28.2.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 75/167
3.6.
The FSDN should not be an instrument only for public authorities to use in drafting public policies, and should also integrate the needs of social partners, research entities, universities, farmers and NGOs.
The FSDN could help to increase the inclusion of farmers in the financial system (credit, etc.).
Overviews of farming at European, national and regional levels, and of the different types of farming, should be provided periodically by the FSDN.
3.7.
All farmers of the EU should have the possibility to contribute to the FSDN where they are willing to do so taking into account the representativeness, budget constraints and the objectives of the FSDN.
The possibility of a voluntary contribution to the FSDN based on adapted, specific criteria and methodologies for farms which are not in the sampling should be possible.
The farmers should not be obliged to deliver data for the FSDN and no sanction should be added.
Subsistence and semi-subsistence farms should also be taken into account.
Data collected should be broken down according to type of product (organic, etc.).
3.8.
Modern and innovative data collection and processing based on artificial intelligence, internet of things, automatic validation, OCR software or remotely collecting infrastructures should be taken into account in order to make the FSDN more efficient, alongside geospatial data generated through the European Space programme.
A clear link between the FSDN, the CAP and the European Open Science Cloud should be created.
3.9.
The FSDN should take into account the different legislations across the MS, particularly concerning environmental and social aspects and should be flexible enough to integrate new indicators.
Cooperation between liaison offices, MS offices and the Commission’s DG Agriculture needs to be effective for the FSDN to succeed.
The same level of importance should be attached to environmental and social data as it is to economic data, to small and large farmers and to different regions.
The openness and willingness to contribute to the FSDN varies across the MS, and the level of sensitivity and precise value of some elements should be taken into account.
3.10.
The EESC is suggesting making a clear distinction between the data needing to be collected yearly and that needed periodically.
Different characteristics, sources, formats, dimensions and levels of granularity of data are a challenge for the FSDN, given that the same data should not be collected multiple times.
There are big differences across MS in terms of cost structures for data collection, so more flexibility is needed.
3.11.
The data collection should take into account the different crises and the increased price volatility that is becoming a constant variable in the agrifood chains.
The war in Ukraine is helping to fuel this volatility, and food speculation is putting pressure on the supply chains.
The financial resources allocated to the FSDN should be secured by the Commission and the MS.
3.12.
The EESC suggests developing a European advisory body, with the involvement of civil society, selected on the basis of transparent criteria for monitoring the data collection and for deciding on data use and strategic changes in data requirements, considering the societal challenges and the dynamics of data demand.
3.13.
The EESC further suggests that data concerning farming practices should be integrated into the FSDN, more precisely regarding land management, plant protection, plant nutrition, animal health and welfare.
Farming best practices should be collected and disseminated as a result of the FSDN especially in the environmental and social fields (training, model tools, good practices, exchanges between advisors, etc.).
3.14.
Data on climate change, soil quality, and carbon sequestration, pesticide use, water quality, air quality, energy, and biodiversity should be treated as environmental data to be collected by farmers or by other instruments which are interoperable with the FSDN.