COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Belgium's CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, EU strategy, agricultural policy, climate change policy, common agricultural policy, cooperation on agriculture, digitisation, food security, innovation, rural development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2020  SWD(2020) 368 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Belgium's CAP strategic plan  Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy {COM(2020) 846 final} - {SWD(2020) 367 final} - {SWD(2020) 369 final} - {SWD(2020) 370 final} - {SWD(2020) 371 final} - {SWD(2020) 372 final} - {SWD(2020) 373 final} - {SWD(2020) 374 final} - {SWD(2020) 375 final} - {SWD(2020) 376 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CAP STRATEGIC PLAN OF 

BELGIUM .................................................................................................................... 2 

1.1 Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food 

security ................................................................................................................ 2 

1.2 Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union ......................... 2 

1.3 Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal 

concerns ............................................................................................................... 4 

1.4  Modernising the sector by fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation 

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake ............................................ 4 

1.5  Recommendations .............................................................................................. 5 

2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN BELGIUM ..... 8 

2.1 Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU territory to 

enhance food security ......................................................................................... 8 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 
focus on research, technology and digitalisation ............................................. 9 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain ................................................ 11 

2.4 Contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as 

sustainable energy ............................................................................................ 12 

2.5  Foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural 

resources such as water, soil and air .............................................................. 14 

2.6  Contribute to the protection of biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes ............................................................ 16 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 18 

2.8  Promote employment, growth, social inclusion and local development in 

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry ...................... 20 

2.9  Improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and 
health, including safe, nutritious and sustainable food, as well as animal 
welfare ............................................................................................................... 21 

2.10 Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation ........ 23 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CAP STRATEGIC PLAN 

OF BELGIUM 

In the framework of the structured dialogue on the preparation of the CAP strategic plan, 
this document contains the recommendations for the CAP strategic plan of Belgium. The 
recommendations are based on analysis of the state of play, and the needs and priorities 
for  agriculture  and  rural  areas  in  Belgium.  The  recommendations  address  the  specific 
economic, environmental and social objectives of the future Common Agricultural Policy 
and in particular the ambition and specific targets of the Farm to Fork Strategy and the 
Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. As stated in the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission 
invites Belgium, in its CAP Strategic Plan, to set explicit national values for the Green 
Deal targets1, taking into account its specific situation and these recommendations. 

1.1  Foster  a  smart,  resilient  and  diversified  agricultural  sector  ensuring  food 

security 

Belgian farmers face a range of economic challenges and opportunities in the transition 
to  sustainable  food  systems.  Agriculture  in  Belgium  is  characterised  by  a  share  of 
agricultural  entrepreneurial  income  which,  at  close  to  60%  of  the  whole  economy’s 
average  wage  for  2005-2018,  is  above  the  EU-average.  However,  the  gap  between 
agricultural and non-agricultural income has been growing since 2012. Similarly, while 
the agricultural factor income per worker is well above the EU average, its evolution is 
following a slightly negative trend because expenses are growing faster than revenue.  

The economic situation of farmers varies, with the level of income differing substantially 
according  to  physical  farm  size,  sector,  and  location.  The  use  of  risk  management 
instruments,  which  could  help  address  such  situations,  is  very  limited  and  in  need  of 
further development in order to strengthen income stability. Income is significantly lower 
for farms located in areas with natural constraints. Income increases with farm size due to 
more efficient use of technology and economies  of scale.  For small and medium-sized 
farms, the price of arable land and feed greatly impact competitiveness.  

It would therefore be advisable to improve access to land, particularly for young farmers, 
and help modernise farms to address the decline since 2008 in the share of the food chain 
value  added  of  agriculture.  Compared  to  other  Member  States,  Belgium  has  a  large 
number of recognised producer organisations, but they tend to be concentrated in the fruit 
and  vegetable  sector  and  in  Flanders.  The  inventory  of  risk  management  instruments 
shows  room  for  further  development,  in  order  to  strengthen  resilience.  However,  it 
should  be  noted  that  in  Flanders  an  all-weather  insurance  has  been  developed  and 
launched in 2020. EU quality schemes also offer advantages to improve the position of 
farmers in the value chain. 

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

The transition to a sustainable agricultural sector in Belgium is particularly pressing, as 
the  sector  is  characterised  by  a  high  livestock  density  and  widespread  use  of  fertilisers 
which impact its environmental and climate footprint. Although greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions  in  the  agricultural  sector  have  been  falling  since  1990  (-18.6%),  the  rate  of 

1   It  concerns  the  targets  related  to  use  and  risk  of  pesticides,  sale  of  antimicrobials,  nutrient  loss,  area 

under organic farming, high diversity landscape features and access to fast broadband internet. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
decline  slowed  between  2005  and  2013  (-4%),  and  emissions  have  even  increased 
slightly since then (+1%). GHG emissions from croplands remain much higher than the 
EU average, with  an increase of 9% between 2013 and 2018 due to  increased fertiliser 
use.  Arable  land  is  particularly  suited  to  improving  climate  change  mitigation  because 
the  methods  adopted  can  be  changed  annually  over  large  areas.  For  example,  Belgium 
could  promote  on-farm  carbon  assessment  tools  to  help  farmers  identify  the  most 
appropriate measures to improve their climate performance. Belgium also has a wetland 
and  peatland  area  of  some  39.2  thousand  hectares  (ha),  of  which  24.8  thousand  ha  is 
peatland.  Peatlands  can  be  large  sources  or  sinks  for  atmospheric  CO2  and  are  ideal 
climate mitigation tools. 

Climate  change  hazards  to  agriculture  and  forestry  are  mainly  associated  with  the  risk 
that  extreme  events,  such  as  extreme  precipitation  (cloudbursts),  hailstorms  and 
heatwaves.  These  are  likely  to  become  more  frequent  in  the  future,  thus  increasing  the 
risk of soil erosion and of new pests and diseases. Extreme droughts may pose economic 
risks  to  the  agricultural  sector,  as  has  become  clear  in  the  last  three  years  (2018-2020) 
with a combination of high temperatures and lack of rainfall. 

The  strength  of  agricultural  land  and  rural  areas  to  cope  with  these  climate  change 
impacts is already reduced due to the fact that the intensity of farming has resulted in a 
reduced  absorption  capacity  as  ground  water  tables  have  lowered  and  rainwater  runoff 
from  the  tributaries  of  river  basin  subsystems  has  increased  due  to  land  drainage  and 
diversion of streams and rivers. 

On  water  quality,  the  situation  is  a  cause  for  concern.  Although  there  has  been  a 
downward trend in excess nutrients, the surplus of nutrients is still very high, with nitrate 
in  particular  significantly  above  the  EU  average.  Nitrates  are  the  top  pollutant  causing 
failure to achieve good chemical status under the Water Framework Directive, with only 
41%  of  groundwater  bodies  currently  achieving  good  chemical  status.  Despite  some 
improvement on phosphorus, the level  remains high.  In terms  of the Water Framework 
Directive  agriculture  is  reported  to  exert  the  most  pressure  on  both  surface  water  and 
groundwater.  Better  integration  of  water  objectives  in  other  policy  areas  such  as 
agriculture, is needed, and synergies should be optimised with the common agricultural 
policy (CAP). 

On  air  quality,  total  ammonia  emissions  from  agriculture  decreased  slightly  in  2018 
compared to previous years. Nevertheless, Belgium is at medium risk of non-compliance 
with  its  national  ammonia  emission  reduction  commitment  for  both  2020-2029  and  for 
2030 and beyond1. 

On  biodiversity,  the  situation  is  extremely  worrying,  as  100%  of  habitats  have  an 
unfavourable  status  and  88%  of  grasslands  have  an  ‘unfavourable-bad’  conservation 
status. During the previous period (2013-2019), some habitats in Flanders showed some 
improvement.  Despite  improvements  in  certain  protected  areas,  in  particular  in  Natura 
2000 sites, measures should  still be taken to  preserve  and boost biodiversity.  Farmland 
bird indexes point to significant decreases in the population of farmland bird species in 
Flanders, and especially  in Wallonia (40% in 2010-2018). 

For Wallonia, the prioritised action framework indicates the need to  prioritise financial 
support  for  grasslands,  as  well  as  for  cropland  inside  and  outside  the  Natura  2000 
network.  Managing  and  restoring  of  heaths  and  forest  habitats,  together  with  the 
improving of freshwater habitats, are also among the priorities.  

3 

 
 
Flanders is still encouraged to explore opportunities to improve the conservation status of 
meadow birds.  

On  organic  farming,  the  share  of  the  agricultural  area  in  Wallonia  is  well  developed 
(11%) but remains very low in Flanders (1.3%). In 2019, over 90% of the organic area in 
Belgium  was  found  in  Wallonia.  At  national  level  66%  of  the  total  organic  area  is 
permanent  pasture,  34%  is  under  arable  crops  and  only  1%  (fruit  trees  for  instance)  is 
under  permanent  crops.  A  shift  to  a  larger  organic  area  should  be  encouraged  in 
particular for permanent crops. 

1.3  Strengthen  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  and  address  societal 

concerns 

The  socio-economic  dynamisms  of  Belgium’s  rural  areas  is  challenged  by  several 
factors. Like in many parts of the EU, there is a low number of new entrants in farming, 
due to the occupation’s lack of attractiveness and the high price of land. Access to land is 
one of the main obstacles to becoming a farmers in Belgium. The rate of unemployment 
and poverty are higher in some less populated Walloon areas and these same areas face a 
lack  of  access  to  basic  services.  The  bioeconomy  and  green  economy  for  bio-based 
products,  the wood sector for bioenergy and the tourism sector are in  development  and 
offer good opportunities for creating jobs. 

Broadband coverage in rural areas is relatively good except for some sparsely populated 
areas in the south.  

Societal demands on food and health play a key role in Belgium and therefore affect the 
development  of  the  agricultural  sector.  However,  despite  a  reduction  in  the  use  of 
antimicrobials,  the  level  remains  high  compared  to  neighbouring  Member  States  with 
similar  animal  husbandry  structures.  The  use  and  risk  of  pesticides  decreased  between 
2011  and  2018  (better  than  the  EU  average),  more  needs  to  be  done  to  ensure  the 
implementation  of  integrated  pest  management  at  farm  level.  Furthermore,  Belgium 
should make an effort to shift towards healthier, more environmentally sustainable diets 
in line with the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

Consumers  are  increasingly  concerned  about  the  welfare  of  food-producing  animals 
which influences their food choices.  

On gender balance, women in rural areas constitute 28% of the agricultural labour force 
but only 14% are farm managers, which is well below the EU average of 28%. Careful 
consideration of the specific needs of women in agriculture and rural areas is needed in 
order to deliver on gender equality and close the gender gaps in employment.  

Furthermore,  ensuring  the  protection  of  agricultural  workers  -  especially  those  in 
precarious, seasonal and undeclared–employment, will play a major role in delivering on 
human rights as enshrined in legislation. This is an essential element of the fair EU food 
system envisaged in the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

1.4  Modernising the sector by fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation 

and digitalisation, and encouraging their uptake 

Tackling  the  economic,  environmental  and  social  challenges  outlined  in  the  previous 
sections  is  an  important  step  in  the  transition  towards  sustainable  food  production  and 
will also require considerable efforts to bring new practices, technology and innovation 
to the field.  

4 

 
 
Knowledge  and  innovation  have  a  key  role  to  play  in  helping  farmers  and  rural 
communities meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. A well-functioning agricultural 
knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) should deliver plenty of knowledge to respond 
to the growing information needs of farmers, speed up innovation and increase the value 
of existing knowledge, to achieve the CAP objectives. 

The Belgian AKIS has been characterised as strong. However, while it is more integrated 
in Flanders it is still rather fragmented in Wallonia. The links between advisers and other 
knowledge  organisations/institutes  could  be  strengthened.  Full  integration  of  producers 
within the AKIS and into innovative projects could be improved. Belgium could further 
promote  cooperation  between  private  and  public  advisers,  including  within  the 
operational  groups  of  the  European  Innovation  Partnership  (EIP).  It  is  also  essential  to 
invest  in  training  and  skills.  Advisers  should  be  supported  to  help  capture  individual 
grass  roots  ideas for innovation and develop  them  by setting up  and implementing EIP 
operational  group  projects.  “Innovation  support  services”  will  become  obligatory  for 
Member States after 2020.  

Belgium  recorded  a  mixed  performance  on  connectivity.  However,  it  is  advanced  in 
deploying fast and high capacity networks and is committed to accelerating new digital 
technologies and investing strategically in them through EU initiatives and programmes. 
The country should use this potential to drive forward the digital transition, for instance 
through  tailored  digital  solutions  that  address  specific  sectoral  challenges,  such  as 
environmental ones, or by offering group training for small farmers. 

1.5  Recommendations 

To  address  the  above  mentioned  interconnected  economic,  environmental/climate  and 
social challenges, the Commission considers that the Belgian CAP strategic plan needs to 
focus  its  priorities  and  concentrate  its  interventions  on  the  following  objectives,  while 
adequately taking into account the diversity of agriculture and rural areas: 

Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food security 

  Improving the resilience of the agricultural sector and addressing the decline 
of  income,  by  improving  the  targeting  of  CAP  support,  in  particular  to 
small/medium  physical  farm  size  and  territories  in  Wallonia  classified  as  areas 
with  natural  constraints  (ANC),  further  advancing  in  the  internal  convergence 
process and using, for example, the complementary redistributive income support 
for  sustainability  and  the  reduction  of  payments.  The  use  of  risk  management 
tools should also be developed and promoted. 

  Continuing the modernisation and transformation of farms (including digital 
transition)  by  supporting  investments,  directly  or  through  financial  instruments 
with  the view of reducing production costs (e.g. feeding stuff, labour, land) and 
achieving higher environmental and animal welfare benefits. 

  Improving  the  position  of  farmers  in  the  food  chain  with  targeted  actions 
available under both CAP pillars, such as strengthening and developing producer 
organisations and cooperatives, particularly sectors where they are less active, as 
well  as  promoting  innovative  short  food  supply  chains,  and  by  focussing  on 
higher value added products, such as organic products and bio-based products.  

5 

 
 
Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  to  contribute  to  the  environmental- 
and climate-related objectives of the Union 

  Reducing non-CO2 emissions from the livestock sector and soil fertilisation and 
maintaining  and  improving  the  carbon  storage  capacity  by  supporting  grassland 
maintenance and conservation/zero tillage via carbon farming approaches and the 
shift  to  a  bio-based  and  circular  economy.  Among  other  things,  CAP 
interventions  should  support  the  shift  to  lower  emission  livestock  production 
systems  by  also  considering  sustainable  manure  management  in  line  with  the 
Methane Strategy. 

  Supporting  the  adaptation  of  agriculture  to  future  climate  changes,  which 
could jeopardise its capacity to deliver food and its contribution to the provision 
of ecosystem services which are directly dependent on the climate conditions, by 
promoting  adaptive  farming  practices, 
landscape-level  solutions  and 
investments  (restoring  natural  water  retention,  encouraging  the  production  of 
materials  using  biomass  from  agriculture,  introducing  more  water  efficient 
irrigation/crops…).  

  Contributing to the EU Green Deal target to reduce nutrient losses (of both 
nitrates and phosphorus), by supporting the switch of farmers to more resilient 
and  less  intensive  production  models  including  reinforcement  of  pollution 
mitigation  measures,  optimisation  of  fertilisation  practices  that  reduce  nutrient 
losses to water and air. 

  Reinforcing protection of biodiversity and contributing to the EU Green Deal 
targets, by regaining the favourable conservation status of protected habitats and 
species,  by  improving  habitats  especially  high  diversity  landscape  features,  in 
grasslands, croplands and even in forest (inside and outside Natura 2000), with an 
appropriate blend of interventions and obligations under conditionality, as well as 
increasing  the  share  of  land  under  contracts  supporting  biodiversity  and  /  or 
landscapes and by reinforcing the protection of natural reserves and extension of 
Natura  2000  areas  according  to  the  priorities  defined  in  the  Prioritised  Action 
Framework. 

  Contribute to the EU Green Deal target by promoting organic farming more 
strongly, especially in Flanders by accelerating the currently increasing trend of 
areas  being  brought  under  organic  farming  through  adequate  conversion  and 
maintenance  schemes  and  by  developing  sustainable  food  systems  with  the 
identification  of  the  potential  in  local  organic  food  production  and  food  chain 
structures  to  address  the  constantly  growing  demand  for  organic  foods,  and 
support for research and innovation in this field. 

  Fostering sustainable forest management and afforestation, enhancing multi-
functionality,  forest  protection  and  restoration  of  forests  ecosystems  to  achieve 
forest  habitats  and  species  in  a  good  condition,  support  ecosystem  services  and 
preserve stocks, and increasing carbon sinks in forests, their soils and in harvested 
wood products, supporting the bioeconomy, and build resilience to threats such as 
climate change impacts. 

6 

 
 
 
 
Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal demands 

  Encouraging  more  young  people,  including  women,  to  move  into  farming 
and other activities in rural areas (bio-based products, wood sector and the 
tourism),  by  combining 
to  accessing 
interventions 
production factors (such as access to land). 

to  remove  obstacles 

  Contributing to achieving the EU Green Deal target of reducing the overall 
sales of  antimicrobials, though sales in  Belgium  are below the EU average,  by 
continuing  to  implement  measures  to  reduce  antimicrobial  use  in  livestock 
farming,  for  example  by  integrating  targets  into  concrete  and  more  ambitious 
CAP actions, including innovative techniques. 

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  targets  on  reducing  use  and  risk  from 
pesticides  by  50%  by  2030  via  schemes  fostering  non-chemical  pest 
management  practices,  and 
integrated  pest 
management  and  continuing  the  downward  trend  in  risk  and  overall  usage  of 
pesticides.  The  development  of  innovative  techniques  can  help  to  achieve  these 
objectives. 

implementation  of 

the  full 

  Promoting best practices in livestock husbandry and management systems in 
order to improve animal welfare, in particular for pigs and dairy cows, by using 
available tools, including the instruments under the CAP.   

Fostering  and  sharing  of  knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation  in  agriculture  and 
rural areas, and encouraging their uptake 

  Enhancing integration of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System 
(AKIS),  in  particular  by  fostering  collaboration  between  actors,  creation  of 
solutions  targeting  farmers’  needs  in  EIP-AGRI  interactive  innovation  projects, 
ensuring  an  efficient  AKIS  coordination  body  and  financing  innovation  support 
services able to develop grassroots ideas into innovative solutions. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

BELGIUM 

Belgian agriculture has undergone deep structural changes over the recent years, and its 
number of holdings, and livestock have declined since 2005. The total number of farms 
declined  between  2005  and  2018  in  Belgium  from  about  51  500  to  36  200  farms.  The 
average farm size increased from  27 and 37 hectares during the same period.  The total 
utilised agricultural area slightly decreased from 1.38 million ha 2005 to 1.36 million ha 
in  2018.  Relating  to  main  production,  pig  (17.7%),  vegetable  and  horticulture  (16.2%), 
milk (16.2%) and cattle production (12.5%) were the most important sectors in terms of 
production value in 2017. In 2018, the share of agriculture in the Belgian economy was 
0.63%.  The  position  of  the  agri-food  sector  in  the  economy  is  far  more  important. 
Exports of the agricultural sector account for 5.3% of Belgian exports and the agri-food 
sector  for  14.6%.  Agri-food  sector  trade  is  globally  positive  (negative  with  countries 
outside EU and positive intra EU). Rural areas represent 33% of total Belgian territory. 
The employment  figures are slightly  higher in  rural  areas and the poverty rate is  lower 
(20.9%) than in cities (30.7%). 

2.1  Support  viable  farm  income  and  resilience  across  the  EU  territory  to 

enhance food security  

In Belgium, agricultural income has been on average about 59% of the average wage in 
the whole economy between 2005 and 2019. This share ranges from 77% in 2007 to 41% 
in 2018 and is generally above the EU-average (except in 2018). However, it constantly 
decreased between 2012 and 2018, illustrating a growing gap between farm income and 
the average wage (see graph below)2.  

Average  agricultural  factor  income  (period  2005-2019)  has  fluctuated  around  EUR 
34,400 per worker, which is above the EU-average. It however shows a declining trend, 
especially  since  20123.  Direct  payments  formed  about  27%  of  the  agricultural  factor 
income in 2018 (relatively stable share over the period 2015-2018)4. Rural development 
support is on average 3.5% of the factor income5. It thus remains low in comparison with 
direct payments, but it has some importance for certain types of farming, cattle farms in 
particular.  

The factor income broadly increases with physical farm size whereas the direct payments 
per  hectare  decreases  (opposite  trends)6.  This  can  be  related  partly  to  the  redistributive 
payments  (applied  only  in  Wallonia).  However  there  are  still  important  differences  in 
income between small to medium farms on one hand and large farms on the other hand. 

Income  increases  constantly  with  economic  farm  size  while  the  direct  payments  per 
hectare increase for the low to –medium farms and decreases for higher economic sizes8.  

For sectors, the income is the highest for specialist field crops and granivores, while the 
direct payments per hectare are slightly lower than the average. Income is the lowest for 
orchards,  where  the  direct  payments  per  hectare  are  about  half  of  the  average,  and  for 
cattle and mixed livestock farms, despite the higher direct payments per hectare8.  

Income  by  territorial  areas  (i.e.  Areas  facing  Natural  Constraints  (ANC)/non-ANC  in 
Wallonia)  also  shows wide differences. The last  two results illustrate the differences in 
income  generated  by  different  types  of  land  (notably  arable  land  /  permanent  crops  / 
permanent pasture). The income is much higher outside ANC (more than EUR 35 000) 
compared  to  ANC  (slightly  above  EUR  25  000),  but  the  total  income  support  (direct 

8 

 
 
payments  and  ANC  per  hectare)  is  not  significantly  different  between  ANC  and  non-
ANC (close to EUR 350 per hectare)8. 

The  analysis  of  risk  management  instruments7  shows  that  although  a  series  of 
instruments have been set-up, the coverage appears limited for some of them (e.g. crop 
insurance  limited  to  standard  hail  coverage,  absence  of  sanitary  livestock  insurance, 
public compensation arrangement entirely financed by private contributions in the phyto-
sanitary area). Such offers could therefore be further incentivised and developed to bring 
more  stability  for  farmers.  It  should  be  noted  that  in  Flanders  an  all-weather  insurance 
has been developed and launched in 2020. 

Trend in agricultural income (versus average wage in the economy) in Belgium 

Agricultural factor income per AWU in real terms  

Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy  
Agricultural income as % of average wage in the economy – EU-27 

Source: DG AGRI based on EUROSTAT8  

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation  

The importance of agriculture in the Belgian economy has gradually diminished over the 
years.  The  gross  value  added  of  the  agriculture  sector  was  EUR  2.28  billion  in  2019 
(EUR 1.96 billion in 2018)9 and since 2010 has been fluctuating within the range of EUR 
2 billion to EUR 2.4 billion, showing a slightly negative trend. Its share of the total gross 
value added of the Belgian economy represented more than 0.5% in 2019, lower than the 
EU 27 (1.8%). 

Fruits  and  vegetables,  together  with  livestock  and  milk,  are  the  largest  segments  of 
Belgian  agriculture  according  to  their  production  value10,  but  geographical  disparities 
exist.  The  Northern  region  (Flanders)  produces  more  livestock,  as  well  as  fruit  and 
vegetables, whereas the South (Wallonia) is more oriented towards crop farming, cereals 
and  sugar  beet.  Cereals  are  prevalent  in  the  centre  of  the  country  (upper  part  of 
Wallonia). Intensive livestock farms are common in Flanders, while more traditional and 
smaller  livestock  farms  are  found  in  the  South  of  Wallonia.  Wallonia  has  50%  fewer 
large-sized  farms  (with  a  Standard  Output11  above  250  000)  than  Flanders.  Farm 
specialisation is more common in Flanders, where 88% of all farms have specialised in 
either  livestock  (50%,  mostly  cattle),  arable  farming  (26%)  or  horticulture  (12%). 
Overall, most of the Belgian total output value comes from Flanders, which accounted in 
2017 for 67% of vegetal output and 76% of animal production12. 

9 

 
 
The sector has undergone a structural change during the past decade. In 2019, Flanders 
had 23 318 agricultural businesses, while Wallonia had 12 733 holdings. The proportion 
of medium-sized farms in Belgium (between 20 and 100 hectares) is above the European 
average (53% of farms vs 31%). The number of small-sized farms is reducing, while the 
average  size  of  medium  and  large-sized  farms  is  growing.  About  8  270  farms 
disappeared  between  2009  and  2019,  a  net  reduction  of  about  19%,  while  the  average 
size of farms increased by around 30% in the same period. This dynamic slightly varies 
according to regions. Between 2009 and 2019, the number of farms fell by approximately 
20% compared to 2009 in Flanders and by 15% in Wallonia. These reductions occurred 
in the medium or small-sized farms category. The number of large-sized farms (above 50 
ha) grew by 6% between 2009 and 2019. This structural change is driven by a decline in 
profitability (agricultural income has stagnated and even slightly decreased over the last 
decade), the availability of better performing farming technology and economies of scale 
through larger production operations13.  

In terms of agricultural productivity, Belgium stands out from the rest of the Union with 
the  strongest  growth  in  recent  years.  Since  2012,  agricultural  productivity  in  Belgium, 
measured  by  total  factor  productivity,  has  increased  by  47%  between  2012  and  2018, 
while it has increased by around 5% in EU-27 in the same period. This is mainly due to 
an increase in both labour and capital productivities. In 2016, there were 17 454 full time 
farmers in Wallonia and 10 656 in Flanders. When adding to these family members, part-
time  farmers,  and  agricultural  workers,  the  total  agricultural  employment  in  Belgium 
reached  65  177  individuals  in  2016.  Available  national  statistics14  indicate  that  the 
overall number of people employed in agriculture in Belgium has been shrinking by 10% 
every five years since 1990, while the relative share of labour costs slightly grew in the 
overall  cost  structure  of  the  sector.15  The  development  of  the  cost  of  land  has  also 
weighed  on  Belgium’s  agriculture,  particularly  in  Flanders  where  arable  land  could  be 
more than twice as expensive as in Wallonia.16  

Investments  in  the  Belgian  agricultural  sector,  measured  by  the  gross  fixed  capital 
formation, stagnated between 2012 and 2018 at  a relative high value and was EUR 1.1 
billion  in  2018.  Nevertheless,  this  represents  57%  of  the  gross  value  added,  and  it  is 
significantly  above  the  EU  27  average  (around  31%),  indicating  an  overall  positive 
investment  attitude  among  Belgian  farmers  compared  to  their  European  peers.  Overall, 
most of the Belgian gross fixed capital formation comes from Flanders, which accounted 
in 2017 for 77%. 11% of EU rural development support is dedicated to restructuring and 
modernisation in 2018. The demand for agricultural finance is strong, with one in three 
farms  applying  for  a  loan  or  a  credit  line  in  201717.  This  demand  is  matched  by  an 
equally strong supply of finance, addressed by specialised banks, and served by tailored 
financial  products.  Nevertheless,  a  financing  gap  in  the  Belgian  agriculture  sector  is 
estimated  between  EUR  137  million  and  EUR  194  million  in  201718.  This  gap  is  the 
largest for small and medium-sized farms, and it concerns mostly the access to long-term 
loans. 

The adoption of precision farming is quite high in Flanders. According to a recent study 
conducted  in  Flanders,  57%  of  the  responding  farms  apply  precision  agricultural 
technologies themselves or through contractor, or will most likely do so within a period 
of  five  years.  In  arable  farming,  dairy,  pig  and  poultry  sectors,  this  percentage  is  even 
higher  than  66%.  This  mainly  concerns  GPS  in  crop  farming  and  yield  registration  in 
livestock farming. A management information system is often lacking.19 

The sector is well integrated with international markets. Although agriculture is a minor 
part of the Belgian economy, many sub-sectors are well integrated with the European and 
10 

 
 
international  markets  (e.g.  cereals,  sugar  beet,  meat,  milk,  oilseeds).  In  2019,  exports 
from the agricultural sector accounted for 5.3% (they reached 11.4% if exports of food 
products,  beverages and  tobacco are included) of Belgian exports20 and the agricultural 
trade  balance  has  improved  over  the  last  decade.  This  integration  reflects  an  advanced 
development of commercialisation infrastructures, the proximity of a main European port 
- Antwerp, and connections to the agri-food processing value chain layer.  

Cost and revenue structure of agricultural income (real prices in million EUR) in 
Belgium 

Crop output 

Agricultural services output 

Fertilisers 

Rents 

Entrepreneurial income 

Animal output 

Non-agricultural secondary 

Plant/animal protection 

Interest 

Product subsidies 

Seeds 

Feeding stuffs 

Taxes 

Other subsidies 

Energy 

Labour 

Other costs 

Source: EUROSTAT. Economic Accounts for Agriculture [aact_eaa01]. 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain  

The share of agriculture in  the value added in  the food supply  chain  (FSC) in  Belgium 
oscillates  between  12  and  14%,  i.e.  about  half  the  EU  average  of  around  24%21,  and 
while  absolute  gross  value  added  along  the  FSC  rises,  the  value  added  by  producers 
stagnates.  Farmers  cannot  keep  agricultural  incomes  in  line  with  the  increase  of  wages 
and  salaries  in  other  sectors22.  To  counteract  this  trend,  farmers  could  engage  in  more 
downstream activities, i.e. integrate vertically, or innovate and develop markets for new 
agricultural  products.  Joining  producer  organisations  (POs)  that  have  the  critical  mass 
and the human and financial capital to do so could be one solution. 

The livestock sector generates 57% of Belgium’s agricultural output; in the crop sector 
vegetables  and  horticulture  are  the  biggest  contributors23.  The  Commission’s  Farm  to 
Fork Strategy (F2F) calls for a more plant-based diet with more fruits and vegetables and 
better  animal  welfare.  Farmers  could  transition  to  more  plant-based  production,  further 
expand fruit and vegetables (F&V) production, and transition from a quantity to a quality 
focus regarding livestock production – with a lower environmental and climate footprint 
and much greater animal welfare than the EU average. 

Compared to other Member States, Belgium has many recognised POs (more in Flanders 
than in Wallonia), many of which are also sufficiently big to strengthen the position of 
their members vis-à-vis downstream operators24. Nevertheless, given their concentration 
in the F&V sector, Belgium could encourage the formation and recognition of POs also 
in other sectors. Belgium recognised 2 IBOs  and some new IBOs are in the pipeline of 
being  recognised:  vertical  cooperation  could  further  be  improved  by  the  further 
development of IBOs.   

11 

 
 
The good market position of some Belgian POs in the F&V sector allows them to put in 
place  ambitious  business  strategies,  e.g.  on  research  and  experimental  production,  to 
defend their position leaders in vegetables production. 

Belgium has only limited legislation on Unfair trading practices in place25, which makes 
it  the  more  important  for  Belgium  to  fully  transpose  Directive  (EU)  2019/633  and  to 
apply  related  measures  as  soon  as  possible.  While  price  transmission  along  the  FSC  in 
Belgium seems to be fairly fluid26,27, Belgium could improve market transparency further 
by  notifying  market 
legal  minimum  requirements  of 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1746.  

information  beyond 

the 

Belgium’s agricultural sector makes relatively little use of EU ‘geographical indications’ 
that  target  high-priced  niche  markets  and  could  pay  further  attention  to  the  EU  quality 
scheme to  generate more added value to  farmers28. Belgium could  focus more on these 
niche markets and products, or it could focus more on producing the kind of wholesome 
products  (fruits,  vegetables,  animal  products  with  reduced  salt  and  fat  levels)  that  F2F 
calls  for  (see  above),  and  to  do  so  at  competitive  prices  that  make  these  products 
accessible to everyone.  

Organic farming is well developed in Wallonia compared to the EU average (11% of the 
agricultural  area  vs  EU  27  average  of  8%)29.  In  Flanders,  organic  farming  covers  less 
than 2% of the agricultural area. 

Value added for primary producers in the food chain in Belgium (in million EUR) 

Primary production 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 

% for primary producers (right axis) 

Food and beverage distribution 
% for primary producers – EU-27 

Source: European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Result indicator RPI_03 Value for 
primary producers in the food chain. 

2.4  Contribute  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  as  well  as 

sustainable energy  

In  2018,  Greenhouse  Gas  Emissions  (GHG)  of  the  agricultural  sector  in  Belgium 
amounted to around 10 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents and represented about 8%30 of 
total  GHG  emissions  in  Belgium.  They  have  decreased  by  18.6%31  since  1990, 
particularly  due  to  the  decrease  in  emissions  from  enteric  fermentation  (linked  to  the 
reduction  in  the  herd,  but  also  to  the  switch  from  dairy  cattle  to  breeding  cattle)  and 
agricultural  soils  (reduced  use  of  mineral  fertilisers  and  reduced  livestock  numbers, 
which reduces nitrogen excreta in pastures). However, this decline slowed between 2005 
and 2013 (-4%) and emissions have even increased since then (+1%). In 2018, 46%32 of 
emissions  of  the  agricultural  sector  in  Belgium  related  to  enteric  fermentation  of 
livestock, 33% to agricultural soils (fertilisers) and 19% to the management of manure. 

12 

 
 
 
Measured  per  unit  of  production  factors,  these  emissions  are  close  to  the  European 
average, with the exception of agricultural soils, which are much higher (2.42 tonnes of 
CO2 equivalent per hectare against 0.94 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per ha in the EU-27). 
When it comes to agricultural land, it should be mentioned that the GHG emissions from 
cropland  increased  by  8.68%  between  2013  and  2018.  Peatlands  cover  only  0.8%33  of 
soils in Belgium. 

Soil  sealing  has  a  strong  impact  on  farmland  carbon  sinks.  The  Belgian  utilised 
agricultural  area  (1.33  Mha)  has  decreased  by  5%  between  2000  and  2015.  Permanent 
grasslands (35% of total utilised agricultural area) are a “hot spot” of carbon stocks that 
has  been  decreasing  between  2013  and  2017  by  6%;34  however,  they  remain  a  carbon 
sink  in  Belgium  (-0.8  million  tonnes  of  CO2  equivalent  in  2018).  Finally,  Land  Use 
Change  and  Forestry  sector  is  globally  a  carbon  sink  (-1.015  million  tonnes  of  CO2 
equivalent  in  2018).  Forest  land  is  the  major  sink  (-1.252  million  tonnes  of  CO2 
equivalent in 2018)35. 

In  2018,  the  share  of  production  of  renewable  energies  from  agriculture  and  forestry 
(56%  of  total  production  of  renewable  energy  in  Belgium36)  is  slightly  above  the  EU 
average (52%). 37% of renewable energy production comes from the forestry sector and 
19%  from  agriculture.  Indigenous  production  of  energy  from  biogases  from  anaerobic 
fermentation  per  LSU  (livestock  unit)  in  2016  (Gigajoule  ha-1)  is  equal  to  1.99  (EU 
3.93)37. 

Final energy consumption by agriculture/forestry per hectare of utilised agricultural area 
(2018)  total  up  to  584  GJ  (EU  168  GJ))  38.  Energy  consumption  in  Belgium  for 
agriculture and forestry amounts to 2.4% of total final energy consumption (2.9% in the 
EU).  Direct  use  of  energy  in  food  processing  represents  4.8%  of  total  final  energy 
consumption (2.9% in the EU)39. 

Belgium  had  a  share  of  6%  of  physical  area  under  Agri-environment  and  climate 
measures  in  2017  (EU  average  15%)  and  planned  to  reach  12%  at  the  end  of  the 
programming period.40 

The  Belgian  Air  Climate  Energy  Plan  is  developed  around  4  axes  of  actions:  1- 
Sustainable  management  of  inputs  (Limiting  the  use  of  pesticides;  Improving  the 
methods of application and the use of fertilisers to reduce nitrogen emissions; Improving 
the conditions  and storage infrastructure for livestock manure) 2- Promoting the use of 
more  environmentally  neutral  fuels,  renewable  energy  sources,  renewable  heat  and/or 
cogeneration (Fostering  the development  of solid biomass  and bio-methanisation in  the 
agricultural  sector) 3-   Territorial management  (Maintenance of  existing carbon stocks; 
Promoting  local  production  and  short  supply  chains)  4-  Improving  the  energy  and 
environmental efficiency of the agricultural holding  . 

The Belgian Adaptation  Plans recognises as fields of actions for agriculture: improving 
soil  quality,  in  particular  soil  organic  content,  optimising  water  use,  and  tackling  soil 
erosion.  For  forests,  the  improvement  of  management,  with  special  attention  to 
restoration of natural processes is recognised. 

Increasing soil organic carbon will contribute to improved soil structure so that erosion is 
reduced  and  water  retention  is  enhanced.  Also  hedgerows  and  woody  margins  will 
contribute to reduce impact of rainfall events, such as erosion. Increased infiltration will 
increase  capacity  against  droughts.  Woodland  and  forestry  management  helps  to  cope 
with climate change impacts by diversifying and planting new forest species.  

13 

 
 
Total Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (including and excluding 
LULUCF) in Belgium (in million tonnes of CO2 equivalents) 

Grassland 
Cropland 
Agriculture 
% of agriculture in total GHG emissions (exc. LULUCF) 
% of agriculture (incl. emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 
EU-27 % of agriculture (incl. Emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 

Source: European Environmental Agency. As in EUROSTAT [env_air_gge] 

2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air  

Soil erosion is  not  a major issue in  Belgium. At  0.4%, the share of  agricultural  area  at 
risk  of  severe  soil  erosion  from  water  is  clearly  below  the  EU  average  and  the  rate  of 
erosion (less than 1.3t ha-1 yr-1 in Belgium) was below than EU rate 2.5 t ha-1 yr-141. 

In  Wallonia,  the  rate  of  soil  erosion  reaches  1.6  t  ha-1  yr-1  in  2017.  Nevertheless,  some 
cultivated areas (above the Meuse river) present more risk of soil degradation due to their 
low  soil  organic  matter  level.  Over  the  period  2004-2014,  22%  of  utilised  agricultural 
area had less than 1.15% organic matter.  Based on 2015 figure, in hot spot areas, the rate 
of erosion can be above 10 t/ha In Flanders, the impact of soil erosion has been avoided 
thanks to on farming practice requirements, particularly for more sensitive sandy areas in 
the south of the region.  

Mean  soil  organic  carbon  (SOC)  content  of  arable  lands  in  Belgium  is  24  g/kg  (mean 
EU: 43.1 g/kg).  

In  Belgium  conventional  tillage  dominates  (80%  of  tillable  area)  and  a  shift  towards 
conservation/zero  tillage  would  have  positive  effects  on  nutrient  management  and  soil 
quality. The impact  of soil management practices may be increased by linking them to 
research,  innovation  and  demonstration  activities  available  under  the  forthcoming 
Horizon Europe Mission on soil health. 

As  regards  water  quality,  the  estimated  nutrient  balance  for  Belgium  indicates  a 
downwards  trend  since  2006  (although  Belgium  is  not  transmitting  gross  nutrient 
balances  to  the  Commission  and  is  encouraged  to  do  so)42.  Nevertheless,  estimations 
indicate that the nutrient surplus is still very high, and significantly above the EU average 
(136  kg  N/  ha/year,  more  than  twice  the  EU  average  in  2015).  With  the  Netherlands, 
Belgium belongs to the group of Member States with the highest level of N surplus in EU 
2743  

14 

 
 
 
Despite  of  some  improvement  for  phosphorus,  where  Belgium  follows  the  trend  in  the 
EU, at 5kg/ha, phosphorus levels are still estimated to be one of the highest in EU. Malta, 
the  Netherlands,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Cyprus  and  Ireland  have  the  highest  livestock 
densities  in  the  EU  and  the  highest  levels  of  manure  input  per  ha,  with  over  14  kg  of 
phosphorus per ha per year. 

As  regards  water  issues,  under  the  WFD  according  to  the  assessment  of  the  2nd  River 
Basin Management Plan (RBMP)44 more than 70% of surface water bodies were in less 
than good ecological  status  and almost  all surface water bodies  were failing to  achieve 
good  chemical  status.  For  groundwater  10%  were  failing  to  achieve  good  quantitative 
status  and  59%  were  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status.  Diffuse  agricultural 
pollution  is  highlighted  as  the  most  significant  pressure  on  both  surface  and  ground 
waters with nutrient pollution being the biggest impact affecting 65% of surface waters 
and 44% of ground waters and nitrate being the top pollutant causing failure to achieve 
good  chemical  status  in  groundwater.  Chemical  pollution  was  also  a  significant  impact 
affecting 39% of surface waters and 36% of ground water. 

As regards nitrate concentration in groundwater, in 2019, 20% of water bodies had a poor 
quality status, with measuring stations recording more than 50 mg per litre. 

Also in terms of surface waters, the situation of nitrate concentration is still a cause for 
concern  in  Flanders.  During  the  period  of  2012  to  2016,  the  percentage  of  sampling 
points with at least one result in excess of 50 mg/l was stable at around 20%; in the 2017-
2018 winter year this rose to 28% and then due to further degradation in the 2018-2019 
winter year it reached 38%. 45.  

As  regards  water  quantity,  no  data  are  available  based  on  the  2018  water  exploitation 
index  (WEI).  In  2016  only  1.8%  of  total  UAA  was  irrigable46.  Under  the  WFD 
approximately  90%  of  groundwater  bodies  are  in  good  quantitative  status  with  10% 
failing good status. Under the assessment of the 2nd RBMP water abstraction is identified 
as a pressure in some river basin districts (Maas, Scheldt and the Scheldt (Brussels)).  

As regards air quality, among different non-CO2 air pollutant sources, agriculture is the 
main source emission of ammonia (93%).  

Belgium  reported  almost  70  kt  total  ammonia  emissions  in  2018.  Ammonia  emissions 
from  agriculture  slightly  decreased  by  almost  10%  in  the  period  2005  to  2018.  This 
means  that  in  2018,  Belgium  reported  emissions  below  the  emission  reduction 
commitment  to  be  met  for  2020-2029;  the  actual  compliance  with  the  2020  emission 
reduction commitments can however only be checked once the 2020 data are reported in 
2022.  

In Wallonia, ammonia emissions from agricultural sector (represent 26 KT in 2017) have 
decreased by 20% compared to 1990 levels.  In Flanders, ammonia emissions decreased 
by 56% compared to 1990. This is the result of an active policy in Flanders for manure 
storage and treatment as well as reduction of the herd.  

15 

 
 
Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in 
Belgium 

Kg P/ha/year 

Potential surplus of nitrogen on agricultural land (in kg N/ha/year) 

EU-27 GNB for Nitrogen 

Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year) 

Source: EUROSTAT. [aei_pr_gnb]47 

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes  

Flemish  agriculture  is  based  on  a  highly  intensive  model  with  direct  effect  on  GHG 
emission,  air,  soil  and  water  quality.  The  green  deal  aims  to  reduce  and  eliminate  the 
impact  of  agriculture  on  natural  resources.  Addressing  biodiversity  in  particular,  will 
require special efforts. 

The  bird  indexes  still  continue  to  show  a  decreasing  trend,  especially  for  the  farmland 
bird index (1995-2004: -28%, 2004-2011: -14%, 2011-2018: -31%). Both farmland bird 
indices decreased significantly in Flanders and Wallonia (respectively 12% and 40% for 
the period 2010-201948). The Wallonia’s farmland bird index49 has decreased by 3% per 
year between 1990 and 201750. 

Bee  mortality  is  still  increasing  but  Flanders  was  able  to  limit  this  in  recent  years. 
(Flemish  bee  mortality  changed  favourably  during  the  last  3  winters  and  is  currently 
close to 10% while it was 32.4% in 2012-2013). 

The  relatively  low  coverage  of  Natura  2000  in  Belgium  reflects  the  high  population 
density, the high level of urbanisation and the high intensity of land use, especially in the 
central  and  northern  part  of  the  country.  While  Natura  2000  land  areas  cover  around 
12.7% of Belgian territory (Wallonia 13%, Flanders 12%), the type of land area covered 
in  Wallonia  is  very  different  to  that  covered  in  Flanders.  In  Wallonia  Natura  2000  is 
composed  of  70%  forest,  14%  permanent  grassland,  and  2%  arable  land,  and  the 
remaining  areas  are  non-productive  open  spaces.  In  Flanders,  on  the  contrary,  Natura 
2000 areas consist of 40% agricultural land. At national level, 7% of agricultural area and 
35% of forest area is protected under Natura 2000. If the share of Natura 2000 (out of the 
region) areas are comparable for Wallonia and Flanders, the distribution of Natura 2000 
zones within agricultural land reveals the more intensive production in Flanders and the 
high  importance  of  forest  in  Wallonia.  For  Flanders  in  particular,  due  to  intensity  of 
production  and  isolation  of  sites,  restoration  of  areas  for  biodiversity  is  needed  outside 
Natura 2000 zones. Flanders has recently reinforced its legal framework under the habitat 
and birds directive by setting specific conservation objectives for most sites, which is not 
the case in Wallonia51. 

16 

 
 
 
Conservation  status  of  habitats  as  listed  by  habitat  directive:  In  Belgium,  100%  of 
agricultural  habitats  (grasslands) is  in  an unfavourable status  and 88% of grassland has 
an unfavourable to bad conservation status52. In Wallonia (EU Habitats Directive report 
2013-2018)53:  agriculture  is  the main pressure on  38% of habitats  in  continental region 
and  70%  in  Atlantic  region.  The  Flemish  Prioritised  Action  Framework  lists  many 
agricultural  pressures  and  threats  as  particularly  significant  including  acidification  and 
eutrophication  via  air,  from 
livestock  and  desiccation  and  eutrophication  via 
groundwater, drainage, artificial fertilisers or livestock. During the last few years (2013-
2019)  significant  improvements  have  been  made  in  Flanders.  However,  based  on  2019 
data, clear positive trends were not  recorded for  the species under habitat  protection in 
either of the regions. 

Land  lying  fallow  and  landscape  features  represent  together  a  low  share  1.4%  of  total 
agricultural  area54.    Under  cross-compliance,  Belgium  has  protected  landscape  features 
like  hedges  and  tree  lines,  although  with  some  regional  differentiation.  Even  though 
Belgium  allows  that  such  protected  landscape  elements  can  qualify  as  ecological  focus 
areas  under  the  direct  payments  system,  most  farmers  fulfil  their  requirement  for 
ecological  focus  areas  with  catch  crops  (98%),  which  is  not  the  best  way  to  ensure 
maintenance of high biodiversity biotopes.  

At national level, Belgium has only 37% of its permanent grasslands under Natura 2000 
designated as environmentally sensitive permanent  grasslands, for which full protection 
applies  under  the  direct  support  scheme  (no  ploughing  or  conversion),  while  the  EU 
average for designated permanent grasslands under Natura 2000 is 55%55.  

The area under organic farming, in Belgium is slightly below (6.6%) the EU average of 
8%56. Taking into consideration the split between regions, the area under organic farming 
(certified or in conversion) in Wallonia is 81 087 ha, 11% of the total agricultural area, 
while in Flanders it is 7 912 ha, 1.3% of the agricultural area57.  

The share of land under contract supporting biodiversity and / or landscapes and forest is 
rather low in Belgium: 9% for agriculture and 2% for forest58. Belgium currently deploys 
different actions in favour of biodiversity. Wallonia is putting in place 5 000 ha of natural 
reserves  and  4  000  km  of  hedges.  Flanders’  rural  development  program  supports  non-
productive  elements  such  as  hedges,  Natura  2000  areas,  afforestation  and  reforestation, 
as well as agri-environment--climate measures.  It remains to  be assessed  whether these 
will be sufficient to achieve the ambitious green deal objectives. 

17 

 
 
 
 
Area under organic farming in Belgium 

Hectares under organic farming 
% of area under organic farming in the EU-27 

% of agricultural area under organic farming 

Source: EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar] 

Share of agricultural area covered by high-diversity landscape features 
in the EU 

Share of agricultural area covered by  
high-diversity landscape features  

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

fallow land as % of agricultural area
Fallow land as % of agricultural area 

landscape elements as % of agricultural area*
Landscape features as % of agricultural area* 

Source: DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey59. 

* Linear elements considered here: Grass margins, shrub margins, single trees bushes, lines of trees, hedges and 
ditches. This estimation is to be taken with caution because of methodological caveats. 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas  

As elsewhere in the EU, Belgium is facing an ageing farmers’ population. The share of 
young  farmers  (<35  years  old)  in  the  total  number  of  farm  managers  stands  at  6%  in 
2016,  which  places  Belgium  above  the  EU-average  (5.1%)60.  Whereas  the  EU-trend 
decreased between 2010 and 2016, Belgium shows an increase between 2013 and 201663. 
The ratio of  farm managers <35  years/farmers  >55  years old  stands  also  above  the EU 
average (0.09), at 0.12 in 201665-66. The young female managers accounts for 11.6% of 
the  farm  managers  <  35  years  in  that  same  year63  (see  figure),  which  places  Belgium 
below the EU average (23.3% in  2016). Such gender ratio does not  tend to  improve or 
worsen over the period 2005-2016 (same as for EU average ratio). 

In  terms  of  general  trends  for  the  classes  <35  (2005-2016),  the  number  of  farms  has 
decreased  (roughly  - 40%), the  average  area/farm  has  increased  (roughly  35%) and the 
standard output has increased (roughly 70%). Similar trends are however observed for all 
age classes, but with different degree of intensity61. In 2018, the number of farms for the 
age classes <40 represents roughly 11% of the total farms (6% for class <35; 5% for class 
35-40)63.  For  that  year,  the  average  area/farm  stands  at  48  ha  for  class  <35  (52  ha  for 
classes >35, the highest being for class 35-40 with 59 ha)63. In 2018 again, the economic 

18 

 
 
 
 
farm size is the highest for classes <40  (EUR 346 000 for <35; EUR 378 000 for class 
35-40). These figures place Belgium comfortably above the EU average63. 

Like in the rest of the EU, there is a general lack of new entrants into farming, due to a 
lack of attractiveness of the job62. Access to land is one of the main obstacles to entering 
farming  in  Belgium.  Land  sales  are  scarce  and  often  farmers  have  made  arrangements 
long before the land is for sale. Moreover, average land prices range from EUR 30 000 to 
EUR 50 000 per hectare, placing them among the highest in Europe and out of reach for 
most  new  entrants.  The  most  common  way  for  new  entrants  to  access  land  is  through 
renting, especially since new entrants tend to have small farms. However, new entrants 
and newcomers experience difficulties to rent. When farm leases come to an end, tenant 
farmers  often  already  have  arrangements  with  neighbouring  farmers.  In  addition,  the 
conventional farm lease contract is reported to be rigid, which makes many land owners 
reluctant  to  rent  their  land  (leave  land  unused  or  opting  for  short-term/oral  leases,  thus 
placing farmers in precarious conditions)65. As regards educational background, the large 
majority  of  Belgian  new  entrants  into  farming  go  through  specialised  training  schemes 
before  launching  their  farms.  The  training  offer  is  quite  dynamic  in  Belgium,  with  a 
number  of  associations  organising  theoretical  and  practical  courses65.  The  share  of 
'young'  farm  managers  with  at  least  a  basic  agricultural  training  in  Belgium  (48%)  is 
higher compared to the EU average (32%)67.  

Belgium  implements  several  CAP  measures  with  effect  on  the  generational  renewal. 
Under  pillar  I,  the  young  farmer  payments  (YFP)  amounts  to  1.9%  of  the  Direct 
payments envelope in 2018, thus above the EU average share and close to the maximum 
of 2%63. The average YFP/beneficiary stands at EUR 4 886 in Wallonia and EUR 3 835 
in  Flanders  (2018)66,  making  Belgium  the  second  MS  after  Luxemburg  (NB:  Belgium 
has set up the threshold of payments entitlements that can be activated for the YFP at 90 
ha,  i.e.  the  maximum  authorised).  In  addition,  the  criterion  for  appropriate  skills  and 
training to access YFP is incentivising the increase in knowledge among young farmers. 
Under pillar II, generational renewal is promoted via a business start-up aid64, accounting 
for 8% of the financial envelope of FEADER with a target of 6% farms with support for 
young farmers for the period 2014-2020. These CAP measures have been accompanied 
by  several  national  measures  facilitating  the  start-up,  access  to  land  and  generational 
transition,  in  particular:  networks  that  advise  and  ‘sponsor’  new  farmers;  possibility  to 
rent  land  from  community  land  trusts;  organisations  dedicated  to  facilitating  access  to 
land for organic farmers; farm incubators (i.e. small plots of land provided to people who 
wish to experiment farming/new farming techniques/assess their skills etc.)67. 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Belgium 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

Ratio < 35 y.o />= 55 y.o. (right axis) 

Source: EUROSTAT. [ef_m_farmang] 

19 

 
 
2.8  Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local  development  in 

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry  

Predominantly rural areas represent 3% of total Belgian territory, a lower share than the 
EU-average (45%). Intermediate regions account for 4% (46% at EU level). 

The  Walloon  territory  is  divided  into  59  %  of  predominantly  rural  areas,  28.9  %  of 
intermediate areas and 12.1 % of predominantly urban areas65.  The Flemish territory is 
shared into 62.6% of intermediate areas and 37.4% of predominantly urban areas66.  

The share of population living in rural areas is lower than the EU share: 8.5% in Belgium 
and 19.2% at EU level. The share of Walloon population living in predominantly rural 
areas is 26.6% and 35 % in intermediate areas67  

Between 2015-2019, the population in rural areas has slightly increased by 1.7% but less 
rapidly  than  in  urban  areas  (2.1%).  This  is  a  more  positive  trend  than  the  EU-average 
where  rural  regions  lost  a  small  share  of  their  population  (-0.5%).    In  rural  areas  the 
elderly  population  is  increasing  (1.3%  in  five  years)  while  the  young  population  is 
decreasing (- 0.7%).68 

The employment rate in  rural  areas in  2019 is slightly higher (68.5%) than the average 
employment  rate  in  Belgium  (65.3%)  and  has  been  increasing:  by  2  percentage  points 
from 2017 to 2019. The employment rate in rural areas in  Belgium is very close to the 
EU-average  (68.4%).  The  employment  rate  for  women  is  lower  (66.1%)  than  men 
(70.9%)69. The unemployment rate for the age group 15-74 in rural areas (4.9% of active 
population) is below the EU-28 (6.1%).70 

In rural areas, the education of the population reaches a relatively high level. The levels 
of educational backgrounds in the Belgian employment (for male population aged 20-64) 
are  the  following:  tertiary  education  represents  87.5%;  upper  and  post-secondary  79% 
and  lower  than  secondary  57.8%.  The  female  educational  background  reaches 
respectively 82.5%, 64.7% and 42.8%.71 Compared to the EU, the share of farmers that 
attained full agricultural training is larger in Belgium. The share of managers with basic 
agricultural training is slightly higher in Belgium compared to the level in the EU72. 

The total GDP per capita in Belgium is above the EU-average with about 20 index points 
between  1995  and  2016.  Also,  since  2003,  the  GDP  per  capita  in  predominantly  rural 
areas is slightly above the GDP per capita in the EU73. 

The  economy  of  predominantly  rural  regions  mainly  depends  on  the  service  or  tertiary 
sector  as  main  field  of  activity  with  a  share  of  75.6%  of  gross  value  added  (GVA)  in 
Belgium  against  64.6%  (EU-28)  in  2015.  By  contrast,  the  primary  sector  in  the  rural 
regions of Belgium represents less than 2% of its total GVA, and is lower than the EU-28 
average  (4.2%)74.  The  secondary  sector  (which  includes  the  food  industry)  in  the 
predominantly  rural  regions  of  Belgium  (22.5%)  is  below  the  EU-28  average  (31.2%). 
The distribution of employment by sector is 3.2% in tourism, 2.5% in the food industry 
and 1.1% in agriculture75. 

The rural poverty rate in Belgium in 2017 (20.9%) is below the EU-average rural poverty 
rate (24.4%). It should be highlighted that the rural poverty rate is significantly higher in 
Wallonia (26.6%76). 

20 

 
 
The total poverty rate in Belgium is above the poverty rate in rural areas:  people living 
cities  tends  to  be  more  exposed  to  poverty  than  the  rural  population  (30.1%  against 
20.9%)77.  

In predominantly rural areas, there are also substantial poverty issues: 15 to 20% of the 
poorest are highly represented78.  

In  Belgium,  there  is  a  partial  depopulation  in  the  villages.  Essential  services  such  as 
medical care and shops are missing. Mobility is also a problem in some rural areas and 
the  lack  of  public  transport  contributes  to  social  exclusion.  The  weakness  in  basic 
services  is  more  important  in  Wallonia  (e.g.  6  out  of  10  rural  towns  face  a  scarcity  of 
general  practitioners.  CAP  measures 
through  support  for  medical  houses  and 
multifunctional  spaces,  help  improve  the  quality  of  life.  Through  a  balanced  territorial 
rural development policy, Flanders addresses a variety of social issues that have arisen in 
its rural areas. Social inclusion and local development are supported through the bottom-
up  approach  of  LEADER.  12  Local  Action  Groups  draw  up  and  execute  Local 
Development  Strategies.  The  approach  will  cover  roughly  70%  of  the  rural  population, 
creating around 80 jobs and improving living conditions.  

The  Walloon  Region  pays  great  attention  to  the  development  of  rural  areas  with 
LEADER,  which  aims  to  cover  one  third  of  the  rural  population  through  local 
development strategies developed by 20 local action groups); 83 jobs will also be created 
in  the  supported  projects.  21%  of  the  rural  population  benefits  from  better  services  or 
infrastructure.  

The Belgian forest accounts for a total of 23% of the territory and for 0.3% of Europe’s 
forests79.  Belgium  is  the  20th  timber-producing  country  in  Europe.  Almost  79%  of  the 
Belgian  forested  area  is  in  Wallonia  for  less  than  21%  in  Flanders  but  the  wood 
industries in Flanders are almost the double. Currently, the share of employment in the 
forestry  sector  is  still  marginal.  The  total  output  of  forestry  and  connected  secondary 
activities reached EUR  387 million in  2017. The total  amount for EU-28 reached EUR 
57 788.35 million 80.Regarding the tourism sector, aging tourist infrastructure and natural 
and historical heritage under threat are impediments to tourism development in Wallonia.  

The turnover in  the bio-economy was EUR 78 044 million  in  2015 and the sectors are 
represented  as  follows:  59%  for  bio-based  textiles,  13%  for  bio-based  chemicals, 
pharmaceuticals, plastics and rubber (excl. biofuels) and 10% for agriculture.81 

The bio  and  green economy for bio-based products,  wood sector  for bioenergy  and the 
tourism sector are in development and present good opportunities for job creations. Still 
in Wallonia, the agri-food sector is also expanding and providing jobs.  In both regions, 
interconnection  in  rural  areas  (suburbanisation)  enables  initiatives  for  short  supply 
chains. 

2.9  Improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal  demands  on  food  and 
health,  including  safe,  nutritious  and  sustainable  food,  as  well  as  animal 
welfare 

In its fight against antimicrobial resistance, Belgium has attained a significant reduction 
in the sales of antimicrobials by 37.2% in the period 2010-201882. With 113.1 mg/PCU, 
the  sales  of  antimicrobials  are  now  below  the  EU  average  of  118  mg/PCU.  However, 
sales  are  still  higher  when  compared  to  neighbouring  Member  States,  such  as  France 
(64.2  mg/PCU),  the  Netherlands  (57.5  mg/PCU)  or  Germany  (88.4  mg/PCU)  with 

21 

 
 
similar animal husbandry structures. In particular, in the broiler and veal sector, sales of 
antimicrobials need to further decrease. Awareness raising, data collection and reporting, 
target setting and provision of sufficient resources will foster a smooth transition for the 
implementation  of  the  new  legislation  on  veterinary  medicinal  products  and  will 
contribute  effectively  to  the  goal  of  reducing  overall  EU  sales  of  antimicrobials  for 
farmed animals and in aquaculture by 50% by 2030.  

By  2018,  Belgium  had  achieved  a  28%  decrease  in  the  use  and  risk  of  pesticides,  as 
expressed  by  the  Harmonised  Risk  Indicator  1  (HRI1),  compared  to  the  2011-2013 
baseline.  Although  there  was  a  slight  increase  to  2017,  the  HRI1  reduction  is  more 
substantial than the EU average of 17%83. Belgium still has deficiencies in enforcement 
to ensure implementation of integrated pest management by all professional users.  

There  is  an  increased  social  demand  for  food  produced  from  animals  kept  under 
conditions,  which  respect  their  welfare.  Poor  housing  conditions,  such  as  insufficient 
space and enrichment material do not sufficiently discourage tail biting. The percentage 
of pigs reared with intact tails has barely changed since 2016 and although prohibited as 
a  routine  measure,  the  tail  docking  of  pigs  is  therefore  still  common  practice  in 
Belgium84.  In  intensive  farming  models,  the  continuous  pressure  to  increase  milk 
production could be associated with poor welfare in dairy cows.  

Health is an important component of the sustainable food system envisaged in the Farm 
to Fork Strategy. In that regard, Belgium reports an overweight rate of 48.7% and 14.7% 
for obesity as compared to EU figures of 52% and 14.9% respectively85. Efforts should 
line  with  national 
focus  on  shifting 
recommendations,  including  balanced  diets  of  plant-based  foods  such  as  wholegrains, 
legumes,  fruit,  vegetables  and  nuts  complemented  by  appropriate  amounts  of  animal-
based  foods  as  this  would  contribute  to  lower  the  incidence  of  chronic,  non-
communicable human disease, while reducing the impact of the food production system 
on the environment.  

towards  healthy  sustainable  diets, 

in 

Regional policies8687 have set ambitious targets to reduce food waste and food losses in 
the  period  2015  to  2025  by  at  least  30%,  thereby  contributing  to  the  Commission’s 
commitment to halve per capita food waste measured at the retail and consumer levels by 
2030  (SDG  Target  12.3).  Projects  and  initiatives  to  facilitate  food  redistribution  and 
donations via food banks and charities are supported, as well as research into innovative 
technological solutions and awareness raising for changing consumer behaviour. Putting 
value  on  unavoidable  food  waste  stemming  from  the  important  agri-food  industry  in 
Flanders plays an important role in that region. However, reducing waste in the primary 
sector and during food processing remains a challenge.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents marketed 
mainly for food-producing animals in Belgium 

Harmonised Risk Indicator 1 for pesticides in Belgium 
(2011-2013 = 100) 

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

HRI 1 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

Source: DG AGRI after ESVAC, Tenth ESVAC Report (2020)88   

               Source: EUROSTAT [aei_hri]89  

2.10 Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

The functioning of the  Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS)90  91has 
been characterised as strong in Belgium, integrated in Flanders (where there are several 
networks  of  AKIS  actors  in  which  knowledge  is  shared  and  cooperation  is  agreed)  but 
relatively fragmented in Wallonia.  

Under the programming period 2014-2020, Belgium programmed 5% of their total rural 
development  envelope  (EAFRD  +  national  contribution)  for  knowledge  transfer  and 
information  actions,  advisory  services,  farm  management  and  farm  relief  services  and 
Cooperation-EIP. This is higher than the EU-28 average of 3.7%92.  

The Flanders Rural Development Programme (RDP) aims to train 981 850 farmers and 
other  rural  businesses  persons  and  to  advise  998  beneficiaries  by  202393.  The 
implementation  progress  of  the  RDP  indicates  that  up  to  the  beginning  of  2019,  the 
number of participants trained were 407 31494, meaning that 41.48% of the 2023 target 
was  reached.  In  2014-2018,  26  demonstration  projects  received  the  last  tranche  of 
subsidies. The Wallonia RDP covers neither training nor advice to farmers. 

In Belgium, 48% of the total farm managers attained basic or full agricultural training in 
2016. Compared to the EU, the share of farmers that attained full agricultural training is 
larger  in  Belgium  (21%)  compared  to  the  EU  (9%).  The  share  of  managers  with  basic 
agricultural training is slightly higher in Belgium (27%) compared to the EU level (23%). 
95 

Under the framework of the European Innovation Partnership, and up to 2023, Belgium 
(only Flanders) aims to support 53 cooperation projects (Operational groups, OG) for an 
overall budget of more than 598 978 EUR. On the 25 of August 2020, only 18 OG were 
launched  and/  or  finished.  The  themes  covered  by  the  OG  are  essentially  pest/disease 
control and farming equipment and machinery. The OG involves 181 partners including 
farm holders (93), Research Institutes (41), other partners (19), SMEs (17) and Advisors 
(11)96. In Flanders, the budget per project is very low. In Wallonia, innovation support is 
missing and there is a complete absence of EIP OGs. 

In  Wallonia97  there  is  a  lack  of  links,  exchanges  and  networking  between  advisory 
structures. In addition, use of digital tools is still low. Furthermore, the flow of research 
into  practice  can  be  improved  making  the  results  of  research  more  feasible  for  the 

23 

 
 
farmers  and  their  implementation  affordable.  The  producers  are  often  insufficiently 
integrated into the AKIS and into research projects in Wallonia. 

The  National  Rural  Network  (NRN)98  of  Belgium-Flanders  is  one  of  the  NRNs  that 
organised more than 50% of all events related to advisors and innovation in the EU-28. 
The  NRN-Wallonia  achieved  the  largest  number  of  publications  during  the  2015-2017 
period  (more  than  1  000  publications).  This  experience  can  be  the  basis  for  the  future 
national  CAP  network  to  intensify  such  actions  and  play  a  key  role  in  promoting 
synergies between the CAP and European Research Area (ERA). The best way to do so 
is  to  keep  in  close  touch  with  the  Horizon  National  Contact  Point  and  to  intensify  the 
dissemination  of  the  information  on  the  EIP  website.  Moreover,  when  collecting  and 
sharing information, the CAP  can finance interventions that help to  make use of up-to-
date  scientific  information  for  agricultural  practices,  for  instance  through  the  CAP 
network and its knowledge platforms, and by setting up advisory back-offices where the 
latest knowledge and innovation is collected and shared with the field advisors.  

Belgium  ranks  9th  out  of  28  EU  Member  States  in  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society 
Index  (DESI)  202099.  Belgium  shows  a  mixed  performance  in  connectivity.  While  the 
country  performs  well  in  deploying  fast  and  very  high  capacity  networks,  it  is  lagging 
behind  in  5G  readiness.  Belgium,  Cyprus  and  Malta  are  the  leaders  in  NGA  (Next 
Generation  Access).  Belgium  is  committed  to  advancing  new  digital  technologies  and 
investing  strategically  in  digital  technologies  through  EU-coordinated  initiatives  and 
programmes.  In  April  2019,  Belgium  also  joined  the  new  European  initiatives  on 
cooperation  on  advancing  digitisation  in  cultural  heritage  and  the  digitalisation  of 
agriculture  and  rural  areas.  For  Belgium,  8  Digital  Innovation  Hubs  in  the  field  of 
agriculture, hunting and forestry have been registered. 

Belgium has already made efforts  to  build digital  capacities across sectors;  the country 
should use this potential to continue the digital transition of the farming sector and rural 
areas, especially through tailored digital solutions addressing specific sectoral challenges, 
e.g.  environmental  ones  or  those  of  small  farmers  or  target  groups  training  efforts. 
Belgium-Flanders  has  opted  for  the  use  of  satellite-based  means  to  monitor  CAP 
implementation100.  Belgium  Wallonia  has  not  yet  opted  for  the  use  of  satellite-based 
means to monitor CAP implementation. 

Belgian rural areas are globally well covered in terms of internet access: Broadband Next 
Generation  Access  (NGA)  in  rural  areas  is  excellent  with  97.5%  of  rural  households 
covered  in  2019,  significantly  above  the  EU  average  with  59.31%.  87%  of  rural 
households are covered with broadband access (compared to the EU average of 83%)101. 

24 

 
 
 
 
Agricultural training of farm managers below 35 years (left) and total farm manager population (right) in Belgium 

Managers with 
full agricultural 
training 

Managers with 
basic agricultural 
training 

Full training EU 
average 

Basic training 
EU average 

Source: EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

Broadband coverage in Belgium 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

Source: European Commission, Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020. 

25 

 
 
1   European Commission, Report on the implementation of Directive (EU) 2016/2284, adopted on 26 June 

2020. 

2   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.25 Agricultural factor income. Based on EUROSTAT 

[aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06]. 

3   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers. Based on 
EUROSTAT  [ef_mp_training]  and  CAP  context  indicator  C.26  Agricultural  entrepreneurial  income. 
Based on EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04] and [aact_ali01]. 

4   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Result indicator RPI_01 Share of direct 

support in agricultural income. 

5   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Impact  indicator  I.01  Agricultural 

entrepreneurial income and CAP Impact indicator I.02 Agricultural factor income.   

6   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and Rural Development own calculations based on  FADN (Farm 
Accountancy Data Network) data (2015) and CATS (Clearance of Accounts Trailing System) data (up 
to  2017)  and  Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on 
FADN  (Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network)  data  (up  to  2018)  and  CATS  (Clearance  of  Accounts 
Trailing System) data (up to 2018) 

7   Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  ECORYS,  Wageningen  Economic 

Research, Study on risk management in EU agriculture, Final Report, 2018. 

8   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. CAP context indicators C.25 Agricultural 
factor income and CAP context indicator C.26 Agricultural entrepreneurial income. Income based on 
EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06], adding back the compensation of employees 
to the entrepreneurial income and divided by the total number of annual working units. Note: 2019 data 
estimated. The Average wage in the economy based on EUROSTAT [nama_10_a10_e] thousand hours 
worked using employees domestic concept and [nama_10_a10], item wages and salaries. 

9   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01]. 
10   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa06].  
11   The standard output (SO) of an agricultural product (crop or livestock) is the average monetary value of 

the agriculture output at farm-gate price in Euro. 

12   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01]. 
13   Statbel, 

Agricultural 

2009-2019 
https://statbel.fgov.be/sites/default/files/files/documents/landbouw/FR_kerncijfers_landbouw_2019_we
b.pdf  
14   Statbel, 

2019 
https://statbel.fgov.be/sites/default/files/files/documents/landbouw/FR_kerncijfers_landbouw_2019_we
b.pdf  

Agricultural 

figures, 

figures, 

15   EUROSTAT. [lc_nstruc_r2]. 
16   EUROSTAT. [apri_lprc]. 
17   European  Commission,  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in  Belgium,  fi-

compass, 2020. 

18   European  Commission,  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in  Belgium,  fi-

compass, 2020. 

19   Van Bogaert Tom, Janssens  Ruben and Maertens Ellen,  Toepassing van precisielandbouwtechnieken. 

Een enquête bij LMN-bedrijven, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Brussel, 2018.   

20   Institut des Comptes Nationaux, 2020 
21  European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer  CAP  Indicator  –  Data  Explorer.  CAP 

Output/Result Indicator RPI_03 Distribution of Gross Value Added along the Food Chain. 

22   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Impact  indicator  I.01  Agricultural 

entrepreneurial income and CAP Impact indicator I.02 Agricultural factor income.  

23   EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01]. 
24   Arcadia International, E.E.I.G , Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, EY,. The 
best  ways  for  producer  organisations  to  be  formed,  carry  out  their  activities  and  be  supported. 
European Commission, Brussels, 2019. , http://doi.org/10.2762/034412  

25   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  European  Commission.  Initiative  to 

improve the food supply chain (unfair trading practices). SWD(2018)92. 

26   EUROSTAT. [prc_ppp_ind].  
27   EUROSTAT. [prc_fsc_idx].  
28   European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  –  Data  Explorer.  CAP  Output/Result  Indicator  OIH_02 

Distribution of EU Quality Schemes.  

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
29   European Commission. CAP Indicator – Data Explorer. CAP Output/Result Indicator OIH_03 Number 

of certified registered organic operators.  

30   European  Environmental  Agency 

– 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

(EEA).  EEA 

greenhouse 

gas 

data 

viewer. 

31   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. 
32   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer.  
33   International  Mire  Conservation  Group  and  International  Peat  Society,  Mires  and  Peat,  Volume  1, 
2006. 

Article 
https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/octop/Resources/Peatland_Per_Country.pdf  

1819-754X, 

ISSN 

01, 

34   Statbel, 

Chiffres 

clés 

de 

l’agriculture, 

2018. 

https://statbel.fgov.be/sites/default/files/files/documents/landbouw/FR_Kerncijfers%20landbouw_2018
_Web.pdf  

35   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer.  
36   European Commission.  CAP context indicator C.43 Production of renewable energy from agriculture 

and forestry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_c] and [nrg_cb_rw], and Strategie Grains. 

37   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer.  
38   EUROSTAT. [nrg_bal_s]. 
39  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s]. 

40   European 

Belgium 
http://agriwiki.agri.cec.eu.int/Pages/AWLibrary.aspx?LISTNAME=AgriWikiDocuments&ITEMID=31
61  

implementation 

Commission, 

Annual 

reports 

41   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.42  Soil  erosion  by  water.  Original  source:  Joint 

Research Center. 

42   EUROSTAT. [aei_pr_gnb]. 
43   European  Commission.  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the 
Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC 
concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution  caused  from  agricultural  sources  based  on 
Member State reports for the period 2012-2015. SWD(2018) 246 final. 

44   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:37:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN  

45   Vlaamse  Landmaatschappij,  Nutrient  in  surface  water  in  farmed  surface,  results  MAP  sampling 

network 2018-2019. 
46   EUROSTAT. [ef_poirrig]. 
47   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.40  Water  quality.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[aei_pr_gnb]. 
48   indicators.be, 

Farmland 

bird 

population 

by 

region 

– 

Belgium. 

2007. 

https://www.indicators.be/en/i/G15_BIR/Farml_bird_population  

49   Etat  de 

l’environnement  Wallon,  Évolution  des  Populations  d'Oiseaux  Communs.  2018. 

http://etat.environnement.wallonie.be/contents/indicatorsheets/FFH%208.html  

50   The populations of Corn Bunting, Turtle Dove, and Grey Partridge have respectively declined by 98%, 

97, and 96% between 1990 and 2017. 

51   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document – The EU Environmental Implementation 

Review 2019. SWD(2019) 112 final. 

52   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.36  Conservation  status  of  agricultural  habitats. 

Original source: European Environmental Agency. 

53   Wallonie Environnement SPW (2020) Evaluation des états de conservation des habitats et des espèces 
d'intérêt communautaire en Wallonie (période 2013-2018).    Wallonie Environnement SPW, Belgium. 
http://biodiversite.wallonie.be/fr/evaluation-des-etats-de-conservation-des-habitats-et-des-especes-d-
interet-communautaire-en-wallonie-periode-2013-2018.html?IDD=6292&IDC=5803 

54   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.41 Soil organic matter in arable land. Joint Research 

Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015. 

55   Member state notifications to the Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development pursuant 

to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. 

56   Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.19  Agricultural  area  under  organic  farming.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1] and [org_cropar]. 

57https://statbel.fgov.be/sites/default/files/files/documents/landbouw/FR_kerncijfers_landbouw_2019_web.

pdf  

58   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_06  Percentage 
forest  or  other  wooded  area  under  management  contracts  supporting  biodiversity  and  CAP  Result 

27 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
 
indicator  RPI_07  Percentage  agricultural  land  under  management  contracts  supporting  biodiversity 
and/or landscapes. Source: data 2018, dashboard indicators 

59   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  for  land  laying 

fallow and Joint Research Center based on LUCAS survey for estimation of landscape elements. 

60   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang]. 

61   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 

to 2018) 

62   Access to land, Europeʼs new farmers: Innovative ways to enter farming and access land, September 

2018. https://www.accesstoland.eu/IMG/pdf/a2l_newentrants_handbook.pdf 

63   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Analysis  on  implementation  of  direct 

payments, based on CATS data (Claim Year 2018), June 2020 

64   ADE,  CCRI  ,  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  OIR,  Evaluation  of  the 
impact of the CAP on generational renewal, local development and jobs in rural areas, Final Report, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4bd0b0a2-0503-11ea-8c1f-
2019. 
01aa75ed71a1 

p.65. 

65   EUROSTAT. [urt_d3area]. 
66   EUROSTAT. [urt_d3area]. 
67   IWEPS,  Densité  de  Population,  2020.  https://www.iweps.be/indicateur-statistique/densite-de-

population  

68   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.02  Age  structure.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[demo_r_pjanaggr3]. 

69   EUROSTAT. [lfst_r_ergau] and [lfst_r_erednu]. 
70   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.07  Unemployment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_lfu3rt]. 

71   EUROSTAT. [lfst_r_erednu]. 
72   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training].  

73   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp]. 

74   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.10 Structure of the economy. Based on EUROSTAT 

[nama_10r_3gva]. 

75   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.13  Employment  by  economic  activity.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfe2en2]. 

76   La Wallonie en chiffres  « Taux de risque  de  pauvreté  » et  « Taux de déprivation  matérielle sévère  » 
élaborées par l’IWEPS et disponibles sur le site :  https://www.iweps.be/indicateur-statistique/taux-de-
risque-de-
pauvrete/#:~:text=Ainsi%2C%20on%20peut%20affirmer%20avec,Flandre%20(autour%20de%2010%
20%25)  

77   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.09 Poverty rate. Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps11]. 
78   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.09 Poverty rate. Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps11]. 
79   Eurostat  [demo_r_d3area]  and  [for_area]  and  Société  Royale  Forestière  De  Belgique  EUROSTAT. 

[demo_r_d3area] and [for_area] 

80   EUROSTAT. [for_sup_cp].  
81   DATAM 

bio 

economy, 

JRC  

https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html  

82   European Medicines Agency, European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption, 2020. 

‘Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 European countries in 2018’. (EMA/24309/2020). 

83   European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for pesticides (HRI 1), by group of active substance. 
[SDG_02_51] 

As 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/aei_hri/default/table?lang=en  

EUROSTAT 

in 

84   DG SANTE letter to Belgium on Farm2Fork – Ref. Ares(2020)2643693  
85   EUROSTAT. [sdg_02_10]. 
86   https://www.voedselverlies.be/en; 

https://lv.vlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/attachments/Declaration%20of%20Commitment%20Flanders
.pdf 

87   Ministère wallon de l’Environnement et de la Transition écologique, Plan wallon des 
  Déchets-Ressources, 2018. http://environnement.wallonie.be/legis/dechets/planwallondechets.pdf 

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
88   European  Medicines  Agency,  European  Surveillance  of  Veterinary  Antimicrobial  consumption 
(ESVAC). Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 countries in 2018 – trends from 2010 to 2018 
Tenth ESVAC Report. EMA/24309/2020. 

89   European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for pesticides (HRI 1), by group of active substance. 

As in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51]. 

90   Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Preparing for Future AKIS in Europe, 4th 
Report  of  the  Strategic  Working  Group  on  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Innovation  Systems  (AKIS), 
2019. 

91   Knierim Andrea, Prager Katrin, Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems in Europe: Weak or 

strong, fragmented or integrated?, July 2015 

92   Member state notifications to the Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development based on 

the latest adopted versions of the Rural Development Programmes. 

93   Member state notifications to the Directorate general for Agriculture and Rural Development based on 

the latest adopted versions of the Rural Development Programmes.  

94   European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  -  Data  explorer.  CAP  Output  indicator  OIR_12  Number  of 

participants in trainings. 

95   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training].  

96   https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/about/operational-groups  
97   Réseau Wallon de développement rural.  Vers un Pôle wallon de Conseil Indépendant en Agriculture. 

Note de synthèse des travaux du GT « Conseil Agricole Indépendant ». 1 August 2020.  

98   European  Network  for  Rural  Development  (ENRD),  Y5  RDP  Screening  on  NRN  programming  and 
2020. 

action 
Document 
https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/y5_rdp_screening_nrns_summary_report.pdf 

Working 

version, 

January 

plans, 

Final 

99   European Commission, Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2020.  
100  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  Internal  information  resulting  of 

- 

notification from MS and/or informal exchanges with Member States. 

101  European Commission. Digital Economy and Society Index. DESI individual indicators – 1b1 Fast BB 

(NGA) coverage [desi_1b1_fbbc]. 

29