Agriculture and Horticulture - Departement Landbouw en ...

Agriculture and Horticulturein Flanders 2009

Pocket Agricultural Indicators

Flemish Government Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

EN

CoverEngFR.indd 1CoverEngFR.indd 1 09-03-2010 14:29:0009-03-2010 14:29:00

1

Foreword

Dear reader,

The purpose of this Department of Agriculture and Fisheries publication is to

concisely outline the situation of Flemish agriculture on the basis of the most

recently available key fi gures. Reliable and up-to-date fi gures are useful, even

essential, for conducting a constructive and substantiated debate and taking

goal-oriented action.

Based on approximately 60 indicators, the pocketbook guides you through

the current situation and recent developments in the Flemish agricultural

sector. Flemish agriculture is fi rst placed in a European context. The report

then continues with the economic importance of the primary sector and the

agribusiness complex in Flanders, going through the impact of agriculture on

society and the environment and then follows with an outline of the structure

of Flemish agriculture and its businesses. Agricultural policy has an important

infl uence on Flemish agriculture, and more generally the rural areas. This

infl uence is illustrated with a few indicators.

The many fi gures, tables and diagrams show that the agricultural sector,

embedded in the agri-foodstuff s complex, in Flanders is an important pillar of

the economy, but more than that, that it is an important cornerstone of Flemish

society.

Pocket Agricultural Indicators, with its extensive list of indicators and brief

explanatory descriptions, is an extremely useful instrument for all those interested

in Flemish agriculture.

Kris PeetersMinister-President of the Flemish Government

Flemish Minister of the Economy, Foreign Policy, Agriculture and Rural Policy

Land-enTuinbouw09_EN.indd 1Land-enTuinbouw09_EN.indd 1 09-03-2010 15:18:4909-03-2010 15:18:49

2


3

Introduction

Agriculture and Horticulture in Flanders 2009. Pocket Agricultural Indicators presents

the Flemish agricultural and horticultural sector using many diagrams, maps and

tables.

In the pocketbook, Flemish agriculture is fi rst and foremost placed in a European

perspective and compared to the agricultural sector of our neighbouring

countries. Then the economic indicators are considered: the fi nal production value,

operating income, family working income, agricultural trade. The social indicators

concern employment and the level of education of farmers. The environmental

indicators pay attention to water and energy consumption, the soil equilibrium

and greenhouse gas emissions. Then the structural indicators are discussed. They

concern the number of businesses, the agricultural area and livestock. A number

of detailed maps show the structure of agriculture in Flanders. The chapter on

agricultural policy contains fi gures on direct payments and rural development

support. A list of abbreviations and references completes the report.

This publication contains the most recently available fi gures from various

databases within the Flemish government (diff erent sections of the Agriculture

and Fisheries Policy Area, Research Centre of the Flemish Government, Flemish

Environment Company) and outside it (Eurostat, Federal Public Service Economy

- Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information).

Interested readers can always consult other (Dutch-language) publications

of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on the website

www.vlaanderen.be/landbouw


4

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Contents

Flemish agriculture in a European perspectiveGeneral characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Economic characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Business-economic indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Agricultural prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Structure of agricultural businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Agricultural production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Agriculture in the economic contextFinal production value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

arable farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14horticulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Net added value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Family working income in agricultural businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Breakdown of operating income per sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Working income per AWU in horticultural businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Breakdown of operating income per secto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Arable product prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Horticultural product prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Animal product prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Yield and output from arable crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Yield and output from dairy and pig farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Number of producers with diversification activities in agriculture . . . . . . . . 27Economic climate index for agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Development of Belgian agricultural trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Breakdown of Belgian agricultural trade into components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Import and export of agricultural products by the EU member states . . . 31Home consumption of fresh agri-foodstuff products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Development of the number of businesses in the agribusiness complex 33Turnover of businesses in the agribusiness complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Added value of the agribusiness complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Social aspects of agricultureEmployment in the agricultural sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Employment in the agribusiness complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Succession in agricultural businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Occupational accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Marital status of the business manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Agricultural education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Impact of agriculture on the environmentEco-efficiency of agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Net nitrogen production from agriculture per municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Net phosphate production from agriculture per municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44


5

Soil equilibrium of agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Nitrogen and phosphate surplus in the soil equilibrium of agriculture . . 46Pressure on water life from crop protection products in agriculture . . . . . . 47Pesticide usage in agriculture per type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Energy consumption in agriculture per fuel type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Energy consumption in agriculture per subsector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Water consumption in agriculture per water source and subsector . . . . . . 51Ammonia emissions in agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Emission of greenhouse gases by agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Structural characteristics of agricultureDevelopment of agricultural area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Share of agricultural land per municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Number and average area of agricultural businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Breakdown of agricultural businesses according to business size . . . . . . . . . 59Breakdown of businesses according to production orientation . . . . . . . . . . . 60Age profile of the business manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Number of start-up businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Livestock numbers per business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Development of livestock numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Flemish agriculture mapped

Arable farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Ornamental plant cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Dairy cows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Beef cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Agriculture characterisation map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Agricultural policy in FlandersPaid direct payments from Pillar I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

breakdown according to value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83breakdown according to business manager age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Pillar I: direct support per municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Pillar I: average direct support per applicant and per municipality . . . . . . . . 86Rural policy: expenditure per financial year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Rural policy: planned expenditure 2007-2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Rural policy: area of agri-environmental measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Rural policy: investment support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Organic agriculture: number of businesses, area and hectare support . . . 91Agriculture research and development budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Abbreviations

Bibliography

Colophon


6

General characteristics of agriculture in the European member states (2007,2008)

unit

EU-2

7Be

lgiu

mFl

ande

rsDe

nmar

kGe

rman

ySp

ain

Fran

ceIta

lyth

e Ne

ther

land

sth

e Uni

ted

King

dom

tota

l are

a km

24,

325,

257

30,5

2813

,522

43,0

9835

7,11

550

5,36

554

9,08

730

1,32

337

,354

244,

101

tota

l pop

ulat

ion

1,00

0 in

habi

tant

s49

5,09

010

,585

6,11

75,

447

82,3

1544

,475

63,3

9259

,131

16,3

5860

,817

GDP/

inha

bita

ntEU

R24

,900

29,4

0029

,485

*29

,900

28,6

0026

,200

27,2

0025

,200

32,6

0029

,700

infl a

tion

%2.

41.

8-

1.7

2.3

2.8

1.6

21.

62.

3

empl

oym

ent

1,00

0 pe

ople

219,

129

4,38

02,

528

2,80

438

,210

20,3

5625

,642

23,2

228,

464

29,1

18

bala

nce o

f tra

dem

illio

n EU

R-1

36,2

27-1

4,12

8-

2,52

557

,255

-43,

535

11,3

07-1

1,05

0-7

9,77

6-5

0,10

9

tota

l agr

icultu

ral a

rea

1,00

0 ha

182,

264

1,37

062

22,

695

16,9

5424

,991

29,4

1414

,490

1,88

616

,761

cere

als

%33

.326

.425

.755

.641

.526

.832

.827

.912

.919

.5

whe

at%

14.5

15.4

11.9

23.6

19.0

8.3

18.7

15.8

8.3

12.4

suga

r bee

ts

%1.

04.

73.

61.

32.

20.

21.

20.

43.

80.

7

pota

toes

%1.

24.

66.

11.

51.

50.

30.

50.

58.

10.

9

orga

nic a

gricu

lture

%4.

72.

42.

45.

25.

14.

02.

09.

02.

54.

1

lives

tock

1,00

0 un

its

catt

le89

,042

2,57

11,

273

1,54

512

,707

6,58

519

,124

6,57

73,

820

10,0

78

pigs

160,

046

6,24

85,

890

13,1

7027

,113

26,0

6114

,968

9,27

311

,710

4,67

4

layi

ng h

ens

389,

097

8,95

77,

525

2,99

547

,513

46,8

2145

,537

47,2

5029

,960

35,2

03

dairy

cow

s24

,176

524

294

551

4,08

790

33,

759

1,83

91,

490

1,97

8

* Es

timat

e

Sour

ce: A

gric

ultu

re a

nd F

ishe

ries P

olic

y Ar

ea b

ased

on

Inte

gra

and

Cert

isys


7

Economic characteristics of agriculture in the European member states (2007)

unit

EU-2

7Be

lgiu

mFl

ande

rsDe

nmar

kGe

rman

ySp

ain

Fran

ceIta

lyth

e Ne

ther

land

sth

e Uni

ted

King

dom

num

ber o

f bus

ines

ses

1,00

013

,700

4832

4537

01,

044

527

1,67

977

300

area

per

bus

ines

sha

13.3

28.5

19.5

60.4

45.8

23.9

55.8

8.6

24.6

55.9

empl

oym

ent

1,00

0 pe

ople

26,6

6989

6385

915

2,12

51,

060

3,17

422

465

1

mal

e1,

000

peop

le15

,461

5940

6157

81,

463

722

1,91

814

443

8

fem

ale

1,00

0 pe

ople

11,2

0830

2224

337

663

338

1,25

680

213

fam

ily em

ploy

men

t1,

000

peop

le24

,827

7552

6474

81,

915

633

3,05

715

051

1

shar

e of t

otal

empl

oym

ent

%5.

61.

82.

23.

02.

24.

53.

44.

03.

11.

4

use o

f inp

uts i

n ag

ricul

ture

mill

ion

EUR

202,

294

4,80

56,

583

30,3

5517

,589

37,3

2319

,152

14,1

8814

,654

gros

s add

ed va

lue a

gricu

lture

mill

ion

EUR

153,

516

2,35

21,

652

2,57

415

,008

23,1

1829

,217

25,2

138,

828

8,19

9

shar

e of a

gricu

lture

in G

DP

%1.

20.

70.

91.

10.

62.

21.

51.

61.

60.

4

prod

uctio

n va

lue a

gri s

ecto

rm

illio

n EU

R35

5,81

07,

355

9,15

845

,363

40,7

0866

,540

44,3

6523

,015

22,8

53

food

pric

e infl

atio

n%

3.5

3.9

4.5

2.9

3.7

1.4

2.9

1.6

4.5

shar

e of f

ood,

drin

k and

toba

cco i

n to

tal

hous

ehol

d ex

pend

iture

%16

.215

.615

.214

.614

.416

.616

.417

.313

.812

.7

Sour

ce: E

uros

tat,

FPS

Econ

omy

- Dire

ctor

ate-

Gen

eral

Sta

tistic

s and

Eco

nom

ic In

form

atio

n, N

atio

nal B

ank

of B

elgi

um


8

Business-economic indicators of agriculture in European member states (2007)

unit

EU-2

5Be

lgiu

mDe

nmar

kGe

rman

ySp

ain

Fran

ceIta

lyth

e Ne

ther

land

sth

e Uni

ted

King

dom

net a

dded

valu

e/bu

sines

sEU

R29

,708

78,2

5486

,968

69,7

9426

,656

51,5

7429

,514

112,

397

80,5

95

net a

dded

valu

e per

agric

ultu

ral w

ork u

nit

EUR/

AWU

18,2

8941

,571

59,4

643,

179

2,03

427

,168

21,8

8344

,867

33,9

55

prod

uctiv

ity1.

141.

250.

971.

011.

671.

021.

521.

130.

95

shar

e of d

irect

pay

men

ts P

illar

I in

inco

me

%16

.010

.111

.215

.613

.418

.010

.34.

918

.5

shar

e of p

aid

labo

ur%

22.8

16.7

39.9

36.3

18.9

26.6

18.8

39.1

41.9

shar

e of u

npai

d la

bour

%77

.283

.260

.163

.781

.173

.481

.260

.958

.1

solv

ency

*%

15.0

28.0

50.0

18.0

2.0

37.0

1.0

36.0

12.0

liqui

dity

**%

5.41

119.

024.

342.

2416

5.3

2.94

105.

12.

922.

26

retu

rn on

asse

ts **

*%

9.9

17.3

6.1

9.6

11.3

16.2

9.4

7.1

7.0

* ra

tio b

etw

een

long

- and

med

ium

-ter

m d

ebt a

nd w

orki

ng c

apita

l **

ra

tio b

etw

een

curre

nt a

sset

s (no

n-br

eede

rs, s

tock

s and

oth

er c

apita

l) an

d sh

ort-

term

deb

t**

* ra

tio b

etw

een

net a

dded

val

ue a

nd fi

xed

and

curre

nt a

sset

s

Sour

ce: D

G A

gri E

U FA

DN


9

Agricultural prices in the European member states (2007)

unit

Belg

ium

Denm

ark

Spai

nth

e Ne

ther

land

sth

e Uni

ted

King

dom

calv

esEU

R/10

0 kg

l+iv

e w

eigh

t16

1.0

193.

823

6.3

cere

als

EUR/

100

kg16

.520

.419

.016

.119

.1

pota

toes

EUR/

100

kg10

.623

.424

.017

.920

.8

suga

r bee

tsEU

R/to

nne

33.2

32.0

36.9

pigs

EUR/

100

kg li

ve w

eigh

t99

.979

.210

5.7

93.3

112.

5

pigl

ets

EUR/

100

kg li

ve w

eigh

t12

1.8

186.

915

7.0

133.

125

6.7

mea

t chi

cken

sEU

R/10

0 kg

live

wei

ght

85.8

56.9

108.

879

.3

eggs

EUR/

100

units

4.6

5.6

7.7

6.1

5.2

milk

EUR/

100

kg33

.839

.035

.434

.629

.3

Sour

ce: E

uros

tat


10

Structure of agricultural businesses in the European member states (2007, 2008)

unit

EU-2

7Be

lgiu

mFl

ande

rsDe

nmar

kGe

rman

ySp

ain

Fran

ceIta

lyth

e Ne

ther

land

sth

e Uni

ted

King

dom

tota

l1,

000

busi

ness

es13

,700

4832

4537

01,

044

527

1,67

977

300

0 - 5

ha%

70.4

25.4

31.3

3.7

22.6

52.8

24.7

73.3

28.0

39.8

5 - 20

ha

%18

.628

.532

.638

.632

.326

.819

.119

.430

.120

.0

20 - 5

0 ha

%5.

927

.827

.423

.522

.110

.718

.85.

027

.315

.5

> 50

ha

%5.

118

.38.

734

.223

.09.

737

.42.

414

.524

.7

area

per

bus

ines

sha

13.3

28.5

19.5

60.4

45.8

23.9

55.8

8.6

24.6

55.9

catt

leun

its93

.178

.510

0.3

74.7

43.3

106.

796

.5

dairy

cow

sun

its39

.338

.010

1.4

40.3

30.1

59.9

78.5

pigs

units

894.

596

7.0

1903

.434

0.7

89.6

1342

.142

3.7

# cat

tle fa

rmer

s1,

000

units

28.5

16.8

15.6

169.

714

7.0

35.3

107.

8

# dai

ry fa

rmer

s1,

000

units

13.3

7.8

5.4

101.

162

.824

.526

.0

# pig

bus

ines

ses

1,00

0 un

its7.

06.

17.

279

.410

1.0

8.7

11.0

Sour

ce: E

uros

tat,

FPS

Econ

omy

- Dire

ctor

ate-

Gen

eral

Sta

tistic

s and

Eco

nom

ic In

form

atio

n


11

Agricultural production in the European member states (2007)

shar

e of t

otal

EU pr

oduc

tion

unit

EU-2

7Be

lgiu

mDe

nmar

kGe

rman

ySp

ain

Fran

ceIta

lyth

e Ne

ther

land

sth

e Uni

ted

King

dom

whe

at%

1.4

4.7

16.7

5.9

30.0

7.2

0.8

8.2

suga

r bee

ts%

4.9

2.4

19.6

5.5

23.2

6.5

5.9

6.9

fresh

frui

t%

1.7

0.1

3.8

29.9

13.0

20.7

2.4

2.9

fresh

vege

tabl

es%

2.7

0.5

6.9

21.1

10.7

18.7

7.2

5.3

seed

s%

2.7

7.4

3.2

0.7

12.4

20.8

35.4

7.2

milk

%2.

03.

019

.75.

715

.28.

98.

08.

3

catt

le%

4.0

1.1

10.5

7.9

27.1

11.3

5.6

11.1

pigs

%4.

48.

117

.416

.09.

68.

06.

93.

6

eggs

%1.

61.

27.

814

.411

.513

.35.

88.

3

chick

ens

%2.

11.

19.

611

.418

.713

.54.

411

.1

pota

toes

%3.

51.

413

.65.

710

.96.

311

.78.

9

tota

l%

2.1

2.6

13.1

11.4

18.7

12.5

6.6

6.3

prod

uctio

n va

lue

mill

ion

EUR

355,

080

7,35

59,

158

45,3

6340

,708

66,5

4044

,365

23,0

1522

,853

crop

sm

illio

n EU

R18

9,69

13,

320

3,63

723

,284

24,5

6938

,153

26,1

2611

,672

8,51

5

cere

als

mill

ion

EUR

46,2

9343

71,

888

7,12

84,

374

11,1

284,

032

266

2,79

1

anim

al p

rodu

cts

mill

ion

EUR

141,

177

3,95

54,

976

20,3

7914

,410

23,4

1914

,402

9,00

612

,177

catt

lem

illio

n EU

R27

,043

1,09

630

33,

088

2,04

56,

906

3,24

11,

539

3,18

1

milk

mill

ion

EUR

48,1

9897

61,

481

9,55

82,

764

7,37

94,

308

3,89

14,

051

pigs

mill

ion

EUR

29,5

971,

340

2,40

05,

183

4,74

92,

843

2,37

92,

050

1,08

4

poul

try &

eggs

mill

ion

EUR

23,0

2244

326

52,

096

2,85

83,

808

3,11

01,

118

2,37

5

Sour

ce: E

uros

tat


12

Yields in the European member states (2007, 2008)

unit

EU-2

7Be

lgiu

mDe

nmar

kGe

rman

ySp

ain

Fran

ceIta

lyth

e Ne

ther

land

sth

e Uni

ted

King

dom

cere

als

100

kg/h

a78

.365

.669

.738

.464

.349

.172

.173

.5

suga

rto

nnes

/ha

10.7

9.7

9.5

10.0

12.0

7.8

10.4

appl

es10

0 kg

/ha

410.

533

6.9

367.

241

6.8

162.

3

pear

s10

0 kg

/ha

344.

923

7.6

206.

835

6.4

tom

atoe

s10

0 kg

/ha

4,25

2.7

2,13

6.5

672.

352

1.0

4,43

3.7

4,07

3.9

caul

ifl ow

er an

d br

occo

li10

0 kg

/ha

194.

023

1.3

183.

719

4.7

142.

511

2.4

pota

toes

100

kg/h

a46

9.5

394.

242

3.5

282.

045

3.8

256.

843

7.9

414.

2

aver

age c

arca

ss w

eigh

t adu

lt ca

ttle

kg32

0.8

440.

426

2.7

336.

827

3.8

377.

432

0.0

309.

733

6.7

aver

age c

arca

ss w

eigh

t cal

ves

kg14

3.6

166.

917

3.7

128.

215

7.3

136.

614

6.5

157.

729

.3

aver

age c

arca

ss w

eigh

t pig

skg

88.6

94.7

84.3

93.5

83.4

88.7

117.

990

.977

.9

milk

kg/c

ow6,

139.

35,

613.

28,

382.

26,

949.

07,

011.

66,

485.

05,

915.

87,

468.

77,

108.

7

eggs

kg/l

ayin

g he

n17

.918

.926

.016

.419

.720

.915

.721

.217

.4

Sour

ce: E

uros

tat


13

Final production value

(Flanders, million EUR, 2000-2008)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

arable farming horticulture livestock total

2008

Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

The fi nal production value of Flemish agriculture and horticulture is EUR 4.5 to 5 billion and presented a slight increasing trend between 2000 and 2008. It should be noted that the compensating amounts under the CAP reforms (operating subsidies, nurse cow premium, etc.) are not included in the production values.

The year 2008 was characterised by the highest turnover of the last nine years. Both livestock and horticulture achieved their highest values. Arable farming did less well after the peak year of 2007.

Flanders has a share of approximately 75% of the national fi nal production value. Save for a number of arable farming products, Flanders clearly accounts for more than half of the most important products. For pigs, vegetables, fruit and ornamental plants, the share is even more than 90%.

In 2008, the fi nal production value was broken down as follows: 8.5% from arable farming, 32.1% from horticulture and 59.4% from livestock. The three products that contribute the most to the turnover in Flanders are: pork, vegetables and dairy products.

Development of fi nal production value of Flemish agriculture and horticulture, million EUR

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008*

fi nal production

value4,689 4,811 4,527 4,600 4,481 4,493 4,682 4,968 4,976

arable farming 386 473 418 467 434 413 432 504 424

horticulture 1,389 1,359 1,389 1,506 1,341 1,449 1,532 1,588 1,597

livestock 2,913 2,979 2,720 2,627 2,706 2,632 2,718 2,875 2,955

*: provisional fi gures


14

Final production value arable farming

(Flanders, %, 2008)

potatoes50%

sugar beets11%

other17%

cereals22%


The value of arable farming products was EUR 424 million in 2008. Cereals, potatoes and sugar beets are the main products. Together they account for 83%.

The production value of cereals presents a rising trend. The advance of grain maize cultivation is certainly a part of this. The year 2007 was a very good year for the cereal sector due to high price quotations. The poor harvest within and outside Europe, the extremely low stocks worldwide and increasing demand were at the basis of this.

The potato sector is characterised by large variations in production value. The size of the harvest, the quality of the potatoes and the potato prices are after all highly seasonal. Contracts are concluded in order to limit price fl uctuations somewhat: 40 to 50% of Flemish potatoes are grown under contract.

With regard to sugar beets, the production value has decreased sharply since 2005, which is due to falling prices and productions. The MTR reform has led to a substantial fall in price support. The guaranteed price for white sugar has fallen by 36% over four years (starting from 2006/07), resulting in falling prices for sugar beets. Due to the introduction of the quota, the production of sugar beets has been cut back sharply.

Final production value of Flemish arable farming, million EUR

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008*

arable farming

products386 473 418 467 434 413 432 504 424

cereals 64 49 56 78 70 69 93 138 95

potatoes 172 272 205 218 186 191 203 209 210

sugar beets 107 113 113 119 113 96 71 66 45

other 44 39 44 52 65 56 65 91 74



15

Final production value horticulture

(Flanders, %, +)

fruit27%

non-edible crops32%

vegetables41%


Vegetables make up 41% of the production value of horticulture. Of this, 46.5% came from open-air production in 2008, with leek, chicory and caulifl ower being the three main crops. Sheltered vegetable cultivation accounted for the remaining 53.5%. In this subsector, tomatoes, mushrooms and lettuce are the three main products.

Fruit cultivation is good for 27% of horticultural production value. Apples and pears are the main products and account for 73% of this. The value of apple production consistently exceeded that of pears until 2003, but due to an increasing switch from apple to pear production, pears now hold fi rst place with regard to production value. In 2007 and 2008, the sales fi gures in fruit production were signifi cantly higher.

Although ornamental plant cultivation only accounts for 12% of horticultural area, ornamental plant cultivation is responsible for 32% of the total value of horticultural production. The value of ornamental plant cultivation showed a clear rising trend between 2000 and 2008. Both fl ower and tree cultivation products recorded an increase in value.

Final production value of Flemish horticulture, million EUR

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008*

horticultural

products1,389 1,359 1,389 1,506 1,341 1,449 1,532 1,588 1,597

vegetables 692 708 683 740 570 577 657 631 649

sheltered crops 381 391 381 434 307 335 358 350 347

in open air 311 318 301 306 263 243 300 281 302

fruit 287 268 297 328 303 345 350 428 439

apples 109 94 102 104 87 98 123 142 148

pears 75 73 84 92 104 133 113 162 173

non-edible crops 410 383 409 437 467 526 524 529 508



16

Final production value livestock

(Flanders, %, 2008)

pigs44%

cattle20%

other1%

eggs5%

milk21%

poultry9%


The pig sector contributes by far the most to the production value of livestock. With regard to its development, there were relatively low sales fi gures between 2003 and 2007. This was due to the falling trend in production quantities and the low prices over a number of years (especially in 2003 and 2007). 2008 was characterised by a clear recovery of prices, such that the production value was higher.

Dairy products are the second most important product in the livestock sector. Due to falling milk prices as a result of the further cutback of price support, the production value fell continually between 2001 and 2007. A shortage on the world dairy market in 2007 ensured a strong price increase and, coupled with this, a higher production value. However, in 2008, the dairy market had to contend with persistent price pressure due to an oversupply on the world market.

Beef completes the top three livestock products. After the crisis year of 2001 (as a result of BSE), the production value remained at a low level until 2005. Since 2006, the production value has been at a clearly higher level due to better prices.

Final production value of Flemish livestock, million EUR

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008*

livestock products 2,913 2,979 2,720 2,627 2,706 2,632 2,718 2,875 2,955

animals 2,202 2,234 2,030 1,915 2,048 2,002 2,072 2,073 2,196

cattle 546 339 449 493 496 491 566 586 579

pigs 1,386 1,599 1,314 1,168 1,299 1,255 1,280 1,216 1,332

poultry 241 273 244 234 232 231 207 248 260

animal products 711 744 691 712 658 629 646 802 760

milk and milkderivatives

573 612 562 553 544 519 515 658 626

eggs 138 132 129 159 114 110 131 144 134



17

Net added value

(Flanders, million EUR, 2000-2008)

NAV

/LU

(EU

R)

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

NAV NAV/LU

NAV

(mill

ion

EUR)


The net added value (NAV) was exceptionally low in 2008. Due to a continual fall in the number of labour units (LU), the net added value per labour unit presented a growing trend until 2007. In 2008, this indicator also fell sharply. The greatly increased costs that could not be passed on through the sales lay at the basis of this. The strong increase in fodder prices is notable. Fodder accounts for 48% of total intermediate consumption. The sharp increase in fodder prices was mainly a result of the positive price trends on the cereal markets. Energy prices also continued to increase in 2008. As a result of this, and also because of the increasing demand for synthetic fertilizers in countries outside Europe, fertilizer prices also increased.

The net subsidies have increased markedly over the last ten years. This is attributable to the reform of the common sugar and milk policy. The intervention prices for dairy products (as of 2004) and sugar (as of 2006) were adjusted downwards and partly compensated for with direct payments.

Production account of Flemish agriculture and horticulture, million EUR

2000 2005 2006 2007* 2008*

fi nal production 4,689 4,493 4,682 4,968 4,976

intermediate consumption 2,945 2,964 3,050 3,322 3,783

odder and straw 1,477 1,362 1,400 1,597 1,812

fertilizers 136 129 144 160 251

energy 327 380 406 402 491

gross added value 1,744 1,529 1,632 1,646 1,192

depreciation 402 436 446 475 498

subsidies - taxes 176 240 279 300 305

net added value (NAV) 1,518 1,333 1,464 1,471 999

number of labour units (LU) 51,849 47,384 45,769 44,537 43,691

NAV per LU (EUR) 29,272 28,135 31,997 33,022 22,875



18

Family working income in agricultural businesses

(Flanders, 2001-2007, in EUR/FAWU)

Family working income per FAWU Comparable income

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

02001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


The family working income is obtained by deducting the total costs from the total revenue, excluding the fi ctitious cost of wages attributed to family agricultural work units (FAWU). If we express this family working income per family agricultural work unit, it indicates what annual wage the farmer and his family receive for their labour.The comparable income corresponds to the average gross salary of a full-time employed wage earner. Job-seekers are not included in the calculation of this average.

On average for all agricultural businesses with a professional nature, the family working income per family agricultural work unit is EUR 25,623, which corresponds to 67.3% of the comparable income. Family working income in 2006 was the highest over the period concerned.The working income in 2007 was lower than in 2006 due to the greatly increased costs that could not be off set by lower increases in revenue. Variable costs increased strongly in particular. Fodder, pesticides and seeds were the most notable increases. The increase in revenue was due to the good prices for milk and arable farming products, but was reduced by the low prices for pigs.


19

Breakdown of operating income per sector

(Flanders, 2007, % per FAWU with regard to Flemish average)

pigs

beef cattle

highly specialiseddairy cows

arable farming

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


The operating income is the remuneration that a business receives for the family labour and entrepreneurship, and the remuneration for the contribution of capital by the owner. In order to be able to compare businesses with one another, this indicator is expressed per family agricultural work unit (FAWU).

The average operating income per FAWU in a Flemish agricultural business was EUR 32,559/FAWU in 2007. Behind this average income lies a highly heterogeneous spread. There are large income diff erences between the sectors. In 2007, dairy cows and the arable farming sector had the strongest results, while the pig sector and cattle sector did less well.

The strong result that the dairy sector had was due to the high milk prices in 2007. A growing imbalance between supply and demand on the world market ensured that the price for milk fat and milk protein rose strongly, which resulted in high milk prices for the farmer.

In 2007, the arable farming sector was able to profi t from exceptionally high cereal prices. Extreme weather conditions ensured poor harvests worldwide. The huge demand for wheat pushed the prices markedly higher, partly due to the low worldwide stocks.

The low pig price and the high cost of fodder ensured a very low income for pig businesses. In the cattle sector, the high fodder cost lay at the basis of the lower income.


20

Working income per AWU in horticultural businesses

(Flanders, 2001-2007, in EUR/FAWU)


The working income is obtained by deducting the total costs from the total revenue, excluding the fi ctitious cost of wages attributed to family agricultural work units (FAWU) and the actual labour cost paid. If we express this working income per agricultural work unit (AWU), this indicates what annual wage the business activities yield.

The comparable income corresponds to the average gross salary of a full-time employed wage earner. Job-seekers are not included in the calculation of this average.

The working income per agricultural work unit followed a rising line over the last few years. In 2007, it was EUR 29,827, which was 79% of the comparable income. The working income per AWU achieved its highest level over the period concerned in 2007. The higher working income was primarily caused by the good prices received for apples and pears. Open-air vegetable crops also achieved good results. Greenhouse crops had to contend with rising energy costs over the last few years, although in 2007, this eff ect was tempered due to the mild winter.

working income per AWU comparable income

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

02001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


21

Breakdown of operating income per sector

(Flanders, 2007, % per FAWU with respect to the Flemish average)


The operating income is the remuneration that a business receives for the family labour and entrepreneurship, and the remuneration for the contribution of capital by the owner. In order to be able to compare businesses to one another, this indicator is expressed per family agricultural work unit (FAWU).

The average operating income per FAWU in a Flemish horticultural business was EUR 40,486 in 2007. However, there was a large spread between the diff erent specialisations. In 2007, the operating income for the fruit sector was exceptionally good, while cut fl owers produced weak results. Greenhouse vegetables also scored weakly.

Due to the poor harvests abroad, the demand for Flemish fruit was high, which resulted in high prices for apples and pears. Cut-fl ower businesses received good prices for their products, but had to contend with much higher costs. Among the greenhouse vegetables, lettuce in particular had to contend with lower prices.

mushrooms

strawberries

greenhouse vegetables

open-air vegetables

potted plants

azaleas

cut flowers

fruit

-90%-70%

-50%-30%

-10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90%110%

130%


22

Arable product prices

(Flanders, EUR, 1998-2008)

Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, BIRB, CBB

The cereal price is aff ected by the common market price policy in the cereal sector. Due to the gradual reduction of price support for cereals and the introduction of hectare support, the market mechanism is increasingly aff ecting the price-making process, such that the price fl uctuations are also becoming greater. The price in 2008 fell after a year of extremely high prices, which was attributable to a poor harvest within and outside Europe, the extremely low stocks and increased demand. The world cereal stocks increased again in 2008 due to greater harvests, which ensured downward pressure on prices.

Just like the cereal price, the sugar price is strongly aff ected by the common market price policy. The diagram shows the development of sugar beets (16% sugar) that is sold within the quota. These prices remained reasonably stable until 2005/06 due to the unchanged price support. Since 2006/07, the MTR reform has led to a substantial reduction of the support. The guaranteed price for white sugar fell by 36% over four years, resulting in falling prices for sugar beets.The payments for beets produced outside the quota that are not transferred to a subsequent season are counted as industrial sugar. The price of this industrial sugar varies per business and depends on the contracts that the sugar businesses have entered into with their buyers.

The average season price for potatoes on the free market fl uctuates strongly. The market price depends on supply and demand. Potatoes for consumption are not subject to a common market price regulation. The prices on the free market in 2008/09 were somewhat higher than in 2007/08. The potato harvest fell sharply as a result of the smaller area and lower yields. Contracts are concluded in order to absorb the fl uctuations on the free market. Approximately 40 to 50% of Flemish potatoes are grown under contract.

wheat fodder potatoes sugar beets (quota price)

EUR/

100

kg

60

40

20

0

1998/991999/00

2000/012001/02

2002/032003/04

2004/052005/06

2006/072007/08

2008/09


23

Horticultural product prices


Source: FPS Economy - Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information

In 2008, the prices of many open-air vegetables fell with respect to 2007. The lack of wintry weather in early 2008 ensured an oversupply of leaf crops, which led to very low prices. The gloomy summer of 2008 did not help the prices either.

The prices on the leek market were somewhat better than in 2007, but the price remained below par due to an imbalance between supply and demand.

The chicory market, which has been in a structural crisis for years, again had to contend with a strong price decrease. After a small upward fl icker in 2006, the sales of chicory went downhill again in 2007 and 2008. The poor prices in 2008 persisted for months. Some improvement was only seen during the autumn.

The greenhouse products too often did less well in 2008 than in 2007. Tomato prices fell by 7%. In the month of August, the prices fell to an all-time low. The poor summer and the large supply at home and abroad were certainly a part of this.

In the fruit sector, the main types of fruit experienced a price increase. For apples, this increase was attributable to the good price-making forces in the 2007/08 apple season, which was the result of a low apple harvest in the new EU member states and Russia. In 2008/09, the price came under pressure. Exports decreased as a result of the fi nancial crisis, resulting in lower exchange rates. Countries such as Russia and the Ukraine primarily imported apples from Poland. The Polish harvest was also extensive.

The prices of pears were very good in 2008/09. The European harvests were the lowest in the last ten years, which resulted in better price-making forces.

leek chicory tomatoes apples pears

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

vege

tabl

es (E

UR/

kg)

frui

t (EU

R/kg

)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


24

Animal product prices


Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, VEVA, BIRB, Deinze, BCZ and Kruishoutem

The average price of live adult cattle rose by 3.5% in 2008. The rise was primarily due to better price-making forces in the lower quality classes. Thus the price for cows (50% quality) rose by 17%, while the price for double-muscle bulls stabilised (+0.6%).

Pig prices gradually recovered in 2008 after a year of very low prices. The market-support measures (introduction of refunds and support for private storage) and a slight fall in European supply contributed to better prices. The pig prices in the diagram come from the BIRB (“low-fat pigs” category) up to 2005, and as of 2006 from VEVA.

The dairy sector was characterised by a sharp drop in prices after the excellent dairy prices of 2007. Due to the rising stocks of dairy products across the world and the lagging international demand, the dairy market had to contend with persistent price pressure in 2008.

In 2008, poultry meat experienced a slight price improvement (+1.7% with respect to 2007). Consumption in Europe fell markedly in 2006 after the outbreak of avian fl u in a number of European countries. In northwest Europe, many consumers switched to eating pork or beef. Poultry meat exports to countries outside the European Union also fell because they closed their borders to European poultry meat out of fear of the avian fl u virus. Poultry prices were thus negatively infl uenced by this in 2006. Due to the absence of new outbreaks, consumption and exports outside the European Union grew, resulting in a positive eff ect on prices.

Prices on the egg market only fell slightly in 2008 (-1.4% with respect to 2007) due to a good balance between supply and demand.

adult cattle (EUR/100 kg) pigs (EUR/100 kg)roasting chickens (EUR/100 kg) milk (EUR/100 L) eggs (EUR/1,000 units)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

anim

al p

rices

anim

al p

rodu

ct p

rices

300

200

100

0

60

40

20

0


25

Yield and output from arable crops

Yield from wheat, sugar beets and store potatoes(Flanders, 2000-2008, 2000 = 100%)

Source: FPS Economy - Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information, own calculations

Wheat (74,390 ha), sugar beets (22,218 ha) and store potatoes (27,510 ha) are the three main arable crops and together account for 63% of the total arable farming area. Fodder crops are not included in this area.

The above diagram indicates that the yields from the diff erent crops diff er sharply from year to year. A good wheat harvest often seems to coincide with a good sugar beet harvest. The potato yields do not follow this line and fl uctuate more sharply. Harvest outputs are highly dependent on weather conditions. Thus, 2007 was characterised by a low output for wheat, due to a dry spring and a wet summer that impeded the harvest. The wet weather in August 2006 ensured that the potato harvest was diffi cult and resulted in low yields.

Yields for wheat, sugar beets and store potatoes, kg/ha, 2000-2008

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

wheat 7,940 7,780 8,290 8,820 9,140 8,550 8,412 7,780 8,806

sugar beets 66,460 58,520 66,170 70,020 71,350 68,080 67,700 67,810 69,700

store potatoes 45,480 42,800 50,110 43,740 52,010 45,150 40,842 49,667 48,322

wheat sugar beets store potatoes

120%

110%

100%

90%

80%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


26

Yield and output from dairy farms and pig farms

Milk production per cow and per business(Flanders, 2001-2007, reference year 2001)

Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries based on the Agriculture Monitoring Network

The dairy businesses have realised a substantial production increase every year. This production increase was partly realised through a higher milk yield per dairy cow, but primarily as a result of a greater number of milked cows per business. This is partly attributable to the increase of the quota under the MTR.

Pig breeders are scoring technically better. The number of litters per sow is increasing annually and is now 2.2 litters per sow. The number of piglets raised per sow is increasing year by year. Since 2001, 3.2 more piglets per sow have been raised. During fattening, a growth of 629 g per day can be realised. In 2007, pigs were sold at an average of 110 kg.

Yield and output from dairy farms and pig farms, 2001-2007

2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007

milk yield per cow (litres) 6,091 6,056 6,496 6,612 6,744 6,993

total milk production per business (litres) 308,895 297,327 293,715 318,872 343,016 383,558

number of piglets raised per sow 18.0 18.5 19.1 19.9 20.2 21.2

number of litters per sow 2.11 2.13 2.16 2.16 2.20 2.19

meat pig growth per day (g) 610 610 629

fodder conversion meat pigs

(kg concentrate/kg growth) 2.98 3.00 2.98

milk yield per cow milk production per business

130%

120%

110%

100%

90%2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007


27

Number of producers with diversifi cation activities in agriculture

(Flanders, 2007-2008)

activity 2007 2008

social-tourism activities 447 482

environment, nature and landscape 2,002 2,428

outsourcing of production factors 378 317

production and sales (estimate) 1,150 1,150

total number of processors 3,977 4,377


Diversifi cation in agriculture means additional activities, other than production, from which the farmer derives extra income. A farmer can diversify by participating in conservation and environmental protection, by opening up his operation to outsiders or certain target groups (care farms, farm tourism) and by doing processing and/or traditional activities in his business.

The fi gures are an estimate of the number of individual farmers that diversifi ed in one way or another in 2008. Flanders had 4,377 farmers that had at least one diversifi cation activity. In 2008, there were 2,428 individual farmers in Flanders that had an ongoing management agreement relating to conservation (combating erosion, species protection, buff er zone management, small landscape elements, botanic management, nature management agreement). In comparison to 2007, this is an increase of more than 400 producers. The greatest increases were in the number of approved agreements for botanical management and maintaining small landscape elements.

According to the Steunpunt Groene Zorg, there were 399 active care farms, 54% more than last year. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries counted 320 care farmers who had submitted an application for subsidies. Only at the end of 2009, for the payment application, will it be known how many of them are eff ective. VLAM used to keep an inventory of the number of farmstead producers, but it has since no longer been kept up to date. According to estimates, there are 1,150 farmstead producers, 336 of which are registered with Fermweb and 230 labelled as an “approved farm product sales point”. In particular, the number of producers that participate in environmental and nature conservation increased sharply in comparison to last year.


28

Economic climate index for agriculture

(Flanders, index: range from -100 to +100)


The six-monthly economic climate barometer has been developed to gain an understanding of economic fl uctuations, business confi dence and planned investments in the Flemish agricultural and horticultural sector. As expected, the economic climate index of autumn 2009 fell further below the zero line. The fall in agricultural prices and the economic crisis are weighing down on the agricultural sector. This trend could already be seen in autumn 2008.

The indices of most subsectors are also moving downwards, further below the zero line. The sector with the most negative index is the dairy sector (-35), which is to be expected given the very low milk prices, the imports of cheaper milk and the weak export position due to the strong euro. Ornamental plant cultivation (-27), which supplies more of a luxury product and is thus more sensitive to economic crises, and open-air vegetables (-23) ended very negatively. Arable farming (-20) followed the general economic climate index the closest. Open-air fruit cultivation (-15) also fell below the zero line as a result of the low apple prices. Pig farming (-13) moved away from its positive index in the previous survey. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the future expectations of pig farmers are generally positive, which would suggest that the worst is over. Greenhouse fruit and vegetables (-10) are somewhat more optimistic than the rest, probably due to the fall in energy costs and the slight rise of vegetable prices after the severe winter. The expectations indicate that demand and the prices will fall in the future. The index for the beef cattle sector (-6) is experiencing a status-quo, which is in line with the beef prices that recovered slightly after reaching a low point.

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

index 2007 spring 2007 autumn 2008 spring 2008 autumn 2009 spring

agricultural economic climate index

7

10

0,5

-9

-22


29

Development of Belgian agricultural trade

(Belgium, 2003-2008, in billion EUR)

Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, based on Eurostat

The total Belgian trade in agricultural products shows a positive trade balance. Both imports and exports are increasing signifi cantly. In contrast to the general trend in foreign trade, the agricultural trade surplus increased by 5.5% in 2008. It is now EUR 3.5 billion. In 2008, total exports came to EUR 34.1 billion, while imports of agricultural products were EUR 30.6 billion. As a comparison: EUR 30.1 billion of agricultural products were exported and EUR 26.7 billion were imported in 2007.

The share of imports and exports of agricultural products in total Belgian trade is 9.6% and 10.6% respectively, which indicates the not to be underestimated importance of the agricultural sector for Belgian exports. Figures from the National Bank of Belgium show that Flanders is responsible for 82% of national imports and 83% of national exports of agricultural products.

The EU member states are the most important agricultural trading partners, even more so than in total Belgian trade. 73% of imported agricultural products come from the EU and 84% of exported agricultural products go to EU member states. Within the EU, the neighbouring countries in particular are of great importance. Almost 62% of agricultural imports come from the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom. These fi ve, with 67%, are also the largest sales markets for Belgian agricultural products. The United Kingdom and Germany contribute the most to the Belgian trade surplus in agricultural products, with a positive balance of EUR 2 billion and EUR 1.6 billion respectively. In the EU, Belgium only has an agricultural product trade defi cit with the Netherlands (EUR -613 million) and, to a lesser extent, with Lithuania (EUR -37 million).

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0Imports Exports Balance

200320042005200620072008


30

Breakdown of Belgian agricultural trade into components

(Belgium, 2008, billion EUR)


Arable farming products represent by far the greatest import and export values in Belgian agricultural trade. Belgium imports EUR 10.9 billion of arable farming products and exports EUR 11.1 billion. Products such as rape, soya, coff ee, cocoa and oil-yielding by-products are imported in bulk from non-EU countries. Cereal products are the most important export product, especially due to confectionery products, malt, wheat meal and pasta.

Belgium realises a trade surplus in animal and agri-industrial products in particular (each for EUR 1.8 billion). Dairy products represent 48% of the import value and 39% of the export value of animal products. The most important export product in this category is, however, fresh pork, followed by veal and beef, poultry and dairy preparations. Fertilizers form the most important product in the trade of agri-industrial products. Belgium exports nitrogenous and composite fertilizers in particular, and imports potassium-containing fertilizers. Belgium is also an export country for pesticides and agricultural equipment.

Only in the category of other agricultural and fi shery products does Belgium have a trade defi cit (EUR 680 million). The trade defi cit is primarily due to the negative balance with our neighbouring countries, France and the Netherlands. Belgium imports large quantities of wine, alcohol, soft drinks and water from France. Belgium imports a great deal of animal feed and shellfi sh from the Netherlands.

The trade surplus in horticultural products (EUR 299 million) is largely due to the export of frozen vegetables, fruit juices, fresh pears and tomatoes, primarily to EU member states. Subtropical fruit is imported on a large scale from countries outside the EU.

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5imports exports balance

arable farming products animal productshorticultural products other agricultural and fishery productsagri-industrial products


31

Import and export of agricultural products by EU member states

(EU member states, 2008, in billion EUR)


Belgium accounts for 7.7% of agricultural imports and 9% of agricultural exports of the European Union. It occupies sixth and fourth place respectively. Belgium is even the second largest exporter of agri-industrial products. The high fi gures for Belgium indicate that our country has a very open economy that thrives off the import, export and transit of products. The ports play an important role here.

In total, all EU member states import a total value of EUR 399 billion of agricultural products. The total export value is EUR 381 billion. Germany records the largest import and export values. For imports, the top three are completed with France and the United Kingdom, and for exports the Netherlands and France are in second and third place. The twelve new member states are still less important with regard to foreign agricultural trade. They represent 10.9% of the import value and 10.1% of the export value in the EU.

Belgium has the fourth largest agricultural trade surplus of all EU member states. Only the Netherlands, France and Denmark do better. The defi cit in European agricultural trade is primarily due to the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Germany and Greece. Among the new member states, only Poland and Lithuania have a trade surplus.

Arable farming products represent the highest value for both imports and exports, ahead of animal products and other agricultural and fi shery products. In the total trade of EU member states, agricultural trade accounts for around 9.5% of the import and export values.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Ger

man

y

Fran

ce

the

Net

herla

nds

the

Uni

ted

King

dom

Italy

Belg

ium

Spai

n

Den

mar

k

Pola

nd

Aust

ria

Swed

en

Import Export


32

Home consumption of fresh agri-foodstuff products

(Flanders, index: 2000 = 100%)

Source: Gfk Panel Services Benelux, VLAM

The home consumption of fresh agri-foodstuff products is determined each year through a random sample survey, representative of the population. The home consumption of most fresh agri-foodstuff products is below the level of 2000. The home consumption of cheese has undergone a rising trend over the last few years, but now appears to be stagnating, while bread consumption presents the reverse picture, and after years of falling is now beginning to rise again. This is primarily explained by the Fleming scaling back his consumption outside the home and consuming more prebaked bread. An end gradually seems to be coming to the fall in the consumption of drinking milk, which is primarily due to the shift from white drinking milk to “new” milk drinks with added value (milk drinks, soya drinks, drinking yoghurt) that have smaller packaging. The fall in fresh fi sh consumption is attributable to the decrease in the consumption of shellfi sh (including mussels). The home consumption of poultry and game has increased strongly over the last two years and is entirely due to the consumption of chicken. The consumption of fresh fruit saw a slight fall, which is entirely attributable to citrus fruits. The consumption of fresh vegetables on the other hand increased strongly in 2008 (among all types of vegetables) and is at the same level as in 2000.

Home consumption of fresh agri-foodstuff products in Flanders, in kg per capita

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

drinking milk* 64.3 57.1 59.3 58.3 57.2 54.5 54.8 53.7 53.5

cheese 9.8 9.8 10.2 9.9 10.4 10.7 10.6 10.8 10.8

potatoes 43.3 41.3 39.4 38.1 37.5 38.4 36.9 38.0 39.1

bread 106.8 100.7 99.6 92.5 90.6 87.4 81.9 83.2 86.6

fruit 89.3 84.8 86.6 85.0 86.7 85.4 82.7 85.6 84.5

vegetables 60.4 59.7 61.2 60.4 63.6 62.4 56.0 57.5 60.1

meat 34.3 30.0 32.3 30.3 30.3 29.8 28.3 29.6 30.1

poultry & game 12.5 12.1 12.6 11.6 11.9 13.0 11.8 12.8 13.4

eggs** 89.2 83.9 82.8 79.6 78.3 82.5 88.7 86.6 86.8

fi sh 7.4 6.4 6.6 7.6 7.6 7.3 6.1 6.9 6.7

* litres ** units

120%

110%

100%

90%

80%

70%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

drinking milkvegetables

cheesemeat

potatoespoultry & game

breadeggs

fruitfish


33

Development of the number of businesses in the agribusiness complex

(Flanders, 2003-2007)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Flanders 49,061 47,850 46,663 45,429 43,471

agriculture and horticulture 36,577 35,486 34,410 33,272 31,984

excl. agriculture and horticulture 12,484 12,364 12,253 12,157 11,487

food 5,790 5,683 5,622 5,542 5,196

ABC related wholesale and trade mediation 4,121 4,038 3,942 3,876 3,466

other ABC sectors 2,573 2,643 2,689 2,739 2,825

Source: FPS Economy - Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information, FPS Finance

The structure and dynamics of the agricultural and horticultural sector is increasingly determined by the relationship with the rest of the chain, as production is being increasingly integrated with the activities and products of the sectors before and after. Agribusiness complex generally means “the directly and indirectly related economic activities connected to the production, processing and sale of an agricultural product, including the supply and service businesses related to agricultural production”.

The number of agricultural and horticultural businesses is continuing to fall in Flanders and was 31,984 units (-3.9%) in 2007. The number of businesses in the Flemish ABC chain is experiencing an annual decrease. However, in 2007, this fall was stronger than usual. Based on the VAT declarations, we come to 11,487 agri-foodstuff s businesses (excl. agricultural and horticultural businesses). Both the deteriorating economy in the last quarter and the falling number of agricultural businesses has played a role here. The number of businesses in the food industry in particular has fallen sharply, with a decrease of 6.2%. In wholesale and trade intermediaries, we can observe a fall of 10.6%. The share of Flemish businesses in the Belgian agri-foodstuff s complex is approximately 63%.


34

Turnover of businesses in the agribusiness complex

(Flanders, 2007, in %)

Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries based on FPS Economy

In 2007, the turnover of ABC businesses rose from EUR 46.5 billion to EUR 49 billion. This is an increase of 5.5%. The turnover in the processing sector fell slightly (-2%). Nevertheless, this sector makes up more than half of the total turnover in the ABC chain with an amount of EUR 25 billion in 2007. The decrease in this category is due to the slight fall in turnover in the manufacture of food and drinks from EUR 15.6 to EUR 15.2 billion. The turnover in the manufacture of tobacco products has halved. The importance of this sector is decreasing year after year: the number of tobacco growers has fallen from around 200 businesses to approximately 70 businesses in about fi ve years. This fall is primarily due to the disengagement of support. Other sectors in the ABC chain, such as mass distribution and “producers and related services”1, saw their turnover rise by 13.3% and 9% respectively. In the agricultural sector, the fi gures of the FPS Economy only show a fall in turnover for cattle farmers. The other sectors only make a limited contribution to the total turnover.

1 These are only the producers subject to VAT.

manufactureof foodstuffs

and drinks52.20%

agriculture + servicesrelated to agriculture

21.22%

wholesale andtrade intermediaries

in foodstuffs19.41%

manufactureof textiles

3.29%

manufacture ofmachines for

agriculture andhorticulture

2.10%manufacture of

tobacco products0.95%

veterinary services0.64%

manufacture ofchemical products

for agriculture0.20%


35

Added value of the agribusiness complex

(Flanders, 2004-2007, in thousand EUR)

Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries based on Belfi rst

The added value of the Flemish agribusiness complex was EUR 6.2 billion in 2007, 3.7 billion of which was realised by the processing industry. This sector is very broad and includes the production of meat products, dairy products, fruit and vegetable canning, animal feed, bread and confectionery, etc. The “agriculture and horticulture” sector realised an added value of EUR 702 million. There are many services in this category that are related to agriculture and horticulture, such as landscape architecture and gardening, open space planning and fl orists. The added value for this group has grown by 48% over fi ve years. The third most important group is agricultural trade with EUR 595 million. With respect to previous years, the total added value rose by 5.3%. The rising added value also contains an infl ationary component. The “other ABC sectors” category comprises activities that are related to agriculture, but which have nothing to do with food production, such as veterinary services, textile production, tobacco, production of fertilizers and pesticides, machines for agriculture and forestry. Taken overall, this category has remained rather stable over the years and is EUR 1.1 billion on average.

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

3,800

3,600

3,400

3,2002003 2004 2005 2006 2007

agriculture and horticulture wholesale and trade intermediariesother ABC sectors foodstuffs (right axis)


3636

Employment in the agricultural sector


Source: FPS Economy - Directorate-General Statistics and Economic InformationAccording to the May 2008 survey, 60,563 people are regularly employed in Flemish agricultural and horticultural businesses. In line with the declining trend in the number of businesses, this number has been continually falling (-16% with respect to 2001).

Converted into agricultural work units (at least 38 hours per week or 20 days per month) and taking irregular employees into account, this means 46,000 work units or 1.50 per business in 2008. 33% of these workers are employed in specialised horticultural businesses.

This employment is predominantly family based, but the share of family agricultural work units has fallen slightly. The share of males in the total number of regular employees is stable at 65%.

Employment in the agricultural and horticultural sector, 2001-2008

2001 2005 2006 2007 2008

number of regularly employed people 72,066 66,950 64,983 62,511 60,563

number of agricultural work units 53,107 49,717 48,114 46,783 46,000

number of regularly employed people 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

family 86% 84% 83% 83% 82%

non-family 14% 16% 17% 17% 18%

number of regularly employed people 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

male 65% 65% 65% 65% 65%

female 35% 35% 35% 35% 35%

horticulture33%

mixed business19%

milk production13%

beef production10%

arable farming10%granivores

8%

mixed cattle4%

other grazinganimals

3%


3737

Employment in the agribusiness complex(

Flanders, 1995-2007, number of employees)

Source: National Offi ce of Social Security

Employment in the agri-foodstuff s complex includes full-time and part-time employees in Flanders and Belgium. Between 1995 and 2007, the number of employees in the agribusiness complex in Flanders fell from 111,841 to 102,678 people. This is a fall of 8.9%. This is a larger fall than for Belgium as a whole (-4.2%). Sectors that make a large contribution to employment are province-related. In the province of Antwerp, horticulture, bread and confectionery and the production of soft drinks make up 47% of total employment in agri-foodstuff s. In West-Flanders, the processing and canning businesses are active. Together with fi bre processing (fl ax) and the manufacture of machines, they account for a third of all employees in the province of West-Flanders.

In Flemish-Brabant, beer production in particular stands out and represents 26% of the total employment in this province. In Limburg, the horticultural industry (and fruit cultivation in particular), bread and confectionery, and the maintenance of parks and gardens are sources for 34% of the employment. In East-Flanders, employment in horticulture (tree nurseries, ornamental plants) is important (8%), but bread and confectionery (14%) and the “manufacture of cotton-like fabrics” (12%) also scores well.

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,0001995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Flanders Belgium


3838

Succession in agricultural businesses



Only 13% of all businesses in which the business manager is over 50 years old have a probable successor, 58% do not have a successor and 29% do not know. The share of business managers without a successor, and to a lesser extent those with a probable successor, have both fallen, while those that do not know have clearly increased in the period concerned.

A breakdown of businesses according to the economic size class (expressed using standard size units (SSU)) shows that succession is primarily a problem in the smaller businesses. For businesses of less than 4 SSU, the percentage with a probable successor is less than 10%, while this percentage is almost 50% for businesses of more than 40 SSU.

In 2008, succession was guaranteed the most for businesses that are specialised in mixed beef and dairy cattle.

Percentage of businesses with probable successor according to size class and specialisation, 2008

size class % specialisation %

less than 0.5 SSU 5.0 arable farming 11.0

from 0.5 to 4 SSU 7.4 horticulture 13.4

from 4 to 8 SSU 11.6 milk production 20.9

from 8 to 12 SSU 13.3 beef production 9.7

from 12 to 15 SSU 17.3 mixed cattle 22.4

from 15 to 20 SSU 20.8 other grazing animals (sheep, etc.) 6.3

from 20 to 25 SSU 25.0 granivores (pigs, poultry) 16.6

from 25 to 30 SSU 31.4 mixed businesses 16.5

from 30 to 40 SSU 41.0

40 SSU or more 49.8

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

yesnodon’t know


3939

Occupational accidents in agriculture, hunting and related services

(Flanders, 2005-2007, number)

Source: Industrial Accidents Fund

In 2007, there were 1,537 occupational accidents in agriculture, hunting and related services. This is an increase of almost 3% compared to the year before. A good third of accidents had consequences for the victim. 832 resulted in temporary incapacity for the victim and together accounted for 972 days of incapacity. In 178 cases, the accident resulted in permanent incapacity. In 2007, two victims regrettably died.

Almost 88% of the victims of these occupational accidents were male, while a good 61% of victims were between 25 and 50 years old. It should be noted that more than a quarter of the victims were under 15 and the two fatalities were in this category.

Of the 1,012 accidents with consequences (incapacity or fatality), 399 were attributable to agriculture, while the rest were attributable to services relating to agriculture and livestock farming (excluding veterinary services), the construction and maintenance of gardens and parks. Within agriculture, 30% of accidents were in vegetable cultivation, 18% in fl ower cultivation and 14% for tree nurseries, fruit cultivation and livestock farming.

Number of occupational accidents in agriculture, hunting and related services

2007 2006

without

conse-

quence

tem-

porary

inca-

pacity

perma-

nent

inca-

pacity fatal total

without

conse-

quence

tem-

porary

inca-

pacity

perma-

nent

inca-

pacity fatal total

agriculture, hunting

and related services525 832 178 2 1.537 498 822 173 0 1.493

of which

female 76 93 18 0 187 74 99 23 0 196

male 449 739 160 2 1.350 424 723 150 0 1.297

15-24 years 140 221 32 2 395 131 239 28 0 398

25-49 years 316 509 119 0 944 312 505 118 0 935

50 years and older 69 102 27 0 198 55 78 27 0 160

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

without consequencetemporary incapacitypermanent incapacityfatal

2007 2006 2005


4040

Marital status of the business manager



The above diagram shows the marital status of the business managers who are not legal entities. Approximately 77% of business managers are married. In 2001, this was almost 80%. The number of married people has indeed fallen more (-27%) than the other categories and more than the total number of business managers (-25%). The number of divorced business managers has increased (+15%), such that their share has risen.

A further breakdown of the fi gures into age categories shows that the proportion of married people is clearly lower among the younger business managers.

Marital status of the business manager, 2001-2008

development 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

unmarried 5,183 5,022 4,865 4,737 4,633 4,531 4,344 4,231

married 29,659 28,362 27,156 26,123 25,085 23,970 22,830 21,623

widow(er) 1,591 1,531 1,481 1,451 1,424 1,390 1,328 1,240

divorced 765 772 793 804 834 866 882 876

per age category married divorced unmarried widow(er) total

under 30 42% 1% 57% 1% 100%

30 - 39 70% 3% 27% 0% 100%

40 - 49 80% 4% 15% 1% 100%

50 - 64 82% 4% 11% 3% 100%

65 and older 73% 1% 12% 14% 100%

total 77% 3% 15% 4% 100%

married77.31%

single15.13%

widow(er)4.43%

divorced3.13%


4141

Agricultural education



Up until 2005, business managers in agricultural and horticultural businesses were questioned about their level of education. On average for the whole of Flanders, the breakdown of business managers in 2005 was as follows: 54% practical experience only, 23% basic agricultural education and 23% full agricultural education (at university or higher institute).

The businesses have been broken down in the diagram according to their economic size. It has been done on the basis of standard size units (SSU). This shows that small businesses are primarily managed by managers with practical experience only. The larger the business, the more the managers have been through higher education.

Among the start-ups, the majority have a higher secondary agricultural education qualifi cation. A quarter of start-ups have been through higher education. This is shown by a breakdown according to the level of education of the start-ups that have applied for and obtained VLIF support (Vlaams Landbouwinvesteringsfonds - Flemish Agricultural Investment Fund).

Agricultural education of agricultural start-ups with VLIF support, 2008

%

higher secondary agricultural training 32%

certifi cate for establishing a business or equivalent 29%

higher education 24%

higher vocational secondary agricultural training 12%

B-course or equivalent 1%

other 3%

total 100%

Source: Agriculture and Fisheries Agency

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Less

than 0,5SSU

From 0,5to 4SSU

From 4to 8SSU

From 8to 12SSU

From 12to 15SSU

From 15to 20SSU

From 20to 25SSU

From 25to 30SSU

From 30to 40SSU

40 SSUor more

full agricultural education basic agricultural education practical experience only


424242

Eco-effi ciency of agriculture

(Flanders, 2000-2007, index (2000=100))

* The gross added value has been calculated at market prices (i.e. excluding product-related subsidies) and calculated back to 1990 values.

Source: Environmental report based on ILVO, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Eurostat, FPS Economy, KULeuven, Vito, VLM, VMM, UGhent

A comparison of the development of the environmental pressure from agriculture to the gross added value of agriculture gives an indication of the eco-effi ciency of the sector. For 2007, the gross added value of the agricultural sector is estimated to be EUR 2.3 billion, against EUR 2.9 billion in 2000. This fall of 23% is the result of increasing production prices on the one hand and falling sales prices and shrinking production on the other. Over the period 2000-2007, the environmental pressure of agriculture clearly decreased, except for the erosion sensitivity of land usage and, in the last few years, pesticides.

In the period 2000-2007, both the acidifying (-28%) and fertilizing emissions (-67%) fell substantially. This fall is due to the fertilizer policy and the economic climate, which can be seen in shrinking livestock numbers. The fertilizer policy has reduced the use of synthetic fertilizers, the application of low-emission techniques, a lower nutrient content for fodder and increasing manure processing. The shrinking livestock numbers explains the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions (-13%) and fi ne dust emissions (-10%). The erosion sensitivity of land usage rose by 4% between 2000 and 2007 due to the choice of more erosion-sensitive crops such as maize and potatoes. The pressure on water life due to crop protection had fallen in 2003 by 44% with respect to 2000. This large decrease can be attributed to a ban on the use of the most polluting pesticides. In 2004 and 2005, however, there was a slight increase. The increasing use of just a few agents such as fl ufenoxuron, fenoxycarb and aclonifen is attenuating the generally favourable eff ects of the product policy. More up-to-date fi gures are unavailable to evaluate the crop protection policy.

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

302000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

gross added value *

erosion sensitivity land usage

fine dust emissions (PM 2.5)

greenhouse gas emissions

acidifying emissions

pressure due to crop protection

fertilizing emissions


434343

Net nitrogen production from agriculture per municipality

(Flanders 2007, kg N)

Source: Flemish Land Agency, NGI-AGIV

The actual nitrogen production in 2007 is estimated to be 153.5 million kg, 79.9 million kg of which is from cattle (50%), 58.8 million kg from pigs (38%), 15.6 million kg from poultry (10%) and 2.8 million kg from other animals (2%). The net nitrogen production was 122 million kg in 2007.The decrease with respect to 2006 is primarily due to the new excretion standards for cattle, good for 82% of the total decrease of actual nitrogen production. Pigs and poultry make a smaller contribution of 8% and 9% respectively to the decrease of actual nitrogen production. This is due to the unchanged balance types and a relatively smaller number of businesses that use the fl at-rate manure excretion system.

Net nitrogen production per municipality in kg N

KeyNet nitrogen production in kg N

=15,00015,001 - 75,000

1:850,000

75,001 - 200,000200,001 - 500,000

500,001 - 1,000,0001,000,001 - 1,500,000

1,500,001 - 2,000,000> 2,000,000


444444

Net phosphate production from agriculture per municipality

(Flanders 2007, kg P2O5)

Source: Flemish Land Agency, NGI-AGIV

Phosphate production in 2007 is estimated to be 61 million kg. The decrease in phosphate production is less than that observed for nitrogen and was 1.6% with regard to 2006.45% of phosphate production comes from cattle, 42% from pigs, 11% from poultry and 2% from other animals. Actual phosphate production rose by 1.1 million kg in 2007 with respect to 2006. Comparisons with the previous year are not possible because of changed excretion standards.

Net phosphate production per municipality in kg P2O5

KeyNet phosphate production in kg P2O5

=1,0001,001 - 50,000

1:850,000

50,001 - 150,000150,001 - 500,000

500,001 - 750,000750,001 - 1,000,000

> 1,000,000


454545

Soil equilibrium of agriculture

(Flanders, 2007, kg per ha)

Source: Environmental report based on ILVO

The input side of the soil equilibrium of agriculture consists of the quantities of nutrients (plant nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus) that go into the agricultural soil (manure, atmospheric deposition, biological nitrogen fi xation, seeds). The output side consists of the quantities that leave the agricultural soil: nutrients absorbed by plants, ammonia emissions from the soil and manure and other emissions into the environment that pass through the agricultural soil. This last fl ow is the surplus in the soil equilibrium and is an indicator of the loss of nutrients from the agricultural soil into the environment.

mineralfertilizers

60.8 1.2

animal manureinput**

135.3 20.5

residual substances

2.0 0.7

seeds andplant material

0.9 0.2

atmosphericdeposition*

24.6 /

biologicalN-fixation

4.6 /

ammoniaemissions

33.4 /

surplus in thesoil equilibrium

53.2 1.7

key

N P

cropproduction

39.3 7.1

fodderproduction

102.3 13.7

* provisional figure** animal manure input = animal manure production + manure import - manure export - manure processing

NUTRIENT METABOLISM IN AGRICULTURAL SOIL


464646

Nitrogen and phosphorus surplus in the soil equilibrium of agriculture

(Flanders, 1990-2007, million kg)

Source: Environmental report based on ILVO, VLM, VMM

With respect to 1990, the nitrogen surplus fell by 68% and the phosphorus surplus by 95%. This is due to the decrease in livestock numbers, the greatly reduced artifi cial fertilizer usage, increased manure processing, increased fodder effi ciency and the increase in crop removal due to productivity increases.

In 2007, the surplus was 53 million kg N or 80 kg N/ha, excluding ammonia emissions. The gap with respect to the MINA objective for 2010 (70 kg N/ha) is 6.6 million kg N or 10 kg N/ha. For phosphorus, the surplus is 2.6 kg P/ha or 1.7 million kg P in 2007 and the indicative objective for 2010 of 3.6 kg P/ha has been achieved. With respect to abroad, Flanders still has to contend with a large surplus.

Nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil equilibrium of agriculture

N surplus P surplus

unit kg N/ha kg P/ha

1990 247 55.9

1995 189 38.0

1996 178 36.7

1997 161 32.9

1998 163 32.4

1999 144 30.2

2000 149 21.1

2001 121 15.2

2002 114 13.6

2003 96 8.9

2004 95 6.9

2005 90 6.6

2006 94 7.0

2007 80 2.6

300

250

200

150

100

50

01990 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

N surplus

N objective 2010

P surplus

P objective 2010


474747

Pressure on water life due to crop protection products in agriculture

(Flanders, 1990-2005, 1990 = 100%)

Source: Environmental report based on UGhent, research group crop protection and FPS Environment

The total pressure on water life from the agricultural use of crop protection products fell by 42% between 1990 and 2005. This fall can be explained fi rstly by the agricultural sector limiting the use of crop protection products. In the period 1990-2005, they fell by 19%. Secondly, over the last few years, the federal government has prohibited many of the most harmful products. As a result, a good half of the decrease in the sum of the annual spread equivalents (Seq) was realised from 2001 to 2002. As an objective, the Flemish Environment Company set a 50% reduction by 2005 in the MINA plan 2003-2007. This was almost achieved in 2005.

The environmental pressure from crop protection products can by shown by the annual spread equivalents per crop protection product. This indicator provides, in addition to the volume of active substances, a picture of the environmental burden for water organisms. In this, the annual emissions (usage) of the products concerned are weighted for their (eco)toxicity (in this case for water organisms) and the time spent in the environment.

Index and share of the pressure on water life from crop protection products in the sum of the annual spread equivalents, 1990=100

Unit 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Seq arable farming 39.20 23.78 35.49 34.29 10.15 12.11 13.17 15.21

Seq horticulture 60.80 54.57 46.47 48.12 39.67 34.13 38.31 42.28

Seq total agriculture 100.00 78.35 81.96 82.42 49.82 46.23 51.48 57.49

2005 objective 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Seq arable farming

Seq horticulture

Seq total agriculture

2005 objective


484848

Pesticide usage in agriculture per type


Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and FPS Economy

After extrapolating the results of the Agriculture Monitoring Network (AMN) of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to the Farm Structure Survey, the total use of chemical pesticides by the whole of Flemish professional agriculture, including poultry, came to 3.3 million kg active substances in 2007. Almost half of this belonged to the fungicides group. These pesticides against fungi are fairly quick to biodegrade. The herbicides or weed killers account for a 30% share. Depending on the nature of their action, they are rather persistent. The insecticides (including acaricides) only account for 10% of the active substances, but they are often very diffi cult to break down and highly toxic for water organisms. The “other” group contains, for example, growth regulators, soil decontaminants, additives, repellents and preservatives.

The most persistent and toxic products have already been prohibited by law. The purpose of many other measures such as biological protection, inspection of spraying equipment, etc., is to reduce the use of chemical pesticides. The AMN series of fi gures is still too small (since 2005) to make absolute judgements about the use of pesticides in agriculture, but the amount of kg active substances is rising. However, it has to be noted here that the quantity of active substances is not really a suitable indicator for the toxicity. Prohibited products (e.g. Atrazine) are often replaced by less toxic alternatives with more eff ective active substances. Furthermore, the usage is highly crop dependent. Thus fruit, potatoes and maize are sprayed more often. A small expansion of the area of these crops has a big impact on total usage.

Use of pesticides in Flemish professional agriculture, 2007, in kg active substances

2007

fungicides 1,570,444

herbicides 967,076

insecticides 332,975

other 392,409

total 3,262,905

fungicides48%

herbicides30%

insecticides10%

other12%


494949

Energy consumption in agriculture per fuel type

(Flanders, 2007)

Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and VITO

Since 2007, the VITO energy assessment for the Flemish agricultural sector has been calculated by using the results of the Agriculture Monitoring Network of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. According to this new calculation method, the energy consumption in 2007 was 29.7 Petajoules (PJ). Of this, 2.7 PJ or 9% is self-produced. Light fuel oil is the most common energy medium. Together with heavy fuel oil, petrol and LPG, these oil products account for 62%. Natural gas accounts for 18%, electricity 10% and coal 5%. Biomass and heat represent only 3% and 1% respectively, but it is expected that they will increase in importance in the future.

Including the changes to the method used, the total energy consumption in agriculture has fallen by 20% over 10 years. The large decrease in the number of agricultural businesses, and the shrinkage of the agricultural area and livestock coupled to it, is certainly a major reason for this. Furthermore, there has been a shift from oil products to natural gas, particularly in greenhouse horticulture.

Energy consumption in agriculture per fuel type, in Terajoules, 2007

2007

electricity 3,083

natural gas 5,456

LPG/propane/butane 42

petrol 103

light fuel oil 13,084

heavy fuel oil 5,232

coal 1,479

biomass 800

heat 393

total 29,672

Light fuel oil45%

heavy fuel oil18%

natural gas18%

electricity10%

coal5%

biomass3%

heat1%

LPG/propane/butane0%

petrol0%


505050

Energy consumption in agriculture per subsector

(Flanders, 2007)

Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and VITO

Within the agricultural sector, total greenhouse horticulture (greenhouse vegetables and fruit + ornamental plants) is the biggest consumer of energy with 16.4 Petajoules (PJ) or a share of 55%. This energy is primarily used for heating the greenhouses. Greenhouse horticulture has been able to save energy by switching to natural gas, and in the future CHP will become increasingly established. The “other businesses” subsector also accounts for a high share (14%) of energy consumption, but that is because this group comprises many businesses. In the pigs sector (7%), the energy is mainly for heating the sties. In the dairy subsector, the milking machines, the milk cooling tanks and tractors use a great deal of energy. Off shore fi shing accounts for 7%. Consumption in forestry and green areas is minimal with respect to the whole agricultural sector. These fi gures exclude lubricants, but contracting is included. This was calculated to be 1.8 PJ or 6%. In dairy and arable farming in particular, contractors are often used for growing fodder and arable crops.

Energy consumption in agriculture per sector, 2007, Terajoules

2007

arable farming 911

open-air vegetables 653

open-air fruit 556

greenhouse fruit & vegetables 11,471

ornamental plants 4,902

dairy 1,717

beef 792

pig farming 2,159

other agricultural and

horticultural businesses

4,190

off shore fi shing 2,220

forestry 95

green areas 6

total agricultural sector 29,672

greenhouse fruit & vegetable

39%

ornamental plants17%

other business14%

offshore fishing7%

pig farming7%

dairy6%

beef cattle3%

arable farming3%

open-air fruit2%

open-air vegetables2%

green areas0%

forestry0%


515151

Water consumption in agriculture per water source and subsector

(Flanders, 2007)

Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and FPS Economy

After extrapolating the results of the Agricultural Monitoring Network (AMN) to the Farm Structure Survey, the total water consumption in Flemish professional agriculture, including poultry, came to 47.4 million m3 in 2007. Most water is pumped up by the businesses themselves: 16% from shallow and 42% from deep groundwater. Somewhat more than a quarter is rainwater collected via greenhouses or buildings. The share of surface water is low (4%), because the business or fi eld must be near a stream or river of adequate water quality to be able to use it. Only 11% of the total water is taken from the public water company. Almost half of the businesses do not use any mains water at all. Greenhouse horticulture is the largest water consumer, but it mainly uses rainwater collected via the greenhouses. The dairy sector also needs a lot of water for the animals and rinsing the milking machines.

From an environmental point of view, rainwater is preferred, followed by surface water, groundwater and lastly mains water. When choosing the water source, the desired water quality is of course decisive. The quantity of “alternative water” can be defi ned as the total rainwater, half of the shallow groundwater and 80% of the surface water. Thus in 2007, according to the AMN, 17.8 million m3 or 37% of the total water consumption in agriculture was collected in an alternative way, with greenhouse horticulture in the lead.

Water consumption in Flemish professional agriculture, 2007, in m3

water source 2007

mains water 5 423 457

shallow groundwater 7 738 461

deep groundwater 19 740 288

rainwater 12 577 565

surface water 1 988 118

arable farming 656 308

total 47 467 889

of which alternative water 18,037,290

deep groundwater43%

rainwater26%

shallowground water

16%

mains water11%

surface water4%

other24%

greenhouse fruit and vegetables

19%

ornamentalplant cultivation

18%dairy15%

pigs14%

beef cattle5%

open-air fruit1%

open-air vegetable3%

arable farming1%

sector 2007

open-air vegetables 1 450 475

open-air fruit 441 795

greenhouse fruit and vegetables 8 846 128

ornamental plant cultivation 8 359 575

dairy 7 339 233

beef 2 180 193

pigs 6 804 245

other 11 389 937

total 47 467 889


525252

Ammonia emissions in agriculture

(Flanders, 1990-2007, million kg NH3)

Source: Environmental report, VMM

In the period 1990-2007, ammonia emissions from agriculture fell markedly. The emissions were 40.7 million kg NH3 in 2007. This is a fall of 56% with respect to 1990. Since the European nitrate directive came into eff ect in 1991, Flanders has systematically taken measures to curtail animal manure production and to reduce the harmful eff ects. The greatest decrease in ammonia emissions occurred in 2000 (-32% with regard to 1999) with the second manure action plan, which required the low-emission application of manure. The falling trend continued after 2000, for example, due to the reduction of livestock, which contributed to approximately a third of this fall. As a result of the decreasing use of synthetic fertilizers, the corresponding ammonia emissions also decreased.

Agriculture is the largest source of acidifying emissions in Flanders (31% in 2007). This is primarily due to ammonia emissions from agriculture. Indeed, 93% of Flemish ammonia emissions come from agriculture. 94% of these ammonia emissions come from animal manure.

1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

synthetic fertilizer

manure processing

grazing

manure storage

animal muck-spreading


535353

Emission of greenhouse gases by agriculture

(Flanders, 2000-2007, million kg CO2 equivalents)

Source: Environmental report based on VMM, VITO Energy Assessment Flanders

In 2007, the total emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture were 8,843 ktonne CO2 equivalents, a fall of 17% with regard to 1990 and 13% with regard to 2000. For comparison: total emissions of greenhouse gases in Flanders decreased by 6% over the same period. Therefore, the agricultural sector is more than doing its fair share to reduce emissions.

The share of agriculture in total Flemish greenhouse gas emissions is 11%. The relatively large share of agriculture is due to the fact that 56% of Flemish N2O emissions come from agriculture, largely directly from the soil. Moreover, 76% of Flemish CH4 emissions come from agriculture. As the greenhouse eff ects of N2O (laughing gas) and CH4 (methane) are respectively 310 and 21 times greater than CO2, agriculture accounts for a greater share of total greenhouse gas emissions than the economic size and energy consumption of the sector would suggest.

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

CO2

CH4

N2O

total


54

Development of agricultural area

(Flanders, 2000-2008, in ha)

2000 2005 2006 2007 2008

total area agricultural land 636,876 629,684 625,207 623,786 623,698

meadows, pastures and fodder crops 383,600 369,881 364,618 362,745 373,161

of which: meadows and pastures 241,313 226,314 222,847 219,863 216,646

feed maize 136,174 137,898 135,713 136,532 149,655

arable farming 197,511 202,700 202,858 204,798 197,867

of which: cereals * 107,371 116,032 119,003 121,002 129,672

sugar beets 33,925 32,747 30,968 31,268 22,218

potatoes 42,444 38,960 40,717 41,031 36,752

horticulture 47,901 49,072 50,255 49,599 49,154

of which: vegetables 25,884 26,911 28,299 27,816 27,313

fruit 15,992 16,060 15,773 15,652 15,897

other 6,025 6,101 6,183 6,131 5,945

other uses 7,864 8,031 7,475 6,644 3,516

of which: fallow 6,051 7,976 7,440 6,612 3,488

* including dry harvested grain maize


In 2008, agriculture occupied a total area of 623,698 ha. This area presents a slightly falling trend. Of the total area of agricultural land, the fodder crops account for the largest share (59.8%), which underscores the importance of livestock farming in Flanders. Approximately half of Flemish businesses keep cattle. Arable farming is good for 31.7% of the total available area, two-thirds of which is intended for cereal cultivation. Almost 8% of the available area is horticultural land, a good half of which is intended for vegetable cultivation.

The large decrease in sugar beets area in 2008 is notable. This is due to the introduction of the Belgian sugar quota under the European restructuring of the sugar sector. The area of feed maize and cereals is expanding fast as a result of this as well. For cereals, the rise is mainly due to grain maize production.

34% of the area of cultivated agricultural land is operated by the owner. This percentage is inversely proportional to the size of the business.

Provisional results for 2009 show that, with respect to 2008, the cultivated area is continuing its falling trend (-0.8%). While the area of cereals grown for grain increased strongly in 2008, a decline (-5.1%) is estimated for 2009, primarily for the winter wheat and grain maize crops. The area of sugar beets fell further, but is less pronounced than in 2008 (-5.2%). The reduction of the area for sugar beets and cereals is largely in the favour of potato crops, which, after a sharp fall in 2008, expanded again strongly (+12.2%).


55


56

Share of agricultural land per municipality

(Flanders, 2007, percentage with respect to the total area of the municipality)

Lége

nde

Agric

ultu

ral a

rea

with

rega

rd to

tota

l mun

icip

al a

rea

< 20

%

40

- 60

%

>

80%

(max

. 91%

)

prov

inci

al b

ound

arie

s

20 -

40%

60 -

80%

mun

icip

al b

ound

arie

s

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re a

nd F

ishe

ries b

ased

on

data

from

ALV

, NG

I-AG

IV

050

12.5

25

kilo

mèt

res


57

Farm

ers

who

wan

t to

rec

eive

sub

sidie

s an

d/or

ar

e su

bjec

t to

the

man

ure

bank

dec

lara

tion

are

requ

ired

to d

ecla

re th

eir p

arce

ls to

the

Agen

cy fo

r Ag

ricul

ture

and

Fish

erie

s (A

LV)

each

yea

r. U

sing

the

data

fro

m t

his

“one

-off

parc

el r

egist

ratio

n”

(ALV

, 200

7), t

he to

tal a

rea

of a

gric

ultu

ral a

rea

with

re

spec

t to

the

tota

l are

a of

the

mun

icip

ality

can

be

indi

cate

d on

the

map

. In

2007

, 693

,690

ha

wer

e de

clar

ed b

y fa

rmer

s.

Ther

e ar

e 30

mun

icip

aliti

es in

whi

ch th

e ag

ricul

tura

l ar

ea is

less

tha

n 20

% o

f th

e to

tal a

rea.

The

y ar

e lo

cate

d in

the

prov

ince

s of

Ant

wer

p, L

imbu

rg a

nd

Flem

ish-B

raba

nt a

nd t

hey

are

mai

nly

urba

n ar

eas

and

thei

r sub

urbs

.

Mun

icip

aliti

es

with

a

rela

tivel

y hi

gh

shar

e of

ag

ricul

tura

l ar

ea (

60-8

0%)

are

loca

ted

in W

est-

Flan

ders

, the

Fle

mish

Ard

enne

s, th

e Pa

jott

enla

nd,

east

ern

Flem

ish-B

raba

nt,

sout

hern

Lim

burg

and

no

rthe

rn C

ampi

ne.

Mor

e th

an 8

0% o

f th

e ar

ea i

n 14

mun

icip

aliti

es

cons

ists

of a

gric

ultu

ral l

and.

Tw

elve

mun

icip

aliti

es

are

loca

ted

in W

est-F

land

ers,

11 o

f w

hich

are

ad

jace

nt m

unic

ipal

ities

in

the

sout

hwes

t of

the

pr

ovin

ce. T

he o

ther

tw

o m

unic

ipal

ities

(Ass

ened

e an

d Si

nt-L

aure

ins)

are

loca

ted

in t

he E

ast-F

lem

ish

pold

ers.

Logi

cally

, the

larg

est c

ities

in th

e pr

ovin

ces (

Brug

es,

Roes

elar

e, K

ortr

ijk a

nd O

sten

d in

Wes

t-Fla

nder

s; G

hent

an

d Aa

lst

in

East

-Fla

nder

s; Le

uven

in

Fl

emish

-Bra

bant

; An

twer

p in

Ant

wer

p pr

ovin

ce;

and

Has

selt

and

Gen

k in

Lim

burg

) ha

ve a

low

er

perc

enta

ge o

f ag

ricul

tura

l la

nd t

han

the

othe

r m

unic

ipal

ities

in th

e pr

ovin

ce.


58

Number and average area of agricultural businesses

(Flanders, 1998-2009)

* provisional fi gures

Source: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries based on FPS Economy - Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information

The number of agricultural businesses in Flanders is constantly falling. With respect to 1998, this number has fallen by 32% to 29,446 businesses in 2009. This is a fall of 2.9% per year on average. Of the total number of businesses in Belgium, 66% are in Flanders.

It is mainly the smaller businesses that are disappearing. The remaining businesses are getting bigger. With respect to 1998, the average area of cultivated land per business has increased by 44% to 21.0 ha.

The agricultural area varies greatly according to the type of business: from 7.9 ha for specialised horticultural businesses to 28.5 ha for mixed businesses. The low value in horticulture is attributable to businesses with greenhouse cultivation.

As a result of the scale increase, increasing numbers of companies are being set up. In 2008, 2,696 businesses or 8.8% of all agricultural businesses were operated as a legal entity. This is almost double the number in 1998.

Average area of cultivated land (ha) per business according to specialisation, 2008

average area

arable farming 21.3

horticulture 7.9

grazing animals 23.0

granivores (pigs, poultry, etc.) 12.3

mixed businesses 28.5

all businesses 20.3

ha/b

usin

ess

num

ber o

f bus

ines

ses

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

01998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*

25

20

15

10

5

0

number of businesses average area/business


59

Breakdown of agricultural businesses according to business size

(Flanders, 2001-2008)


44% of businesses in Flanders operate on an area of less than 10 ha. The strong development of (greenhouse) horticulture and intensive cattle farming are certainly a part of this.

However, the agricultural area is becoming greater. The number of businesses with less than 30 ha is constantly falling. Since 2004, the number of businesses with an area between 30 and 50 ha has fallen. This is while the number of businesses with an area greater than 50 ha is continually rising.

Breakdown of businesses according to agricultural area, 2008

number of businesses %

0 - 10 ha 13,590 44.3%

10 - 20 ha 5,593 18.2%

20 - 30 ha 3,964 12.9%

30 - 50 ha 4,664 15.2%

> 50 ha 2,855 9.3%

total 30,666 100.0%

busi

ness

are

a

number of businesses

> 50 ha

30 - 50 ha

20 - 30 ha

10 - 20 ha

< 10 ha

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


60

Breakdown of businesses according to production orientation

(Flanders, 2008)


The production orientation of a business is determined by the relative shares of the various types of production (arable farming, horticulture, etc.) in the total gross balance of the business.

80% of all businesses are specialised in a certain production orientation. Farmers of grazing animals, and more specifi cally cattle, form by far the largest group. 32% of all businesses are specialised cattle businesses. Horticultural and arable farming businesses occupy second and third position. Within horticulture, vegetable production forms the main activity of most businesses.

Mixed businesses (20%) primarily concern businesses that combine arable farming and grazing animals.Breakdown of businesses per production orientation, Flanders, 2008

businesses specialised in number of businesses

arable farming 4,990

horticulture 5,161

vegetables 2,274

fruit 1,731

ornamental plant cultivation 989

other horticulture 167

grazing animals 11,759

milk production 3,901

beef production 4,580

mixed cattle 1,338

other grazing animals 1,940

granivores 2,718

pigs 2,403

poultry 295

mixed breeding businesses 20

mixed businesses 6,038

total 30,666

mixed business20%

horticulture17%

arable farming16%

cattle15%

milk production13%

granivores9%

other grazing animals

6%

mixed cattle4%


61

Age profi le of the business manager

(Flanders, 2008)

Source: FPS Economy - Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information and Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

The average age of the business managers of professional agricultural businesses was 49 years in 2008 and has risen continually over the last few years.

The age pyramid shows that the base is very small. Only 2.6% of businesses had a business manager under the age of 30 in 2008, while 7.5% were over 65. Most business managers were between the ages of 45 and 50 years.

With respect to 10 years ago, the base of the pyramid has clearly shrunk. The age categories up to 35-40 have decreased sharply. The medium range and the 65 and older category is increasing in size.

Development of the average age of business managers

1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008

average age 46.04 46.46 48.09 48.33 48.74 49.00

65 and older

from 60 to 65

from 55 to 60

from 50 to 55

from 45 to 50

from 40 to 45

from 35 to 40

from 30 to 35

from 25 to 30

under 25

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

20081998


62

Number of start-up businesses

(Flanders, 1998-2008)


The FPS Economy annually asks business managers whether the management of the business has been taken over in the last 12 months. From 2001 to 2004, this question was only put to natural persons, such that the diagram only includes data for businesses for which the agricultural holder is a natural person. In 2008, the management changed in 1.5% of businesses compared to the previous year. This proportion reached a low point in 2005. 1998, 2001 and 2007 were years with a high proportion. This percentage is higher for companies because quite a few companies have been formed in the last ten years. In 2008, the management changed in 4% of companies.

Under certain conditions, a young farmer who sets himself up in an existing business can obtain start-up support. In 2008, 190 applications for start-up support were approved. The total support is EUR 9.9 million (EUR 52,107 per business) and is used to help fi nance EUR 34.1 million (EUR 179,688 per business) of subsidisable start-up costs. Here too we see a reduction in 2008 after the peak year of 2007. The average subsidisable amount and the average amount of support continue to rise.

2005 2006 2007 2008

Number of new business managers: 494 608 700 529

agricultural holder = natural person 393 483 547 414

agricultural holder = legal entity 101 125 153 115

Total number of businesses 34,410 33,272 31,984 30,666

agricultural holder = natural person 31,976 30,757 29,384 27,970

agricultural holder = legal entity 2,434 2,515 2,600 2,696

Number of approved applications for subsidisation of start-up costs (new cases) 196 204 322 190

Average subsidisable amount of start-up costs (EUR/business) 166,392 168,293 168,789 179,688

Average amount of support (EUR/business) 49,000 49,931 50,088 52,107

Source: Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area, FPS Economy - Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information

1000

800

600

400

200

0

3%

2%

1%

0%1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

number of new business managers share of new business managers


63

Average livestock numbers per business

(Flanders, 2001-2008)

Average livestock numbers

2001 2005 2006 2007 2008

number of cattle per cattle business 85 91 95 97 100

number of pigs per pig business 1,298 1,424 1,457 1,517 1,576

number of chickens per poultry business 32,507 34,472 36,624 39,003 38,162

Breakdown of businesses per size class 2008

Cattle%

businesses%

animals Pigs%

businesses% animals Chickens

% businesses

% animals

1 to 9 9.7 0.6 1 to 250 3.8 0.4 1 to 10,000 13.8 1.7

10 to 25 13.3 2.1 250 to 500 8.2 2.0 10,000 to 30,000 30.6 15.2

25 to 50 14.7 5.4 500 to 750 10.7 4.2 30,000 to 50,000 30.2 30.9

50 to 75 13.0 8.1 750 to 1,000 10.4 5.8 50,000 to 70,000 15.3 22.3

75 to 100 13.5 11.7 1,000 to 1,500 23.1 18.1 70,000 and more 10.1 29.8

100 to 150 17.7 21.5 1,500 to 2,000 16.8 18.3 all chicken businesses 100.0 100.0

150 and more 18.2 50.7 2,000 to 2,500 13.4 18.9

all cattle businesses 100.0 100.0 2,500 and more 13.7 32.2

all pig businesses 100.0 100.0


The livestock numbers only relate to specialised cattle, pig and poultry businesses. The average numbers of livestock per business are continuing to rise. Only the poultry businesses had lower average livestock numbers in 2008 than in 2007.

Although there are still many businesses with a limited number of animals, these businesses only represent a low percentage of the total livestock numbers. Of the cattle businesses, most have more than 150 cattle; together they represent more than half of the livestock numbers. In the pigs sector, a third of animals are kept in businesses with 2,500 animals and more, but most businesses have 1,000 to 1,500 animals. In chicken businesses, the middle category (30,000 to 50,000 chickens) is strongly represented, both with regard to number of businesses and number of animals.


64

Development of livestock numbers

(Flanders, 2000-2009)

2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*

Cattle 1,558,075 1,350,304 1,332,923 1,318,654 1,295,449 1,294,640

of which: dairy cows 342,742 308,883 300,081 294,319 289,738 296.856

suckler cows 203,057 204,740 206,214 209,954 205,169 203.622

Pigs 7,051,094 5,952,518 5,924,171 5,897,632 5,884,555 5.909.863

of which: piglets 2,024,876 1,607,322 1,595,582 1,585,786 1,576,162 1.578.968

pigs (20 kg to 50 kg) 1,699,215 1,203,425 1,195,273 1,198,870 1,206,631 1.206.814

fattening pigs (≥

50 kg) 2,617,206 2,557,003 2,557,051 2,549,804 2,567,175 2.600.441

sows 690,345 568,311 559,223 547,968 520,449 509.799

Poultry 36,663,318 30,385,744 28,144,820 27,529,203 27,193,472 27,114,644

of which: meat chickens 21,632,697 17,633,155 16,596,740 16,593,124 16,519,385 15.720.429

laying hens 14,198,520 11,605,059 10,904,455 10,304,396 9,870,791 10.328.921

Rabbits 245,017 178,394 169,044 125,611 128,381 131,700

Sheep 102,600 95,976 97,359 94,368 83,268 75,868

Horses 20,451 20,923 21,146 21,280 20,570 unknown


Source: FPS Economy - Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information and Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

The number of cattle in Flanders has fallen markedly over the last 10 years (-16.9% with respect to 2000). The fall is mainly for dairy cows (-13.4%). The introduction of the milk quota (in 1984) and the increase in the milk yield per cow have contributed to this development. The suckler cow stock expanded up until 2007 and then fell back to the 2000 level in two years. The keeping of suckler cows was encouraged policy-wise through a premium system. However, over the last few years, the beef sector has had to contend with low profi tability.

With regard to pigs, there has been a strong fall (-16.2%). The reduction occurred in particular between 1999 and 2004. Then the number of pigs stabilised. The decrease in pig numbers is mainly a result of the environmental policy (manure problem) and was also stimulated policy-wise by the Flemish government through the buying-up arrangement.

Poultry stocks have also fallen sharply. The fall is in both the laying and meat sector (both -27.3%). In the laying sector, some 6.2 million laying hens produce eggs for eating, while around a million laying hens produce hatching eggs.

With regard to the other animals, the number of rabbits (-46.2%) and sheep (-26.1%) is continually falling, while the number of horses has become more stable.


65


66

Flemish agriculture mapped:Arable farming

(Flanders, 2007)

Key

% (o

ther

) spe

cial

ised

ara

ble

busi

ness

es o

f the

tota

l num

ber o

f bus

ines

ses

in th

e m

unic

ipal

ity >

20%

% a

rabl

e SO

of t

otal

mun

icip

ality

SO

0%

10

- 20

%

>

40%

< 10

%

20

- 40

%

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re a

nd F

ishe

ries,

NG

I-AG

IV

050

12.5

kilo

met

res


67

The

map

sho

ws

the

stan

dard

out

put2 (

SO)

of

arab

le fa

rmin

g w

ith re

spec

t to

the

tota

l SO

in th

e m

unic

ipal

ity. T

he m

unic

ipal

ities

with

mor

e th

an

20%

(oth

er) s

peci

alise

d ar

able

farm

ing

busin

esse

s ar

e in

dica

ted

with

hat

chin

g.

The

map

sho

ws

that

the

mun

icip

aliti

es w

here

the

SO o

f ara

ble

farm

ing

mak

es u

p m

ore

than

10%

of

the

tota

l SO

of t

he m

unic

ipal

ity a

re, a

s ex

pect

ed,

loca

ted

on th

e ric

h so

ils o

f Fla

nder

s: th

e sa

ndy l

oam

an

d lo

am s

oils

and

the

pold

ers.

The

mun

icip

aliti

es

whe

re t

he a

rabl

e fa

rmin

g se

ctor

is

impo

rtan

t (>

40%

) fo

r th

e to

tal S

O o

f th

e m

unic

ipal

ity a

re

prim

arily

loca

ted

to th

e ea

st o

f Bru

ssel

s.

2 The

sta

ndar

d ou

tput

is th

e fi n

anci

al v

alue

of t

he y

ield

that

cor

resp

onds

to th

e av

erag

e sit

uatio

n ov

er a

num

ber o

f yea

rs in

a c

erta

in re

gion

(Fla

nder

s) fo

r ea

ch o

f the

agr

icul

tura

l pro

duct

s.


68

Flemish agriculture mapped:Fruit

(Flanders, 2007)

Key

% s

peci

alis

ed fr

uit b

usin

esse

s of

the

tota

l num

ber o

f bus

ines

ses

in th

e m

unic

ipal

ity

% fr

uit S

O o

f tot

al m

unic

ipal

ity S

O

0%

10

- 20

%

>

40%

(max

. 94%

)

auct

ion

hous

es

< 10

%

20

- 40

%

fr

uit p

roce

ssin

g (ja

ms,

juic

es, c

anne

d, e

tc.)

froz

en in

dust

ry

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re a

nd F

ishe

ries,

NG

I-AG

IV

050

12.5

kilo

met

res


69

The

map

cle

arly

sho

ws

the

fruit

regi

ons

base

d on

the

rel

ativ

e sh

are

of t

he S

O o

f fru

it an

d th

e re

lativ

e sh

are

of s

peci

alise

d fru

it bu

sines

ses.

Ther

e is

a la

rge

conc

entr

atio

n in

the

Tiel

t-Win

ge, H

oese

lt,

Sint

-Tru

iden

tr

iang

le.

Sint

-Gill

is-W

aas,

Beve

ren

and

Zwijn

drec

ht (a

pple

s, pe

ars)

, Ove

rijse

(gra

pes)

, Ro

osda

al a

nd a

few

mun

icip

aliti

es a

roun

d th

e ty

pica

l fru

it re

gion

hav

e a

reas

onab

ly la

rge

num

ber

of s

peci

alise

d fru

it bu

sines

ses

and/

or a

reas

onab

ly

larg

e sh

are

of to

tal S

O.

Up

until

the

mid

-19th

Cen

tury

, app

le c

ultiv

atio

n (fr

eque

ntly

a

side

activ

ity)

was

sp

read

ac

ross

th

e en

tire

coun

try.

In t

he s

econ

d ha

lf of

the

19th

Ce

ntur

y, th

e go

vern

men

t or

gani

sed

cour

ses

to

stim

ulat

e fru

it cu

ltiva

tion.

Hor

ticul

tura

l sc

hool

s

wer

e se

t up

and

fru

it cu

ltiva

tion

deve

lope

d in

to

a su

cces

sful

act

ivity

. H

aspe

ngou

w b

ecam

e th

e ce

ntre

. Af

ter

1900

, fru

it cu

ltiva

tion

expa

nded

su

bsta

ntia

lly;

inst

ead

of

bein

g a

side

activ

ity,

culti

vatio

n w

as in

crea

singl

y do

ne o

n a

com

mer

cial

ba

sis. In

add

ition

to H

aspe

ngou

w, t

he M

eetje

sland

, Pa

jott

enla

nd a

nd L

and

van

Her

ve b

ecam

e fru

it cu

ltiva

tion

cent

res.

In a

dditi

on t

o su

pply

ing

the

fresh

fru

it m

arke

t, fru

it w

as a

lso g

row

n un

der

cont

ract

fo

r th

e pr

oduc

tion

of

syru

p or

fru

it pr

eser

vativ

es.

The

com

mer

cial

isatio

n of

th

e Jo

nago

ld a

pple

as

of t

he 1

970s

con

trib

uted

to

a gr

eate

r reg

iona

l spr

ead.

The

1950

s m

arke

d th

e br

eakt

hrou

gh o

f th

e id

ea

of a

uctio

ns. T

he m

ap s

how

s th

at t

here

is a

cle

ar

geog

raph

ical

lin

k w

ith t

he s

ales

cha

nnel

s. Th

e la

rges

t fru

it au

ctio

ns a

re: t

he B

elgi

sche

Fru

itvei

ling,

Ve

iling

Bo

rglo

on,

Veili

ng

Has

peng

ouw

, Ve

iling

H

oogs

trat

en a

nd P

rofru

co.


70

Flemish agriculture mapped:Vegetables including strawberries

(Flanders, 2007)

050

12.5

Key

% s

peci

alis

ed v

eget

able

bus

ines

ses

of th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of b

usin

esse

s in

the

mun

icip

ality

% v

eget

able

SO

of t

otal

mun

icip

ality

SO

0%

10

- 20

%

>

40%

auct

ion

hous

es

< 10

%

20

- 40

%

gr

ower

ass

ocia

tions

for p

rodu

cts

inte

nded

for p

roce

ssin

g

vege

tabl

e pr

oces

sing

indu

stry

froz

en in

dust

rySo

urce

: Dep

artm

ent o

f Agr

icul

ture

and

Fis

herie

s, N

GI-A

GIV

kilo

met

res


71

The

map

sho

ws

the

SO o

f the

veg

etab

les

sect

or,

incl

udin

g m

elon

s, st

raw

berr

ies a

nd m

ushr

oom

s, as

a

perc

enta

ge o

f the

tot

al S

O o

f the

mun

icip

ality

. Th

e m

unic

ipal

ities

with

mor

e th

an 2

0% sp

ecia

lised

ve

geta

ble

busin

esse

s ar

e in

dica

ted

with

hat

chin

g.

Conc

entr

ated

reg

ions

are

the

reg

ions

of

Sint

-Ka

telij

ne-W

aver

, Ro

esel

are

and

Hoo

gstr

aten

. Cu

rrent

ly, i

n th

e re

gion

aro

und

Mec

hele

n, q

uite

a

lot o

f veg

etab

les a

re g

row

n in

gre

enho

uses

. In

the

regi

on a

roun

d Ro

esel

are,

veg

etab

les

are

mai

nly

grow

n in

the

open

air

for t

he fr

ozen

food

indu

stry

. Th

is is

mai

nly

cont

ract

gro

win

g. A

s the

map

show

s, th

ere

is a

stro

ng li

nk w

ith th

e lo

catio

n of

the

froze

n fo

od i

ndus

try,

whi

ch i

s al

mos

t en

tirel

y in

Wes

t-Fl

ande

rs. T

he t

wo

larg

est

grow

er a

ssoc

iatio

ns fo

r

the

proc

essin

g in

dust

ry, V

egra

s (fro

zen

vege

tabl

es)

and

Ingr

o (in

dust

rial v

eget

able

s), a

re b

oth

loca

ted

in th

e vi

cini

ty o

f Roe

sela

re.

The

vege

tabl

es

are

mai

nly

trad

ed

thro

ugh

auct

ions

. The

re is

a c

lear

link

bet

wee

n re

gion

s with

ve

geta

ble

culti

vatio

n an

d th

e la

rges

t ve

geta

ble

auct

ions

. The

Mec

helse

Vei

ling

(Mec

hele

n Au

ctio

n - t

he la

rges

t coo

pera

tive

auct

ion

hous

e in

Eur

ope)

in

Sin

t-Kat

elijn

e-W

aver

mai

nly

trad

es t

omat

oes,

lett

uce,

pa

prik

a/pe

pper

s an

d cu

cum

bers

. Th

e Ka

mpe

nhou

t au

ctio

n (d

ivisi

on o

f BRA

VA in

Zel

lik)

mai

nly

trad

es c

hico

ry,

tom

atoe

s, as

para

gus

and

orga

nic

prod

ucts

. The

REO

auc

tion

in R

oese

lare

is

impo

rtan

t fo

r th

e tr

ade

of o

pen-

air

vege

tabl

es

and

stra

wbe

rrie

s. Th

e H

oogs

trat

en a

uctio

n m

ainl

y tr

ades

str

awbe

rrie

s an

d gr

eenh

ouse

veg

etab

les

(tom

atoe

s, pa

prik

a/pe

pper

s and

cuc

umbe

rs).

Com

mer

cial

veg

etab

le c

ultiv

atio

n ar

ose

afte

r th

e cr

isis

at t

he e

nd o

f th

e 19

th C

entu

ry. V

eget

able

cu

ltiva

tion

enab

led

a liv

ing

inco

me

to

be

gene

rate

d fro

m a

smal

l plo

t of l

and.

The

Mec

hele

n re

gion

gre

w in

to th

e ve

geta

ble

culti

vatio

n ce

ntre

be

fore

190

0. F

lem

ish h

ortic

ultu

ral

farm

ers

only

pr

oduc

ed l

uxur

y pr

oduc

ts s

uch

as c

hico

ry a

nd

caul

ifl ow

er th

at w

ere

sold

far o

utsid

e th

e na

tiona

l bo

rder

s. As

of

1890

, the

food

indu

stry

aro

se a

nd

vege

tabl

e pr

oces

sing

busin

esse

s em

erge

d. T

he

mai

n on

es a

re sh

own

on th

e m

ap.


72

Flemish agriculture mapped: Ornamental plant cultivation, including tree nurseries

(Flanders, 2007)

050

12.5

Key

% s

peci

alis

ed o

rnam

enta

l pla

nt c

ultiv

atio

n bu

sine

sses

of t

he to

tal n

umbe

r of b

usin

esse

s in

the

mun

icip

ality

% o

rnam

enta

l pla

nt c

ultiv

atio

n SO

of t

otal

mun

icip

ality

SO

0%

10

- 20

%

>

40%

(max

. 85%

)

< 10

%

20

- 40

%

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re a

nd F

ishe

ries,

NG

I-AG

IV

kilo

met

res


73

The

map

show

s the

SO

of t

he “fl

ow

ers,

orna

men

tal

plan

ts a

nd tr

ee n

urse

ries”

sect

or a

s a p

erce

ntag

e of

th

e to

tal S

O o

f the

mun

icip

ality

. The

mun

icip

aliti

es

with

mor

e th

an 2

0% s

peci

alise

d or

nam

enta

l pla

nt

busin

esse

s ar

e in

dica

ted

with

hat

chin

g. P

otte

d pl

ants

are

mai

nly

grow

n in

the

reg

ion

arou

nd

Loch

risti,

Des

telb

erge

n, M

erel

beke

and

Mel

le. I

n th

e re

gion

aro

und

Wet

tere

n, O

oste

rzel

e, L

aarn

e,

Wic

hele

n an

d Le

de,

this

is m

ainl

y or

nam

enta

l tre

es. T

he c

ut-fl

ower

sect

or is

mor

e in

the

dire

ctio

n of

Bru

ssel

s. Ar

boric

ultu

re i

s m

ainl

y ar

ound

the

re

gion

of

Mal

dege

m, W

aars

choo

t an

d Ev

erge

m.

To a

les

ser

exte

nt,

orna

men

tal

plan

t cu

ltiva

tion

is do

ne i

n a

few

mun

icip

aliti

es o

f th

e Ca

mpi

ne

and

the

Zand

stre

ek a

roun

d An

twer

p. W

e al

so

see

that

mun

icip

aliti

es w

ith a

reas

onab

le s

hare

of

the

tota

l SO

(>

10%

) ar

e pr

imar

ily lo

cate

d in

the

urba

n re

gion

s of

Bru

ges,

Kort

rijk,

Ghe

nt, B

russ

els,

Antw

erp,

Tur

nhou

t, H

asse

lt an

d G

enk.

Thi

s is

prob

ably

due

to th

e sa

les o

ppor

tuni

ties.

Orn

amen

tal

plan

t cu

ltiva

tion

aros

e in

Fla

nder

s w

hen

the

mid

dle

clas

ses

and

nobi

lity

saw

ill

ustr

atio

ns o

f unk

now

n pl

ants

with

str

ange

and

sp

lend

id fl

ower

s in

ric

hly

illus

trat

ed fl

ower

boo

ks

publ

ished

abr

oad,

and

wan

ted

to o

wn

thes

e. Th

ese

exot

ic p

lant

s w

ere

mai

nly

impo

rted

to

Engl

and

from

the

ove

rsea

s re

gion

s an

d th

en c

ultiv

ated

. A

Ghe

nt h

ortic

ultu

ralis

t ha

d a

colle

ctio

n of

pla

nts

brou

ght

over

fro

m E

ngla

nd i

n 17

74 i

n or

der

to

culti

vate

the

m i

n gr

eenh

ouse

s an

d or

ange

ries.

Indu

stria

l de

velo

pmen

ts

in

the

19th

Ce

ntur

y en

able

d ex

otic

pla

nts t

o be

gro

wn

on a

larg

er sc

ale

for a

wid

er m

arke

t. A

fl our

ishin

g or

nam

enta

l pla

nt

indu

stry

aro

se in

Ghe

nt a

nd th

e su

rroun

ding

are

as.

This

deve

lopm

ent w

as, a

mon

g ot

hers

, due

to th

e m

any

activ

ities

of t

he R

oyal

Soc

iety

of A

gric

ultu

re

and

Bota

ny in

Ghe

nt, b

ette

r kno

wn

unde

r the

nam

e of

the

exhi

bitio

ns it

org

anise

s, th

e G

ents

e Fl

oral

iën.

Ex

perim

ents

wer

e do

ne o

n th

e cu

ltiva

tion

of

fl ow

ers a

nd p

lant

s in

the

gard

en o

f Roz

elaa

r Cas

tle

in L

ochr

isti.

Char

les V

uylst

eke

gain

ed in

tern

atio

nal

fam

e by

cros

s-br

eedi

ng o

rchi

ds an

d pa

rtic

ipat

ing

in

inte

rnat

iona

l exh

ibiti

ons.

He

shar

ed h

is kn

owle

dge

with

his

colle

ague

s an

d in

spire

d th

em to

sta

rt u

p a

busin

ess.

Thus

47

orna

men

tal p

lant

bus

ines

ses

wer

e op

erat

ing

in L

ochr

isti a

t th

e en

d of

the

19th

Ce

ntur

y. Th

e la

rges

t Be

lgia

n di

strib

utio

n bu

sines

s fo

r pot

ted

plan

ts is

also

loca

ted

in L

ochr

isti.


74

Flemish agriculture mapped:Dairy farming

(Flanders, 2007)

050

12.5

Key

% s

peci

alis

ed d

airy

bus

ines

ses

of th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of b

usin

esse

s in

the

mun

icip

ality

% d

airy

SO

of t

otal

mun

icip

ality

SO

0%

10

- 20

%

>

40%

(max

. 74%

)

larg

e m

ilk c

olle

ctor

s

< 10

%

20

- 40

%

di

visi

ons

of la

rge

milk

col

lect

ors

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re a

nd F

ishe

ries,

NG

I-AG

IV

kilo

met

res

Mik

ka

Vare

co

Cam

pina

Inex

NV

Fabr

elac

Bonm

ilch

St.-J

ozef

Oly

mpi

a N

V

Post

elre

NV

Deb

ergh

NV

Cam

pina

Aal

ter

De

Krie

kela

arho

eve

Biom

elk

Vlaa

nder

en

Mel

kerij

St.

Clem

ens

Stee

gro

Dia

ry B

elgi

um

Mel

kinr

icht

ing

Her

czl &

Gol

d

Verm

eers

ch N

V

Milc

obel

- Be

lgom

ilk K

allo


75

The

map

sho

ws

the

rela

tive

shar

e of

the

SO

of

dairy

farm

ing

and

youn

g st

ock.

All

mun

icip

aliti

es

with

mor

e th

an 2

0% s

peci

alise

d da

iry f

arm

s ar

e in

dica

ted

with

hat

chin

g. T

he la

rge

milk

col

lect

ors

(bus

ines

ses

that

col

lect

mor

e th

an 1

00,0

00 li

tres

per

perio

d) a

re a

lso s

how

n. T

he m

ap s

how

s th

at

dairy

cat

tle a

re k

ept

in a

lmos

t al

l m

unic

ipal

ities

. Th

e Fl

emish

Ard

enne

s, th

e M

eetje

sland

, N

orth

Li

mbu

rg, V

oere

n an

d An

twer

p Ca

mpi

ne a

re z

ones

w

here

dai

ry fa

rmin

g m

akes

up

mor

e th

an 2

0% o

f th

e to

tal S

O o

f the

mun

icip

ality

.

Afte

r the

cris

is at

the

end

of th

e 19

th C

entu

ry, d

airy

fa

rmin

g de

velo

ped

furt

her

on p

oor

soils

whe

re

an e

xten

sive

area

of g

rass

land

was

ava

ilabl

e. A

fter

the

Seco

nd W

orld

War

, Eu

rope

wan

ted

to b

e

self-

suffi

cien

t co

ncer

ning

foo

d an

d pr

oduc

tion

stro

ngly

inc

reas

ed,

whi

ch l

ed t

o th

e so

-cal

led

butt

er m

ount

ains

and

milk

lake

s. Th

e co

sts

wer

e so

hig

h th

at m

easu

res

had

to b

e ta

ken.

The

milk

qu

ota

was

intro

duce

d in

198

4. T

his

led

to a

sha

rp

decr

ease

(-4

0%)

in t

he n

umbe

r of

dai

ry c

ows

in

Flan

ders

.

To p

roce

ss th

e m

ilk, t

he fa

rmer

s gro

uped

toge

ther

un

der

the

impe

tus

of t

he B

oere

nbon

d (F

arm

ers’

Uni

on) a

nd jo

int c

oope

rativ

e da

iries

aro

se. M

anua

l an

d st

eam

-driv

en d

airie

s pu

shed

asid

e th

e ho

me

proc

essin

g of

milk

as

of t

he l

ate

19th

Cen

tury

. Ev

ery

villa

ge o

r ham

let h

ad it

s ow

n da

iry. A

roun

d 19

40,

the

dairi

es p

roce

ssed

app

roxi

mat

ely

half

of t

he t

otal

milk

pro

duct

ion.

The

sm

all s

cale

and

rath

er

unpl

anne

d sp

read

of

da

iries

an

d da

iry

busin

esse

s w

as

cons

ider

ed

to

be

incr

easin

gly

econ

omic

ally

in

effi c

ient

, an

d af

ter

1945

on

ly

the

larg

e pr

ofes

siona

l bu

sines

ses

rem

aine

d. I

n th

e m

eant

ime,

the

tra

nspo

rt n

etw

ork

has

also

im

prov

ed a

nd t

he b

usin

esse

s no

w h

ave

cool

ing

tank

s su

ch t

hat

the

geog

raph

ic li

nk b

etw

een

the

dairi

es a

nd th

e ty

pica

l dai

ry fa

rmin

g re

gion

s is

no

long

er c

lear

.


76

Flemish agriculture mapped:Beef cattle

(Flanders, 2007)

050

12.5

Key

% s

peci

alis

ed b

eef c

attle

bus

ines

ses

of th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of b

usin

esse

s in

the

mun

icip

ality

% b

eef c

attle

SO

of t

otal

mun

icip

ality

SO

0%

10

- 20

%

>

40%

(max

. 74%

)

< 10

%

20

- 40

%

la

rge

abat

toirs

for c

attle

(10

larg

est a

ccor

ding

to tu

rnov

er, s

ee T

rend

s)

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re a

nd F

ishe

ries,

NG

I-AG

IV

kilo

met

res

M. R

ycka

ert

Slac

hthu

is G

eel

Etn.

Adr

iaen

s N

V

Slac

hthu

is G

enk

NV

Slac

hthu

is V

anlo

mm

el

Flan

ders

Mea

t Gro

up L

AR

NV

Vanh

oorn

wed

er M

arce

lEE

G S

lach

thui

s M

eche

len

Slac

hthu

is V

erbi

st Iz

egem

M. R

ycka

ert

Slac

hthu

is G

eel

Etn.

Adr

iaen

s N

V

Slac

hthu

is G

enk

NV

Slac

hthu

is V

anlo

mm

el

Flan

ders

Mea

t Gro

up L

AR

NV

Vanh

oorn

wed

er M

arce

lEE

G S

lach

thui

s M

eche

len

Slac

hthu

is V

erbi

st Iz

egem


77

Beef

cat

tle a

re ra

ised

in th

e m

ajor

ity o

f mun

icip

ali-

ties,

but i

ts im

port

ance

is o

nly

high

in a

few

mun

ic-

ipal

ities

: the

eco

nom

ic im

port

ance

of b

eef c

attle

fa

rmin

g is

less

than

10%

in 6

2% o

f mun

icip

aliti

es.

This

is sh

own

by th

e m

ap, w

hich

show

s the

rela

tive

shar

e of

the

SO

for

beef

cat

tle a

nd y

oung

sto

ck.

Nev

erth

eles

s, th

ere

are

100

mun

icip

aliti

es w

ith

mor

e th

an 2

0% s

peci

alise

d be

ef c

attle

bus

ines

ses.

Beef

cat

tle m

ainl

y oc

cur i

n th

e Ca

mpi

ne, i

n no

rth-

ern

Wes

t-Fla

nder

s, th

e Pa

jott

enla

nd, t

he F

lem

ish

Arde

nnes

and

Cen

tral

-Lim

burg

. Vea

l cal

f fa

rmer

s ar

e lo

cate

d ar

ound

Kas

terle

e.

Und

er

pres

sure

fro

m

chea

p Am

eric

an

grai

n,

Flem

ish f

arm

ers

cut

back

on

arab

le f

arm

ing

at

the

end

of th

e 19

th C

entu

ry a

nd li

vest

ock

farm

ing

beca

me

a se

ctor

in

its o

wn

right

. D

ue t

o th

e in

crea

sing

affl u

ence

aro

und

1900

, mea

t arr

ived

on

the

tabl

e of

the

com

mon

man

. Man

y sm

all “

catt

le

farm

ers”

kept

som

e ca

ttle

on

a pi

ece

of la

nd w

ith a

st

able

and

bro

ught

mea

t and

but

ter t

o th

e m

arke

t. Th

e fo

cus w

as o

n du

al-p

urpo

se c

ows (

Belg

ian

Blue

Be

ef, W

est-F

lem

ish R

ed C

ow) t

hat p

erfo

rmed

wel

l w

ith re

gard

to m

ilk a

nd m

eat.

Alon

gsid

e Eu

rope

an

inte

grat

ion

and

the

agric

ultu

ral p

olic

y th

at le

d to

ov

erpr

oduc

tion

and

regu

latio

n, ra

tiona

lisat

ion

and

mec

hani

satio

n al

so le

d to

a d

eclin

e in

the

num

ber

of b

eef c

attle

farm

ers

on t

he o

ne h

and

and

scal

e in

crea

ses o

n th

e ot

her. T

he a

gric

ultu

ral p

olic

y (m

ilk

quot

a, s

uckl

er c

ow s

ubsid

ies)

may

hav

e ca

used

a

shift

from

dai

ry fa

rmin

g to

bee

f cat

tle fa

rmin

g.

The

ten

larg

est a

batt

oirs

for c

attle

are

also

sho

wn

on t

he m

ap. A

s th

e ec

onom

ic im

port

ance

of t

he

sect

or is

not

ver

y hi

gh in

mos

t mun

icip

aliti

es, t

here

is

no c

lear

link

with

the

abat

toirs

.


78

Flemish agriculture mapped:Breeding

(Flanders, 2007)

050

12.5

25

Key

% s

peci

alis

ed b

reed

ing

stat

ions

of t

he to

tal n

umbe

r of b

usin

esse

s in

the

mun

icip

ality

> 2

0%

% b

reed

ing

SO o

f tot

al m

unic

ipal

ity S

O

0%

10

- 20

%

>

40%

(max

. 69%

)

Mix

ed fe

ed p

rodu

cers

(in

the

sect

or to

p 10

0, s

ee T

rend

s)

< 10

%

20

- 40

%

Pi

g ab

atto

irs (1

0 la

rges

t acc

ordi

ng to

turn

over

, see

Tre

nds)

Poul

try

abat

toirs

(10

larg

est a

ccor

ding

to tu

rnov

er, s

ee T

rend

s)So

urce

: Dep

artm

ent o

f Agr

icul

ture

and

Fis

herie

s, N

GI-A

GIV

kilo

met

res

•


79

In th

e abo

ve m

ap, w

hich

show

s the

SO fo

r gra

nivo

res

with

reg

ard

to t

he t

otal

SO

and

the

num

ber

of

mun

icip

aliti

es w

ith m

ore

than

20%

spe

cial

ised

bree

ding

com

pani

es. T

he ty

pica

l bre

edin

g re

gion

s of

Fl

ande

rs

can

be

clea

rly

reco

gnise

d:

Wes

t-Fl

ande

rs,

the

Mee

tjesla

nd,

Waa

sland

, th

e N

orth

Ca

mpi

ne a

nd N

orth

Lim

burg

. The

re is

alm

ost

no

bree

ding

in th

e An

twer

p - B

russ

els a

xis.

Pig

farm

ing

is pa

rtic

ular

ly im

port

ant,

with

the

shar

e of

pou

ltry

farm

ing

and

rabb

it fa

rmin

g in

the

tot

al v

alue

of

agric

ultu

re a

nd h

ortic

ultu

re b

eing

fairl

y lim

ited

in

the

mun

icip

aliti

es.

The

map

also

sho

ws

the

mos

t im

port

ant

mix

ed-

feed

pr

oduc

ers

acco

rdin

g to

tu

rnov

er.

The

mix

ed-fe

ed

prod

ucer

s ar

e st

rate

gica

lly

loca

ted

alon

g ca

nals

and

port

s to

ens

ure

the

tran

spor

t of

(co

ncen

trat

ed)

feed

pur

chas

ed o

n th

e w

orld

m

arke

t (e.

g. g

rain

from

nor

ther

n Fr

ance

, soy

a fro

m

Braz

il, et

c.).

As t

he m

ap s

how

s, th

ere

is a

larg

e co

ncen

trat

ion

of m

ixed

-feed

pro

duce

rs i

n W

est-

Flan

ders

. Thi

s is c

lear

ly li

nked

to th

e im

port

ance

of

the

anim

al se

ctor

in th

is pr

ovin

ce.

The

larg

est

abat

toirs

for p

igs

are

also

gen

eral

ly in

th

e m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t bre

edin

g re

gion

s.

Poul

try

farm

ing

is pa

rtic

ular

ly i

mpo

rtan

t in

the

Tu

rnho

ut re

gion

, in

the

vici

nity

of M

aase

ik a

nd to

a

less

er e

xten

t in

the

Aal

ter-K

ruish

oute

m r

egio

n.

Conc

entr

atio

n in

the

pou

ltry

sect

or is

hig

h: f

ew

but

very

larg

e bu

sines

ses.

In a

dditi

on, t

he m

ixed

-fe

ed in

dust

ry a

nd t

he a

batt

oir s

ecto

r are

stro

ngly

in

tert

win

ed.


80

Flemish agriculture mapped:Agriculture characterisation map

(Flanders, 2007)

050

12.5

2

5

Key

spec

ialis

atio

n br

eedi

ng

sp

ecia

lisat

ion

orna

men

tal p

lant

cul

tivat

ion

incl

. tre

e nu

rser

ies

arab

le fa

rmin

g - b

eef c

attle

prev

ailin

g da

iry c

attle

culti

vatio

n - v

eget

able

s

spec

ialis

atio

n fr

uit

vege

tabl

es -

beef

cat

tle

sp

ecia

lisat

ion

vege

tabl

es in

cl. s

traw

berr

ies

br

eedi

ng -

beef

cat

tle

urba

nise

d

orna

men

tal p

lant

cul

tivat

ion

- bee

f cat

tle

br

eedi

ng -

dairy

cat

tle

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re a

nd F

ishe

ries,

NG

I-AG

IV

kilo

met

res


81

The

map

sho

ws

the

resu

lt of

a c

lass

ifi ca

tion

of

mun

icip

aliti

es w

ith a

sim

ilar a

gric

ultu

ral a

ctiv

ity. 2

7 m

unic

ipal

ities

wer

e ru

led

out b

efor

ehan

d be

caus

e th

ey a

re to

o hi

ghly

urb

anise

d or

indu

stria

lised

and

th

us h

ave

few

agr

icul

tura

l bus

ines

ses o

r act

ivity

on

thei

r ter

ritor

y.

The

agric

ultu

ral

activ

ity o

f a

mun

icip

ality

was

de

term

ined

fro

m t

he d

ata

of t

he 2

007

Farm

St

ruct

ure

Surv

ey o

f the

FPS

Eco

nom

y an

d is

base

d on

tw

o pr

ofi le

s: th

e di

strib

utio

n of

the

num

ber

of

busin

esse

s ov

er

a nu

mbe

r of

pr

oduc

tion

orie

ntat

ions

on

the

one

hand

, and

the

dist

ribut

ion

of t

he e

cono

mic

dim

ensio

n (S

O”2

004”

) ov

er a

nu

mbe

r of s

ecto

rs o

n th

e ot

her. T

he m

unic

ipal

ities

ar

e cl

uste

red

toge

ther

acc

ordi

ng t

o a

grea

ter

or

less

er s

imila

rity

of th

eir p

rofi l

es. T

he m

odel

has

an

expl

anat

ory

qual

ity o

f 70%

The

mun

icip

aliti

es h

ave

been

div

ided

int

o 11

gr

oups

, fou

r of w

hich

are

spe

cial

ised

orie

ntat

ions

(b

reed

ing,

ve

geta

bles

, or

nam

enta

l pl

ants

, fru

it),

one

dom

inan

t or

ient

atio

n (d

airy

) an

d six

co

mbi

ned

type

s. Th

e ty

pica

l re

gion

s ar

e id

entifi

abl

e: f

ruit

arou

nd S

int-T

ruid

en; v

eget

able

s ar

ound

Si

nt-K

atel

ijne-

Wav

er,

Roes

elar

e an

d H

oogs

trat

en;

orna

men

tal

plan

ts a

roun

d G

hent

; an

d br

eedi

ng in

Wes

t-Fla

nder

s, th

e M

eetje

sland

, th

e La

nd v

an W

aas a

nd th

e Ca

mpi

ne. D

airy

occ

urs

in th

e Fl

emish

Ard

enne

s and

the

Pajo

tten

land

, and

in

the

Cam

pine

in

com

bina

tion

with

bre

edin

g.

Beef

cat

tle o

ccur

s in

the

reg

ion

arou

nd B

ruge

s, so

uthe

rn W

est

and

East

-Fla

nder

s, an

d in

Fle

mish

-Br

aban

t an

d So

uth-

Lim

burg

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith

arab

le fa

rmin

g.

The

loca

tions

of

th

e re

gion

al

conc

entr

atio

ns

and

spec

ialis

atio

ns

gene

rally

ha

ve

a hi

stor

ical

ba

ckgr

ound

. Th

us

the

loca

tions

of

th

e m

unic

ipal

ities

with

a b

reed

ing

typo

logy

are

(par

tly)

expl

aine

d by

the

loc

atio

ns o

f th

e m

ixed

-feed

in

dust

ry a

nd t

he a

batt

oirs

, and

the

mun

icip

aliti

es

with

a v

eget

able

or f

ruit

typo

logy

are

also

loca

ted

arou

nd t

he a

uctio

n ho

uses

and

der

ived

indu

stry

. Ar

able

farm

ing

and

dairy

and

bee

f cat

tle fa

rmin

g ar

e pr

imar

ily e

xpla

ined

by

soil-

phys

ical

fac

tors

: ar

able

farm

ing

on ri

ch s

oils

and

lives

tock

farm

ing

on o

ther

soi

ls. O

rnam

enta

l pl

ant

culti

vatio

n is

hist

oric

ally

con

cent

rate

d ar

ound

Ghe

nt.

Furt

her i

nfor

mat

ion

on th

is m

ap m

ater

ial c

an b

e fo

und

in th

e re

port

“De

land

bouw

activ

iteit

in V

laam

se g

emee

nten

, pro

eve

van

typo

logi

e” (A

gric

ultu

ral a

ctiv

ity

in F

lem

ish m

unic

ipal

ities

, exa

min

atio

n of

typo

logy

), lo

cate

d on

the

web

site

ww

w.v

laan

dere

n.be

/land

bouw

/stu

dies


82

Paid direct payments from Pillar I

(Flanders, 2007)

number of businesses support (EUR) support/business

(EUR) share of support

(%)

allowance rights 24,266 222,233,659 9,185 84.6

suckler cow premium 6,596 29,564,193 4,482 11.3

slaughter premium calves 274 5,699,841 20,802 2.2

other coupled premium 290 689,222 2,377 0.3

extra payment 24,325 4,449,363 183 1.7

total Pillar I 24,384 262,636,277 10,771 100.0

Source: Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries on 13/08/2008

In 2007, slightly more than EUR 262.5 million of direct support was paid to farmers in Flanders. The allowance rights make up a good EUR 222 million, almost 85% of the total direct support of Pillar I. The suckler cow premium (EUR 29.5 million) is good for slightly more than 11% of the total and the slaughter premium calves (EUR 5.7 million) around 2%. The other coupled premiums (premium for protein-containing crops, the premium for nuts, the premium for energy crops, and the premium for sowing seed) have a smaller share (0.3% or EUR 0.7 million). Finally, there is an extra payment of around EUR 4.4 million which corresponds to a share of 1.7%. The extra payment concerns the modulation exemption.

The data are based on the 2007 total application (2007 season) to the Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries (ALV). The data were extracted on 13 August 2008.


83

Paid direct payments from Pillar I: breakdown according to value



The diagram shows the percentage of businesses and the percentage support per size category of the total support expressed in euros. In general, the smaller sizes receive a relatively smaller share of the support. For the larger size categories, the reverse applies: a smaller percentage of businesses represent a higher percentage of support. Almost 7.5% of businesses receive less than EUR 500 of support. Together they received barely 0.2% of the total support. The largest number of businesses (36%) are in the EUR 501-5,000 category, but represent only 7.5% of total support. On the other hand, in the EUR 12,501-25,000 category, 21% of businesses receive 35% of the total support. Relatively few businesses, fi nally, belong to the EUR 25,001-50,000 (9.5%) and over EUR 50,000 (1.5%) categories, but they receive a high percentage of the support with 29% and 9.5% respectively.


share of pillar I direct support number of businesses

40

30

20

10

0 1-500 501-5,000 5,001-12,500 12,501-25,000 25,001-50,000 >50,000


84

Paid direct payments from Pillar I: break-down according to business manager age



The diagram shows the percentage of businesses and the percentage of the total support that they represent per age category. The younger age categories and the companies receive a relatively higher percentage of the support; the older ones, and especially those of 65 years or older, receive a relatively lower percentage. Young farmers (< 35 years) only make up 7.5% of the number of farmers, but with 12.5%, receive a relatively higher percentage of the support. The average support is the highest there with EUR 17,623 per business. With 6.5% of business managers, companies represent 9% of the total support. The number of business managers in the age categories 35-44 years, 45-54 years, 55-64 years and 65 years and older fl uctuates around 20%. The business managers between 35-44 years and 45-54 years receive a relatively higher percentage of support with 29%. The business managers between 55 and 64 years, however, only receive 16% of the total support. For those of 65 years and older, which nevertheless represents a substantial group of the businesses, it is only 6%. The average support per business is the lowest there with EUR 3,381 per business. They are probably smaller farms in general, often winding down.


share of value rights number of businesses

40

30

20

10

018 - 34 years

35 - 44 years

45 - 54 years

55 - 64 years

>= 65 company


85

Pillar I: total direct support per municipality

(Flanders, 2007)

Source: Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries on 13/08/2008, NGI-AGIV

The diagram shows the total direct support per municipality and the average direct support per applicant per municipality. The municipalities that receive the greatest amount of direct support are primarily located in the southwest and northeast of West-Flanders, the northwest of East-Flanders, the north of Antwerp and the south of Limburg.

Key (in EUR)little to no data< 50,000

50,000 - 250,000250,000 - 500,000

500,000 - 1,000,0001,000,000 - 2,000,000> 2,000,000

0 12.5 25 50 75


86

Pillar I: average direct support per applicant and per municipality

(Flanders, 2007)

Source: Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries on 13/08/2008, NGI-AGIV

The municipalities with the highest average support per farmer are concentrated in the northwest and southwest of West-Flanders, the north and northeast of Antwerp, and the south of Flemish-Brabant and Limburg (along the language border). In the municipalities between Brussels and Leuven, the number of data is limited, which is also shown by the fact that the total direct support per municipality is low. The regions with a high average support more or less correspond to the traditional arable regions, and the regions with a substantial dairy and beef farming activity. It is notable that the average support per farmer is generally lower in regions where horticulture and pig farming are important activities.

The data are based on the 2007 total application (2007 season) to the Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries (ALV). The data were extracted on 13 August 2008. This concerns the support paid to applicants with a production unit in Flanders and with land in Flanders or in Wallonia. The analysis is based on the postcode of the applicant’s correspondence address registered with the Agriculture and Fisheries Agency. It is thus possible that a number of sites for which support is paid are located in another municipality.

Key (in EUR)little to no data< 5,000

5,000 - 7,5007,500 - 10,000

10,000 - 12,50012,500 -15,000> 15,000

0 12.5 25 50 75


87

Rural policy: expenditure per fi nancial year

(Flanders, 2000-2008, million EUR)


In order to obtain an overview of expenditure, the expenditure for the fi rst Rural Development Programme (PDPO I, 2000-2006) was subdivided according to the names of the measures that apply to the new programme (PDPO II, 2007-2013). The greatest expenditure was realised in the last year of the previous programme. That the expenditure of the fi rst two years of the new programme is not at the same level is fi rstly due to the “increase of the added value of agricultural products” measure, subsidies for agri-foodstuff s businesses, for which the approved applications of the fi rst call in 2008 would only be paid in 2009, and is secondly due to the fact that most payments for approved projects will be made for the region-oriented operation of axis 3 and the LEADER axis in 2009 and later.

year

120

100

80

60

40

20

02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

local group operation (LEADER)

agricultural education

start-up of young farmers

business advice systems for farmers and

horticulturalists, incl. environmental module and

business management advice

investments in agricultural business

(incl. diversification)

increase of the added value of agricultural

& forestry products

support for cooperation in the development &

sales of agricultural products of an innovative nature

infrastructure development

compensating payments for problem areas

agri-environmental measures

forestation of agricultural land,

non-productive investments, other forestry

provisions of care & activation of care applicants in

agricultural and horticultural businesses

stimulation of tourism activities

basic facilities for the economy and rural development

village centre modernisation and development

maintenance and upgrading of rural heritage

intermediary services

VLIF transitional measures


88

Rural policy: planned expenditure 2007-2013

(Flanders, 2007-2013, EUR)

Axis Measure Budget (Flemish + European)

Axis 1 agricultural education and sustainable agriculture awareness projects 37,561,693

start-up young farmers 48,035,867

business advice systems for farmers and horticulturists 18,976,540

investments in agricultural businesses 282,737,974

increase of the added value of agricultural and forestry products 28,874,403

infrastructure development 373,280

participation by farmers in food quality regulations 32,099,273

information and fostering sales of Flemish products accredited as PDO/PGI/TSG 382,387

total Axis 1 449,041,417

Axis 2 compensating payments outside Natura 2000 5,246,536

compensating payments within Natura 2000 4,430,410

agri-environmental measures 171,575,480

development measures by farmers under the Water Framework Directive 1,092,932

forestation of agricultural land 4,682,340

non-productive investments in forests 4,133,118

total axis 2 191,160,816

Axis 3 investments relating to diversifi cation of agricultural activities 21,674,061

stimulation of tourism activities 4,466,817

basic facilities for the economy and rural population 5,232,230

village centre modernisation and development 9,516,850

maintenance and upgrading of rural heritage 14,153,637

intermediary services 971,520

total axis 3 56,015,114

Axis 4 Leader 41,277,197

technical assistance 8,980,828

total government support 746,475,372


The above table of planned expenditures is the one that applied in 2009. The extra budget released for the new objectives of the Health Check and the recovery plan have not yet been incorporated into it. The expenditure at the end of 2008 was 29.5% of the planned 2007-2013 budget that applied in 2008, and 26.4% of the planned 2007-2013 budget that applied in 2009.


89

Rural policy: area of agri-environmental measures

(Flanders, 2000-2008, hectare)


The total area of agri-environmental measures fell by 6,747 ha in 2008 with regard to 20073. In total the area of agri-environmental measures decreased by 8,176 ha in the fi rst two years of PDPO II. This is primarily due to the “winter planting” sunset measure, and secondly to the “water MA”. The area of the following agri-environmental measures clearly fell in 2008 with regard to 2007: “winter planting” (-6%), “water MA” (-8%) and “nature MA” (-13%). The area of the following agri-environmental measures clearly increased in 2008 with regard to 2007: “Buff er zone MA” (+6%), “ornamental plants” (+5%), “standard tree orchards” (+18%), “Papilionaceae” (+13%) and erosion MA (+9%). In absolute numbers, the increase in “Papilionaceae (protein-containing crops)” is particularly notable: an increase of 1,706 ha with regard to 2006, 721 ha of which was in the last year. The area of the following agri-environmental measures fell slightly: “species protection MA” (-0.5%) and “organic agriculture hectare support” (-1%), “botanic management MA” (-2%) and “mechanical weed control” (-4%).

3 This fi gure does not include the area of small landscape elements because a link with the plots has not been possible since 2008. The data up to 2007 did not indicate the area of small landscape elements, but the area of the plots to which they were linked.

140.000

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

erosion MAPapilionaceaeintegrated pome hectare supportorganic agriculture hectare supportorganic pig supportstandard fruit tree subsidywater MAnature MAbotanic management MAbuffer zone management MAspecies protection MAornamental plant cultivationmechanical weed controlwinter planting


90

Rural policy: investment support

(Flanders, 2001-2008, number, EUR 1,000)


The number of approved investment applications and the government support granted in 2008 was again at the level of 2006. The peak in 2007 was the result of the large number of applications in 2006, the last year of the fi rst period of the rural development programme. In addition to the investment support, farmers can also obtain a subsidy to start up in agriculture and diversify from the Flemish Agricultural Investment Fund (Vlaams landbouwinvesteringsfonds - VLIF). In 2008, the government support granted for these purposes was EUR 8.0 and EUR 4.1 million respectively.

Government support granted per business type, EUR 1,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

arable farming 469 645 406 1,034 641 577 765 629

horticulture 22,779 21,504 14,929 13,854 14,955 13,009 17,466 22,180

fruit cultivation 1,986 1,613 2,033 2,242 2,950 3,183 3,735 3,548

crop combinations in mixed businesses 9,190 11,296 9,100 9,263 11,620 17,028 20,966 12,994

dairy farming 6,109 5,688 6,172 4,826 5,121 6,628 8,609 7,144

young stock and beef cattle 1,119 1,365 1,904 1,622 1,086 781 1,304 1,080

pigs 377 873 744 777 2,693 5,945 8,537 5,329

poultry 127 265 234 343 360 1,132 748 844

other livestock (including combinations) 0 2,723 3,161 2,578 3,642 5,956 7,840 4,572

other (not incorporated elsewhere) 411 0 11 0 19 21 0 0

total 42,567 45,972 38,694 36,538 43,088 54,260 69,970 58,320

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

approved applications government support granted

num

ber o

f app

rove

d ap

plic

atio

ns

gove

rnm

ent s

uppo

rt g

rant

ed (E

UR

1,00

0)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


91

Organic agriculture: number of businesses, area and hectare support

(Flanders, 1994-2008)

Source: Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area based on Integra and Certisys

The number of organic businesses remained the same in 2008 and was 230 business units. 56 of these were in East-Flanders. As many businesses exit the sector as new ones enter. 0.75% of agricultural businesses are organic. The area in Flanders was 3,492 hectares in 2008, 10.5% of which was being converted. Compared to 2007, the total area fell by 0.1%. The diagram also indicates the area for which the producers applied for and obtained support in 2008 (2,600 ha in 2008). EUR 700,455 of hectare support was paid out. This relates to the applications of 2007.

Number of certifi ed producers and area, Flanders, 2008

number of businesses under supervision

area being converted (ha) organic area (ha) total area (ha)

West-Flanders 53 62.1 548.1 610.1

East-Flanders 56 107.1 654.4 761.5

Limburg 27 43.7 490.1 533.8

Antwerp 49 98.7 774.7 873.4

Flemish-Brabant 45 54.8 658.7 713.5

total 230 366 3,126 3,492

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

01994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

year

area with ha support total organic area under supervision hectare support number of businesses

area

(ha)

hect

are

supp

ort (

€)


92

Agricultural research and development budget

(Flanders, 2009, million EUR)

R&Dcredit

S&T-credit

Total SPcredit

ILVO 9.895 8.583 18.478

ILVO donations 0.994 1.300 2.294

ILVO personnel costs, operating costs, investment costs 8.901 7.283 16.184

other 5.467 0.672 6.139

subsidies to agricultural and horticultural practical centres, to agricultural

chambers, agricultural comics, horticultural associations, warning services

and subsidies in the interest of agriculture and horticulture

2.375 0.083 2.458

subsidies to stimulate organic agriculture (partly with EU co-fi nancing) 0.100 0.000 0.100

subsidy to the EVA Flanders Agricultural and Marketing Board (VLAM) 0.000 0.589 0.589

expenses relating to the rural development programme for the Agriculture

and Fisheries Policy Area (EU co-fi nancing)0.104 0.000 0.104

miscellaneous expenses to strengthen the research and innovation

potential in the Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area 0.311 0.000 0.311

donation to the Flemish Agricultural Investment Fund (Vlaams Landbouw-

investeringsfonds - VLIF)2.577 0.000 2.577

Economy, Science and Innovation

subsidies to scientifi c and technical research with an agricultural purpose

(IWT-Flanders)9.602 0.000 9.602

total 24.964 9.255 34.219

Source: credit lines of the 2009 budget, Agriculture and Fisheries and Economy policy domain and Science and Innovation policy domain, EWI research guide

The budget for agricultural research and development mainly comes from the credit lines of the Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area and the Economy, Science and Innovation policy domain. The above table only shows the part of the budget credit actually intended for scientifi c policy. In this credit, a further distinction is made between credit for research and development and credit for scientifi c and technological services.The donations to the Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (Instituut voor Landbouw- en Visserijonderzoek - ILVO) are, among others, intended for the data collection and advisory roles required by the EU in support of the EC Fisheries Policy (EU co-fi nancing), for research and development into more sustainable agricultural systems, for logistical and operational support of quality control in the vegetables sector and for fi nancing PhD grants.The ILVO does research into the following subjects: sustainable vegetable production, innovative agriculture, fi sheries and product processing; quality animal farming; sustainable exploitation of marine resources; agriculture and fi sheries in a changing climate; agriculture in the natural environment; agriculture and fi sheries for safe and high-quality food; dynamic rural region; competitive agricultural systems.The subsidies for scientifi c and technical research with an agricultural purpose are the budgets of the IWT Agricultural Research Programme.


93

List of abbreviations

ABC = Agribusiness Complex

ABS = Algemeen Boerensyndicaat (General Farmers’ Union)

ADLO = Afdeling Duurzame Landbouwontwikkeling (Sustainable Agricultural Development Division)

ADSEI = Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economisch Informatie (Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information)

AF = Agriculture and Fisheries

AGIV = Agentschap voor Geografi sche Informatie Vlaanderen (Agency for Geographical Information Flanders)

ALV = Agentschap voor Landbouw en Visserij (Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries)

AMN = Landbouwmonitoringsnetwerk (Agriculture Monitoring Network)

AMS = Afdeling Monitoring en Studie (Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis)

AWU = Agricultural Work Unit

BCZ = Belgische Confederatie van de Zuivelindustrie (Belgian Confederation of the Dairy Industry)

Belfirst = Financial Reports and Statistics on Belgian and Luxembourg Companies

BEMEFA = Beroepsvereniging van de Mengvoederfabrikanten (Trade Association of Mixed-Feed Producers)

BIRB = Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (Belgian Intervention and Refund Agency) BSE = Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (= mad cow disease)

CAP = Common Agricultural Policy

CBB = Confederatie van de Belgische Bietenplanters (Confederation of Belgian Beet Growers)

CHP = combined heat and power

DG = Directorate-General

EU = European Union

EWI = Economie, Wetenschap en Innovatie (Economy, Science and Innovation)

FADN = Farm Accountancy Data Network

FAVV = Federaal Agentschap voor de Veiligheid van de voedselketen (Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain)

FAWU = Family agricultural work unit

FEBEV = Federatie Belgisch Vlees (Federation of Belgian Meat)

FPS = Federal Public Service

GDP = gross domestic product

ILVO = Instituut voor Landbouw- en Visserijonderzoek (Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research)

INGRO = Telersvereniging Industriegroenten (Industrial Vegetables Growers Association)


94

IWT = Instituut voor de aanmoediging van innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (Institute to stimulate innovation through Science and Technology)

LEADER = Liaisons Entre Actions de Développement de l’Economie Rurale (Links between actions for the development of the rural community)

LNE = Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie (Environment, Nature and Energy)

LPG = Liquefi ed Petroleum Gas

LU = Labour Unit

MA = management agreement

MINA = Milieu- en Natuurraad (Board of the Environment and Nature)

MTR = Mid-term Review

NGI = Belgian National Geographic Institute

NAV = Net Added Value

PDO = Protected Designations of Origin

PDPO = Programmeringsdocument Plattelandsontwikkeling (Rural Development Programming Document)

PGI = Protected Geographic Indication

PM = particulate matter

R&D = Research and Development

REO = Roeselare En Omstreken Veiling (Roeselare and Environs Auction)

SO = Standard Output

SP = science policy

SSU = Standard Size Unit

S&T = Science and Technology

TSG = Traditional Specialities Guaranteed

VAC = Vlaams Agrarisch Centrum (Flemish Agricultural Centre)

VAT = Value Added Tax

Vegras = Vegetable Growers Association

VEVA = Vereniging voor Varkenshouders (Association of Pig Farmers)

VITO = Vlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek (Flemish Institute of Technological Research)

VLAM = Vlaams Centrum voor Agri- en Visserijmarketing (Flanders Agricultural and Marketing Board)

VLIF = Vlaams Landbouwinvesteringsfonds (Flemish Agricultural Investment Fund)

VLM = Vlaamse Landmaatschappij (Flemish Land Company)

VMM = Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij (Flemish Environment Company)


95

Bibliography

Bas L., Lenders S. & Van Gijseghem D. (2009) De Vlaamse Landbouwconjunctuurindex - Resultaten enquête voorjaar 2009, Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.

Bernaerts E., Coulier T. & Demuynck E. (2009) Rentabiliteitsrapport Land- en tuinbouw 2007, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.

Bernaerts E., Demuynck E. & Platteau J. (2008) Productierekening van de Vlaamse land- en tuinbouw 2008, Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.

Danckaert S., Lenders S. & Oeyen A. (2009) De landbouw activiteit in Vlaamse gemeenten, proeve van typologie, Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.

Deuninck J. (2009) Analyse van de rechtstreekse steun uit Pijler I aan de landbouwer: campagne 2007, Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.

European Union, Directorate-General Agriculture and Rural Development (2009), Agriculture in the European Union, Statistical and Economic Information 2008.

Eurostathttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home

FPS Economy - Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information, Mei-enquêtes, various volumes, Brussels.

FPS Economy - Directorate-General Statistics and Economic Information, Raming van de productie van de landbouwteelten, various harvest years, Brussels.

Fonds voor Arbeidsongevallen (FAO - Occupational Accidents Fund)http://www.fao.fgov.be/

IDEA Consult, UGhent, Belconsulting and VUB by order of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (2008) Ex post evaluatie van het Vlaams plattelandsontwikkelingsprogramma 2000-2006, Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.

Lenders S., D’hooghe J., Van Gijseghem D. & Overloop S. (2008) Milieudruk in de landbouw op basis van gegevens van het Landbouwmonitoringsnetwerk 2005, Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.


96

Messely L., Lenders S. & Carels K. (2008) Water in de Vlaamse land- en tuinbouw, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.

Meul, M., Nevens, F. & Hofman, G. (2006) Indicatoren voor duurzaam watergebruik op Vlaamse land- en tuinbouwbedrijven, Steunpunt Duurzame Landbouw (Policy Research Centre for Sustainable Agriculture).

Platteau J., Van Bogaert T. & Van Gijseghem D. (reds.) (2008) Landbouwrapport 2008, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Brussels.

Van Bogaert T., Janssens J., Platteau J. & Samborski V. (2009) Agrohandelsrapport 2008, Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.

Van Dingenen K., Wautelet A., Vermeire B. & Gellynck X. (2008) Analyserapport voor het agribusinesscomplex in Vlaanderen, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.

Van Huylenbroeck G., Reymen D., Vandermeulen V., Van Dingenen K., Verspecht A. & Vuylsteke A. (2007) Toestandsrapport voor verbrede landbouw. Analyse van de beschikbare informatie inzake de verschillende groepen verbrede landbouwactiviteiten, Ghent University, Idea Consult, Brussels.

Van Steertegem M. (fi nal ed.) (2009) MIRA-T 2008 Indicatorrapport, Milieurapport Vlaanderen, Flemish Environment Company. www.milieurapport.be

Van Zeebroeck M., Carels K., Samborski V. & Danckaert S. (2009) Vlaams Programma voor Plattelandsontwikkeling 2007-2013, Jaarverslag 2008, Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area, Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis, Brussels.

Vlaams landbouwinvesteringsfonds (2009) Activiteitenverslag 2008, Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area, Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries, Structure and Investments Division, Brussels.

Vlaamse Landmaatschappij (Flemish Land Company)www.vlm.be


Colophon

Agriculture and Horticulture in Flanders 2009.Pocket Agricultural Indicators

Editorial staff: Jonathan Platteau, Tom Van Bogaert

Design and printing: Pen Vosselaar

Visual material: Agriculture and Fisheries Policy Area

Copywriting number: D/2009/3241/419

Publisher: Jules Van Lieff eringe

Secretary-General

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

Department of Agriculture and FisheriesDivision for Agricultural Policy AnalysisKoning Albert II - laan 35, bus 401030 Brussels

E-mail: [email protected]: www.vlaanderen.be/landbouwTel: +32 2 552 7820Fax: +32 2 552 7821

The reproduction and/or use of the data are allowed provided that the source is expressly stated:Platteau J. & Van Bogaert T. (eds.) (2009) Agriculture and Horticulture in Flanders 2009. Pocket Agricultural Indicators, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Brussels.

Agriculture and Horticulture in Flanders 2009. Pocket Agricultural Indicators is also available on www.vlaanderen.be/landbouw (Section Beleid – Beleidsvoorbereidende studies)

www.vlaanderen.be/landbouw

Flemish GovernmentDepartment of Agriculture and Fisheries

CoverEngFR.indd 2CoverEngFR.indd 2 09-03-2010 14:29:0609-03-2010 14:29:06

Agriculture and Horticulture - Departement Landbouw en ...

Documents

Transcript of Agriculture and Horticulture - Departement Landbouw en ...