COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 as regards conversion of the Farm Accountancy Data Network into a Farm Sustainability Data Network
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural holding, agricultural performance, data collection, data protection, economic accounts for agriculture, economic analysis, environmental impact, personal data, social impact, sustainable agriculture

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.6.2022  SWD(2022) 166 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 as regards conversion of the Farm Accountancy Data Network into a Farm Sustainability Data Network {COM(2022) 296 final}  
 
 
RESULTS OF THE TARGETED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

The consultation of stakeholders is an essential part of the consultation strategy set up for 
the  process  of  conversion  from  the  Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network  (FADN)  into  the 
Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN)1. The consultation was targeted on the main 
data  providers  and  users  of  the  FADN  system.  Member  States,  as  main  actors  of  the 
network, were strongly associated in the consultation. The consultation took several forms, 
among which were the publically available Roadmap2 and the written consultation via the 
EU  Survey  targeted  to  all  identified  stakeholders,  as  well  as  the  FSDN  stakeholders’ 
workshop  and  the  FADN  Committee  together  with  its  three  thematic  Working  Groups 
(WGs). The present report summarizes the answers and feedbacks received.  

1.  Key outline of the consultation strategy, its objectives and specific activities 

The FSDN consultation strategy was established in spring 2021 and it aimed at gathering 
contributions  to  (1)  inform  about  possible  simplification  paths  and  possible  burden 
reduction,  (2)  explore  additional  data  needed  for  assessing  environmental  and  social 
practices and sustainability aspects at farm level, and (3) enhance the use of existing and 
explore new data collection tools. It  also aimed  at (4) identifying incentives to enhance 
farmers’ participation in the data network that would improve their farming practices. In 
the  Strategy  the  following  three  main  stakeholders  groups  were  identified:  (1)  data 
providers (farmers), (2) data collectors (public authorities responsible for data collection, 
submission and for access to administrative data in EU Member States (e.g. Member State 
authorities, FADN Liaison offices, National Statistical Institutes) and (3) data users (e.g. 
policy-makers, farm advisors, academia, researchers, evaluators, consultancies). 

The following consultation activities took place in the process of preparing a proposal for 
the conversion into the FSDN:  

In February 2021, an initial workshop was organized in order to take stock of the Member 
States,  third  countries,  the  Commission  as  well  as  other  stakeholders  (e.g.  farmers’ 
organizations,  NGOs)  knowledge  and  experience  as  regards  the  above-mentioned 
objectives.   

In the next step, the FSDN Roadmap was published on 4 June 2021, with a four-week 
feedback period, outlining the main objectives of the future FSDN proposal. At the end of 
the feedback-period, 33 feedbacks were received.  

A targeted written consultation in the form of an on-line questionnaire took place during 
summer 2021 using dedicated EU Survey. It was addressed to all three main identified 

1  In  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy  (F2F),  the  Commission  announced  its  intention  to  convert  the  Farm 
Accountancy Data Network (FADN) into a Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN), with a view to also 
collect  farm  level  data,  in  line  with  the  new  objectives  defined  in  the  Green  Deal  and  its  F2F  and 
Biodiversity strategies, on environmental and social farming practices. The action plan specified that the 
amended basic act is planned to be adopted by the Commission in the second quarter of 2022. 

2 Already initiated with the publication of a roadmap setting out the issues under consideration (which was 
available 4 June – 4 July 2021): Conversion to a Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN) (europa.eu). 

1 

 
 
                                                           
stakeholders  groups:  (1)  data  providers,  (2)  data  collectors  and  (3)  data  users.  The 
questionnaire  covered  aspects  related  to  both  the  simplification  of  the  current  FADN 
survey as well as  to  its  conversion  into  the FSDN, by adding  environmental and social 
variables at a farm level, as specified in the Strategy objectives. More than 300 replies to 
the EU Survey were received.  

In September 2021, another workshop was organized, with around 160 participants. The 
goal was to discuss the outcome of the previous consultation activities and to exchange on 
concrete  simplification  and  modernization  proposals.  All  stakeholder  groups  were 
represented; including farmers, who were represented by the umbrella organization COPA-
COGECA.  

In  the  framework  of  the  consultation  activities,  two  FADN  Committee  meetings  took 
place in April and October 2021, where the conversion into the FSDN was discussed with 
the FADN Committee members. In addition, the FADN Committee set up three dedicated 
Working Groups (WGs). WG1 focused on reinforcing and simplifying FADN to screen 
the  current  FADN  variables  and  propose  simplifications  and  methodological 
improvements. WG2 more generally worked on the process of conversion of FADN into 
FSDN, whereas WG3 tackled the FADN individual data request tool to deal with existing 
issues  related  to  access  to  individual  FADN/FSDN  data.  An  additional,  long-standing 
working  group  on  the  EU  farm  typology  also  contributed  to  this  work.  All  above-
mentioned Working Groups are set up under the umbrella of the FADN Committee and 
are composed of voluntary experts from the Member States, DG AGRI members and the 
other Commission services such as Eurostat.  

Finally, an FSDN Conference was due to take place at the beginning of 2022. However, 
this event has been postponed:  

1)  Because of Covid pandemic restrictions, as well as  

2)  due to the fact that the scope of the planned Conference (e.g. presentation of the 
results  of  the  consultation  activities,  presentation  of  the  initiative’s  scope  and 
harvest feedback from all stakeholders) was already fully addressed with the FSDN 
Stakeholders’  workshop  (September  2021)  and  subsequent  Working  Groups 
meetings (meeting during the period of November 2021 until March 2022). 

It was decided that this event would be more valuable in autumn 2022. At that time, the 
Commission will have adopted the FSDN initiative proposal (June 2022) and discussions 
with  the  Council  and  the  EP  as  regards  the  FSDN  proposal  will  commence  as  from 
September 2022. In addition, partial results from the on-going IPM2-FSDN pilot project3 
will be submitted and informal discussions with the Member States will start. With that 
timing, the above-mentioned event would suit better to harvest feedback from stakeholders 
as regards the secondary legislation ideas.  

3 The technical specifications of the pilot project are available here 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
2.  Overview of the respondents to the consultation activities 

There were 33 feedbacks received on the Roadmap. More than half of the feedback come 
from  either  business  organization  or  academic  institutes  (27%  and  24%,  respectively). 
Feedback from business associations and NGOs constituted of 15% and 12% respectively, 
whereas EU citizens – 12%, Public authorities – 6% and trade union – 3%. As regards the 
coverage,  the  feedback  came  from  13  countries:  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Germany, 
Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United 
Kingdom (see Chart 1).  

Chart 1. 

Feedback received by type of organisation (%)

3%

6%

12%

12%

27%

15%

24%

Company/Business organisation
Academic/Research institution
Business association
NGO (Non-Governmental Organisations)
EU citizen
Trade Union

A  total  of  330  participants  have  answered  the  targeted  written  consultation  via  EU 
Survey.  The  main  contributors  of  the  survey  have  been  advisors  (81  participants)  and 
farmers  (64  participants).  For  a  more  detailed  overview  of  the  respondents  to  the  EU 
Survey, see Chart 2.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Chart 2.  

Number of EU Survey respondents by category 

54

19

81

66

64

Advisors

Farmers

FADN members (data collectors, statistician, data managers, accountants)

Policy makers (EU, national and regional level)

Academia (researchers and evaluators)

In  the  different  thematic  FADN  Working  Groups,  a  total  of  20  Member  States  were 
represented.  Poland  was  overall  most  represented  Member  State  with  ten  participants 
throughout the Working Groups. The Czech Republic and Slovakia were represented with 
nine  participants  each,  followed  by  Germany  and  Spain  with  seven  participants  each. 
Belgium,  France  and  Italy  were  represented  with  six  participants  each,  and  Austria, 
Bulgaria,  and  the  Netherlands  with  three  participants  each.  Finally,  Denmark,  Estonia, 
Finland,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Portugal  and  Slovenia  each  had  two 
representatives or less.  

The  160  participants  to  the  workshops  were  from  Member  States  (e.g.  FADN  liaison 
offices), advisory services and research institutes. There were representatives from third 
countries  (e.g.  the  United  States  and  New  Zealand),  from  the  different  European 
Commission services as well as from private companies. 

3. 

Results of the stakeholders’ consultation by specific theme 

The consultation process covered various themes, with often more than one stakeholder 
group  being  involved  in  the  process.  In  the  following,  the  consultation  process  is 
compartmentalized  in  themes,  with  each  theme  relating  to  objectives  of  the  FSDN 
initiative.  

1)  Theme One: Simplification (linked with reinforcing relevance of FADN) 

The consultation process covered possible simplification paths. First, the FADN variables 
were reviewed and assessed by the Commission. The following criteria were taken into 
account: the present and future  usefulness  of the variables  and possible  other means  of 
collecting then (other than via the FADN farm return). Results of the work were presented 
and discussed, at first, with the Member States representatives (at the FADN Committee 
and the dedicated Working Group meetings). Secondly, with all stakeholders at the FSDN 

4 

 
 
 
 
stakeholder workshop in September 2021. The discussion considered several possibilities 
that could lead to reinforcing and simplifying FADN, among which a possibility:  

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

to stop collecting selected variables in the FADN farm return 
to aggregate selected variables where details are not needed  
to estimate some variables based on others data and/or sources  
to split some aggregated variables where it adds value  
to increase reporting of underreported variables 
to improve quality of reported variables.  

The initial Commission review contained proposals and considerations of simplifications 
and improvements.  Several  discussions took  place  on these proposals. Several  Member 
States’ representatives and policy makers shared their opinions and suggestions.  

First, it was considered that one of a possible simplification path could be enhanced use of 
administrative data that already exists or to make use of data from other sources. 

Secondly, the simplification process should be addressed where the simplification will take 
place:  at  farmers’  level,  in  Member  States’  administration  level  or  at  EU  level.  A 
subsidiarity principle was recalled that for collecting a variable at EU level, EU relevance 
is to be assessed. 

Moreover, at present for a given variable, a concrete data should be collected. However, in 
the future for some representatives mentioned, if data cannot be collected, an estimation 
may be consider as acceptable, but with its clear indication. 

Finally,  the  discussion  showed  that  the  majority  of  Member  States  acknowledge  the 
importance  of  the  simplification  issues  discussed  and  of  the  initiative  as  a  whole.  The 
outcomes of these discussions showed that there is a potential to reduce the data collection 
burden in certain areas of currently collected data (i.e. to stop collecting certain variables) 
as well as areas of possible modifications and/or simplifications can be envisaged (i.e. to 
use other means to collect certain variables). 

On  top  of  that,  the  targeted  written  consultation  via  EU  Survey  covered  a  series  of 
simplification path suggestions; the results are shown in table 1 below. 

5 

 
 
 
 
Table  1.  Non-Farmers’  approach  to  ways  suggested  for  simplifying  and  reducing 
administrative burden 

Overall, results from the targeted written consultations show that the non-farmers are rather 
positive  as  regards  four  proposed  simplification  paths,  but  with  different  rate.  Most  of 
favourable opinions are to ease the farmers obligations in order not to ask farmers twice 
(around 90% of opinions of non-farmers). At the same time, the idea to share farm level 
individual data with other public bodies for statistical purposes is less popular (around 70% 
of opinions of non-farmers). 

2)  Theme Two: Reduce administrative burden (linked to the interoperability and use 

of new technologies)  

In  line  with  the  simplification  paths,  the  consultation  process  also  identified  ways  to 
reduce administrative burden. Interlinking FSDN with other existing (or possible future 
to  be  established)  data  management  tools,  such  as  the  Integrated  Administration  and 
Control  Systems,  national  statistics  sources  as  well  as  making  use  of  new  technologies 
(e.g.:  possibility  of  use  of  the  geospatial  data  generated  through  the  European  Space 
program) for data collection.  

Through  the  workshops,  the  Commission  learned  from  several  Member  States  about 
examples  of  the  already  collected  environmental  and  social  variables  currently  at  the 
Member State level to avoid duplication of collections.  It has been found that there is a 
need to use external data sources to limit administrative burden and to ensure data quality. 
What’s  more,  the  suggestion  to  limit  the  administrative  burden  has  also  been  linked  to 
farmers’ willingness to cooperate.   

The targeted written consultation via EU Survey has shown that farmer’s opinion on the 
suggestion  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  is  strongly  positive.  Around  84%  of 

6 

Suggestion/Agreement levelCompletely agreeTend to agreeTend to disagreeCompletely disagreeNo opinionFarmers should not be requested to provide data that are already available in the administration68%23%5%3%1%The collected individual data should be shared with other public bodies for statistical purposes.39%31%15%12%3%Enhancing the use of remote data collection tools, such as remote sensing39%36%10%4%11%Interlinking different existing sources of information (interlinking for example satellites, administrative and data provided by farmers)57%29%5%3%6% 
 
 
 
 
 
respondents support the suggestion that they “[…] should not be requested to provide data 
that are already available in the administration”. Farmers’ support for the suggestion that 
“the  collected  individual  data  should  be  shared  with  other  public  bodies  for  statistical 
purposes” shows that vast majority of farmers (around 58%) agree completely or tending 
to agree with that statement. It is notable however, that 36% of respondents tend to disagree 
or completely disagree on this point. About 58% of respondents completely agree or tend 
to agree to “enhance the use of remote data collection tools, such as remote sensing”; and 
67%  of  respondents  agree  or  tend  to  agree  to  “interlink  different  existing  sources  of 
information (interlinking for example satellite satellites, administrative and data provided 
by farmers”. The responses are shown in detail in Table 2 below.  

Table 2. Farmers’ approach to ways suggested for simplifying and reducing administrative 
burden 

When  comparing  results  of  opinions  provided  by  farmers  vs.  non-farmers  as  regards 
possible simplification paths (referring to both tables 1 and 2), the tendency is very similar 
in both groups. Whereas, the non-farmers opinions look slightly more positive.  

The same question (farmers are not asked to provide data that are already available in the 
administration) has been answered by policy makers (at EU level, national or regional). 
About 58% of policy makers stated that they completely agree with the suggestion, 26% 
tend to agree and 16% tend to disagree. When asked about the relevance of using specific 
surveys (i.e. dedicated modules, every 3 years and not annually) on certain topics in the 
FSDN, in the light of reducing the number of yearly collected data, 37% of policy makers 
responded positively (i.e. it is relevant), 16% of policy makers responded negatively (i.e. 
it is not relevant). However, the most striking was that almost half of respondents (47% of 
policy makers) gave no opinion. The suggestion to reduce administrative burden by not 
collecting  variables  yearly,  but  instead  e.g.  every  three  years  has  been  discussed  with 
Member States. Concerns have been raised regarding the feasibility of this simplification 
and burden reduction path, as a less frequent data collection might lead to increased costs 
and impair administrative knowledge.  

7 

Suggestion/Agreement levelCompletely agreeTend to agreeTend to disagreeCompletely disagreeNo opinionFarmers should not be requested to provide data that are already available in the administration67%17%6%5%5%The collected individual data should be shared with other public bodies for statistical purposes.20%38%20%16%6%Enhancing the use of remote data collection tools, such as remote sensing19%39%13%9%20%Interlinking different existing sources of information (interlinking for example satellites, administrative and data provided by farmers)34%33%16%6%11% 
 
 
3)  Theme Three: financial costs and the budget aspects linked to FSDN 

The  consultation  explored  possible  ways  to  limit  financial  costs  of  the  additional  data 
collections by having a centrally placed FSDN system and its network covering all three 
dimensions (economic, social and environmental) that describe the farms context. It further 
tackled  the  question  of  sharing  data  and  the  use  of  other  funds  support  to  generate 
synergies. 

There have been several studies carried out  to  assess  costs of FADN4 as  well as  for its 
possible extension5. A study on the costs of extending the FADN to FSDN6 has found that 
collecting the sustainability data from all farms included in FADN would increase the cost 
by about 40%. The study showed great differences between countries, depending on the 
current costs of data collection and the expected additional work to include sustainability 
indicators. Certain countries are already collecting some variables foreseen in the FSDN, 
whereas others are not, and may thus face higher initial costs. The total expenditure of data 
collection  is  thus  not  directly  comparable  between  Member  States.  Ultimately,  the 
estimated changes in costs show a wide range, from countries such as Ireland (+10%) and 
the Netherlands (+11%) to France (+124%) and Malta (+225%). 

Through the targeted written consultation via EU survey, farmers were asked whether the 
collected individual data should be shared with other public bodies for statistical purposes. 
This  would  allow  to interlink  databases  and  to  use  additional  tools  to  collect  data.  The 
analysis of the answers shows that 20% of respondents completely agree, and 38% tend to 
agree. 20% of respondents tend to disagree, 15% completely disagree, and 6% have no 
opinion on this.  

Finally, the specific Working Group discussed the costs and budget aspects related to the 
current  FADN  as  well  as  possible  upcoming  conversion  into  the  FSDN.  Firstly,  it  was 
highlighted that the EU budget already contributes to the FADN. The Commission covers 
the central IT system and provides Member States with the annual standard fee (currently 
at the level of up to 180 EUR per farm return). The fee was slightly increasing over last 12 
years. However, its was noted that the increase did not fully cover the inflation rate over 
this period. Secondly, some Member States provided their cost estimates as regards their 
FADN data collection costs. It appeared that on average the EU contribution covered up 
to 30% of the Member States’ data collection costs. The discussion showed that in case of 
the  conversion  into  the  FSDN  (e.g.  starting  collecting  new  types  of  data  related  to 
environmental and social farms dimensions), all types of costs (e.g. human resources, IT 
adjustments/developments, new data collection methods) would be affected. It was noticed 
that for some Member States, it would be actually an opportunity to adjust a long-waited 
change of the current FADN system. The exchanges showed that possible increase of the 
annual  EU  standard  fee  as  well  as  a  set-up  financial  aid  for  conversion  into  the  FSDN 

4 Cost of and good practices for FADN data collection https://op.europa.eu/s/vWnI  

5 Flint research project https://www.flint-fp7.eu/  

6  Cost  of  Extending  the  Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network  to  the  Farm  Sustainability  Data  Network: 

Empirical Evidence https://edepot.wur.nl/551988  

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
system would be significant help for Member States and ultimately also for farmers. The 
latter would benefit from the FSDN via better interlinks, enhanced data collection, ‘collect 
data once, reuse multiple times’ principle (e.g. better re-use of administrative data) and use 
of new technologies for collecting data. 

4)  Theme Four: environmental and social sustainability topics 

The consultation process identified possible topics to address environmental and social 
sustainability in FSDN, while also reassessing and reviewing economic variables.  

Generally  speaking,  it  can  be  said  that  there  is  an  agreement  between  the  different 
stakeholders to add new variables to the FADN so as to assess not only the economic, but 
also environmental and social practices. FADN has been identified as an efficient tool to 
collect additional data at farm level. However, it has also been mentioned that farm level 
data on environmental and social practices should remain realistic with respect to the way 
they are accountable and collectable as well as with respect to its number, especially at the 
initial stage of the conversion process.  

Overall,  FADN  has  been  considered  as  an  efficient  and  apt  tool  to  collect  additional 
variables at farm level. With regards to the number of new variables to be added, a poll 
among the stakeholders taking part in the workshops showed that about 36% of participants 
were  in  favor  of  adding  more  than  nine  variables.  However,  much  more  participants 
(around  74%)  were  for  slightly  modest  approach  where  less  new  variables  are  added 
(‘adding more than four variables’).  

With regards to the willingness of data providers (i.e. farmers) to deliver additional data, 
the analysis of the results of the targeted written consultation via EU survey shows that 
around 70% of the farmers responding to the survey are willing to provide data on soil 
management (such as tillage, winter soil cover, carbon content, crop rotation etc.). About 
53% of the respondents are willing to provide data on biodiversity, water management and 
renewable energy, and 52% are willing to provide data on animal welfare. A total of 31% 
of respondents however are not willing to provide data on circular and bio economy, for 
example adding value to bio-waste, by-products and increasing the circularity of resource 
flow. Results are detailed in Table 3.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
Table  3.  Farmer’s  willingness  to  provide  data  for  possible  environmental  sustainability 
topics 

On the usefulness of collecting additional variables, it was found that 72% of the farmers 
who participated in the survey already collect some additional data. When asked about the 
kind of additional data they collect, it was found that 63% of the respondents keep record 
of quantity data on pesticide use, and 61% keep record of quantity data on fertilizer use. 
According to  the survey results, 58% of the respondents  keep record of the quantity of 
pesticides  and  fertilizers  they  use  at  the  same  time.  Additionally,  38%  of  farmer 
respondents  keep  record  of  the  way  or  the  type  of  treatment,  or  on  the  timing  of  soil 
management practices (see Table 4).  

10 

Environmental topic yesnono opinionSoil management (such as tillage, winter soil cover, carbon content, crop rotation…)70%11%19%Biodiversity53%22%25%Water management53%20%27%Renewable energy53%19%28%Animal welfare52%25%23%Climate change mitigation and adaptation44%25%31%Food loss and waste treatment41%30%30%Circular and bio economy (e.g. adding value to bio-waste, by-products and increase circularity of resource flow)33%31%36% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4. Environmental data already recorded by farmers 

Data Group 

Pesticide use 

Fertilizer Use 

Antimicrobial use 

Nutrient balance 

Soil management practices (tillage, winter soil 
cover, carbon content, crop rotation...) 

y
t
i
t
n
a
u
Q

s
e
c
i
t
c
a
r
p
/
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
f
o
e
p
y
T

y
c
n
e
u
q
e
r
F

t
n
e
m
t
a
e
r
t

f
o
e
p
y
t
/
y
a
W

r
o
e
v
i
t
n
e
v
e
r
p
:
g
n
i
m
T

i

t
n
e
m
t
a
e
r
t

r
e
h
t
O

63% 

56% 

45%  48%  45% 

9% 

61% 

50% 

41%  34%  28% 

9% 

33% 

19% 

16%  17%  16% 

34% 

42% 

22% 

23%  17%  14% 

28% 

36% 

38% 

27%  27%  22% 

19% 

The analysis of the survey results shows that farmers do not keep record of single data. 
They  appear  to  be  recording  at  least  two  product  groups’  quantity  data:  31%  of  the 
respondents  keep  record  of  all  three  groups  of  additional  data  (quantity  of  pesticide, 
fertilizer and antimicrobial use) and 28% of them keep record of the quantity of pesticide 
and  fertilizer  use.  Another  important  intersection  between  different  groups  was  the 
respective  quantities  of  pesticide  and  fertilizer  and  the  type  of  treatment  of  soil 
management.  Similarly,  30%  of  the  respondents  keep  track  of  all  three  of  these 
simultaneously.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On  environmental  sustainability  variables,  the  consultation  showed  that  different 
stakeholders  have  different  opinions.  The  lowest  approval  rate  throughout  all  possible 
topics was recorded on the suggestion to add variables on ‘Circular and bio economy’ (only 
46% of non-farmers respondents were in favour of adding this topic. The highest approval 
rate was received by the suggestion to  add variables  with  respect  to  ‘soil management’ 
topic, with 89% respondents in favour (see Table 5, showing the respondents opinions and 
needs, per possible environmental topic, all non-farmers stakeholder groups mixed).  

Table 5: Non-farmers stakeholders needs to collect data on environmental sustainability 
topics 

12 

Non-farmers needs by topicyesnono opinionSoil management (such as tillage, winter soil cover, carbon content, crop rotation…)89%7%5%Water management85%8%7%Renewable energy78%8%13%Biodiversity76%12%12%Climate change mitigation and adaptation65%19%16%Food loss and waste treatment49%25%26%Circular and bio economy (e.g. adding value to bio-waste, by-products and increase circularity of resource flow)46%17%37% 
 
 
 
 
Policy makers were largely in favour of adding environmental sustainability topics. The 
highest approval rate was reached with the suggestion to add variables on ‘Renewable 
energy’ (90%), closely followed by ‘Biodiversity’ (89%), ‘Water management’ (89%), 
and ‘Soil management’ (89%), which all appear to be equally relevant for the concerned 
stakeholder group. Less approval, and thus higher disapproval rates were recorded with 
the suggestion to  add variables on ‘Circular and bio economy’ and on ‘Food loss and 
waste management’ (see Chart 4).  

Chart 4.  

Policy makers' opinions on possible environmental sustainability 
variables  

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

f
o
y
t
i
l
i

i

b
a
n
a
t
s
u
s

l

a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e
t
c
a
p
m

i

n
a
c

t
a
h
t

s
c
i
p
o
t

l

a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
a
h
c
i
h
w
n
O

?
d
e
t
c
e

l
l

o
c
o
s
l
a
e
b
a
t
a
d

l

e
v
e
l
-

m
r
a
f
d
u
o
h
s

l

i

,
g
n
m
r
a
f

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
m
e
g
a
n
a
m
e
m
e
g
a
n
a
m

&

t
i
s
r
e
v
i
d
o
B

i

l

e
b
a
w
e
n
e
R

e
t
s
a
w
d
n
a

r
e
t
a
W

l
i

o
S

n
o
i
t
a
g
i
t
i

m

s
s
o

l

d
o
o
F

l

r
a
u
c
r
i
C

i

o
b
d
n
a

t
n

t
n

n
o
i
t
a
t
p
a
d
a

y

y
g
r
e
n
e

t
n
e
m
e
g
a
n
a

y
m
o
n
o
c
e

11%

11%

11%

11%

No opinion

0%

No

Yes

No opinion

0%

No

Yes

No opinion

5%

No

Yes

No opinion

0%

No

Yes

No opinion

No

Yes

5%

5%

No opinion

15%

89%

89%

84%

89%

90%

No

Yes

No opinion

No

Yes

21%

21%

26%

63%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisors  answered  somewhat  similar,  however,  to  them  it  was  the  suggestion  to  add 
variables on ‘Soil management’ that appeared to be the most important (88% approval). 
Adding  variables  on  ‘Water  management’  (81%),  ‘Renewable  energy’  (75%)  and 
‘Biodiversity’ (71%) was also  deemed important. Adding variables on ‘Food loss and 
waste management’ on the other side received the highest disapproval rate (27%). See 
Chart 5.  

Chart 5.  

Advisors' opinions on possible environmental sustainability 
variables  

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

l

a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e
t
c
a
p
m

i

n
a
c

t
a
h
t

s
c
i
p
o
t

l

a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
a
h
c
i
h
w
n
O

?
d
e
t
c
e

l
l

o
c
o
s
l
a
e
b
a
t
a
d

l

e
v
e
l
-

m
r
a
f
d
u
o
h
s

l

i

,
g
n
m
r
a
f

f
o
y
t
i
l
i

i

b
a
n
a
t
s
u
s

r
e
t
a
W

l
i

o
S

&
n

e
t
s
a
w

l

r
a
u
c
r
i
C

e
g
a
n
a
m

e
g
a
n
a
m

i
t
a
t
p
a
d
a

i

s
r
e
v
i
d
o
B
b
a
w
e
n
e
R
e
m
e
g
a
n
a

i

o
b
d
n
a

t
n
e
m

t
n
e
m

n
o

y
t
i

y
g
r
e
n
e
e

l

t
n

y
m
o
n
o
c
e

No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes
No opinion
No
Yes

e
g
n
a
h
c

o
i
t
a
g
i
t
i

m

s
s
o

l

d
o
o
F

d
n
a

13%

5%

6%
6%

20%

18%

16%

12%

14%

10%

29%

27%

16%

43%
43%

40%

81%

88%

60%

71%

75%

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

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Academia, including researchers and evaluators, responded in favour of adding variables 
on ‘Soil management’ (94%) and ‘Water management’ (92%). They were also largely in 
favour  of  adding  variables  on  ‘Biodiversity’  (87%),  ‘Climate  change  mitigation  and 
adaptation’  (79%)  and  ‘Renewable  energy’  (79%).  Again,  it  can  be  seen  that  the 
suggestions to add variables on ‘Food loss and waste management’ and ‘Circular and bio 
economy’ received considerably less approval (53% and 61% respectively). See Chart 6.  

Chart 6. 

Academia's opinions on possible environmental 
sustainability variables

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

l

a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e
t
c
a
p
m

i

n
a
c

t
a
h
t

s
c
i
p
o
t

l

a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
a
h
c
i
h
w
n
O

o
s
l
a
e
b
a
t
a
d

l

e
v
e
l
-

m
r
a
f
d
u
o
h
s

l

i

,
g
n
m
r
a
f

f
o
y
t
i
l
i

i

b
a
n
a
t
s
u
s

?
d
e
t
c
e

l
l

o
c

r
e
t
a
W

l
i

o
S

e
g
n
a
h
c

i
t
a
g
i
t
i

m

&
n
o

d
o
o
F

a
w
e
n
e
R

e
t
s
a
w

i

o
b
d
n
a

d
n
a
s
s
o

l

l

r
a
u
c
r
i
C

t
n
e
m

t
n
e
m

n
o

y
t
i
s

y
g
r
e
n
e

t
n
e

y

e
g
a
n
a
m
e
g
a
n
a
m

i
t
a
t
p
a
d
a
r
e
v
i
d
o
B

i

l

e
b

m
e
g
a
n
a
m
o
n
o
c
e

No opinion

0%

8%

0%

6%

Yes

No

No opinion

4%

Yes

No

No opinion

Yes

No

No opinion

Yes

17%

6%
7%

12%

7%

27%

18%

24%

14%

92%

94%

79%

79%

87%

53%

61%

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

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FADN members, including data collectors, statistician, data managers, and accountants, 
again responded somewhat similar to other stakeholder groups, with most members in 
favour of adding variables on ‘Soil management’ (82%). The suggestions to add variables 
on ‘Circular and bio economy’ and ‘Food loss and waste treatment’ again received less 
approval, with only 30% and 46% in favour, respectively. What is striking, is that over 
half of respondents indicated to not have an opinion ‘Circular and bio economy’ (51%), 
see Chart 7.  

Chart 7.  

FADN members' (data collectors, statistician, data managers, 
accountants) opinions on possible environmental variables 

l

a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e
t
c
a
p
m

i

n
a
c

t
a
h
t

s
c
i
p
o
t

l

a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
a
h
c
i
h
w
n
O

o
s
l
a
e
b
a
t
a
d

l

e
v
e
l
-

m
r
a
f
d
u
o
h
s

l

i

,
g
n
m
r
a
f

f
o
y
t
i
l
i

i

b
a
n
a
t
s
u
s

?
d
e
t
c
e

l
l

o
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

t
n
e
m

t
n
e
m

n
o

y
t
i
s

y
g
r
e
n
e

t
n
e

y

r
e
t
a
W

l
i

o
S

&
n
o

a
w
e
n
e
R

e
t
s
a
w

i

o
b
d
n
a

e
g
a
n
a
m
e
g
a
n
a
m

i
t
a
t
p
a
d
a
r
e
v
i
d
o
B

i

l

e
b

m
e
g
a
n
a
m
o
n
o
c
e

e
g
n
a
h
c

i
t
a
g
i
t
i

m

d
o
o
F

d
n
a
s
s
o

l

l

r
a
u
c
r
i
C

7%

12%

10%

8%

No opinion

Yes

No

No opinion

Yes

No

No opinion

7%

Yes

No

No opinion

Yes

30%

25%

43%

17%
17%

15%

23%

31%

17%

30%

46%

51%

79%

82%

64%

76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On social sustainability, it has been found that non-farmers stakeholders are mostly in 
favour of adding variables on the ‘Composition of the workforce’ (78% of respondents 
in favour), such as age, gender, skills or origin. On the other hand, least stakeholders are 
in favour of adding variables on ‘Health and well-being of the farm household’ (48% of 
respondents in favour). See Table 6 below.  

Table 6: Non-farmers stakeholders needs to collect data on social sustainability topics  

17 

Non-farmers' needs for social sustainability topicsyesnono opinionComposition of workforce (such as age, gender, skills, origin…)78%13%9%Attractiveness of the farming sector for newcomers and young generation71%14%16%Access to training and training participation of farmers/workers71%15%14%Agricultural workers’ working conditions (such as safety, working hours, wages, housing conditions…)67%20%12%Health and well-being of farmers55%22%23%Access to essential services for farmers/workers (such as hospitals, schools,public transports, internet…54%24%21%Health and well-being of the farm household48%28%23% 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy  makers,  overall  tend  to  be  largely  in  favour  of  adding  variables  on  social 
sustainability. The strongest approval was recorded with the suggestions to add variables 
on ‘Access to essential services for farmers or workers (such as hospitals, schools, public 
transports and internet)’, ‘Attractiveness of the farming sector for newcomers and young 
generations’  and  ‘Access  to  training  and  training  participation’  (all  three  suggestions 
scoring 84% approval rate). Equally important appeared the suggestion to add variables on 
the ‘Composition of workforce’ (79% approval rate). Policy makers were less in favour 
(or did not give an opinion) on the ‘Health and well-being of farmers’ (58% approval, 26% 
have no opinion on this, see Chart 8).  

Chart 8.  

90%

84%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Policy makers' opinions on possible social variables 

79%

79%

84%

84%

68%

58%

10%

6%

10%

22%

26%

16%

21%

21%

0%

0%

11%

5%

11%

5%

s
e
Y

o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

Health and well-
being of farmers

Health and well-
being of the
farm household

Composition of 
workforce (such 
as age, gender, 
skills, origin…) 

Attractiveness of
the farming
sector for
newcomers and
young
generation

Access to
training and
training
participation of
farmers/workers

Agricultural 
workers’ working 
conditions (such 
as safety, 
working hours, 
wages, housing 
conditions…) 

Access to 
essential services 
for 
farmers/workers 
(such as 
hospitals, 
schools, public 
transports, 
internet… 

On which topics that can affect social sustainability of farming should farm level data be collected?

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisors on the other hand, when asked the same questions, responded largely in favour 
of adding variables on the ‘Composition of workforce’ with 73% in favour, and only 13% 
not in favour. Almost as many were in favour of adding variables on ‘Access to training 
and training participation of farmers or workers’, with 67% of respondents endorsing the 
idea. See Chart 9.   

Chart 9.  

Advisors' opinions on possible social variables

65%

61%

73%

63%

67%

52%

37%

46%

40%

29%

21%

14%

10%

11%

13% 14%

13%

13%

14%

24%

21%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

Attractiveness of
the farming
sector for
newcomers and
young
generation

Health and well-
being of farmers

Health and well-
being of the
farm household

Composition of
workforce

Agricultural 
workers’ working 
conditions

Access to
training and
training
participation of
farmers/workers

Access to
essential services
for
farmers/workers

On which topics that can affect social sustainability of farming should farm level data be collected?

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Academia’s answered somewhat similarly, with the suggestion to add variables on the 
‘Composition  of  the  workforce’  being  deemed  very  important  (85%  approval  rate). 
Adding variables on the ‘Access to essential services for farmers and workers’ and on 
‘Health  and  well-being  of  the  farm  household’  on  the  other  hand  was  deemed  less 
respectively.  See  Chart  10.  
important,  with  43  and  42%  approval 

rates 

Chart 10.  

Academia's opinions on possible social sustainability variables

66%

54%

17% 17%

26%

20%

42%

28% 30%

85%

78%

70%

43%

29% 28%

6% 9%

11% 11%

15% 15%

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

s
e
Y

o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

Attractiveness of
the farming
sector for
newcomers and
young
generation

Health and well-
being of farmers

Health and well-
being of the
farm household

Composition of
workforce

Agricultural 
workers’ 
working 
conditions

Access to
training and
training
participation of
farmers/workers

Access to
essential
services for
farmers/workers

On which topics that can affect social sustainability of farming should farm level data be collected?

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FADN  members  similarly  to  other  stakeholder  groups  deemed  the  suggestion  to  add 
variables on the ‘Composition of the workforce’ to be most important (73%). Once again, 
the suggestion to add variables on the ‘Health and well-being of the farm household’ was 
deemed least important (42% approval rate, 36% disapproval rate). See Chart 11.  

Chart 11.  

FADN members' opinions on possible social sustainable variables

64%

54%

18% 18%

26%

20%

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

s
e
Y

o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

42%

36%

s
e
Y

o
N

73%

60%

67%

54%

22%

19%

8%

26%

14%

18% 15%

28%

18%

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

s
e
Y

o
N

i

i

n
o
n
p
o
o
N

Attractiveness of
the farming
sector for
newcomers and
young
generation

Health and well-
being of farmers

Health and well-
being of the
farm household

Composition of
workforce

Agricultural 
workers’ working 
conditions

Access to
training and
training
participation of
farmers/workers

Access to
essential services
for
farmers/workers

On which topics that can affect social sustainability of farming should farm level data be collected?

5)  Theme Five: incentives for farmers to participate 

The  consultation  process  explored  possible  tools  and  incentives  that  could  support 
farmers’ participation to FSDN.  

When asked about the relevance of a number of possible incentives for farmers to provide 
the data for FSDN, it appeared that receiving financial compensation and being granted 
selection  priority  for  CAP  supports  under  the  rural  development  measures  received  the 
highest  approval  rates.  Indeed,  64%  of  respondents  rated  financial  compensation  “very 
relevant”, or “somehow relevant”, and 61% of respondents rated the possibility of being 
granted selection priority for CAP supports under the rural development measures “very 
relevant”, or “somehow relevant”. The possibility of receiving tailor-made advice based 
on  the  data  provided  was  equally  approved,  with  60%  of  respondents  rating  it  “very 
relevant”,  or  “somehow  relevant”.  The  least  relevant  appeared  to  be  the  suggestion  of 
better communication of the purpose of the data collection, with only 39% rating it “very 
relevant”,  or  “somehow  relevant”,  and  23%  rating  it  “somehow  irrelevant”  or  “fully 
irrelevant”. The full analysis of the responses is shown in Table 7.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7. Ways to increase participation of farmers to the FADN/FSDN.   

6)  Theme Six: Tools to improve farming practices  

Finally, the consultation process identified tools to improve farming practices by using 
FSDN data, and by facilitating the use of farm-level data in farm advice, benchmarking, 
training, research and innovation, with the aim of providing tailored advisory services. The 
prospect of interlinking different existing sources of information (for example satellites, 
administrative and data provided by farmers) is rather well supported by farmers, with 67% 
of respondents completely agreeing or tending to agree, opposed to 22% of respondents 
who tend to disagree or completely disagree.  

22 

TopicVery relevantSomehow relevantSomehow irrelevantFully irrelevantNo opinionWeighted Score*Receiving comparative feedback with other similar farms35.9%45.3%7.8%7.8%3.1%47%Receiving tailor made advice based on the data provided45.3%42.2%3.1%4.7%4.7%60%Better communication of the purpose of the data collection35.9%34.4%18.8%4.7%6.3%39%Benefitting from tailor made trainings31.3%53.1%7.8%7.8%0.0%46%Receiving financial compensation54.7%34.4%6.3%4.7%0.0%64%Being granted selection priority for CAP supports under rural development measures56.3%25.0%3.1%6.3%9.4%61%*In order to measure the results, respondents' approach have been weighted as presented below. Possible highest score(PHS) of this approach shall be 2 or 200% (in the case of all "Very relevant"; 100% * 2) which is absolute agreement, and Possible Lowest Score shall be -2 or -200% (in the case of all "Fuly irrelevant"; 100% * -2). The total score have been divided to PHS to measure percentage of agreement level. In this context 100% means totaly relevant, -100% means totaly irrelevant. 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

Summary of written contributions by respondents 

Respondents  had  opportunity  to  accompany  their  feedback  to  the  Roadmap  as  well  as 
replies  to  the  targeted  written  consultation  via  EU  survey  by  submitting  their  specific 
position  papers. There, the respondents’ provided suggestions (including indicators  and 
data  collection  schemes)  and  reservations  for  the  new  FSDN.  It  is  observed  that 
respondents’  perceptions  on  FADN/FSDN  are  different:  some  respondents  perceive 
FADN/FSDN  as  a  monitoring  tool  while  some  perceive  as  a  tool  to  collect  all  data 
available  at  farm level.  Perception of the  respondents  directly influenced the feedbacks 
they provided. Main elements in the feedbacks from the position papers are summarised 
below: 

  A need for an impact assessment for Farm to Fork Strategy, and opposed to use 

indicators in parallel with Farm to Fork strategy;  

  Suggestion that some environmental indicators can’t be collected from all current 
FADN  farms  due  to  diversity  of  regions,  management  practices  and  production 
types;  

 

Integration  of  FADN/FSDN  with  other  databases  like  Integrated  Administration 
and Control System (IACS) and Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS). In order 
to reduce overlapping data collection, reduce administrative burden and increase 
the functionality of FADN/FSDN (e.g. adding spatial or geographical data); 

  Suggestion not changing the name of FADN since it has a brand value. 

  The need for standardization across EU, sharing of best practices and trainings are 

also pointed out.  

Finally,  some  respondents  provided  a  list  of  suggestions  with  examples  of  possible 
variables  and  indicators  to  be  considered  by  FSDN.  The  most  suggested  variable  is 
pesticides use or Plant Protection Products (PPPs). The second most suggested variable is 
fertiliser use which is followed by energy use/production and GHG emissions, data on soil 
(biodiversity  and  contamination),  nitrogen  use  efficiency,  land  management/agro-
ecological practices and fiinally ammonia emissions.  

23