific knowledge to run their farm 

(Poland, Spain and Sweden with regard to entrepreneurial skills); 

•  Agricultural knowledge is available free of charge (Estonia); 

•  Farmers are farmers ‘by tradition’ and do not see why they need additional 

knowledge, especially because their farms are small and relatively easy to manage, 
have little law enforcement and no requirements in terms of quality standards 
(Cyprus); 

• 

It is perceived as difficult to select the right and trustworthy sources of information 
and knowledge in a time-efficient manner (France, Cyprus); 

•  Lack of trust as to whether the information obtained is suitable, to the point, 

practically applicable and fits the target group (Lithuania, Slovakia, Malta, Spain); 

•  Long distances (Finland, Sweden) or being an island (Malta); 

•  Having an individualistic mindset or the attitude of ‘not needing anyone’ (France); 

•  Emphasis is more on technological skills than on entrepreneurial skills (Czech 

Republic). 

17 

 
 
Figure 4.4 Percentage of interviewed young farmers who perceived it as likely 
that they will develop entrepreneurial skills related to marketing, finance, 
networking and communication 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Figure 4.5 Percentage of interviewed young farmers who perceived it as likely 
that they will develop technological and managerial skills (skills related to the 
development of a farm strategy, obtaining technological knowledge, improving animal 
welfare, applying for subsidies, managerial skills and environmental skills) 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Conclusion 

In  general,  most  interviewed  young  farmers  seem  to  be  fairly  interested  in  the  development  of 
entrepreneurial  and  technological  and  managerial  skills.  Only  in  Finland,  Sweden,  Estonia,  Poland 
and Cyprus were the interviewed young farmers a little less interested. 

4.3.

  Sources from which to obtain knowledge for young farmers in the 

EU 

The  knowledge  sources  that  farmers  like  to  use  are  presented  in  Figure 4.6.  Looking  at 
EU-28, it appeared that reading and looking for information on the internet, field days or 
excursions,  individual  advice,  fairs  or  exhibitions,  (agricultural)  trainings  or  courses, 
farmers’ journals and workshops, seminars or conferences are the most common sources 
from which to obtain knowledge for the interviewed young farmers.  

Figure 4.6 Percentage of interviewed young farmers using the below knowledge 
sources  

Reading and looking for information on the internet

Field days/ excursion

Individual advice

Visiting fairs/ exhibitions etc.

(agricultural) training or course

Farmers’ journal 

Participating in workshops/ seminars/ conferences

Joining a study group or network

Participation in an exchange scheme

Social media

Participating in discussions on the internet

Online training/ e-learning through the internet

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

New MS

EU15

All countries
EU-28 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Compared to EU-28, the interviewed young farmers in EU-15 are less interested, and the 
interviewed  young  farmers  in  the  new  MS  are  more  interested  in  participating  in 
discussions on the internet, online training or e-learning through the internet ( 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.3).  

20 

 
 
 
 
Table 4.3 Percentage of interviewed young farmers in the EU who like to use the 
knowledge sources mentioned in the table below 

A cell is coloured red if the % of farmers who answered that they like to use a certain knowledge source is 
significantly lower in comparison with EU-28 and coloured green if this percentage is significantly higher. 

EU-28 
(n=2205) 
76.5 
71.5 
81.1 

for 

information  on  the 

Individual advice 
Farmers’ journal 
Reading  and  looking 
internet 
35.9 
Participating in discussions on the internet 
31.7 
Online training/ e-learning through the internet 
40.1 
Social media 
69.5 
Participating in workshops/ seminars/conferences 
60.7 
Joining a study group or network 
74.6 
(Agricultural) training or course 
78.2 
Field days/excursion 
75.2 
Visiting fairs/exhibitions etc. 
Participation in an exchange scheme 
54.5 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

EU-15 
(n=1332) 
79.6 
72.8 
80.0 

New MS 
(n=873) 
71.7 
69.5 
82.8 

31.2 
28.2 
38.2 
70.4 
61.9 
76.1 
79.7 
73.3 
51.6 

43.2 
37.0 
43.1 
68.2 
58.8 
72.3 
76.1 
78.1 
58.9 

Looking at individual countries makes it clear that the interviewed young farmers do not 
like  taking  part  in  discussions,  online  training,  e-learning  through  the  internet  or  using 
social  media.  In  most  countries,  less  than  50%  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  use 
these  sources  to  obtain  knowledge.  Only  in  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Romania,  Portugal,  Spain 
and  Cyprus  did  more  than  50%  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  say  they  use  these 
sources to obtain information ( 

21 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.7).  In Bulgaria, Croatia, Portugal, Spain and Cyprus, the  focus group members 
did  not  reflect  specifically  on  this  finding.  However,  it is  notable –  and  does  not  help  to 
explain the finding – that the Romanian and Spanish focus group members mention that 
at  least  in  some  parts  of  their  country,  there  is  no  suitable  broadband  internet 
connection,  and  that  the  Bulgarian  and  Cypriot  focus  group  members  mention  that, 
although  access  to  the  internet  is  not  problematic,  the  skills  to  use  it  are  lacking. 
According  to  the  Romanian  focus  group  members,  young  farmers  in  their  country  like 
interactive and more practically oriented learning methods because the classical training 
methods do not always provide them with the expected practical skills. 

22 

 
 
 
Figure 4.7 Percentage of interviewed young farmers who liked participation in 
discussions, online training, e-learning through the internet or using social 
media as sources of obtaining knowledge

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

In  all  EU  countries,  more  than  50%  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  like  reading  and 
looking for information on the internet (Figure 4.8), using interactive knowledge sources 
(workshops,  study  groups/networks,  agricultural  training,  field  days  or  excursions  and 
participation  in  exchange  schemes  (Figure  4.9)  and  individual  advice  as  sources  from 
which to obtain knowledge (Figure 4.10).  

23 

 
 
 
Figure 4.8 Percentage of interviewed young farmers who liked looking and 
reading on the internet as a source of knowledge 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Figure 4.9 Percentage of interviewed young farmers who liked interactive 
knowledge sources (workshops, study groups/networks, agricultural training, field 
days or excursions and participation in exchange schemes) 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.10 Percentage of interviewed young farmers obtaining knowledge 
through individual advice  

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Figure 4.11 Percentage of interviewed young farmers using farmers’ journals as 
a knowledge source 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
Farmers’ journals are liked by 50% or more of the interviewed young farmers in all 
countries except Estonia; probably because they have a well-organised knowledge 
infrastructure and agricultural knowledge is available free of charge (Figure 4.11).  

The opinions of the interviewed young farmers about exchange schemes as a knowledge 
source  are  divided.  In  Sweden,  Finland,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Poland,  Czech  Republic,  Malta, 
Italy,  Ireland,  United  Kingdom  and  the  Netherlands  less  than  50%  of  them  like  to  use 
exchange  schemes  as  a  source  from  which  to  obtain  knowledge  and  in  the  other  EU 
countries  more  than  50%  of  them  like  to  use  these  schemes  (Figure  4.12).  However, 
participation  in  exchange  schemes  is  rather  restricted  in  all  countries.  According  to  the 
focus  groups  (or  the  interviewed  experts),  reasons  for  not  liking  to  use  exchange 
schemes as a knowledge source in the above-mentioned countries may be: 

•  The young farmers generally have a high level of education (Estonia, Finland, Ireland, 

the Netherlands); 

• 

It is quite easy to obtain knowledge and information because the knowledge 
infrastructure for farmers is well-organised in their country (Estonia, Finland, Ireland, 
the Netherlands); 

•  Agricultural knowledge is available free of charge (Estonia); 

•  Long distances (Estonia, Finland, Sweden) or being an island (Malta); 

•  Language barriers (Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland); 

•  The transferability of knowledge is limited due to different farming conditions in other 

countries (Ireland); 

•  The knowledge obtained through an exchange scheme is not always practically 

applicable for the young farmer or does not entirely fit his/her specific knowledge 
needs (Malta, Poland, United Kingdom); 

•  Young farmers perceive it as too complex to join an exchange scheme from an 

organisational perspective, for example the administrative requirements, time needed 
to prepare applications, costs of living, etc. (Italy, Sweden); 

•  Exchange schemes are lacking in certain countries (Estonia, Finland, Poland); 

•  Travel distances (Estonia, Finland, Sweden); 

•  Mentality; young farmers are not interested in getting to know other cultures 

(Poland). 

26 

 
 
 
Figure 4.12 Percentage of young farmers using exchange schemes as a 
knowledge source

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Conclusion 

Looking  for  and  reading  information  on  the  internet,  interactive  knowledge  sources 
(workshops,  study  groups/networks,  agricultural  training,  field  days  or  excursions  and 
participation in exchange schemes), individual advice and farmers’ journals are the most 
commonly preferred sources for obtaining knowledge for the interviewed young farmers.  

4.4.

  Information sources for young farmers in the EU 

An  overview  of  the  use  of  information  sources  by  the  interviewed  young  farmers  is 
presented in Figure 4.13. Other farmers are the most important information source for all 
interviewed young farmers, followed by farmers’ associations and agricultural consultants 
and  advisors.  Compared  to  EU-28,  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  EU-15  make  more 
use of farmers’ associations and veterinarians, and the interviewed young farmers in new 
Member States make less use of farmers’ associations, veterinarians and input suppliers 
(Table 4.4). 

27 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.13 Percentage of interviewed young farmers using information sources 
below 

Other farmers

Farmers’ associations 

Agricultural consultants and advisors/ extensionists

Input supplier

Buyer/ customer

Veterinarian

Research institutes or similar

Schools/ training institutes

accountants

banks

Local government

National government

Political parties or party organisations

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

New MS

EU15

All countries
EU-28 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Table 4.4 Percentage of interviewed young farmers using the information 
sources below 

A cell is coloured red if the % of farmers who answered that they used the information source is significantly 
lower in comparison with EU-28 and coloured green if this percentage is significantly higher. 

EU-28 
(n=2205) 
67.5 
10.1 
67.3 

Farmers’ associations 
Political parties or party organisations 
Agricultural consultants and 
advisors/extensionists 
Local government 
National government 
Veterinarian 
Input supplier 
Other farmers 
Buyer/customer 
Schools/ training institutes 
Research institutes or similar 
Accountants 
Banks 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

26.4 
26.3 
56.0 
65.5 
86.0 
58.3 
50.4 
50.5 
44.1 
30.2 

EU-15 
(n=1332) 
73.6 
10.7 
68.5 

New MS 
(n=873) 
58.2 
9.2 
65.5 

24.2 
25.4 
60.7 
69.4 
88.2 
58.3 
50.6 
53.2 
45.5 
31.9 

29.7 
27.6 
48.9 
59.5 
82.7 
58.3 
50.2 
46.4 
42.0 
27.7 

Looking at individual countries reveals that, in all EU countries except Cyprus, more than 
50% of the interviewed young farmers like to use other farmers as an information source 
(Figure 4.14). The focus group in Cyprus reveals that this could possibly be explained by 
the  structure  of  agriculture  in  Cyprus  (smallholdings)  and  the  easy  access  to  farmers’ 
journals for all Cypriot farmers.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.14 Percentage of interviewed young farmers using other farmers as an 
information source 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

In  all  EU  countries  except  Estonia,  Latvia,  Poland  and  Hungary,  more  than  50%  of  the 
interviewed  young  farmers  like  to  use  farmers’  associations  as  an  information  source 
(Figure 4.15) and in all EU countries except Greece, Malta and Slovakia, more than 50% 
of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  liked  to  use  agricultural  advisors  and  consultants 
(Figure 4.32). The focus groups in the countries that differed from the average had the 
following potential explanations:  

•  The interviewed young farmers may perceive it as difficult to select the right and 

trustworthy information and knowledge sources in a time-efficient manner (Hungary, 
Latvia); 

•  The interviewed young farmers have doubts as to whether the information is 

sufficiently suitable, to the point, practically applicable and fits the target group 
(Poland, Malta, Slovakia); 

•  The knowledge infrastructure is well-organised in a country, the interviewed young 
farmers are highly educated and knowledge is available free of charge (Estonia); 

•  The interviewed young farmers can easily obtain information from other sources such 

as input suppliers (Greece). 

29 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.15 Percentage of young farmers using farmers’ associations as an 
information source

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Figure 4.16 Percentage of young farmers using agricultural advisors and 
consultants as an information source 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Conclusion 

Other  farmers  are  the  most  important  information  source  for  all  interviewed  young 
farmers, followed by farmers’ associations and agricultural consultants and advisors.  

4.5.

  Hindrances for young farmers to obtaining information 

The  most  important  issue  that  hinders  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  obtaining 
information  is  lack  of  time  (Figure  4.17).  Looking  at  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in 
EU-15  and  the  new  MS  reveals  that,  in  comparison  with  EU-28,  the  interviewed  young 
EU-15 farmers perceived language as less of a hindrance and the interviewed young new 
MS farmers perceived language as more of a hindrance (Table 4.5). 

Figure 4.17 Percentage of interviewed young farmers who perceive the issues 
below as a hindrance 

Lack of time

Too many different sources

Language

Costs

Don’t know where to find it 

Missing or bad internet connection

Lack of interest

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

New MS

EU15

All countries
EU-28 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Table 4.5 Percentage of interviewed young farmers who perceive the issues 
below as a hindrance 

A cell is coloured red if the % of farmers who answered that a certain issue hinders them is significantly higher 
in comparison with EU-28 and coloured green if this percentage is significantly lower. 

Lack of interest 
Lack of time 
Missing or bad internet connection 
Costs 
Language 
Too many different sources 
Don’t know where to find it 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

EU-28 
(n=2205) 
12.5 
58.4 
16.8 
32.9 
32.9 
33.4 
21.0 

EU-15 
(n=1332) 
10.9 
56.9 
17.9 
32.9 
26.2 
31.2 
19.0 

New MS 
(n=873) 
14.9 
60.7 
15.0 
33.0 
43.2 
36.8 
23.9 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Looking at individual countries shows that in most EU countries, except Belgium, Ireland, 
Luxembourg,  Slovakia,  Greece  and  Spain,  more  than  50%  of  the  interviewed  young 
farmers perceive lack of time as an important hindrance to obtaining information (Figure 
4.18).  It  is  not  clear  why  in  these  countries  fewer  interviewed  young  farmers  perceive 
lack of time as a hindrance. According to the interviewed experts in Ireland, lack of time 
is an important hindrance because there is a lot of dairy farming in Ireland which is time 
consuming, but a missing or bad internet connection is a more important hindrance. The 
interviewed  experts  in  Luxembourg  mention  that  having  ‘too  many  different  sources’  of 
information is a bigger hindrance for Luxembourg young farmers than lack of time. In the 
focus  groups  in  Belgium,  Slovakia,  Greece  and  Spain  nothing  is  said  about  lack  of  time 
being a hindrance. 

Figure 4.18 Percentage of interviewed young farmers that perceive lack of time 
as a hindrance to obtaining information 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Conclusion 

Lack  of  time  is  the  most  important  hindrance  to  obtaining  information  for  all  the 
interviewed young farmers.  

32 

 
 
 
 
4.6.

  Participation in exchange schemes by young EU farmers 

Of  the  interviewed  young  farmers,  17.5%  had  participated  in  an  exchange  scheme  and 
16.8%  were  aware  of  an  existing  exchange  scheme  in  his/her  country  (Figure  4.19). 
Compared  to  EU-28,  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  EU-15  more  often  participate  in 
and  are  aware  of  the  existence  of  an  exchange  scheme,  and  the  interviewed  young 
farmers in new MS countries less often (Table 4.6). Most interviewed young farmers who 
participated  in  an  exchange  scheme  had  learned  what  they  wanted  to  learn  and  found 
that their skills had been improved by participation in an exchange scheme (Figure 4.19; 
Table 4.6). 

Figure 4.19 Percentage of young farmers in the EU that have participated in an 
exchange scheme and/or are aware of its existence and their opinion about it 

Awareness of young farmer of existing exchange
scheme in his country

Young farmer improved skills after participation in
an exchange scheme

Exchange scheme taught young farmer what he
wanted to learn

Participation in exchange scheme?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

New MS

EU15

All countries
EU-28 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Table 4.6 Percentage of young farmers in the EU that have participated in an 
exchange scheme and/or are aware of its existence and their opinion about it  

A cell is coloured red if the % of farmers who participated in an exchange scheme and/ or are aware of its 
existence is significantly lower in comparison with EU-28 and coloured green if this percentage is significantly 
higher. 

EU-28 

EU-15 

n 
2205 

% yes 
17.5 

n 
1332 

386 

Participation in exchange 
scheme? 
Exchange scheme taught young 
farmer what he wanted to learn 
Young farmer improved skills 
after participation in an 
exchange scheme 
Awareness of young farmer of 
existing exchange scheme in his 
country 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

2205 

1332 

91.5 

87.8 

16.8 

304 

304 

386 

% yes 
22.8 

86.5 

90.5 

New MS 
n 
873 

% yes 
9.4 

82 

82 

92.7 

95.1 

23.0 

873 

7.3 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Although  participation  in  exchange  schemes  seems  to  be  low  throughout  the  EU, 
differences exist between EU countries (Figure 4.20). In Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg 
and  the  Netherlands  more  than  50%  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  had  participated 
in an exchange scheme. In some of these countries this can be explained by the sample 
used or the interpretation of the question. In the Netherlands, the definition of exchange 
schemes  was  interpreted  differently  than  in  other  countries.  Interviewed  young  Dutch 
farmers  who  went  abroad  for  an  internship  on  a  farm  when  they  were  students  also 
interpreted  this  as  ‘joining  an  exchange  scheme’.  In  Belgium,  the  respondents  of  the 
survey  were  gathered  through  agricultural  schools  asking  for  young  farmers  who  had 
already joined an exchange scheme. In Luxembourg, there was a bias in the respondents 
for  the  same  reason,  as  they  were  recruited  from  a  group  of  young  farmers  who  had 
participated  in  an  internship  abroad.  According  to  the  Danish  interviewed  experts,  the 
high  percentage  of  interviewed  young  farmers  in  Denmark  who  had  participated  in  an 
exchange  scheme  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  young  farmers  in  Denmark  are 
encouraged  to  do  so.  As  such,  there  is  a  lot  of  information  provided  about  exchange 
schemes  through  websites.  In  addition,  Danish  young  farmers  get  a  good  salary  during 
their education and therefore have no financial difficulties when it comes to going abroad. 

Figure 4.20 Percentage of interviewed young farmers that have participated in 
an exchange scheme 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Conclusion 

The number of interviewed young farmers that had participated in an exchange scheme 
was  restricted.  In  EU-15,  more  interviewed  young  farmers  had  participated  in  an 
exchange scheme than in the new MS. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
4.7.

  Attitude  of  young  EU 

farmers 

to  participation 

in  a(n) 

(inter)national exchange scheme 

The  attitude  of  EU  young  farmers  to  participation  in  a(n)  (inter)national  exchange 
scheme is presented in Figure 4.21. Looking at EU-28 reveals that the interviewed young 
farmers  perceive  participation  in  a  national  or  international  exchange  scheme  equally 
often as useful but that they perceive participation in an exchange scheme in their own 
country more often as realistic (Figure 4.21). In comparison with EU-28, the interviewed 
young  farmers  in  EU-15  perceive  participation  in  a(n)  (inter)national  exchange  scheme 
less often as realistic, while the interviewed young farmers in new MS perceived it more 
often as realistic (Table 4.7). 

Figure 4.21 The percentage of interviewed young farmers who have a positive 
attitude to participation in a(n) (inter)national exchange scheme in EU-28, EU-
15 and new MS 

Young farmers perceive participation in an
exchange scheme in own country useful

Young farmers perceive participation in an
exchange scheme in own country realistic

Young farmers perceive participation in an
international exchange scheme useful

Young farmers perceive participation in an
international exchange scheme realistic

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

New MS

EU15

All countries
EU-28 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Table 4.7 Young farmers’ attitude to participation in an exchange scheme (% of 
respondents) 

A cell is coloured red if the % of interviewed young farmers who perceive participation in an exchange scheme 
as useful and/or realistic is significantly lower in comparison with EU-28 and coloured green if this percentage is 
significantly higher. 

EU-28 
(n=2205) 
50.5 

Young farmers perceive participation in an 
international exchange scheme realistic 
Young farmers perceive participation in an 
international exchange scheme useful 
Young farmers perceive participation in an 
exchange scheme in own country realistic 
Young farmers perceive participation in an 
exchange scheme in own country useful 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

72.0 

72.0 

61.4 

EU-15 
(n=1332) 
46.2 

New MS 
(n=873) 
57.0 

70.9 

57.1 

71.2 

73.5 

67.9 

73.1 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
Looking  at individual  countries  reveals  that  the  interviewed  young  farmers  have  quite  a 
positive  attitude  to  participation  in  an  exchange  scheme.  Only  in  Sweden,  Finland  and 
Estonia  did  less  than  50%  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  have  a  positive  attitude  to 
participation  in  an  exchange  scheme  (Figure  4.22).  According  to  the  focus  group 
members in these countries, this is probably related to the long travel distances in these 
countries,  the  lack  of  exchange  schemes  (Estonia  and  Finland)  and  the  administrative 
burden  of  joining  an  exchange  scheme  (Sweden).  As  in  many  other  countries,  lack  of 
time and having no replacement on the farm play a role as well. 

Figure 4.22 The percentage of interviewed young farmers who have a positive 
attitude to participation in a(n) (inter)national exchange scheme 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Conclusion 

The  interviewed  young  farmers  in  EU-15  perceive  participation  in  a(n)  (inter)national 
exchange  scheme  less  often  as  realistic/had  a  less  positive  attitude  about  exchange 
schemes  than  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  new  MS.  Looking  at  separate  countries 
reveals  that  most  interviewed  young  farmers  have  a  positive  attitude  to  exchange 
schemes. 

36 

 
 
 
 
4.8.

  The intention of young EU farmers of joining an exchange scheme 

Less  than  50%  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  EU-28  have  the intention  of  joining 
a(n) (inter)national exchange scheme (Figure 4.23). Compared to EU-28, the intention is 
higher in new MS and lower in EU-15 (Table 4.8). 

Figure 4.23 Percentage of interviewed young farmers that have the intention of 
joining a(n) (inter)national exchange scheme in EU-28, EU-15 and new MS 

‘I have the intention to join an exchange scheme in 
my own country’ 

‘I will join an exchange scheme in my own country’ 

‘I have the intention to join an exchange scheme 
abroad’ 

‘I will join an exchange scheme abroad’ 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

New MS

EU15

All countries
EU-28 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Table 4.8 Intention of young farmers to join an exchange scheme (% of 
respondents) 

A cell is coloured red if the intention of the interviewed young farmers of joining a(n) (inter) national exchange 
scheme is significantly lower in comparison with EU-28 and coloured green if this percentage is significantly 
higher 

EU-28 
(n=2205) 
43.5 
48.7 

‘I will join an exchange scheme abroad’ 
‘I have the intention of joining an exchange scheme 
abroad’ 
‘I will join an exchange scheme in my own country’ 
‘I have the intention of joining an exchange scheme 
in my own country’ 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

43.4 
49.7 

EU-15 
(n=1332) 
36.8 
45.3 

New MS 
(n=873) 
53.8 
53.8 

35.1 
44.4 

56.1 
57.7 

Looking  at  the  country  level  shows  that  the  intention  of  young  farmers  of  joining  a(n) 
(inter)national exchange scheme differs between countries. In Latvia, Slovakia, Hungary, 
Slovenia,  Croatia,  Romania,  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Cyprus,  Malta,  Italy,  the  Netherlands  and 
Denmark more than 50% of the interviewed young farmers indicated that they have the 
intention of joining a(n) (inter)national exchange scheme. In the other EU countries, less 
than 50% of the interviewed young farmers indicated having the intention of joining a(n) 
(inter)national exchange scheme (Figure 4.24).  

According  to  the  focus  group  members  in  these  countries  (or  interviewed  experts), 
possible  reasons  for  this  are  (besides  lack  of  time  and  having  no  replacement  on  the 
farm): 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Language barrier (Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain); 

•  Young farmers already had practical training abroad when they were students 

(Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg); 

•  The transferability of knowledge is limited, for example because of small farms in a 
country (Austria) or due to different farming conditions in other countries (Ireland); 

•  The knowledge obtained through an exchange scheme is not always practically 

applicable for the young farmer or does not entirely fit his/her specific knowledge 
needs (Poland, United Kingdom); 

•  Young farmers perceive it as too complex to join an exchange scheme from an 

organisational perspective, for example with regard to administrative requirements, 
time needed to prepare applications, costs of living, etc. (Luxembourg, Sweden); 

•  Young farmers have a job besides the farm and therefore cannot go abroad (Austria); 

•  Minimum period of stay is too long (Belgium, Portugal); 

•  Exchange schemes are lacking in certain countries (Estonia, Finland, Poland); 

•  Travel distances (Estonia, Finland, Sweden); 

•  Mentality; young farmers are not interested in getting to know other cultures 

(Poland); (see 3.5). 

Figure 4.24 Percentage of interviewed young farmers that have the intention of 
joining a(n) (inter)national exchange scheme 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

38 

 
 
 
 
Conclusion  

In  comparison  with  EU-28,  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  EU-15  have  a  lower 
intention  of  joining  a(n)  (inter)national  exchange  scheme  and  the  interviewed  young 
farmers in new MS have a higher intention of doing so. 

4.9.

  Issues  that  hinder  young  EU  farmers  in  joining  an  exchange 

scheme 

Issues that hinder the interviewed young EU farmers in joining an exchange scheme are 
presented in Figure 4.25 and Table 4.9. Lack of time is the most important hindrance for 
the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  the  EU.  Having  no  replacement  on  the  farm  was  also 
mentioned  quite  often  as  a  hindrance,  although  it  was  mentioned  less  often  as  a 
hindrance in new MS in comparison with EU-28. A language barrier was mentioned more 
often by the interviewed young farmers in the new MS (Figure 4.25; Table 4.9). 

Figure 4.25 Percentage of interviewed young farmers that perceive the issues 
below as a hindrance 

Lack of time

No replacement on my farm

Lack of money

Language barrier

Lack of knowledge

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

New MS

EU15

All countries

Table 4.9 Issues that hinder young farmers in participating in an exchange 
scheme (% of respondents);  

A cell is coloured red if the interviewed young farmers perceive an issue significantly more often as a hindrance 
in comparison with EU-28 and coloured green if they perceive it significantly less often as a hindrance. 

Lack of knowledge 
Lack of money 
Lack of time 
No replacement on my farm 
Language barrier 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

EU-28 
(n=2205) 
20.0 
35.9 
69.0 
48.6 
32.7 

EU-15 
(n=1332) 
19.7 
34.5 
70.8 
52.0 
29.8 

New MS 
(n=873) 
20.6 
38.1 
66.3 
43.4 
37.1 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Looking  at  individual  countries  reveals  that  in  all  EU  countries  except  Greece,  50%  or 
more  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  perceive  lack  of  time  as  a  hindrance  to 
participating  in  an  exchange  scheme  (Figure  4.26).  The  opinions  of  the  interviewed 
young  farmers  as  to  whether  having  no  replacement  on  the  farm  is  a  hindrance  to 
participating  in  an  exchange  scheme  are  divided.  More  than  50%  of  the  interviewed 
young  farmers  perceive  this  as  a  hindrance  in  Sweden,  Finland,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Czech 
Republic,  Austria,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Cyprus,  Italy,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Ireland 
and United Kingdom, and less than 50% of the interviewed young farmers perceive this 
as  a  hindrance  in  the  other  EU  countries  (Figure  4.27).  These  aspects  have  not  been 
discussed  extensively  with  the  focus  group  members  (or  with  the  interviewed  experts). 
In most countries, it was confirmed that lack of time and having no replacement on the 
farm  are  the  most  significant  hindrances  for  young  farmers  to  joining  an  exchange 
scheme. 

Figure 4.26 Percentage of interviewed young farmers that perceive lack of time 
as a hindrance to participating in an exchange scheme 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

40 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.27 Percentage of interviewed young farmers that perceive having no 
replacement on the farm as a hindrance to participating in an exchange scheme 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Conclusion 

Lack  of  time  is  the  most  important  hindrance  for  the  interviewed  young  farmers  to 
joining an exchange scheme, followed by having no replacement on the farm. 

4.10.

  Expectations  of  young  EU  farmers  about  participation  in  an 

exchange scheme 

Figure  4.28  shows  what  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  the  EU  think  about 
participation  in  an  exchange  scheme.  In  general,  the  percentage  of  interviewed  young 
farmers  that  have  positive  expectations  about  participation  in  an  exchange  scheme  is 
rather  high.  Only  their  expectations  with  regards  how  an  exchange  scheme  would 
improve  the  family  income  seem  to  be  lower.  However,  more  than  60%  of  the 
interviewed young farmers in EU-28 expect that taking part in an exchange scheme will 
be  a  valuable  experience  for  them  and  will  improve  their  networking  and  management 
skills  and  their  farm  results.  Looking  at  EU-15  and  new  MS  reveals  that,  in  comparison 
with  EU-28,  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  new  MS  more  often  expect  that  their 
marketing skills and their family income will improve, and the interviewed young farmers 
in EU-15 less often expect that their marketing skills will improve (Table 4.10). 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.28 Expectations of the interviewed young farmers about participation 
in an exchange scheme (% of respondents who said that it was likely that a 
certain expectation would be realised) 

be a valuable experience for me

improve my networking skills

improve my farm results

improve my management skills

improve my marketing skills

cost me a lot of time

improve my family income

cost me a lot of money

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

New MS

EU15

All countries

EU-28 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Table 4.10 Expectations (behavioural beliefs) of young EU farmers about 
participation in an exchange scheme (% of respondents) 

EU-28 (n=2205)  EU-15 

A cell is coloured red if the interviewed young farmers have significantly lower expectations about participation 
in an exchange scheme in comparison with EU-28 and coloured green if they have significantly higher 
expectations. 
Participation in an exchange 
scheme will.. 
improve my farm results 
cost me a lot of money 
improve my management skills 
improve my family income 
cost me a lot of time 
be a valuable experience for me 
improve my networking skills 
improve my marketing skills 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

(n=1322) 
66.3 
31.2 
64.0 
36.0 
55.3 
85.1 
70.3 
51.4 

New MS 
(n=873) 
71.4 
31.6 
66.0 
44.1 
47.8 
82.1 
72.5 
64.3 

68.3 
31.3 
64.8 
39.2 
52.3 
83.9 
71.2 
56.5 

Looking  at  the  country  level  confirms  that  in  all  EU  countries,  except  Sweden,  Finland 
and Estonia, more than 50% of the interviewed young farmers have positive expectations 
about  what  participation  in  an  exchange  scheme  will  bring  them  (Figure  4.29).  Possible 
reasons for this are travel distances in these countries, the lack of exchange schemes in 
Estonia and Finland, the administrative burden of joining an exchange scheme perceived 
by the Swedish young farmers and, as in many other countries, lack of time and having 
no replacement on the farm. 

42 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.29 Percentage of interviewed young farmers that has positive 
expectations about participation in an exchange scheme 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Conclusion  

In general, the interviewed young farmers have positive expectations about participation 
in an exchange scheme. 

4.11.

  Distribution of agricultural sectors over EU regions 

In  

Table  4.11,  we  can  see  how  the  different  agricultural  sectors  mentioned  as  main 
economic  activities  by  the  interviewed  young  farmers  are  divided  over  EU-15  and  the 
new Member States. The distribution by country is presented in Annex I.29. 

In  EU-15,  the  interviewed  young  farmers  relatively  often  mention  grazing  livestock  as 
their main economic activity and they relatively seldom mention field crops in comparison 
with EU-28. In the new MS, the opposite was found ( 

Table 4.11).  

43 

 
  
 
 
 
Table 4.11 Main economic activities of the young farmers who participated in 
the survey (% of respondents)  

Respondents could mention more than one main activity but only if both activities were a substantial part of the 
economic activities at the farm. If a sector is found relatively infrequently in a country compared to EU-28, a 
cell is coloured green and if a sector is found relatively often in a country, a cell is coloured blue.  

N 

Field 
crops 

EU-15  1282  20.8 

Perma
nent 
crops 
10.1 

Grazing 
livestock 

Horti-
culture 

Grani-
vores 

Mixed 
crops 

Mixed 
livestock 

32.0 

2.6 

3.4 

6.0 

3.0 

Mixed 
crops/ 
livestock 
22.0 

New 
MS 

Total 
EU-28  

810  32.3 

6.9 

21.2 

2.0 

2.7 

9.3 

2.7 

22.8 

2092  25.3 

8.9 

27.8 

2.3 

3.2 

7.3 

2.9 

22.3 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Conclusion  

The main activities of the interviewed young farmers are not distributed evenly over EU-
15 and the new MS. Field crops are found more often in new MS and grazing livestock is 
found more often in EU-15.  

4.12.

  Needs of young farmers in different agricultural sectors 

In Annex I.29 an overview of the survey results in different agricultural sectors is given. 
It is obvious that the main economic activities (sectors) of the interviewed young farmers 
affect their needs. In some cases, this is easy to understand:  

• 

• 

• 

Interviewed young farmers with permanent crops have a relatively low need for land 
to buy or rent and a relatively high need for seasonal workers when compared with all 
interviewed young farmers together (irrespective of the sector). An explanation is 
that not so much land is needed for growing permanent crops and it is an intensive 
sector with high labour peaks. Interviewed young farmers with grazing livestock have 
a relatively low need for qualified labour and seasonal workers because it is quite an 
extensive sector in many countries; 

Interviewed young farmers with permanent crops or horticulture have a relatively 
high need for insurance (weather sensitive sector) and interviewed young farmers 
with grazing livestock have a relatively low need for insurance (not such a weather 
sensitive sector); 

Interviewed young farmers with field crops, permanent crops and mixed crops have a 
low interest in developing skills related to the improvement of animal welfare and 
they seldom use a veterinarian as an information source, while interviewed young 
farmers with grazing livestock, granivores, mixed livestock or mixed crops and 
livestock have a relatively high interest in developing these skills and relatively often 
use a veterinarian as an information source. 

However, in most cases, it is not so clear why a certain need, hindrance or opinion about 
exchange schemes is higher or lower in a certain sector. The interviewed young farmers 
with  permanent  crops  for  example  stand  out  because  they  deviate  quite  often  when 
compared  with  all  interviewed  young  farmers  together  (irrespective  of  the  sector  and 
besides the already mentioned topics): 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
•  They perceive the availability of useful trainings more often as problematic; 

•  They perceive it as more likely that they will develop marketing, financial, 

communication and networking skills and skills related to foreign languages; 

•  They more often use discussions on the internet, online training and e-learning and 

workshops or seminars as sources to obtain knowledge; 

•  They more often perceive participation in an international exchange scheme as 

useful; 

•  They more often indicate that they have the intention of joining an exchange scheme 

abroad or in their own country and they appeared to have participated in an 
exchange scheme less often; 

•  They expect more often that participation in an exchange scheme will improve their 

farm results, their family income and their marketing skills. 

The  interviewed  young  farmers  in  other  sectors  sometimes  deviate  as  well  when 
compared  with  all  interviewed  young  farmers  together  (irrespective  of  the  sector  and 
besides the already mentioned topics):  

•  Young farmers with field crops perceive it as less likely that they will develop 

management skills, they less often perceive a missing or bad internet connection as a 
hindrance to obtaining knowledge and they less often were aware of an existing 
exchange scheme in their country; 

•  Young farmers with grazing livestock less often perceive the availability of extension 
services and useful trainings or workshops as problematic, they perceive it less often 
as likely that they will develop skills related to foreign languages, they less often used 
online training or e-learning as sources to obtain knowledge, they more often used 
banks as information sources, they more often mentioned ‘lack of money’ as a 
hindrance to participating in an exchange scheme and they more often had 
participated in an exchange scheme; 

•  Young farmers working in horticulture more often perceive lack of interest and costs 
as a hindrance to obtaining knowledge and they more often said that they have the 
intention of joining an exchange scheme abroad; 

•  Young farmers with granivores (pigs and/or poultry) more often use political parties 

as information sources, they more often indicate that they will join a(n) 
(inter)national exchange scheme and they more often had participated in an 
exchange scheme or were aware of its existence in their country; 

•  Young farmers with mixed crops more often perceive the availability of credit, 
machinery, seasonal workers, advice of extension services and new and useful 
knowledge and other legal issues as problematic, they less often use input suppliers, 
schools and training institutes and banks as information sources, they more often 
perceive language as a hindrance to obtaining knowledge and they more often 
perceive lack of knowledge and language as a hindrance to joining an exchange 
scheme; 

•  Young farmers with mixed livestock more often perceive a missing or bad internet 

connection as a hindrance to obtaining knowledge. 

Conclusion  

It  is  obvious  that  the  main  economic  activities  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  the 
different  countries  also  affect  their  general  needs,  knowledge  needs,  use  of  knowledge 
and  information  sources  as  well  as  their  participation  in,  attitude  to  and  perception  of 
exchange schemes.  

45 

 
 
 
4.13.

  The  influence  of  the  education  level  of  the  interviewed  young 

farmers 

Whether  or  not  the  level  of  education  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  affected  their 
answers in the survey was also looked at. A distinction was made between farmers with a 
high level of education (BSc, MSc or PhD) and farmers with a lower level of education. Of 
all  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  EU-28,  43.9%  had  a  high  level  of  education  and 
56.1%  a  lower  level  of  education.  The  percentage  of  interviewed  young  farmers  with  a 
higher  or  lower  level  of  education  in  EU-15  and  new  MS  did  not  deviate  from  EU-28 
(Table 4.12). 

Table 4.12 The percentage of interviewed young farmers with a higher or lower 
level of education in the EU 

Education level 
High (BSc, MSc or PhD) 
Lower 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

EU-28 (n=2205) 
43.9 
56.1 

EU-15 (n=1332) 
44.8 
55.2 

New MS (n=973) 
42.5 
57.5 

In some cases, education affected the way the interviewed young farmers answered the 
questions of the survey. In comparison with EU-28 (Figure 4.30): 

•  Highly educated young farmers perceive advice of extension services more often as 

problematic; less educated young farmers perceived this as less problematic; 

•  Highly educated young farmers more often perceive it as likely that they would 

develop skills related to foreign languages; 

•  Highly educated young farmers more often participated in workshops and seminars or 
joined a study group or network to obtain knowledge; less educated young farmers 
less often; 

•  Highly educated young farmers less often make use of the national government, 
research institutes and accountants as information sources  ̶ for less educated 
farmers, it was more often; 

•  Highly educated young farmers less often and less educated young farmers more 

often perceive language and ‘not knowing where to find it’ as a hindrance to obtaining 
information. Highly educated young farmers perceive lack of time more often as a 
hindrance; 

•  Highly educated young farmers more often and less educated young farmers less 

often perceive participation in an international exchange as realistic; 

•  Highly educated young farmers also participated more often and less educated young 

farmers participated less often in an exchange scheme; 

•  Highly educated young farmers perceive lack of money and a language barrier less 

often and less educated farmers perceived this more often as a hindrance to 
participating in an exchange scheme. 

The corresponding numbers are presented in Annex I.29 

Conclusion 

A  few  indications  were  found  that  the  education  level  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers 
affects  their  knowledge  needs.  The  interviewed  young  farmers  with  a  higher  level  of 
education  are  more  eager  to  develop  different  kinds  of  skills,  they  perceive  less 
hindrances  to  obtaining  information  or  to  joining  an  exchange  scheme  (although  they 

46 

 
 
 
 
perceive  lack  of  time  as  more  of  a  hindrance  than  less  educated  young  farmers),  they 
have  a  more  positive  attitude  to  exchange  schemes  and  also  participated  more  often  in 
an exchange scheme than less educated interviewed young farmers.  

Figure 4.30 The influence of education level on the issues indicated in the figure 
(% of interviewed young farmers) 

YF perceives advice of extension services as problematic

Workshops are used as knowledge source

Study group or network is used as knowledge source

National government is used as information source

YF uses research institutes as information source

YF uses accountants as information source

Lack of time is perceived as hindrance to obtaining…

Language is perceived as hindrance to obtaining…

YF does not know where to find information

YF perceives participation in international ES as realistic

Lack of money is perceived as hindrance to joining ES

Language barrier is perceived as hindrance to joining ES

Participation in ES wil improve YF's networking skills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

BSc MSc PhD

lower education

% of interviewed 
young farmers 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

4.14.

  The influence of the farm situation 

The  farm  situation  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  differed.  Of  the  2  064  (of  2  205) 
interviewed  young  farmers  for  whom  the  farm  situation  was  known,  969  (46.9%)  were 
the owners of the farm, 387 (18.8%) had a partnership with their parents or with others, 
138  (6.7%)  were  employees  on  a  farm  and  570  (27.6%)  were  employees  on  their 
parents’ farm.  In  EU-15 the percentage  of interviewed  young farmers  who were owners 
of  the  farm  was  lower  in  comparison  with  EU-28  and  the  percentage  of  interviewed 
young  farmers  who  had  a  partnership  with  their  parents  was  higher.  In  new  MS,  the 
reverse was found (Table 4.13). 

Table 4.13 The percentage of interviewed young farmers who own the farm, 
have a partnership with their parents or others or are employees on a farm or 
on their parents’ farm 

If a farm situation is found relatively rarely in a country compared to EU-28, a cell is coloured green and if a 
situation is found relatively often in a country, a cell is coloured blue. 
Farm situation 

Owner of the farm 
Partnership with parents or others 
Employee on a farm 
Employee on parents’ farm 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

EU-28 
(n=2064) 
46.9 
18.8 
6.7 
27.6 

EU-15 
(n=1208) 
41.2 
22.5 
7.5 
28.7 

New MS 
(n=856) 
55.0 
13.4 
5.5 
26.1 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
The  farm  situation  appears  to  have  some  influence  on  the  answers  given  by  the 
interviewed  young  farmers.  When  compared  with  all  the  answers  given  by  the 
interviewed young farmers for whom the farm situation was known, it appears that farm 
owners less often answer ‘neutral’ and more often answered in a negative way. Farmers 
who work as employees on their parents’ farm more often answer ‘neutral’ or ‘no answer’ 
and  less  often  answer  in  a  positive  or  a  negative  way  (Table  4.14).  Farm  owners  thus 
seem to be more certain of their answers, while farmers who worked as an employee on 
their  parents’  farm  were  less  certain.  This  is  probably  related  to  the  age  of  the 
interviewed young farmers with different farm situations. The farm owners appear to be 
the oldest group (32.6 + 4.6 years of age), the farmers who had a partnership with their 
parents  the  second  oldest  (30.0  +  4.6),  the  farmers  who  worked  on  a  farm  the  third 
oldest  (26.1  +  5.4)  and  the  farmers  who  worked  on  their  parents’  farm  the  youngest 
(24.3 + 5.1). All groups differed significantly in age. 

Table 4.14 The effect of the farm situation on the way farmers answered the 
questions in the questionnaire 

Percentage  of  (79)  questions  answered  with  a  certain  answer  more  or  less  often  than 
could be expected if the farm situation would not have affected the type of answer given 

Owner 
(n=969) 

Partner-
ship 
(n=386) 
1.3 

Employee 
on a farm 
(n=138) 
1.3 

Employee on 
parents’ farm 
(n=570) 
26.6 

0 

5.1 

6.3 

1.3 

2.5 

20.3 

% of questions answered more 
often with ‘neutral’  
% of questions answered less 
often with ‘neutral’ 
% of questions answered more 
often in a positive way*  
% of questions answered less 
often in a positive way 
% of questions answered more 
often in a negative way** 
% of questions answered less 
often in a negative way 
% of questions answered more 
often with ‘no answer’ 
% of questions answered less 
often with ‘no answer’ 
*positive answers are: ‘yes’, ‘likely’, ‘agree’, ‘realistic’ and ‘useful’. 
**negative answers are: ‘no’, ‘unlikely’, ‘disagree’, ‘not realistic. 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

20.3 

1.3 

3.8 

2.5 

6.3 

3.8 

2.5 

3.8 

0 

1.3 

5.1 

0 

2.5 

7.6 

3.8 

0 

0 

5.1 

15.2 

2.5 

21.5 

11.4 

3.8 

Some striking results were that, in comparison with EU-28: 

• 

• 

Interviewed young farmers who are owners of the farm relatively often indicate that 
some general issues (land to buy or rent, access to credit, the national inheritance 
law, other legal issues and interventions of parents or other persons) are not 
problematic for them. They also answer relatively often that it is unlikely that they 
will develop certain skills (financial, communication, networking, and management 
skills, skills to develop a farm strategy, skills related to resource and nature and 
environment management and skills related to the improvement of animal welfare) 
perhaps because they (think that they) already have these skills; 

Interviewed young farmers who are owners of the farm relatively often indicate that 
they use discussions on the internet and online training or e-learning through the 
internet, while interviewed young farmers who are employees on their parents’ farm 
relatively rarely indicate this; 

48 

 
 
 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

Interviewed young farmers who are owners of the farm relatively often indicate that 
joining a(n) (inter)national exchange scheme is unrealistic, while interviewed young 
farmers who are employees on their parents’ farm relatively rarely indicate this;  

Interviewed young farmers who own the farm relatively seldom indicate that they had 
participated in an exchange scheme or that they are aware of it, and interviewed 
young farmers who have a partnership with their parents or others relatively often 
said that they had participated in an exchange scheme or were aware of it; 

Interviewed young farmers who are employees on their parents’ farm relatively often 
answered ‘neutral’ or ‘no answer’ on the questions regarding their intention of joining 
an exchange scheme; 

Interviewed young farmers who have a partnership with their parents more often 
have a higher education level and less often have a lower education level, and 
interviewed young farmers who are employees on their parents’ farm less often have 
a higher education level and more often have a lower education. 

The corresponding numbers are presented in Annex I.29. 

Conclusion 

The  farm  situation  affected  the  answers  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers.  Interviewed 
young farmers who are the owner of the farm seem to be more sure of themselves. They 
perceive fewer general needs when compared with all the interviewed young farmers, but 
they  also  are  less  eager  to  develop  different  kinds  of  skills.  This  could  be  because  they 
(think  that  they)  already  have  these  skills.  They  also  perceive  it  relatively  often  as 
unrealistic  that  they  will  join  a(n)  (inter)national  exchange  scheme.  However,  no 
indications  were  found  that  the  interviewed  young  farmers  who  are  the  owners  of  the 
farm  perceive  more  hindrances  to  obtaining  information  or  to  joining  an  exchange 
scheme when compared with all interviewed young farmers. They are older though.  

4.15.

  The influence of the type of area 

Of the 2 205 interviewed young farmers, 1 069 (48.5%) lived in a favourable or flat area, 
1  010  (45.8%)  lived  in  a  less  favourable,  hilly,  mountainous  or  NATURA2000  area  and 
126 (5.7%) indicated that they did not know in what kind of area they lived. The type of 
area in which the interviewed young farmers lived did not affect the way they answered 
most of the questions. However, a few striking results were that, when compared with all 
the answers given by the interviewed young farmers: 

•  Young farmers who said that they did not know in what kind of area they lived quite 
often answered the questions with ‘neutral’ (19.0% of the answers on 79 questions) 
or ‘no answer’ (21.5% of the answers on 79 questions); 

•  Young farmers who live in favourable areas relatively often indicate that the 

availability of machinery was not problematic for them and relatively few said this 
issue was problematic for them. For the interviewed young farmers who lived in less 
favourable areas, the reverse was found; 

• 

• 

Interviewed young farmers who live in favourable areas relatively often indicate that 
lack of time is not a hindrance for them to obtaining information, while interviewed 
young farmers who live in less favourable areas said relatively often that this was a 
hindrance for them; 

Interviewed young farmers who live in favourable areas relatively often indicate that 
they had participated in an exchange scheme and that they are aware of an existing 
exchange scheme in their country, while interviewed young farmers who live in less 
favourable areas indicate this relatively less often; 

49 

 
 
• 

• 

Interviewed young farmers who are owners of the farm less often indicate that they 
do not know in what kind of area they live and interviewed young farmers who 
worked as an employee on a farm more often indicate this; 

Interviewed young farmers with field crops or granivores more often live in 
favourable areas and less often live in less favourable areas. Interviewed young 
farmers with grazing livestock less often live in favourable areas and interviewed 
young farmers with mixed livestock more often live in less favourable areas. 

The kind of area in which the interviewed young farmers lived appeared to be distributed 
more  or  less  evenly  over  EU-15  and  new  MS  (Table  4.15)  and  no  clear  relationship 
existed between type of area and education level.  

Table 4.15 The percentage of interviewed young farmers living in different 
types of areas (flat/ favourable, hilly/mountainous/NATURA2000) in the EU 

Type of area 

Favourable/flat 
Mountainous/ hilly/ NATURA2000 
Don’t know 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

EU-28 
(n=2205) 
48.5 
45.8 
5.7 

EU-15 
(n=1332) 
47.4 
46.2 
6.5 

New MS 
(n=973) 
50.2 
45.2 
4.6 

Conclusion 

A few indications were found that – in comparison with all interviewed young farmers – it 
is  more  difficult  for  the  interviewed  young  farmers  who  live  in  less  favourable  areas  to 
obtain knowledge or join an exchange scheme. 

4.16.

  The influence of the type of farm (conventional or organic) 

Of the 2 204 (of 2 205) interviewed young farmers for whom the farm type was known, 1 
899 (86.2%) had a conventional farm and 305 (13.8%) had an  organic farm.  Only in a 
few  cases  did  the  type  of  farm  affect  the  way  the  interviewed  young  farmers  answered 
the  questions.  In  comparison  with  all  the  answers  given  by  the  interviewed  young 
farmers: 

•  Organic young farmers more often indicate that the availability of qualified labour is 

problematic for them; 

•  Conventional young farmers less often indicate that they do not use input suppliers as 
an information source and organic young farmers indicate this more often. Organic 
young farmers also indicate less often that they use input suppliers as an information 
source; 

•  Organic young farmers more often indicate that lack of time is a hindrance for them 

to obtaining information; 

•  Young farmers who are employees on a farm more often work on an organic farm and 

young farmers who are employees on their parents’ farm less often work on an 
organic farm; 

•  Young farmers with field crops less often have an organic farm and young farmers 

with permanent crops or horticulture more often have an organic farm; 

•  The type of farm of the interviewed young farmers was distributed more or less 

evenly over EU-15 and new MS (Table 4.16). The education level of the interviewed 
young farmers did not seem to be related with the type of farming either. 

50 

 
 
 
 
Table 4.16 The percentage of interviewed young farmers having a conventional 
or organic farm 

Type of farm 
Conventional 
Organic 
Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

EU-28 (n=2205) 
86.2 
13.8 

84.8 
15.2 

88.2 
11.8 

EU-15 (n=1331)  New MS (n=973) 

Conclusion 

The type of farm did not seem to affect the way the interviewed young farmers answered 
the  survey  questions  very  much.  Only  lack  of  time  seems  to  be  a  more  important 
hindrance  for  organic  farmers  to  obtaining  information  when  compared  with  all  the 
interviewed young farmers. 

4.17.

  High and low intenders for joining an exchange scheme 

Table  4.17  shows  (only)  the  significant  differences  between  interviewed  young  farmers 
with  a  relatively  high  or  a  relatively  low  intention  of  joining  an  exchange  scheme 
(referred to as high and low intenders respectively). The analysis is based  on the mean 
scores  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  on  combined  variables  (constructs)  and  on 
separate variables if they did not ‘fit’ in a construct according to the factor analysis and 
the  reliability  analysis  (see  Annex  I.30).  In  comparison  with  low  intenders,  high 
intenders: 

•  Perceive the availability of land as less problematic and the availability of credit and 

insurance as more problematic; 

•  Perceive it as more likely that they will develop entrepreneurial skills, technical and 

managerial skills and skills related to foreign languages; 

•  Make more use of the internet; both passive (looking and reading for information) 

and active (participation in discussions on the internet, e-learning or online training 
and social media); 

•  Make more use of interactive knowledge sources to obtain knowledge; 

•  Perceive lack of interest and too many sources as less of a hindrance to obtaining 

information; 

•  Perceive lack of time, having no replacement on the farm and language as less of a 

hindrance to joining an exchange scheme; 

•  Have higher expectations of and a more positive attitude about exchange schemes 
and thought to a lesser extent that joining an exchange scheme costs a lot of time. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.17 Mean scores and standard deviation of interviewed young farmers 
who have a relatively low or high intention of joining an exchange scheme; only 
significant differences are shown 

Low intenders 

High intenders 

p 

Mean  N 

Std. 
Deviation 

Mean  N 

Std. 
Deviation 

General needs (a higher score means that a respondent perceives the 
availability of these issues as less problematic) 
Land 

1198 

848 

0.6 

0.7 

0.7 

0.8 

Credits 

Insurance 

1.1 

1.5 

820 

827 

0.8 

0.7 

1.0 

1.4 

1182 

1177 

0.9 

0.8 

p<0.05 

p<0.01 

p<0.01 

Skills (a higher score means that a respondent perceives it as more likely that 
he/ she will develop these skills) 
Entrepreneurial skills 

1207 

847 

1.2 

0.6 

1.4 

0.6 

p<0.001 

p<0.001 

p<0.001 

0.9 

1.2 

0.9 

0.9 

0.5 

1.5 

0.5 

1.3 

839 

848 

1192 

1208 

Technical and 
managerial skills 
Skills related to foreign 
languages 
Sources to obtain knowledge (a higher score means that a respondent uses 
these knowledge sources more often) 
Making passive use of 
internet 
Making active use of 
internet  
Interactive knowledge 
sources 
Hindrances to obtaining information (a higher score means that a respondent 
perceives this hindrance as less problematic) 
Lack of interest 

1209 

1197 

1202 

1203 

856 

850 

854 

854 

1.5 

0.5 

1.7 

0.4 

0.7 

1.6 

0.7 

1.5 

1.7 

0.6 

1.8 

0.5 

0.9 

0.6 

1.1 

0.7 

p<0.01 

p<0.001 

p<0.001 

p<0.001 

Too many sources 

1.0 

850 

0.8 

1.1 

1198 

0.9 

p<0.05 

Hindrances to joining an exchange scheme (a higher score means that a 
respondent perceives this hindrance as less problematic) 
No time 

1208 

844 

0.3 

0.6 

0.5 

0.8 

p<0.001 

No replacement 

Language barrier 

0.6 

1.0 

844 

844 

0.8 

0.9 

0.9 

1.2 

1204 

1203 

0.9 

0.9 

p<0.001 

p<0.01 

Expectations of exchange schemes (a higher score means that a respondent 
perceives it as more likely that an exchange scheme (ES) will have a certain 
effect) 
ES has positive effect 

1206 

837 

1.4 

0.5 

1.7 

0.3 

p<0.001 

ES costs a lot of time 

1.5 

830 

0.6 

1.4 

1181 

0.7 

p<0.001 

Attitude (a higher score means that a respondent has a more positive attitude 
towards exchange schemes) 
Attitude 

1202 

838 

1.3 

0.6 

1.8 

0.4 

p<0.001 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

52 

 
 
  
 
 
High  and  low  intenders  were  not  distributed  evenly  over  EU-15  and  the  new  MS, 
education level, farm situation and sector. In comparison with all the interviewed young 
farmers in EU-28: 

•  High intenders are found more often in new MS states and less often in EU-15 and 

the reverse was found for low intenders; 

•  High intenders more often have permanent crops and low intenders less often have 

permanent crops or horticulture; 

•  Low intenders less often have a higher educational level; 

• 

Interviewed young farmers who work as employees on their parents’ farm more often 
are low intenders and less often are high intenders.  

Looking  at  individual  countries  shows  that  more  than  50%  of  the  interviewed  young 
farmers  are  high  intenders  in  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Czech  Republic,  Slovakia,  Hungary, 
Romania,  Bulgaria,  Slovenia,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Greece,  Malta,  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal, 
France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark (Figure 4.31).  

In  the  eight  remaining  countries  –  Sweden,  Finland,  Estonia,  Poland,  Austria, 
Luxembourg,  Belgium  and  Ireland  –  more  than  50%  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers 
are low intenders. Reasons for this are:  

•  Language barriers (Belgium, Poland);  

•  Young farmers already had practical training abroad when they were students 

(Austria, Belgium);  

•  The transferability of knowledge is limited, for example because of small farms in a 

country (Austria) or due to different farming conditions in other countries (Ireland);  

•  The knowledge obtained through an exchange scheme is not always practically 
applicable for the young farmer or does not fit his/her specific knowledge needs 
entirely (Poland);  

•  Young farmers perceive it as too complex to join an exchange scheme from an 

organisational perspective, for example with regard to administrative requirements, 
time needed to prepare applications, costs of living, etc. (Luxembourg, Sweden);  

•  Young farmers have a job besides the farm and therefore cannot go abroad (Austria),  

•  Minimum period of stay is too long (Belgium);  

•  There is a lack of exchange schemes in a country (Estonia, Finland, Poland), 

•  Travel distances (Estonia, Finland, Sweden);  

•  Mentality; young farmers are not interested in getting to know other cultures 

(Poland).  

53 

 
 
 
Figure 4.31 Percentage of interviewed young farmers being ‘high intenders’ (of 
joining an exchange scheme) 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Conclusion 

High  intenders  (of  joining  an  exchange  scheme)  have  fewer  general  needs,  are  more 
eager to develop different kinds of skills, use more sources to obtain knowledge, perceive 
less  hindrances  to  obtaining  information  or  to  joining  an  exchange  scheme  and  have  a 
more  positive  attitude  to  and  higher  expectations  of  exchange  schemes  than  low 
intenders. Besides this, in comparison with EU-28, high intenders more often come from 
new MS, less often have a lower level of education and more often have permanent crops 
or horticulture. 

54 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.32 Percentage of young farmers using agricultural advisors and 
consultants as an information source 

Source: Ecorys in cooperation with LEI and Aequator Groen & Ruimte, 2015. 

Conclusion  

Other  farmers  are  the  most  important  information  source  for  all  interviewed  young 
farmers, followed by farmers’ associations and agricultural consultants and advisors.  

4.18.

  Hindrances for young farmers to obtaining information 

The  most  important  issue  that  hinders  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in  obtaining 
information  is  lack  of  time  (Figure  4.17).  Looking  at  the  interviewed  young  farmers  in 
EU-15  and  the  new  MS  reveals  that,  in  comparison  with  EU-28,  the  interviewed  young 
EU-15 farmers perceived language as less of a hindrance and the interviewed young new 
MS farmers perceived language as more of a hindrance (Table 4.5). 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  Reflection on the results of the survey 

5.1.

  General and knowledge needs of young farmers and their intention 

of joining an exchange scheme 

5.1.1.  General needs 

Looking  at  EU-28,  land  (to  buy  or  rent)  is  the  most  important  general  need  for  the 
interviewed young farmers, followed by subsidies, credit and qualified labour.  

In  an  Italian  study  among  young  people  aged  between  17  and  20  in  nine  European 
countries  (Italy,  France,  the  Netherlands,  Belgium,  Finland,  Sweden,  Poland,  Latvia  and 
Malta), it  appeared  that  the  more  young  people  know  about  rural  areas,  the  more  they 
like  them  and  think  of  agriculture  as  a  possible  life  and  career  choice.  The  lack  of 
resources for investment, inadequate income to meet family needs and the availability of 
land  are  seen  as  the  main  difficulties  when  starting  an  agricultural  business  (Italian 
Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Food  and  Fisheries,  2013).  Earlier,  Sotte  (2003)  stated  that 
access  to  land,  agricultural  business  and  founding  capital  are  central  elements  for  the 
generational  turnover  in  agriculture.  For  that  reason  ‘the  introduction  of  new  tools  of 
financing  and  security,  especially  aimed  at  supporting  new  agricultural  enterprises  is 
crucial.’ By the same token, the European Council of Young Farmers (CEJA) reports in its 
‘Recommendations for enhancing youth employment in agriculture for a more sustainable 
Europe’  that  access  to  land  and  access  to  credit  are  the  main  barriers  faced  by  young 
people  attempting  to  enter  the  agricultural  sector  (CEJA,  2013).  With  regard  to  the 
access to land (among other things), the organisation therefore recommends promoting 
new  models  of  collaboration  between  generations  through  partnership,  share-farming, 
long-term leasing and other contractual arrangements, as well as promoting the concept 
of  retirement  planning.  This  is  (partly)  in  line  with  findings  of  an  Austrian  study  among 
910 young farmers that pointed to the fact that a more gradual transfer of the farm and 
fiscal  advantages  would  be  helpful  for  young  farmers  to  take  over  the  farm  (Quendler, 
2011). 

5.1.2.  Knowledge needs 

The interviewed young farmers are eager to develop all kinds of knowledge skills as more 
than 50% of them perceive it as likely that they will develop all kinds of entrepreneurial 
and  managerial  skills  such  as  marketing,  financial,  communication,  networking  and 
management skills and skills related to resource and environmental management, to the 
improvement of animal welfare and to applying for subsidies. In addition, more than 60% 
of them perceive it as likely that they will develop skills related to the development of a 
farm  strategy,  which  is  also  related  to  the  development  of  entrepreneurship.  This 
indicates  that  the  young  farmers  are  aware  of  the  importance  of  entrepreneurship  to 
keep  their  farm  viable.  This  is  important  in  the  present  farm  context  in  which  farmers 
have to adapt their businesses to the structural changes in the environment (Vesala and 
Pyysiäinen,  2008;  McElwee,  2008).  However,  they  also  have  a  technological  focus  as 
more  than  60%  of  the  interviewed  farmers  also  perceived  it  as  likely  that  they  would 
develop  technological  knowledge  necessary  for  the  farm.  Other  studies  also  show  that 
many  farmers  still  have  a  ’productivist‘  mindset  –  meaning  that  farmers  still  focus  on 
primary agricultural production such as growing crops, milking cows, raising pigs, etc. – 
and wish to maintain an agricultural focus (Walford 2003, Chaplin et al. 2004, Burton and 
Wilson 2006, Gorton et al. 2008). 

The interviewed young farmers also like to use all kinds of knowledge sources. More than 
70% of the respondents like to use the internet to read and look for information, attend 
field  days  or  excursions,  take  individual  advice,  go  to  fairs  or  exhibitions,  take  part  in 
(agricultural) trainings or courses and look at farmers’ journals. Workshops and joining a 
study group or network were slightly less popular. These knowledge sources are used by 
more  than  60%  of  the  respondents.  Participation  in  exchange  schemes,  using  social 

56 

 
 
  
media, participation in discussions on the internet and online trainings or e-learning are 
used the least by the interviewed young farmers (by respectively 54.5%, 40.1%, 35.9% 
and 31.7% of them). This is striking, as online trainings, e-learning and social media are 
mentioned quite often as important knowledge sources for young farmers (besides direct 
contact).  The  findings  are  only  partly  in  line  with  the  findings  of  Niewolny  and  Lillard 
(2010) that farmers need an alternative knowledge system that incorporates community-
based  learning,  participatory  and  experimental  learning,  social  media  and  new 
approaches to  establish, retain and expand sustainable agriculture concepts that reduce 
the amount of lectures and other forms of direct instruction.  

Other  farmers  appear  to  be  the  most  important  information  source  for  the  interviewed 
young  farmers,  followed  by  farmers’  associations  and  agricultural  consultants  and 
advisors.  These  information  sources  are  mentioned  by  86%,  67.5%  and  67.3%  of  the 
interviewed young farmers respectively.  

Trede  and  Whitaker  (2000),  who  studied  educational  needs  and  perceptions  of  286 
beginning  farmers  in  Iowa,  found  that  beginning  farmers  showed  preferences  towards 
experiential  learning,  problem-solving  and  critical  thinking  skills.  They  felt  that  lifelong 
learning  and  continuing  education  were  important  in  the  development  of  their  farming 
careers. Also, they preferred on-site educational instruction, single meetings on a specific 
topic  and  consulting  public  institutions  for  unbiased  information.  Besides,  the  beginning 
farmers  in  the  study  of  Trede  and  Whitaker  (2000)  indicated  that  radio,  information 
services,  marketing  services,  and  newspapers  are  likely  to  be  important  educational 
media  in  the  future.  At  the  time  (2000),  beginning  farmers  were  not  so  interested  in 
modern  information  technology  such  as  the  internet,  fibre  optic  networks  or  satellite 
dishes – an appetite that could well have changed by 2015. Already in 2004, Lans et al. 
(2004) stated that technology, IT and enterprising competencies will become increasingly 
important in the future. In a study among 1 030 dairy (not specifically young) farmers in 
Poland,  Slovenia  and  Lithuania,  it  appeared  that  these  farmers  perceived  internet,  ICT 
applications,  technical  developments  and  advisory  services  as  a  moderate  to  big 
opportunity  (De  Lauwere  et  al.,  2014).  Although  this  study  did  not  focus  on  young 
farmers,  the  findings  fit  the  CEJA  recommendation  on  vocational  education  and  training 
for  young  farmers  that  a  European  training  network  consisting  of  trainers  and  trainees, 
which is accessible to all young people wishing to establish careers in agriculture, should 
be created  online and through  IT materials. This network  should be complemented with 
the  possibility  for  young  farmers  to  take  part  in  an  exchange  programme  in  the  EU. 
Information on how to access these knowledge transfer tools should be made available to 
all  young  farmers  across  the  EU.  With  regard  to  the  functioning  of  advisory  services, 
CEJA recommended that farm advisory services should be equally available for all young 
farmers  across  the  EU,  that  these  should  be  free  of  charge  for  the  first  5  years  after 
installation. They also recommended that the services should be tailored to the needs of 
young  farmers  in  particular  to  include  business  management,  finance  and  protection  of 
the environment and biodiversity, and that they should include information on succession 
planning (CEJA, 2013). According to CEJA, this will encourage young farmers to embrace 
agriculture  as  a  sector  for  their  future  profession  and  will help  to  reverse  the  damaging 
demographic  trend  in  agriculture.  Besides,  it  will  contribute  to  job  creation,  productivity 
enhancement, better sustainability and increased efficiency in the EU agricultural sector. 

5.1.3.  Perceived hindrances to obtaining information 

Lack of time appears to be the most important hindrance to obtaining information for the 
interviewed  young  farmers  (mentioned  by  58.4%  of  the  respondents).  This  is  also  the 
most  important  hindrance  to  joining  an  exchange  scheme  (mentioned  by  69.0%  of  the 
respondents),  followed  by  having  no  replacement  on  the  farm  (mentioned  by  48.6%  of 
the respondents). The hindrances perceived by the interviewed young farmers to joining 
an exchange scheme may be an explanation for their relative low intention of joining a(n) 
(inter)national exchange scheme (less than 50% of the respondents). This is despite the 
interest of the young farmers in developing entrepreneurial and technological skills, using 
knowledge  and  information  sources,  and  their  positive  attitude  to  and  expectations  of 

57 

 
 
exchange  schemes.  The  percentage  of  interviewed  young  farmers  that  indeed 
participated  in  an  exchange  scheme  was  even  lower:  only  17.5%  of  the  interviewed 
young  farmers  in  EU-28.  The  farmers  who  did  join  an  exchange  scheme  however  were 
positive  about  it.  Finding  ways  to  compensate  young  farmers  for  their  lack  of  time  or 
having no replacement on the farm may be helpful to encourage more young farmers to 
join an exchange scheme. 

5.2.

  Differences between EU-15 and new MS 

Young  farmers  in  different  EU  regions  seem  to  have  different  general  needs  and 
knowledge needs. In general, the interviewed young farmers in EU-15 had fewer general 
needs  than  the  interviewed  farmers  in  new  MS,  and  they  also  were  less  interested  in 
different kinds of sources to obtain knowledge.  

Looking at the young farmers in new MS reveals that they have more general needs that 
other  farmers  in  the  EU  and  that  they  are  more  eager  to  develop  all kinds  of  skills  and 
obtain  knowledge  from  different  sources.  In  comparison  with  young  farmers  in  EU-15, 
they  also  have  more  intention  of  joining  an  exchange  scheme  and  a  more  positive 
attitude to exchange schemes – perceiving them more often as useful or  realistic. Their 
expectations of exchange schemes  were also  higher.  On the  other hand, young farmers 
in EU-15 more often had already participated in an exchange scheme, which may also be 
an explanation for their lower intention of joining one. 

It is obvious that the moment of accession to the EU and historical context are potential 
explanations  for  the  differences  between  EU-15  and  new  MS.  Farmers  from  new  MS 
perceive their general needs as greater that those of young farmers in EU-15. They seem 
to be more eager to develop a range of skills and obtain more knowledge. 

For  young  farmers  in  EU-15,  this  may  be  less  important  because  they  have  a  lot  of 
knowledge  already  (or  they  think  they  have).  In  EU-15  there  has  also  been  more 
emphasis  on  developing  entrepreneurship.  This  also  may  have  helped  to  make  them 
more aware of their own and their farm’s potential (Bergevoet, 2005; De Lauwere, 2005; 
Pyysïaïnen et al., 2006; Rudman, 2008; Lans, 2009). 

For  the  EU,  this  could  mean  that  different  strategies  should  be  followed  for  young 
farmers in new MS and in EU-15 to encourage them to stay in the agricultural sector. A 
striking  difference  between  EU-15  and  new  MS  for  example  was  that  the  interviewed 
young  farmers  in  new  MS  are  more  interested  in discussions  on  the  internet  and  online 
training or e-learning, while the interviewed young farmers in EU-15  are less interested 
in  these  knowledge  sources.  Training  programmes  for  young  farmers  in  EU-15  and  in 
new MS thus should have different focuses. This is in line with findings of other authors 
mentioned in the introduction that state that agricultural training programmes should be 
fine-tuned  to  the  needs  of  farmers  (Brent  and  Adams,  1999;  Duram  and  Larson,  2001; 
Obaa  et  al.,  2005)  and  that  an  understanding  of  social  issues  and  the  social  nature  of 
farming is needed if agricultural extension is to be effective (Vanclay, 2004). 

58 

 
 
 
5.3.

  Other factors affecting the needs of young farmers in the EU 

The  moment  of  accession  to  the  EU  is  not  the  only  factor  that  has  contributed  to  the 
differences  in  the  needs  of  young  farmers  throughout  the  EU.  The  sector  or  main 
economic activity of the interviewed young farmers also affected their needs. This should 
be  taken  into  account  when  designing  training  programmes  or  exchange  schemes  for 
young  farmers.  A  clear  example  that  was  found  in  the  survey  is  that  the  interviewed 
young  farmers  in  plant  sectors  were  not  interested  in  developing  skills  related  to  the 
improvement of animal welfare, while the interviewed young farmers in the animal sector 
were.  A  striking  result  in  the  survey  was  that  the  interviewed  young  farmers  with 
permanent  crops  were  eager  to  develop  a  wide  range  of  skills  and  to  obtain  knowledge 
from  various  sources  (for  example  through  discussions  on  the  internet,  e-learning  and 
online  training).  They  also  had  high  expectations  of  exchange  schemes  and  had  more 
intention of joining them. A possible explanation may be that growing permanent crops is 
a rather specialist job, for which a lot of craftsmanship is needed. At the same time, due 
to  its  specialised  nature,  there  is  not  so  much  knowledge  available  as  there  is  in  other 
sectors.  

Besides the main economic activities of the interviewed young farmers, the needs of the 
young  farmers  were  also  affected  by  their  education  level,  farm  situation  and  type  of 
area in which their farm was located.  

The  interviewed  young  farmers  with  a  higher  level  of  education  (BSc,  MSc,  PhD)  were 
more eager to develop different skills, perceived less hindrances to obtaining information 
or joining an exchange scheme (although they seem to perceive lack of time as more of a 
hindrance than less educated young farmers), had a more positive attitude to exchange 
schemes  and  also  participated  more  often  in  exchange  schemes  than  the  less  educated 
interviewed  young  farmers.  On  the  other  hand,  they  made  less  use  of  different 
information  sources 
institutes  and 
accountants),  possibly because  (they  thought that)  they  did  not  need  these  information 
sources.  These  results  imply  that  exchange  schemes  or  other  programmes  should  be 
different  depending  on  young  farmers’  levels  of  education  so  that  they  better  fit  their 
needs. 

(especially  national  government, 

research 

The  farm  situation  affected  the  answers  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  as  well. 
Interviewed  young  farmers  who  were  the  owner  of  the  farm  seem  to  be  more  self-
confident.  They  perceived  fewer  general  needs  when  compared  with  all  the  interviewed 
young farmers but they also were less eager to develop different kind of skills. This could 
be  because  they  (think  that  they)  already  have  these  skills.  They  also  perceive  it 
relatively  often  as  unrealistic  that  they  will  join  a(n)  (inter)national  exchange  scheme, 
maybe in part because they feel more responsible for their farm and therefore it is more 
difficult  for  them  to  leave.  On  the  other  hand,  no  indication  was  found  that  the 
interviewed young farmers who were the owners of the farm perceived more hindrances 
to  obtaining  information  or  joining  an  exchange  scheme  when  compared  with  all  the 
interviewed  young  farmers.  They  appeared  to  be  older  though  which  increases  the 
chance  of  them  having  a  family  and  therefore  would  make  it  more  difficult  for  them  to 
leave the farm to join an exchange scheme. Young farmers who were the owners of the 
farm, however, relatively often said that they used discussions on the internet and online 
trainings  and  e-learning  to  obtain  knowledge.  Although  the  general  results  showed  that 
these knowledge sources were not that popular among young farmers, this seems to be 
different  for  farm  owners.  For  them,  such  knowledge  sources  offer  a  solution  as  they 
enable them to develop skills and obtain knowledge without having to leave their farm. 

A  few  indications  were  found  that  it  might  be  more  difficult  for  the  interviewed  young 
farmers  who  live  in  less  favourable  areas  to  obtain  knowledge  or  join  an  exchange 
scheme.  This  should  also  be  taken  into  account  when  designing  exchange  schemes  or 
training  programmes  for  young  farmers  in  less  favourable  areas.  However,  no  clear 
indications  were  found  that  young  farmers  in  less  favourable  areas  had  different 
knowledge needs. 

59 

 
The  type  of  farm  (conventional  or  organic)  did  not  seem  to  affect  the  needs  of  the 
interviewed  young  farmers  very  much,  although  lack  of  time  was  a  more  important 
hindrance for the interviewed young organic farmers to obtaining knowledge. 

5.4.

  High intenders and low intenders 

In a final step of the analysis, a distinction was made between high and low intenders or 
farmers  with  a  relatively  high  or  low  intention  of  joining  an  exchange  scheme.  In 
comparison  with  all  the  interviewed  young  farmers,  those  who  had  a  relatively  high 
intention  of  joining  an  exchange  scheme  had  fewer  general  needs,  were  more  eager  to 
develop  different  kinds  of  skills  and  use  more  sources  to  obtain  knowledge,  perceived 
less hindrances to obtaining information or joining an exchange scheme and had a more 
positive  attitude  to  and  higher  expectations  of  exchange  schemes.  Besides  this,  they 
more  often  have  a  higher  level  of  education  and  more  often  lived  in  one  of  the  new 
Member States. These  differences between high and low intenders  should be taken into 
account when designing training programmes or exchange schemes. A study of Jansen et 
al. (2010) in which reducing mastitis was the central focus revealed that a peripheral and 
a  central  route  of  communication  could  be  distinguished.  A  peripheral  route  of 
communication  was  for  dairy  farmers  who  were  not  motivated  (or  internally  driven)  to 
reduce  mastitis  on  their  farms  and  a  central  route  was  for  dairy  farmers  who  were.  For 
the first group it was important that concerns were taken away and tailor-made solutions 
were  offered  to  reduce  mastitis,  while  for  the  second  group  it  was  important  that  the 
dairy  farmers  were  actively  involved  in  the  plans  to  reduce  mastitis.  Therefore,  low 
intenders  may  need  tailor-made  solutions  which  make  it  easier  for  them  to  join  an 
exchange  scheme  or  obtain  knowledge,  whereas  for  high  intenders  this  may  be  less 
necessary. These tailor-made solutions could also be helpful for high intenders, especially 
taking into account that high intenders often live in new Member States where a catch-up 
effort is needed to increase their level of knowledge and where exchange schemes should 
be made as accessible for young farmers as they are in EU-15.  

5.5.

  Some conclusions based on the survey 

The survey results lead to the following conclusions: 

•  Land to buy or rent is the most important general need of all the interviewed young 
farmers in the EU; Subsidies, credit and qualified labour also are important general 
needs; 

•  The interviewed young farmers in the EU are most interested in obtaining specific 

technological knowledge necessary for the farm and obtaining knowledge to develop a 
farm strategy. However, they are also eager to obtain entrepreneurial skills 
(marketing, networking, communication and financial skills) and managerial skills; 

•  Reading and looking for information on the internet, field days or excursions, 

individual advice, fairs or exhibitions, (agricultural) trainings or courses, farmers’ 
journals and workshops, seminars or conferences are the most important knowledge 
sources for the interviewed young farmers. It is striking that participation in 
discussions on the internet, online training, e-learning and social media appeared are 
not very popular among the interviewed young farmers; 

•  Other farmers are the most important information source for the interviewed young 
farmers, followed by farmers’ associations and agricultural consultants and advisors; 

•  Lack of time is the most important hindrance for the interviewed young farmers to 

obtaining information; 

•  The number of interviewed young farmers that has participated in an exchange 

scheme is rather low. However, the interviewed young farmers who did participate in 
an exchange scheme were content about it; 

60 

 
 
 
•  Most interviewed farmers have a positive attitude to and positive expectations about 

exchange schemes; 

•  Lack of time and having no replacement on the farm are the most important 

hindrances for the interviewed young farmers to joining an exchange scheme; 

• 

In general, young farmers in new MS seem to have more general needs than young 
farmers in EU-15, they seem to be more eager to develop all kinds of skills and obtain 
knowledge from different sources and they have more intention of joining an 
exchange scheme and a more positive attitude to exchange schemes; 

•  The general and knowledge needs of young farmers and their attitude to and 

expectations and intention of joining an exchange scheme also are affected by 
agricultural sector, education level, farm situation (whether the young farmer is the 
owner of the farm or not) and – to a lesser extent – the kind of area in which the 
young farmers live: 

−  Land seems to be a less important need for interviewed young farmers in 

more intensive, specialist sectors and insurance and knowledge seem to be 
more important; 

− 

− 

− 

Interviewed young farmers with a higher level of education are more eager to 
develop different kinds of skills, they perceive less hindrances to obtaining 
information or joining an exchange scheme, they have a more positive attitude 
to exchange schemes and also participated more often in an exchange scheme 
than less educated interviewed young farmers; 

Interviewed young farmers who are the owner of the farm seem to be more 
self-assured. They perceive fewer general needs when compared with all the 
interviewed young farmers but they also are less eager to develop different 
kinds of skills and perceive it relatively often as unrealistic that they will join 
a(n) (inter)national exchange scheme; 

It is more difficult for the interviewed young farmers who live in less 
favourable areas to obtain knowledge or join an exchange scheme; 

−  Compared to all interviewed young farmers, those who have a relatively high 
intention of joining an exchange scheme have fewer general needs, are more 
eager to develop different kind of skills, use more sources to obtain 
knowledge, perceive less hindrances to obtaining information or joining an 
exchange scheme and have a more positive attitude to and higher 
expectations of exchange schemes. Besides this, they more often have a 
higher level of education and more often live in one of the new Member 
States. 

These conclusions make clear that young farmers have different needs, depending on the 
region in which they live (new MS or EU-15), the agricultural sector in which they work 
(intensive, specific), their education level, their farm situation (owner of the farm or not) 
and the kind of area in which they live (favourable or not). This indicates that exchange 
schemes should be tailor-made and adapted to their specific needs. 

Explanations  of  the  results  presented  in  this  chapter  also  came  up  in  the  focus  group 
discussions. These results will be presented in the following chapter. 

61 

 
 
 
6.  Needs of young farmers assessed by focus groups 

6.1.

  General 

Focus  groups  were  organised  in  almost  all  EU  countries  (one  focus  group  per  country). 
Besides  young  farmers,  the  focus  groups  were  attended  by  representatives  of  young 
farmers’  organisations  and  other  agricultural  organisations  (see  the  country  reports  in 
Annex I.1-I.28 for the list of participants in each country). In the countries in which focus 
groups could not be organised, interviews were carried out with various stakeholders.  

In  general,  the  participants  of  the  focus  groups  (or  interviewed  experts)  endorsed  the 
results of the survey. 

6.2.

  Needs 

6.2.1.  General needs 

As shown in the survey, land appeared to be the most important need in most countries. 
In  some  focus  groups,  the  focus  group  members  (or  interviewed  experts)  mentioned 
several reasons for this: 

•  Spatial planning; governments turn agricultural land into nature, industrial or 

residential areas (Belgium, Germany); 

•  Agricultural land is used for non-agricultural activities such as diversification 

activities, gardens, or horse keeping (Belgium, Poland, Romania); 

•  Legislation which discourages land owners or land users from renting their land to 
farmers or which makes renting land complicated (Belgium, Slovakia, Spain); 

• 

(Retired) farmers keeping their land to get income support (Belgium, Czech Republic, 
Greece, Ireland, United Kingdom) or because they are emotionally attached to their 
land (Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom); 

•  The land is expensive (Cyprus, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, 
Sweden) and sometimes harder to get for young farmers than for older farmers 
because young farmers cannot pay the prices that large- and medium-sized 
producers can (Estonia); 

•  Young farmers have to pay more rent for the land than older farmers (Finland), or 
land owners prefer to rent their land to neighbouring farmers or more experienced 
farmers (France); 

•  The land is very fragmented (Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia); 

•  Land does not enter the market very often because it is usually passed down through 

inheritance (Ireland); 

•  A farmer divides his land into smaller parcels for his children, leaving each successor 

with a smaller piece of land than his parents (Cyprus); 

•  The majority of land is still owned by cooperatives that were established in past 

regimes (Czech Republic); 

•  Legislation and bureaucracy: permit procedures (Estonia, Finland), national 

inheritance law (France), legal and policy issues (Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands), property rights and 
national legislation (Greece); 

• 

Inheritance issues which make the transfer of land between generations complex and 
time-consuming (Malta, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom); 

62 

 
 
  
•  Land is available but ‘good’ land is expensive and ‘affordable’ land is of poor quality 

and is available only in regions with poor infrastructure, far from the markets (Latvia, 
United Kingdom − especially Scotland); 

•  Poor quality of the soil (Estonia, Ireland, Latvia) and/or a large amount of less 

favourable areas in a country (Greece, Malta).  

6.2.2.  Knowledge needs 

In the focus groups, the survey findings on the knowledge needs of young farmers were 
mostly endorsed. In general, focus group members perceive greater knowledge needs for 
young farmers in their countries if: 

•  Their education level is lower (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece); 

• 

It is not so easy to get the independent advice of agricultural extension services or 
access useful trainings because the knowledge infrastructure or the education system 
for farmers is badly organised or barely exists (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, 
Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia).  

There are exceptions though. Denmark has a well-organised knowledge infrastructure for 
farmers and the education level is high, but still young farmers are eager to obtain new 
knowledge  because  the  education  system  in  their  country  encourages  them  to  do  so. 
Other  focus  groups  also  mention that  young  farmers  are  eager  to  learn in  their  country 
(Romania, Sweden). 

In  some  countries  the  reasons  for  a  lack  of  knowledge  needs  are  rather  specific.  In 
Bulgaria,  the  lack  of  knowledge  and  experience  in  the  management  of  plant  growing 
and/or  animal  breeding  farms  is  explained  by the  fact  that  private  companies  could  not 
be established between 1944 and 1989 and private ownership of land was prohibited by 
law. As a result, the accumulated knowledge and experience that is traditionally passed 
on  in  well-established  farmer  families  between  generations  does  not  exist  yet.  This lack 
of  ‘multi-generational  farming’  is  also  mentioned  in  the  Czech  Republic,  Hungary  and 
Italy  (because  increasingly  often  young  farmers  in  Italy  are  returning  to  the  farming 
properties of their grandparents). 

Cultural  aspects  may  affect  knowledge  needs  as  well.  In  Bulgaria,  the  focus  group 
members mention a general unwillingness to exchange knowledge and experience due to 
fear of competition. They also mention a general mistrust in state institutions and fear of 
unfair competition. A comparable fear of association and lack of trust is mentioned by the 
Polish focus group. This focus group states that ‘these types of attitudes were shaped by 
the  political  and  social  situation  of  Poland  in  the  past  200  years.’  The  focus  group 
members in France mention that French farmers are rather ‘individualistic’ and therefore 
prefer  to  work  on  their  own  rather  than  cooperate  with  other  farmers.  According  to  a 
French  focus  group  member,  the  capacity  of  young  farmers  to  work  with  others  should 
therefore  be  improved.  The  interviewed  experts  in  the  United  Kingdom  state  that  the 
(young) farmers in their country are often too independent and their views are coloured 
by their own experience (‘they can be their own barrier’). 

Focus group members perceive low knowledge needs in their country if: 

•  The young farmers generally have a high education level (Austria, Estonia, Finland, 

Ireland, the Netherlands); 

• 

It is quite easy to obtain knowledge and information because the knowledge 
infrastructure for farmers is well-organised in their country (Austria, Estonia, Finland, 
Ireland, the Netherlands) or they can easily obtain information from other sources, 
such as input suppliers (Greece); 

63 

 
 
 
•  Young farmers do not see that they use specific knowledge, for example for 

marketing and communication because they live ‘in the middle of nowhere’, far from 
consumers (Finland) or because they do not tend to engage with consumers directly 
because the sale of their products is well-organised in their countries, for example by 
cooperatives (Hungary, Ireland, The Netherlands); 

•  Young farmers are not aware that they need specific knowledge to run their farm 

(Greece, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Slovenia, Sweden with regard to entrepreneurial 
skills); 

•  Agricultural knowledge is available free of charge (Austria, Estonia); 

•  Farmers are farmers ‘by tradition’ and do not see why they need additional 

knowledge, especially because their farms are small and relatively easy to manage, 
have little law enforcement and no requirements for quality standards (Cyprus). 

In  some  countries,  focus  group  members  (or  interviewed  experts)  emphasised  the 
importance  of  entrepreneurial  knowledge  for  their  young  farmers  (Belgium,  Estonia, 
Finland, Hungary, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands). In some countries, they focused 
on the importance of technological knowledge (Croatia, Czech Republic, and Ireland) and 
in  others  they  highlighted  the  importance  of  both  entrepreneurial  and  technological 
knowledge (Denmark, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, and Romania). 

6.2.3.  Participation in exchange schemes 

Although  –  according  to  the  survey  results  –  most  interviewed  young  farmers  seem  to 
have  a  positive  attitude  to  exchange  schemes  and  –  especially  in  new  MS  and  SAPS 
countries  –  a  significant  intention  of  joining  one,  the  percentage  of  interviewed  young 
farmers  that  have  participated  in  an  exchange  scheme  is  low.  According  to  the  survey 
results, lack of time and having no replacement on the farm are the main reasons for this 
in  most  countries,  followed  by  high  costs.  A  language  barrier  is  also  mentioned  as  an 
important  reason  in  several  countries  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic, 
Germany,  Hungary,  Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Spain). This is confirmed by 
the  focus  groups  (or  interviewed  experts).  Other  reasons  for  the  low  participation  in 
exchange  schemes  mentioned  by  the  focus  group  members  (or  interviewed  experts)  of 
different countries, are: 

•  Young farmers already had practical training abroad when they were students 

(Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg); 

•  The transferability of knowledge is limited, for example because of small farms in a 
country (Austria) or due to different farming conditions in other countries (Cyprus, 
Ireland); 

•  The knowledge obtained through an exchange scheme is not always practically 
applicable for the young farmer or does not fit his/her knowledge needs entirely 
(Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Poland); 

•  Young farmers perceive it as too complex to join an exchange scheme from an 

organisational perspective, for example with regard to administrative requirements, 
time needed to prepare applications, costs of living, etc. (Italy, Luxembourg, 
Sweden); 

•  Young farmers have a job besides the farm and therefore cannot go abroad (Austria); 

•  The minimum period of stay is too long (Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Romania; 

•  Exchange schemes are lacking in a country (Estonia, Finland, Poland); 

•  Travel distances (Estonia, Finland, Sweden); 

•  Mentality; young farmers are not interested in getting to know other cultures 

(Poland). 

64 

 
 
 
According  to  the  survey  results,  participation in  an  exchange  scheme  is  not  low in  each 
EU  country.  In  Belgium,  Denmark,  Luxembourg  and the  Netherlands  more  than  50%  of 
the interviewed young farmers participated in an exchange scheme. In the Netherlands, 
this is due to the fact that the definition of exchange schemes was interpreted differently 
than  in  other  countries.  Interviewed  young  Dutch  farmers  who  went  abroad  for  a 
teaching practice on a farm when they were students also interpreted this as ‘joining an 
exchange  scheme’.  In  Belgium,  the  respondents  of  the  survey  were  gathered  via 
agricultural  schools  who  asked  for  young  farmers  who  had  already  joined  an  exchange 
scheme, and in Luxembourg, there was a bias in the respondents for the same reason as 
they were recruited from a group of young farmers who had participated in an internship 
abroad. According to the Danish interviewed experts, In Denmark the high percentage of 
interviewed  young  farmers  who  had  participated  in  an  exchange  scheme  can  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  young  farmers  in  Denmark  are  encouraged  to  participate  in 
such  schemes  and  there  is  therefore  a  lot  of  information  provided  about  such  schemes 
through  websites.  In  addition,  Danish  young  farmers  get  a  good  salary  during  their 
education and have no financial difficulties regarding travelling abroad. 

Possible solutions mentioned by the focus groups (or interviewed experts) for improving 
the participation in exchange schemes are: 

•  Exchange schemes should combine theoretical and practical training but should be 
focused on practical training and the acquisition of hands-on experience (Cyprus, 
Croatia, Greece); 

•  Exchange programmes should have a clear focus on how to turn theory into practice 

(Denmark, Greece); 

•  The ‘destination’ countries/areas should have similar climate conditions and farm 

structures to those in the country from which the young farmer comes (Cyprus, 
Ireland, Latvia); 

•  Young farmers should have the opportunity of arranging their exchanges themselves 

to ensure it fits their specific knowledge needs (Bulgaria); 

•  Exchange schemes should provide knowledge which is practically applicable for the 
young farmer and which suits his/her specific knowledge needs (Estonia, Finland, 
Germany, Greece, Malta, Romania, Slovenia, United Kingdom); 

•  Exchange schemes should offer young farmers the chance to expand their horizons, 

to get to know other cultures and to build their character (Denmark, Finland, 
Germany, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Poland); 

•  Better availability of replacement on the farm, for example by a reliable farmer relief 

service or replacement service (Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary); 

•  Availability of interpreters to overcome language problems (Czech Republic); 

•  Financial support (Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy); 

•  Clear communication/advertisements about exchange schemes is important to make 
young farmers aware of the existing exchange schemes they can join (Denmark, 
France); 

• 

If travelling distances are too big within a country, knowledge of exchange schemes 
should be made available in another way, for example through mentors (Estonia); 

•  Taking part in an exchange scheme should be made easier, for example by ‘brokers’ 

or ‘matchmakers’ who can help to find the right match between the exchange student 
and the farmer offering the exchange (Finland); 

•  The administrative ‘burden’ of joining an exchange scheme, such as preparing a 

detailed business plan and filling in forms should be reduced (Italy); 

•  Agricultural schools or education programmes should encourage young farmers to 

take part in international exchange schemes (Finland, Greece, Latvia); 

65 

 
 
•  Exchange programmes should be specifically tailored to the time and financial 

constraints of those interested in participating (Belgium, Cyprus, France, Greece, 
Italy, Portugal, Romania); 

•  Make it possible for young farmers to join an international exchange scheme after 

they have left school and before they start working at their (family’s) farm (France, 
Germany). 

6.3.

  Communication 

Within the focus group discussions, the theme of communication took on less importance 
than  the  other  themes.  The  focus  groups  thereby  served  in  particular  as  a  means  of 
verifying  or  falsifying  the  survey  findings  and  attempting  to  explain  outliers  or 
unexpected results in specific Member States. 

6.3.1.  Sources of information and knowledge 

The  results  of  the  survey  have  shown  that  other  farmers  are  the  most  important 
information source for many of the interviewed young farmers. This is confirmed by the 
focus group members.  Young farmers prefer to gain knowledge from  personal contacts; 
especially in countries in which agricultural has a small structure because there is always 
‘someone who knows someone with knowledge’ (quote of Estonian focus group) (Cyprus, 
Estonia),  or  in  countries  in  which  the  knowledge  infrastructure  for  farmers  is  not  well 
developed  (Hungary,  Italy).  A  low  level  of  trust  is  also  mentioned  as  a  reason  for 
preferring informal groups over professional groups or networks (Poland). Also important 
for  obtaining  information,  according  to  the  focus  groups,  is  the  use  of  the  internet  in 
various forms (websites, social media). 

6.3.2.  Hindrances to getting information 

According  to  the  survey,  lack  of  time  is  the  main  hindrance  for  young  farmers  to 
obtaining  information  or  knowledge.  This  is  supported  by  the  focus  group  members  (or 
interviewed experts) in most countries. 

Lack  of  interest  is  also  mentioned  several  times  by  the  focus  group  members  (or 
interviewed  experts)  (Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Estonia)  and in  some  countries  the  lack  of  trust 
as  to  whether  the  information  is  correct  (Estonia,  Germany,  Hungary)  or  suitable 
(practically  applicable,  to  the  point,  fits  the  target  group)  (Bulgaria,  Lithuania,  Malta, 
Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Spain).  Also,  selecting  the  right  and  trustworthy 
information  and  knowledge  sources  in  a  time-efficient  manner  can  be  a  hindrance 
according  to  the  focus  group  members  (or  interviewed  experts)  in  several  countries 
(Austria,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  the 
Netherlands, United Kingdom). 

According  to  the  focus  group  members  (or  interviewed  experts)  in  several  countries,  a 
missing or bad (too slow, not easy accessible) internet connection can be a hindrance for 
their  young  farmers  to  obtaining  knowledge  or  information  especially  in  specific  regions 
(for  example  in  mountainous  or  remote  areas)  (Austria,  Finland,  France,  Germany, 
Ireland, Italy, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom). In some countries, the lack of 
skills on how to use the internet are also mentioned (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta). The Dutch 
focus group mentioned that Dutch young farmers do not like to use the internet because 
it is time-consuming and does not deliver the correct and specific answers. For them it is 
easier  to  find  information  in  different  ways;  potentially  because  the  knowledge 
infrastructure works very well in the Netherlands. 

Other  hindrances  mentioned  in  the  focus  group  (or  by  the  interviewed  experts) 
concerned  long  distances  (Finland,  Latvia,  Sweden,  United  Kingdom)  or  being  an  island 
(parts of Greece, Malta, United Kingdom). 

66 

 
 
 
6.3.3.  Hindrances to participating in exchange schemes 

The  most  relevant  issue  perceived  as  being  a  hindrance  to  participating  in  exchange 
schemes  that  was  mentioned  in  several  focus  groups  is  a  lack  of  awareness  of  the 
existence  of  such  schemes.  In  some  cases  this  might  be  driven  by  the  fact  that  no  or 
only a small number of exchange schemes exist, in others it may be the result of the lack 
of communication. Further details concerning the hindrances to participating in exchange 
schemes are mentioned above. 

6.4.

  Exchange schemes 

According to most of the focus groups, the vast majority of farmers that participated in 
an exchange scheme improved their skills and mostly learned what they wanted to learn. 
They also expected it to improve their farm results and family income (e.g. Denmark). An 
exception seems to be Estonia.  

Participation  in  a  national  exchange  scheme  is  considered  less  useful  than  an 
international scheme, with the exception of respondents in Austria, Ireland, Malta and to 
a  lesser  extent  Latvia,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom.  The  motivation  to  take  part  in 
international schemes lies in improving language skills and acquiring a ‘once in a life time 
experience’.  For  Austria  and  New  Zealand,  the  transferability  of  knowledge  is  the 
determining factor in participating in an exchange scheme. 

Hindrances to participating in most countries are, according to the focus groups, lack of 
time, costs and replacement problems at the home farm. Other hindrances are the long 
minimum  period  of  stay,  the  low  age  limit  needed  to  participate  and  language  and 
administrative barriers (such as driving licences). 

In  some  countries,  only  few  young  farmers  seem  to  be  aware  of  the  existence  of 
exchange schemes, e.g. Croatia and Slovenia. Countries where this awareness is high are 
Denmark  (although  this  awareness  is  mainly  related  to  type  7  schemes)  and  the 
Netherlands. According to the focus groups, no schemes seem to exist at all (except for 
type  7  and  8  schemes)  in  Estonia,  Luxemburg,  Malta  and  Hungary,  or  they  seem  to 
‘come and go’ (Ireland). 

Focus  groups  in  some  countries  call  for  specific  schemes  in  which  applications  of 
technological  improvements  are  practised  (Croatia).  A  similar  call  for  schemes  that  are 
focused  on  how  to  turn  theory  into  practice  was  made  by  the  Danish  focus  group.  In 
Estonia and Malta, developing (collective) marketing/distribution skills was mentioned as 
an important goal. 

The  focus  groups  often  remarked  that  the  five-year  period  that  is  a  criteria  in  the 
Erasmus  exchange  programme  is  too  short  and  that  age  should  not  play  a  role  in 
eligibility.  Focus  groups  argue  that  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  European  Commission 
develops a new scheme at EU level. They would rather  existing exchanges be improved 
to  better  fit  farmers’  needs.  An  EC-hosted  website  was  however  suggested  by  various 
focus groups as a way of addressing these needs. 

Other focus groups argue that exchange schemes should also allow young farmers during 
their  ‘pre-installation’  period.  Schemes  should  ideally  have  very  few  criteria  for 
participation, be flexible in terms of exchange periods, allow for individual as well group 
participation,  have  (financial)  incentives,  be  open  to  different  actors  (young  farmers 
‘starting-up’,  more  experienced  farmers  with  concrete  business  cases,  local  actors 
involved in agribusiness) and have a national and even local publicity and communication 
strategy.  

67 

 
 
 
The  Greek  focus  group  specifically  mentioned  the  need  for  an  exchange  scheme  that 
covered  the  entire  production  and  supply  chain  (of  olive  oil).  Here,  international 
cooperation  among  groups  of  farmers  was  also  mentioned  as  a  result  of  exchange 
schemes. Similar suggestions were made in Malta and Romania.  

Some  other  interesting  suggestions  from  the  focus  groups  are  the  assignment  of 
‘mentors’ (Poland), although such exchange schemes already exist (type 4 and 5). Other 
ideas are awarding a certificate or diploma upon the completion of a successful exchange 
(with clearer benefits to participants, such as easier access to financial support to start a 
farm)  and  more  emphasis  on  sharing  the  acquired  skills  and  knowledge  after  returning 
home. 

68 

 
7.  Conclusions  and  recommendations  on  the  basis  of  the  needs 

analysis and the focus group discussions 

7.1.

  Most important needs of young farmers 

Knowledge needs are not the most urgent general needs of young farmers within the EU. 
The availability of land to buy or to rent is the most important general need followed by 
subsidies, access to credit and qualified labour. 

Easier  access  to  land  would  be  helpful  for  young  farmers  within  the  EU  to  stay  in 
business.  Sometimes  this  is  difficult  due  to  legislative  issues,  issues  related  to 
inheritance, land prices, institutional issues, etc. 

7.2.

  Knowledge 

The  knowledge  infrastructure/educational  system  and  –  related  to  that  –  the  education 
level,  the  possibility  to  get  ‘real’  independent  advice  and  the  quality  of  the  knowledge 
available are important factors that have an impact on the needs of young farmers within 
the EU.  

Knowledge  should  be  tailor-made.  In  some  countries,  the  need  for  technological  skills 
and  skills  related  to  the  development  of  a  farm  strategy  are  emphasised,  in  other 
countries, the need for entrepreneurial skills is mentioned and in others still, the need for 
both kinds of skills is highlighted.  

Young farmers have different needs, depending on the region in which they live (new MS 
or  EU-15),  the  agricultural  sector  in  which  they  work  (intensive,  specific),  their  level  of 
education, their farm situation (owner of the farm or not) and the kind of area in which 
they live (favourable or not):  

• 

In general, young farmers in new MS seem to have more knowledge needs than other 
young farmers in the EU. They seem to be more eager to develop all kinds of skills, 
obtain knowledge from different sources, have more intention of joining an exchange 
scheme and a more positive attitude to exchange schemes. This might be related to 
the knowledge infrastructure in those countries; 

•  Young farmers working in an intensive, specialist sector (for example, olive orchards) 

seem to have greater knowledge needs than young farmers working in more 
extensive or ‘common known’ sector such as dairy farming or arable farming; 
possibly because not so much knowledge is available in these specialist sectors; 

• 

• 

• 

Interviewed young farmers with a high level of education are more eager to develop 
different kinds of skills, they perceive less hindrances to obtaining information or 
joining an exchange scheme, they have a more positive attitude to exchange 
schemes and also participated more often in an exchange scheme than less educated 
interviewed young farmers; 

Interviewed young farmers who are the owners of their farm seem to be more sure of 
themselves. They perceive fewer general needs when compared with all the 
interviewed young farmers but they also are less eager to develop different kinds of 
skills and perceive it relatively often as unrealistic that they will join a(n) 
(inter)national exchange scheme; 

It is more difficult for the interviewed young farmers who live in less favourable areas 
to obtain knowledge or join an exchange scheme. 

This  supports  the  statement  mentioned  above  that  knowledge  should  be  tailored  to  the 
specific needs of young farmers living in different regions and types of area,  working in 
different  sectors,  with  different  levels  of  education  and  having  different  farm  situations. 

69 

 
 
 
  
However,  it  should  be  taken  into  account  that  young  farmers  need  technological  skills 
and  skills  to  develop  a  farm  strategy,  as  well  as  entrepreneurial  skills  –  such  as 
marketing,  networking,  communication  and  financial  skills  –  to  keep  their  farm  viable. 
They are not always aware that they need all these different kinds of skills. Many farmers 
are used to managing their farm in a traditional way and do not see the need to change. 
Efforts should be therefore made within the EU to raise awareness of these needs.  

7.3.

  Information sources 

Reading  and  looking  for  information  on  the  internet,  attending  field  days  or  excursions, 
getting  individual  advice,  going  to  fairs  or  exhibitions,  taking  part  in  (agricultural) 
trainings  or  courses,  workshops,  seminars  or  conferences  and  consulting  farmers’ 
journals are the most important knowledge sources for the interviewed young farmers. It 
is  noteworthy  that  taking  part  in  discussions  on  the  internet,  online  training,  e-learning 
and  using  social  media  appeared  to  not  be  very  popular  among  the  interviewed  young 
farmers. In some countries this might be due to a lack of (fast) internet access. However, 
interest  in  using  the  internet  for  e-learning  among  other  things  differs  between  young 
farmers.  ‘Older’  young  farmers  who  own  their  farms  more  often  use  discussions  on  the 
internet,  online  training,  e-learning  and  social  media  to  obtain  information;  possibly 
because it is difficult for them to leave the farm for long periods of time. 

Other  farmers  are  the  most  important  information  source  for  the  interviewed  young 
farmers, followed by farmers’ associations and agricultural consultants and advisors. This 
might  especially  be  the  case  in  countries  where  the  knowledge  infrastructure  is  not  so 
well-organised. 

7.4.

  Exchange schemes 

Most  of  the  interviewed  young  farmers  seem  to  have  a  positive  attitude  to  exchange 
schemes  and  a  high  intention  of  joining  one;  especially  in  new  MS.  However,  the 
percentage of interviewed young farmers that have participated in an exchange scheme 
is  low.  According  to  the  survey  results,  lack  of  time  and  having  no  replacement  on  the 
farm are the main reasons for this in most countries, followed by high costs. A language 
barrier is also mentioned as an important reason in several countries. Other reasons for 
the low participation in exchange schemes mentioned in different countries relate to the 
low  transferability  of  knowledge,  the  practical  applicability  of  knowledge,  the  high 
administrative  burden  of  joining  an  exchange  scheme,  the  minimum  duration  of  an 
exchange  (many  young  farmers  cannot  leave  their  farm  for  long  periods),  long  travel 
distances  and  mindset  (young  farmers  are  sometimes  not  interested  in  getting  to  know 
other cultures). 

One important issue to increase the participation in exchange schemes concerns the kind 
of  knowledge  offered.  It  is  important  that  young  farmers  have  the  opportunity  to 
organise their exchanges themselves so that they fit their specific knowledge needs. For 
some farmers this means that: 

•  Exchange schemes should combine theoretical and practical training but should be 

focused on practical training and the acquisition of hands-on experience; 

•  Exchange programmes should have a clear focus on how to turn theory into practice; 

•  The ‘destination’ countries/areas should present similar climate conditions and farm 

structures to those in the country from which the young farmer comes; 

•  Exchange schemes should provide knowledge which is practically applicable for the 

young farmer and which suits his/her specific knowledge needs. 

70 

 
 
 
 
However,  for  other  young  farmers  it  is  important  that  exchange  schemes  should  offer 
young farmers the chance to expand their horizons, to get to know other cultures and to 
build their character. 

Other  more  ‘practical’  solutions  which  make  it  easier  for  young  farmers  to  join  an 
exchange scheme are: 

•  Availability of replacement on the farm, for example by a reliable farmer relief service 

or farm replacement service; 

•  Availability of an interpreter to overcome language problems; 

•  Financial support; 

•  Clear communication/advertisement about exchange schemes to make young farmers 

aware of the existing exchange schemes they can join; 

•  Making knowledge of exchange schemes available in another way if travelling long 

distances is not possible, for example by using mentors; 

•  Making the choice of a ‘suitable’ exchange scheme for example by deploying ‘brokers’ 
or ‘matchmakers’ who can help find the right match between the exchange student 
and the farmer offering the exchange; 

•  Reducing the administrative ‘burden’ of joining an exchange scheme, for example 

preparing a detailed business plan and filling in forms;  

•  Encouraging young farmers to take part in international exchange schemes offered by 

agricultural schools or as education programmes; 

•  Tailoring exchange programmes specifically to the time and financial constraints of 

those interested in participating;  

•  Enabling young farmers to join an international exchange scheme after they have left 

school and before they start working at their (family’s) farm.  

71 

 
 
 
Literature 

Alsos, G.A., S. Carter, 2008. Multiple business ownership in the Norwegian farm sector: 
resource transfer and performance consequences. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 13-22. 

Batterink,  M.  Wubben,  E.,  Omta,  S.,  2006.  Factors  related  to  innovative  output  in  the 
Dutch agrifood industry. Journal on Chain and Network Science 6 (1), 31-44. 

Bergevoet,  R.H.M.,  2005.  Entrepreneurship  of  Dutch  dairy  farmers.  PhD  thesis, 
Wageningen University, Wageningen. 

Brent,  K.J.,  G.R.B.  Adams,  1999.  Extension,  research  and  farm  competitiveness  in 
Central  and  Eastern  Europe.  Sustainable  Development  Department  (SD),  Food  and 
November 
Agricultural 
1999. http://www.fao.org/sd/exdirect/EXan0037.htm.  

Organization 

Nations 

(FAO), 

United 

the 

of 

Burton,  R.  J.  F.  and  Wilson,  G.A.,  2006. Injecting  social  psychology  theory  into 
conceptualisations  of  agricultural  agency:  Towards  a  post-productivist  farmer  self-
identity? Journal of Rural Studies 22(1), 95-115. 

CEJA, 2013.  Enhancing youth employment in agriculture for a more sustainable Europe. 
Recommendations  resulting  from  CEJA  round  table  discussion  on  social  dialogue  held in 
Brussels on 27.2.13. 

Chaplin,  H.,  Davidora,  S.  and  Gorton,  M.,  2004.  Agricultural  adjustment  and  the 
diversification of farm households and corporate farms in Central Europe. Journal of Rural 
Studies 20(1), 61-77. 

Chase,  L.E.,  O.L.  Ely,  M.F.  Hutjens,  2006.  Major  advances  in  extension  education 
programs in dairy production. J. Dairy Science 89, 1147-1154. 

Dellapasqua,  C.,  2010.  Young  farmers  and  the  EU’s  rural  development  policy.  CEJA 
Conference on Multifunctional Agriculture, 15 December 2010. 

DG  AGRI,  Tender  No  AGRI-2012-Eval-03.  Pilot  project:  exchange  programme  for  young 
farmers. Tender specifications. 

Duram,  L.A.,  K.L.  Larson,  2001.  Agricultural  research  and  alternative  farmers’ 
information needs. The professional geographer 53 (1), 84-96. 

European  Commission,  2013.  Overview  of  CAP  Reform  2014-2020.  Agricultural  Policy 
perspectives Brief No. 5, December 2013. 

Fuller-Love, N. 2006. Management development in smaller firms. International Journal of 
Management Reviews 8 (3), 395-404. 

Gorton,  M.,  Douarin,  E.,  Davidova,  S.  and  Latruffe,  L.,  2008.  Attitudes  to  agricultural 
policy  and  farming  futures  in  the  context  of  the  2003  CAP  reform:  A  comparison  of 
farmers in selected established and new Member States. Journal of Rural Studies 24(3), 
322-336. 

Hawkins,  R.P.,  M.  Kreuter,  K.  Resnicow,  M.  Fishbein,  A.  Dijkstra,  2008.  Understanding 
tailoring in communication about health. Health Education Research 23, 454-466. 

Herck,  van,  K.,  2009  Deliverable  7.4:  A  Comparative  Analysis  of  Rural  Labour  Markets, 
online 
SCARLED 
at: http://www.scarled.eu/uploads/media/SCARLED_D7.4_finalfinal_01.pdf. 

Available 

project, 

72 

 
 
  
Italian  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Food  and  Fisheries,  2013.  I  Giovani  imprenditori  e  la 
formezione: un analisi delle esperienze e delle attesse. 

Jansen,  J.,  2010.  Mastitis  and  farmer  mindset.  Towards  effective  communication 
strategies  to  improve  udder  health  management  on  Dutch  dairy  farms.  PhD  thesis, 
Wageningen University, Wageningen.  

Jansen,  J.,  R.J.  Renes  and  T.G.J.M.  Lam,  2010.  Evaluation  of  two  communication 
strategies to improve udder health management. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 604-612. 

Klair K.S., A. Boggio, D.W. Richardson, 1998. The changing information needs of farmers 
in  the  U.S.  and  Europe.  Proc.  Of  the  6th  Joint  Conference  on  Agriculture,  Food  and  the 
Environment. 
Minneapolis, 
2 
–
Minnesota. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/14496/1/c6klai01.pdf. 

September 

August 

1998, 

31 

Lans,  T.,  R.  Wesselink,  H.J.A.  Biemans,  M.  Mulder,  2004.  Work-related  lifelong  learning 
for entrepreneurs in the agri-food sector. Int. Journal of training and Development 8 (1), 
73-89. 

Lans,  T.,  2009.  Entrepreneurial  competence 
in  agriculture.  Characterization, 
identification,  development  and  the  role  of  the  work  environment.  PhD  thesis.  LEI, 
Wageningen. 

Lauwere, C.C. de, 2005. The role of agricultural entrepreneurship in Dutch agriculture of 
today. Agricultural Economics 33, 229-238. 

Lauwere,  C.  de,  A.  Malak-Rawlikowska,  A.  Stalgiene,  M.  Klopcic,  A.  Kuipers,  2014. 
Competencies and agricultural entrepreneurship of dairy farmers in Poland, Lithuania and 
Slovenia.  In:  A.  Kuipers,  A.  Rozstalnyy,  G.  Keane  (Eds.),  Cattle  husbandry  in  Eastern 
Europe and China. EAAP publication No. 135,  Wageningen Academic  Publishers, pp. 15-
124. 

Man,  T.W.Y.,  T.  Lau,  K.F.  Chan,  2002.  The  competitiveness  of  small  and  medium 
enterprises  –  a  conceptualization  with  focus  on  entrepreneurial  competences.  Journal  of 
Business Venturing 17, 123-142. 

Mante, J., B.  Gerowitt, 2009. Learning from farmers’ needs: identifying obstacles to the 
successful  implementation  of  field  margin  measures  in  intensive  arable  regions. 
Landscape and Urban Planning 93, 229-237. 

Martin, R.A., 1987. Analysis of needs: educational programs for young and adult farmers. 
Journal of the American Association of Teacher Education Educators in Agriculture 28 (1), 
56-64. 

McElwee,  G.,  2008.  A  taxonomy  of  entrepreneurial  farmers.  International  Journal  of 
Entrepreneurship and Small Business 6 (3), 465-478. 

Nederlof,  E.S.,  R.  Tossou,  O.  Sakyi-Oawson,  O.K.  Kossou,  2004.  Grounding  agricultural 
research in resource-poor farmers’ needs: a comparative analysis of diagnostic studies in 
Ghana and Benin. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 52 (3-4), 421 -442. 

Niewolny, K.L., P.T. Lillard, 2010. Expanding the boundaries of beginning farmer training 
and  program  development:  a  review  of  contemporary  initiatives  to  cultivate  a  new 
generation  of  American  farmers.  Journal  of  Agriculture,  food  systems  and  community 
development 1 (1), 65-88. 

Noar,  S.M.,  C.N.  Benac,  M.S.  Harris,  2007.  Does  tailoring  matter?  Meta0analytic  review 
of  tailored  print  health behaviour  change  interventions.  Psychological Bulletin  133,  673-
693. 

73 

Nuthall, P.L., 2006. Determining the important management skill competencies: the case 
of family farm business in New Zealand, Agricultural Systems 88, 429-450. 

Obaa,  B.,  J.  Mutimba,  A.R.  Semana,  2005.  Prioritising  farmers’  extension  needs  in  a 
publicity-funded  contract  system  of  extension:  a  case  study  from  Mukono  District, 
Uganda. Agricultural Research & Extension Network, Network Paper No. 147, July 2005. 

Pyysïaïnen,  J.,  Anderson,  A.,  McElwee,  G.  and  Vesala,  K.,  2006.  Developing  the 
entrepreneurial  skills  of  farmers:  some  myths  explored.  International  journal  of 
entrepreneurial behaviour and research 12(1), 21-39.  

Quendler,  E.,  2011.  Zukunftvorstellungen  von  JunglandwirtInnen  in  einer  Zeit  des 
agrarpolitischen  Wandels  –  Ergebnisse  einer  Repräsentativbefragung  in  Österreich. 
Bundesanstatt für Agrarwirtschaft, Wien, 2011.  

Rudman,  C.  (Ed.),  2008.  Entrepreneurial  skills  and  their  role  in  enhancing  the  relative 
independence  of  farmers.  Results  and  recommendations  from  the  research  project 
'Developing Entrepreneurial Skills of Farmers. Verlag die Werkstatt, Göttingen. 

Sotte,  F.,  2003.  Young  people,  agriculture  and  entrepreneurship:  key-points  for  a  long-
term  strategy.  The  future  of  young  farmers,  Preparatory  meeting  for  the  European 
Conference, Roma, 24-25 January 2003. 

Trede,  L.D.,  B.S.  Whitaker,  2000.  Educational  needs  and  perceptions  of  Iowa  beginning 
farmers toward their education. Journal of Agricultural Education 41 (1), 39-48. 

Vanclay, F., 2004. Social principles for agriculture extension to assist in the promotion of 
natural  resource  management.  Australian  Journal  of  Experimental  Agriculture  44,  213-
222. 

Verstegen,  J.A.A.M.,  R.B.M.  Huirne,  2001.  The  impact  of  farm  management  on  value  of 
management  information  systems.  Computer  and  electronics  in  agriculture  30  (1),  51-
69. 

Vesala  K.M.  and  Pyysiäinen,  J.,  2008.  Understanding  entrepreneurial  skills  in  the  farm 
context.  Final  report  on  the  main  study  of  the  EU-funded  project  Developing 
Entrepreneurial Skills of Farmers. Verlag die Werkstatt, Göttingen. 

Walford,  N.,  2003.  Productivism  is  allegedly  dead,  long  live  productivism.  Evidence  of 
continued  productivist  attitudes  and  decision-making  in  South-East  England.  Journal  of 
Rural Studies 19(4), 491-502. 

74 

Annexes 

There are several Annexes to this report. These Annexes can be  found on the DG AGRI 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/index_en.htm. 

Annex I.1 – I.28 Country reports 

For each Member State a report has been drafted on the needs of young farmers based 
on the results of the survey and the focus group discussions. These are included in Annex 
I.1 – I.28: 

Annex I.1 Country report for Austria; 
Annex I.2 Country report for Belgium; 
Annex I.3 Country report for Bulgaria; 
Annex I.4 Country report for Croatia; 
Annex I.5 Country report for Cyprus; 
Annex I.6 Country report for Czech Republic; 
Annex I.7 Country report for Denmark; 
Annex I.8 Country report for Estonia; 
Annex I.9 Country report for Finland; 
Annex I.10 Country report for France; 
Annex I.11 Country report for Germany; 
Annex I.12 Country report for Greece; 
Annex I.13 Country report for Hungary; 
Annex I.14 Country report for Ireland; 
Annex I.15 Country report for Italy; 
Annex I.16 Country report for Latvia; 
Annex I.17 Country report for Lithuania; 
Annex I.18 Country report for Luxembourg; 
Annex I.19 Country report for Malta; 
Annex I.20 Country report for Poland; 
Annex I.21 Country report for Portugal; 
Annex I.22 Country report for Romania; 
Annex I.23 Country report for Slovakia; 
Annex I.24 Country report for Slovenia; 
Annex I.25 Country report for Spain; 
Annex I.26 Country report for Sweden; 
Annex I.27 Country report for the Netherlands; 
Annex I.28 Country report for United Kingdom. 

Annex I.29 Survey results in more detail 

The survey provided results on several topics. These are all included in Annex I.29: 

• Needs of young farmers per country;
• Main activities/ agricultural sectors per country;
• Needs of young farmers per agricultural sector;
• Needs of young farmers with different education levels;
• Needs of young farmers in different farm situations.

Annex I.30 Questionnaire and data analysis of the results of the survey 

This main report provides a description of the methodology used. In the Annex I.30, the 
following is included: 

The full questionnaire used for the interviews with the 2 205 young farmers;

•
• Approach used for the data analysis.

75 

K
F
-
0
2
-
1
5
-
7
2
1
-
E
N
-
N