Evaluation of agri-environmental measures in Flanders (Belgium)

Transcription

1 OECD WORKSHOP Evaluating Agri-environmental Policies Paris, 6-8 December 2004 Session 4. Evaluation of Payments Evaluation of agri-environmental measures in Flanders (Belgium) Discussion of the RDPs Mid-Term evaluation results (2003) Koen Carels Dirk Van Gijseghem Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis (DAPA) Flemish Agriculture Administration Brussels, Belgium

2 ABSTRACT 1 Agri-environmental measures (AEM) in Belgium are implemented trough the Rural Development Programs (RDPs) of the Second Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. There are two rural development programs in the country s two regions: Flanders and Wallonia. Flanders was late in implementing AEM. Even regulation 2078/92 was not put into practice in Flanders. With the Rural Development Plan Flanders tried to catch up on AEM with the other European countries. Despite little experience with AEM, about 12 AEM have been implemented since the start of the program. A mid-term evaluation by an independent evaluator in 2003 considered the period. The evaluation was done in the framework of the EU common monitoring and evaluation approach. For this purpose, the European Commission (EC) had defined common evaluation questions, criteria and indicators to be used by program evaluators. Most of the evaluation approach went to fulfilling the EC demands, which aimed mostly at assessing the environmental effects of the AEM. The evaluator was full-time assisted by a staff member of the Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis (DAPA). This set-up proved to be very successful. Too early to measure results and impacts, the evaluator however made useful recommendations to program management. The importance of an integrated monitoring and evaluation framework was shown. Also a survey among farmers implementing AEM was held. The analysis delivered useful information about what s happening on the field. KEYWORDS Belgium, Flanders, mid-term evaluation, agri-environmental, RDP, survey GUIDE TO THE READER 2 This paper is to be presented at the OECD Workshop on Evaluating Agri-environmental Policies in Paris, December 6-8, It will be part of a session focusing on the evaluations of agrienvironmental payments that have taken place as part of the mid-term review of EU member countries rural development plans. 3 For the purpose of the workshop, the Secretariat developed a series of questions to guide authors. The Secretariat argued that addressing these questions would greatly assist the comparability of the papers presented, facilitate better discussion and enable conclusions regarding the workshop objectives to be drawn more easily. It even suggested using the questions as section headings. This paper follows these directions. This means that the paragraphs hereafter will discuss the questions. Finally some overall conclusions will be drawn. 2

3 1. MID TERM EVALUATION OF THE FLEMISH RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Agri-environmental measures (AEM) in Belgium are implemented trough the Rural Development Programs (RDPs) of the Second Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. There are two rural development programs in the country s two regions: Flanders and Wallonia. Because of political decisions to dismantle the existing Federal Ministry of Agriculture in 2001, there is no longer coordination on agriculture policies on a Belgian level. The same decision had been made in the early 1990s about environmental policies. Agricultural and environmental policies are under the full authority of both regional governments. 5 This means that concerning the RDPs and more specific the AEM that are part of it, the two regions developed their own policy without any consultation in a Belgian context. The federal stage was omitted and a direct consultation between regional authorities and the EC took place. This paper will discuss the Flemish case, which is the region in the north of the country (Figure 1). Figure 1. Two (independent) RDPs in the Belgium s two regions Flanders (north) and Wallonia (south) F L A N D E R S 6 The Rural Development Program for Flanders (RDP) aims primarily at improving the economic viability of the agricultural sector. Special attention however is given to the enlargement of activities in the agricultural sector and the increased care for the environment. Policy instruments addressing the latter are the Agro Environmental Measures (AEM), a major component of the program. 3

4 7 In 2003, a mid-term evaluation of the program was outsourced. The commissioning authority was the Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis (DAPA), part of the Flemish Agriculture Administration. The study was carried out by a consortium of five organizations: the Department for Agricultural Economics and the Laboratory for Forestry (both are divisions of the University of Gent), Belconsulting, the Centre for Agricultural Economics and IDEA Consult. Among those five, one specialized in environment and another in agricultural economics. In charge of the consortium was Idea Consult, a Belgian based consulting company and part of Ecorys, a multidisciplinary group of European research- and consulting companies. 8 But the above-mentioned DAPA did more than just outsourcing. The terms of reference set forth the role of DAPA in the whole process. In this, DAPA was the counterpart of the consortium. To this purpose it made one member of staff almost full-time available. The set-up proved to be most useful in guiding the consortium trough the muddle of responsible administrations, this to find the required contacts and to obtain the proper indicators without losing track of the evaluation objectives. Because DAPA s other task concerning the RDP, the collection of relevant output indicators and the annual progress report, its experience was highly appreciated by the consortium. 9 The 2003 study was the first in Flanders analyzing the existing AEM as a whole. Because the existing measures were far from being managed coherently, analysis proved difficult. The reason for this divided management was twofold: On the one hand a complex and continuous changing institutional situation caused by the gradual shift of agricultural and environmental authority to the regional governments. On the other hand a rather reluctant attitude towards implementing agri-environmental measures in Flanders in the 1990s. 10 Flanders was late in implementing AEM. It did not implement article 19 of Regulation 797/85, not even when European support was attributed to these measures as described in Regulation 1760/87. Even regulation 2078/92 was not put into practice in Flanders. The European Commission approved the Flemish environmental program already in 1994 but it was only in autumn 1999 that this program was translated into applicable AEM. 11 With the Rural Development Plan Flanders tried to catch up on AEM with the other European countries. The preparatory work of the 1990s became the core of the agri environmental chapter in the RDP By the end of 2000 the program had been approved by the EC so implementation of the policy could finally begin. As shown in Figure 2, the ecological expenses (mostly AEM) represent 28,4% of the total RDP expenses in This figure doesn t differ much of the share of total ecological expenses in the total expenses for the whole program period

5 Figure 2. Percentage of ecological, social and economical expenses in the Flemish RDP in 2003 ecological 28,4% social 7,8% economical 63,8% Source: Mira T Environmental Report, The assessment of the AEM in 2003 took place in the context of a mid-term evaluation of the whole program. This evaluation considered the implementation period of the AEM. The measures subject to evaluation (Box 1) can be divided into two types: (1) measures directed at farming practices and (2) measures directed at nature and landscape management. Although most of the measures had been running since 2000, that wasn t the case for the integrated program management. At the start up, there was little awareness for the need to collect monitoring and evaluation indicators. This lack of awareness combined with the early stage of this evaluation (barely three years after implementation of the measures and only two years after official EU approval of the program) made it for the evaluator a difficult task to measure the first results. Box 1. AEM applied trough the Flemish RDP (1) AEM directed at farming practices x Soil cover x Mechanical weeding x Reduction of fertilizers and pesticides in ornamental plant cultivation x Conservation of genetic diversity of local species threatened by extinction x Organic farming x Integrated fruit production x Reduced fertilizers compared to the standard Vulnerable area water (Water Management) x Conversion of traditional to organic pig farms (2) AEM directed at nature and landscape management x Management of meadow birds x Management of field edges x Restoring, planting and maintaining of small landscape elements x Source: RDP Flanders, 2000 Botanical Management (Nature Management) 5

6 2. OBJECTIVES OF THE AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES 13 In the RDP, among the ten strategic goals of the program, 4 are related to environment: x Promotion of high quality production methods that are environmentally friendly, animal friendly and socially acceptable; x Fast development of multifunctionality, organic farming and direct marketing; x Involving farmers and horticulturalists in nature development within agricultural areas and beyond in delimited areas; x Conversion to a sustainable water management. 14 But the relation between these strategic goals and the AEM chapter is not transparent. No specific objectives were defined for the measures. In fact, for the 12 AEM of the RDP, only hazy expected outcomes were defined (Table 1). Table 1. Expected outcome of the AEM in the Flemish RDP Soil cover Agri-environmental measure Mechanical weeding Reduction of fertilizers and pesticides in ornamental plant cultivation Conservation of genetic diversity of local species threatened by extinction Management of meadow birds Management of field edges Restoring, planting and maintaining of small landscape elements Botanical Management (Nature Management) Reduced fertilizers compared to the standard in Vulnerable area water (Water Management) Conversion of traditional to organic pig farms Organic farming Integrated fruit production Source: RDP Flanders, 2000 Expected outcome - Prevention of soil erosion - Water quality improvement - Increase humification - Use-reduction of plant protection products (PPPs) - Use-reduction of plant protection products (PPPs) and fertilizers - Preservation of endangered breeds - Increasing biodiversity - Preservation and protection of meadow bird populations - Increasing biodiversity - Water quality improvement - Prevention of soil erosion (if edges along rivers) - Increasing biodiversity - Landscape development - Increasing biodiversity - Water quality improvement - Water quality improvement (lower nitrate concentrations on bottom and surface water) - Increasing organic farming - Decreasing manure problem - Countering pollution - Increasing biodiversity - Improving soil quality - Improving food safety - Countering pollution - Improving food safety 15 There were about contracted hectares in Flanders in However, several AEM can be applied to the same parcel, so the real surface under one or more AEM is estimated to be about hectares, or 10% of the Flemish farmland. No ranking of importance of the different measures is given in the RDP. However, total number of hectares per measure and expenditure data can give an indication (Table 2). 6

7 Table 2. Number of hectares and expenditure for AEMs in the Flemish RDP in 2003 Measure contracted surface (ha) % expenditure (1000 EUR) % Soil cover ,26% ,15% Mechanical weeding ,87% 346 2,13% Reduction of fertilizers and pesticides in ornamental plant cultivation 767 0,84% 72 0,44% Conservation of genetic diversity of local species threatened by extinction * ,05% 200 1,23% Management of meadow birds 499 0,55% 227 1,40% Management of field edges 308 0,34% 225 1,38% Restoring, planting and maintaining of small landscape elements ,12% 186 1,14% Botanical Management (Nature Management) ,11% 612 3,76% Reduced fertilizers compared to the standard Vulnerable area water (Water Management) ,56% ,77% Conversion of traditional to organic pig farms 6 0,01% 5 0,03% Organic farming ,13% 667 4,10% Integrated fruit production ,23% ,46% TOTAL BUDGET ,00% ,00% Source: Annual Progress Report RDP Flanders, As shown in the table, the foremost important measure is the one addressing the nitrate problem. The measure is called Reduced fertilizers compared to the standard Vulnerable area water (Water Management) and consumes almost two thirds of the budget of the AEM chapter in the RDP. Second most import measure in budget terms is Soil cover while Integrated fruit production ranks third. The most economical measure, Conversion of traditional to organic pig farms, costs about 5000¼,W concerns only two farms and can hardly be called a success. Using the classification of Box 1, 92% of the AEM budget is directed at farming practices. Only 8% is directed at nature and landscape management. 3. EVALUATION CRITERIA 17 Different aspects of AEM were analyzed. Because of the early stage of implementation, most of the evaluator s attention was directed at how public authorities were implementing and monitoring the measures and what the first results and the possible environmental effects were. Several types of criteria were used at this. Progress of implementation 18 The most easily verifiable criterion is the progress of program implementation in relation to the targeted output. For instance, a measure aims at a surface of X hectares in The criterion is then X hectares. In fact, these kinds of criteria should be an integral part of any program. However, not all targets were well-considered in the Flemish RDP and some had to be adjusted or re-interpreted (by the evaluator and in consultation with the administration) in order to give a realistic judgment of the progress of implementation. 7

8 Accuracy of the support 19 Compliance with article 24 of Regulation 1257/99 was also verified. This article firstly states that support in respect of an agri-environmental commitment shall be calculated on the basis of the income foregone, the additional costs resulting from the commitment and the need to provide an incentive. So the criterion was accuracy of the support. Interesting is that next to a recalculation of the costs of each measure, a survey was done to ask the involved farmers whether they found the support to be sufficient. Soft effects 20 The survey examined the soft effect of the measure. Changes in attitude of the farmers were measured, next to awareness with respect to the environment. These kinds of questions are very relevant to keep authorities informed of what s happening on the field. Efficiency of implementation 21 Although implementing costs, both for public authorities and private sector have not been subject to evaluation, efficiency of implementation was also a criterion. Because of the long procedures, the many organizations involved, the rather decentralized organization and the many rules to comply with, the evaluator pointed at the high governmental costs of implementing AEM in Flanders. The same applies to the high (transactional) costs to be made by the private sector. The criterion was qualitative, so no calculations of costs were made. Environmental effectiveness 22 The last and most difficult type of criteria in the evaluation was about environmental effectiveness. These criteria were all part of the evaluation framework set up by the European Commission. The criteria were about soil, surface and ground water quality, biodiversity and landscape. Because of the very early stage of the program, most of the answers to these common evaluation questions could not be quantified and were most difficult to underpin. 4. EVALUATION TOOLS AND METHODS 23 The methodology of the evaluator consisted first of all in collecting relevant data and knowledge in order to assess the progress of program implementation. For this purpose, actors involved in the public authorities were consulted frequently. This was necessary because the different AEM are managed by three different governmental administrations, each with its own corporate culture, approach and management of the measures. To say it this way, the only thing the different measures had in common, was that they were (accidentally) part of the same program. 24 Very useful in the organization of the evaluation process was the assistance offered by the Division for Agricultural Policy Analysis (DAPA), the principal of the evaluation assignment. As already mentioned above, one member of staff was almost full-time occupied in assisting the consortium. 8

9 25 Interviews were held with experts of different environmental issues, like soil, birds, biodiversity, water quality etc. An important part of the data collection consisted of holding a survey among farmers applying AEM. This was done to collect the necessary data not available in the administration s monitoring system. The survey consisted of about 200 farmers, implementing and not implementing AEM in the whole region. They were questioned about their attitude, whether they found the support sufficient and what they thought the impact of the measure was on their farmland and on biodiversity in general. The sample of 200 farmers was taken out of the Flemish Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), so also financial data could be analyzed. 26 The analysis consisted further of making some cross tables and setting out the frequency of different types of answers. Concerning one AEM called Soil cover, for one specific case (a municipality) a GIS-overlay with maps indicating soil sensitivity for erosion was made. 5. BASELINE SCENARIOS 27 Two methodologies for evaluating the measures can be distinguished: the no policy situation and farmers not affected by the policy. No policy situation Example: survey among 109 farmers receiving AEM support 28 In the survey, 109 farmers receiving AEM support were asked would you have started implementing AEM without support?. Table 3 gives the answers per measure. A surprisingly 51% of the farmers stated that they also would have started with the AEM without support. Only 28% answered that they never would have started without support. According to these figures, support was very relevant for Management of meadow birds (75%) and Mechanical Weeding (44%) and almost not relevant for Reduction of fertilizers and pesticides in ornamental plant cultivation (100%) and Integrated fruit production (75%). 9

10 Table 3. The influence of support on the decision to start with an AEM according to survey results Measure would have started without support (%) would have started but on a smaller scale (%) would have started but later (%) wouldn t have started (%) All measures with support Soil cover Mechanical weeding Reduction of fertilizers and pesticides in ornamental plant cultivation number Management of meadow birds Management of field edges Restoring, planting and maintaining of small landscape elements Botanical Management (Nature Management) Reduced fertilizers compared to the standard Vulnerable area water (Water Management) Integrated fruit production Source: Mid-Term Evaluation RDP Flanders, 2003 Example: case at municipal level 29 The effect of the measure Soil cover was calculated. For one specific community (case study), the tons of avoided erosion were calculated. For this purpose, an overlay of the parcels with the AEM Soil cover and a soil map indicating sensitivity for erosion was made. In literature it was found that soil cover results in a reduction of erosion of 50%. Compared to the no policy situation however, one needs to take into account the results of Table 3. Concerning Soil cover, 50% would have started without support, so the real net effect of that measure is half of the calculated reduction. Example: interviews with experts 30 Experts were interviewed and literature was reviewed in order to get an answer to the question of no policy. For instance concerning one measure called Management of meadow birds experts found the parcels on which the AEM were applied too fragmented. It was recommended that the measures, although they are only eligible in designated areas, should be more part of an integrated territorial approach. The measure should also be accompanied by other measures and enforced for all parcels in the area. Without the condition of no fragmentation, the situation is not expected to make much of a difference with the no policy situation. Farmers not affected by the policy Example: survey among 68 farmers implementing AEM without support 31 In the survey, 68 farmers indicated that although they were implementing AEM, they were not receiving any AEM support. Table 4 gives the survey results per measure. The reason for not receiving support is mostly the administrative burden (25%) and not being informed of support possibilities (25%). The administrative burden seems to be very high in the measure Reduction of fertilizers and pesticides in ornamental plant cultivation (50%). 10

11 32 Of course these last figures are not that straightforward. Most of the farmers think that the efforts they are doing are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the AEM. However, the terms of reference of the AEM contracts are quite demanding. As stated in the Rural Development Regulation, Agri-environmental commitments shall involve more than the application of usual good farming practice. Probably the farmers are strongly overestimating their own agri-environmental efforts and are in most of the cases not eligible for support. Table 4. Reasons for not receiving support for AEM by farmers in 2003 Measure not eligible (%) not interested (%) support too small (%) Not aware (%) too large administrat ive burden (%) Without support Soil cover Mechanical weeding Reduction of fertilizers and pesticides in ornamental plant cultivation Management of meadow birds 0 Management of field edges Restoring, planting and maintaining of small landscape elements number (%) Botanical Management (Nature Management) Reduced fertilizers compared to the standard Vulnerable area water (Water Management) Integrated fruit production Source: Mid-Term Evaluation RDP Flanders, 2003 Example: survey about future income 33 In the survey, all farmers were questioned about their future income expectations. Three groups can be compared (Table 5): farmers implementing AEM with support, without support and not implementing AEM. Most of the farmers don t seem very positive about their future but those who are most positive are those not implementing AEM. In fact, least positive are the farmers implementing AEM with support. A possible explanation for this could be that the farmers implementing AEM according to the terms of reference are most aware of the issue of agriculture and environment. Table 5. Survey on expected future income in three groups of farmers: implementing AEM with support, without support and not implementing AEM Future income (%) very positive Moderately positive moderately negative very negative total AEM with support AEM without support No AEM Source: Mid-Term Evaluation RDP Flanders,

12 Example: diary cattle farmers 34 Because support for investments is the largest expenditure of the RDP, most attention went to the analysis of this chapter. Investment support in the RDP is available for almost all kind of farming types, as long as the criteria for support are fulfilled. To answer the evaluation questions on investments, the evaluator chose to focus only on one type of farming, the specialized diary farmers. Out of the Flemish FADN, 87 farms were selected of which data was available for the period In that period, 32 farms made investments and therefore received investment support, 26 farms made investments but without investment support and 29 farms made no investments at all. 35 Investment support is a measure already existing since Because too limited data was available for the period (no data for 2002 was available) and because the measure now included in the RDP does not differ much of the one before 2000, data from 1995 on was taken into account to answer the RDP evaluation questions. 36 Because of the large amount of data in the FADN, almost all economical indicators at farm level concerning the three groups could be calculated. Table 6 gives an example of a calculation of revenues from milk and meat production per worked hour. All figures are statistically significant and show the economical advantages of investment support. Table 6. Revenues from milk and meat per worked hour (euro/hour) in three groups of farmers Revenues of milk and meat per worked hour (euro/hour) Investments with support 26,95 30,37 30,84 32,23 34,53 Investments without support 24,10 29,25 28,61 30,52 30,09 No investments 22,85 25,04 24,79 24,96 26,43 Source: Mid-Term Evaluation RDP Flanders, Because these farmers were also part of the survey, they were asked how their environmental situation had changed since 2000 (Figure 3). Although not all investments are directed at environment, the figures give an indication of the positive impact of investment policy of the RDP on the environment according to the farmer s perception. 12

13 Figure 3. Perception of environmental improvement in three groups of farmers 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 61% 60% 51% 33% 31% 26% 23% 10% 6% strong improvement improvement no change no investments investments without support investments with support Source: Mid-Term Evaluation RDP Flanders, DISTANGLING OF POLICY MEASURES 38 No methods for this purpose were used. All of the attention of the evaluator went to the collection and interpretation of relevant data completed with expert analysis. 39 Problems with disentangling are that the same objectives are pursued by different measures, both part of the RDP as outside the RDP. So what is the contribution of that specific measure? Moreover in Flanders, measuring effects of single AEM would be very difficult because the surface would become very small and disintegrated for most of the measures. About 10% of the farmland is under 12 AEM, so little impact of single measures is to be expected. 7. LESSONS LEARNED 40 The survey is definitely the stronghold of the evaluation of the AEM. Because the farmers are the target group of the AEM, a survey measuring their attitude and incentives is key relevant information for policy makers. 41 Farmers affected and not affected by the policy were studied in the analysis of the investment chapter of the RDP. Among those not affected by the policy, it was important to distinguish two groups: farmers implementing the measure (or a kind of) but not eligible for support and farmers not implementing any kind of measure at all. An analysis of the arguments of those not eligible can give useful information. 13

14 42 Next to attitude, economical performance indicators were calculated for three groups of farmers: investments with RDP support, investments without RDP support and no investment. The last two categories are farmers not affected by the policy. Data from the FADN was used for the period Only the farming type specialized diary was taken into account. Because of this focus on one type, indicators were easier to compare and so conclusions could be drawn. 43 The EU common evaluation framework was difficult to implement. Not all questions were relevant for the Flemish program and moreover, proposed criteria and indicators were too detailed. Almost all the questions were aiming at an assessment of the environmental impact of the measures. But expecting an in depth impact analysis of a mid-term evaluation is not realistic. Progress of implementation 44 Not all AEM were on schedule. For some measures, no or no realistic targets had been defined. But altogether, taking the difficult start of the RDP into account, the evaluator concluded that the AEM chapter was gathering momentum. Accuracy of the support 45 Not all support meets the needs. For some measures the support should be raised in order to comply with article 24 of Regulation 1257/99. Soft effects 46 There is a positive influence on the mentality of the farmers to be more environmentally aware. Moreover, support for AEM at an (actual) small part of the total population could influence farmers to convince other (new) farmers. Efficiency of implementation 47 The managing authority was made aware of the high transaction costs involved in program implementation. These costs can be reduced through a more integrated approach to the program. Fundamental to performing an evaluation is the existence of a comprehensive monitoring system. Although separated monitoring systems were available, more integration is necessary. In fact, a finetuning of monitoring at all levels needs to be done. At present, there are still four types of data collection in RDPs (monitoring indicators of the EC, evaluation indicators of the EC, financial data and data collected in the administrative divisions). 48 The integrated approach assists in the set-up of different targets of the program at different levels (strategic, output, result, outcome). This allows program management to focus more on results and targets to be achieved. 14

15 Environmental effectiveness 49 Looking at the soil, one can definitely say that the measures are reducing soil erosion and chemical contamination of soils. The reduction in sediments and chemicals can easily be calculated by comparing the good agricultural practice with the agricultural practices under the AEM. Of course, the percentage of farmers declaring in the survey that they would have implemented the measures without support, need to be subtracted to calculate the net policy effect. 50 Water quality is more difficult to measure because not all observations of a certain (bad) water quality are due to agriculture and not all improvements can be attributed to AEM. Furthermore, because AEM are not restricted to certain areas but are generally applicable, one parcel can be under an AEM while the adjacent parcel may not. So only with a sufficient and concentrated area under AEM one may measure water quality improvements in a specific area. At present, no measurable effects can be shown for Flanders. 51 The area of farmland under agreements targeting particular wildlife species was calculated but evidence for a positive relationship between the supported actions and the abundance of the targeted species could not be given. 52 Generally spoken, all AEM contribute in one way or the other to a better environment. Moreover, most of the AEM contribute both to the soil and water quality and to biodiversity and landscape. Multiple objective policy measures are difficult to evaluate. Ex-ante versus ex post 53 Concerning the results and the expected outcome, the ex-ante noticed a lack of criteria and target levels for all the AEM in the RDP. Only at output level of the measures (number of hectares, number of farmers), quantitative targets had been specified. The ex-ante however didn t elaborate the lacking targets and indicators itself. 8. CONCLUSIONS 54 By the European Commission s common monitoring and evaluation framework, the managing authority of the Flemish RDP was obliged to perform a mid-term evaluation of the program. At the start of the program, little action was taken to underpin the program with indicators and criteria. In fact, little was done to prepare a mid-term and ex-post evaluation. The only monitoring foreseen at program level consisted of the financial data from the paying agency and the indicators of the annual progress report that has to be sent to the EC each year. Despite these problems caused by the difficult start of the program, the evaluator together with the DAPA realized a useful report. It contained recommendations for the different administrative units on program implementation. It brought insight in how an integrated monitoring and evaluation framework should be organized. The survey was very useful to keep authorities informed of what s happening on the field. For instance, the attitude of farmers implementing the policy could be compared with farmers not affected by the policy. Moreover, the use of the FADN made it possible to calculate financial result indicators at farm level. 55 More difficult however was linking the measures with the environmental results on the field. Because of the early stage of the program implementation and the lack of data, little results on this part were achieved. 15

16 LIST OF REFERENCES Annual Progress Report RDP Flanders. (2003). Brussels, 37p. Mid-Term Evaluation RDP Flanders. (2003). Evaluatie van het Vlaamse Programma voor Plattelandsontwikkeling. Consortium van de afdeling Landbouweconomie en het Laboratorium voor Bosbouw van de Universiteit Gent, Belconsulting, het Centrum voor Landbouweconomie en IDEA Consult, Brussel. IDEA Consult, 536 p. (with english summary) Mira T Environmental Report. (2004). Brussel, 488p. RDP Flanders. (2000). Programmeringdocument voor Plattelandsontwikkeling in Vlaanderen van Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Dept. EWBL, Administratie Land en tuinbouw, ALT, Brussel, 351p. 16