Flanders – Belgium)

Prospects and challenges for agricultural diversification in a peri-urban region (Flanders – Belgium)

August 2007

Cazaux G., Carels K., Van Gijseghem D.

VLAAMSE OVERHEID Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij Afdeling Monitoring en Studie (AMS) Koning Albert II laan 35, bus 40 1030 Brussel 1

Prospects and challenges for agricultural diversification in a peri-urban region (Flanders – Belgium).

Cazaux G., Carels K., Van Gijseghem D. (AMS)

Download PDF-document: Paper, 30 blz

The following report is instigated by a call for case material from the Joint Working Party on Agriculture and the Environment, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007) in response to COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2007)22. The scope fits into the 2007-2008 Work Programme of the Committee for Agricultural Relating to the Impacts of Agricultural Policies on Rural Community Well-Being. One of the goals put forward is to present a report on the effects of agricultural policies on sustainable land use management and the provision of rural amenities in rural areas. Chapter 2 presents some key characteristics of the rural area and agricultural activity in Flanders. The following chapters present a general outline of Flemish agricultural policy and land use planning policy, specifically relevant to the issues raised in this overview. Lastly, some specific case material pertaining to diversification activities on farms in Flanders (Belgium) is presented. A fourfold set of conclusions sums up some considerations on a diversified agriculture in the rural urban fringe.

Beschikbaarheid: downloadbaar in PDF-formaat

Bestellingen:

Afdeling Monitoring en Studie Koning Albert II laan 35, bus 40 - 1030 Brussel Tel: 02/552.78.24- Fax: 02/552.78.21 e-mail: [email protected]

Vermenigvuldiging of overname van gegevens zijn toegestaan mits expliciete bronvermelding: Cazaux G., Carels K. & Van Gijseghem D. (2007) Prospects and challenges for agricultural diversification in a peri-urban region (Flanders – Belgium), Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Monitoring en Studie, Brussel.

1. Introduction

“The main objectives of the study would be to enhance understanding and analysis of the implications of agricultural policies and policy reform for land management and rural amenity provision, taking into account the different structures of ownership, property rights, and the diversity of rural areas, particularly the rural-urban fringe. It would also consider how other policies, including those related to land use, zoning and fiscal measures, might be used to encourage the sustainable provision of land-based environmental goods and services on economically viable farms in rural areas.” (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007, 5)

In undertaking this work, the Secretariat will also be seeking input and assistance from countries particularly in terms of provision of relevant material, including specific case material that Delegations may be able to provide or draw to the attention of the Secretariat. In this respect, we present case material pertaining to diversification activities among farmers in Flanders (one of the three regions in Belgium), and policy measures possibly influencing its development. Given the peculiar situation of Flanders, this relates specifically to land management in the rural urban fringe, one of the categories in the illustrative matrix of policy measures and farmland management practices (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007, 12).

Chapter 2 presents some key characteristics of the rural area and agricultural activity in Flanders. The following chapter presents a general outline of Flemish agricultural policy, specifically relevant to the issues raised in this overview. The fourth chapter focuses on land use planning policy. In chapter 5, some specific case material pertaining to diversification activities on farms in Flanders is presented. A fourfold set of conclusions sums up some considerations on a diversified agriculture in the rural urban fringe.

2. The rural area and agriculture in the Flemish region

This section presents some key characteristics of the Flemish rural area and the agricultural sector in Flanders. In doing so, we point to the specificity of the Flemish situation with respect to the rural urban fringe and the situation of the agricultural sector in Flanders.

2.1. General overview The Flemish region is one of the three regions of Belgium, north of to the Walloon region and the Brussels Capital Region1. Flanders is situated at the heart of Europe, with boundaries with the Netherlands, France and the other two Belgian regions. The Flemish region is close to other large metropolitan regions of North West Europe. Table 1 and Table 2 show some distinguishing features of the Belgian regions. The surface of the Flemish region (see Table 1) covers nearly half of the Belgian territory (13.522 km2 out of a total of 30.528 km2). The Flemish population noticeably outnumbers its Walloon counterpart and the population density in Flanders is more than double the Walloon’s region population density (in 2005 respectively 446/km2 and 201/km2). As such, Flanders has one of the highest population density levels in Europe. The area with the highest population density is mainly situated in the central part of Flanders enclosed by the cities of Antwerp, Ghent and Brussels (see Figure 1).

Table 1: Surface area Belgium and its regions (km2 and percentage) (FOD Economie, 2007a). km²% Flemish Region 13.522 44,29 Walloon Region 16.844 55,18 Brussels Capital 162 0,53 region TOTAL Belgium 30.528 100

Table 2: Population density Belgium and its regions (inhabitants/km2) (FOD Economie, 2007b). 1/1/2004 1/1/2005 Flemish Region 444,9 446,9 Walloon Region 200,7 201,6 Brussels Capital 6.195,80 6.238,30 Region TOTAL Belgium 340,6 342,2

2.2. The rural area According to the OECD criterion, a community is defined as rural if its population density is below 150 inhabitants per square kilometre. When geographically applying this population density threshold to the Belgian situation, it appears that only a small fraction of the Flemish area fits the OECD’s definition of rural area. In Figure 1, population density is shown on the level of the community2. The blank areas in Figure 1 represent those with a population density of less than 150 inhabitants per square kilometre. The darker the area, the higher the population density.

1 The three Belgian regions are situated on the NUTS 1 level (NUTS = Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics). 2 There are 589 communities in Belgium. This is the LAU 2 level (Local Administrative Units). 4

Figure 1: Population density according to the proposed delineation criteria – Belgium (Lenders et al., 2006).

This definition of ‘rural’ would lead to determine that only a small fraction of Flanders, being 10%, matches this definition. This categorization does not correspond with common delineations of the Flemish countryside (Lenders et al., 2006). Research from the Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries research and the Department for Policy Analysis set out to adjust the OECD’s arbitrary demarcation criterion to Flemish circumstances. The researchers transformed different existing delineations (e.g. urban districts, spatial complexes, open space, the environs or outskirts according to the Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders, etc) to a 0-100 index and assembled them in a rurality index. The misallocation analysis on this index revealed an optimal threshold for population density of 600 inhabitants per square kilometre for Flanders3. This approach consequently leads to different thresholds for different countries. Future research is set out to transcend the dichotomised division between rural and urban and determine three or more divisions based on the 0-100 scaled rurality index (Lenders et al., 2006).

The territorial classification of municipalities according to the Spatial Structure Plan Flanders and the Strategic Plan Spatial Economy categorizes a large part of the Flemish region as regional urban, suburban provincial area and transitional area (see Figure 2).

3 The optimal population density threshold for the Walloon region was set at 300 inhabitants per km2. This discrepancy between the Flemish and the Walloon region was largely due to the different perceptions of the experts in the research (Lenders et al., 2006). 5

Figure 2: Territorial classification of the municipalities according to the classification of the Spatial Structure Plan Flanders and the Strategic Plan Spatial Economy (number of communities) (Departement Algemene Zaken en Financiën, 2005; Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering, 2006).

2.3. Agriculture in rural and non-rural areas As Figure 3 shows, more than half of the Flemish farms are located in areas which are not denoted as countryside. As such, many farms are found in the transitional area, the Metropolitan Brussels area, the structure supporting cities and the regional urban fringe.

Figure 3: Location of farms in Flanders (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie, Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007). Location of farms in Flanders

centre cities

metropolitan fringe

metropoles

suburban provincial area

transitional area

countryside

regional urban fringe

Metropolitan Brussels area

Structure supporting cities

It is noteworthy to add that in Flanders, as in many other parts of Europe, the rural area is characterised by the farmed landscape. In Flanders, there are hardly any undeveloped areas left. The agricultural sector occupies more than half of the Flemish surface area. As Table 3 shows, the area of uncultivated (= not built-on) land largely outnumbers the percentage of built-on area, respectively being 74,4% and 25,6%. The data in this table demonstrate that the area of built-on land has gradually increased the last couple of years.

Table 3: Built-on land and related territory Flanders (percentage) (2002-2006) (FOD Economie, 2007c). 2002 20032004 2005 2006 Built-on grounds 24,90 25,10 25,30 25,40 25,60 and related (a) Non- built-on 75,10 74,90 74,70 74,60 74,40 surface (b) TOTAL surface 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 area Flanders Categorization according to the OESO and Eurostat definitions. (a) This includes: residential areas; stone quarries, mines etc; other industrial buildings and premises, business buildings and premises; public buildings and grounds (except transportation, telecommunication and technical amenities); mixed areas; grounds for transportation and telecommunication; grounds for technical amenities; recreational areas and other open space; dispersed farms are not included. (b) This holds, among other non built-on areas, the agricultural area.

As in other regions, agricultural activity in Flanders has changed considerably, with the main trends determining its development in the second half of the twentieth century: intensification, specialisation and concentration. As can be seen in Figure 4, the total number of agri- and horticulture businesses in Flanders has declined steadily reaching a figure of 34.410 in 2005, while the mean surface area of Flemish farms has gradually increased to an average of 18,3 hectare per farm. The price of agricultural land has more than doubled the last decade reaching an amount of 3,16 Euro per square meter for arable land and pastures in 2005 and 11 Euro per square meter for horticultural land in 2004.

The last couple of years, the surface of permanent grassland and pastures has decreased slightly, in favour of arable land (see Table 4).

Figure 4: Total number agri- and horticulture farms and mean surface per farm (ha) (1992-2005) (Afdeling Monitoring en Studie, 2007).

55.000 19

50.000 17

45.000 15

14 number farms

40.000 mean surface (ha)

12 35.000

total number agri- and horticulture farms 11 mean surface (ha)

30.000 10 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Table 4: Land-use of agricultural area in Flanders (percentage) and total agricultural area Flanders (hectare) (AMS, 2007) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 arable land 53,25 53,05 53,45 53,41 54,51 54,87 55,05 permanent crops 8,85 9,47 9,46 9,75 9,20 9,17 9,29 permanent grassland and 37,89 37,46 37,06 36,82 36,28 35,94 35,64 pasture TOTAL agricultural area 636.876 635.155 635.866 634.934 633.769 629.684 625.207 Flanders

The evolution of the output value, the gross added value at market prices and the net added value at factor costs of agricultural activity in Flanders displays a slight decline when comparing the data from 2005 to 2000 (see Table 5). In 2005, the output value was 4.494.982 thousand Euro. When relating this to the total surface area of agricultural land (629.684), this leads to 7138 Euro per hectare in 2005.

Table 5: Evolution of output value, gross added value at market prices and net added value at factor costs in Flanders (thousand Euro) (Demuynck, Bernaerts & Platteau, 2006). 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Output value 4.688.844 4.811.078 4.527.270 4.600.029 4.471.082 4.494.982 Gross added value at 1.743.644 1.791.418 1.613.603 1.710.401 1.558.922 1.563.330 market prices 8

Net added value at 1.517.744 1.552.710 1.382.553 1.480.854 1.330.644 1.348.682 factor costs Current prices VAT not included

When combining these data with the above mentioned 10% of rural area in Flanders (according to the OECD criterion of rural area defined by the threshold of population density), this would imply that only a small fraction of Flemish agricultural activity is to be found in this ‘rural area’. Again, this does not correspond to common delineations of the rural area (see above).

Next to the population numbers, surface data and records on agricultural activity in Flanders, some other characteristics need to be taken into account when describing the Flemish countryside. The expansion of the agricultural sector in Flanders not only entailed larger farming businesses (rise of average farm acreage per business), but accordingly a decline of the number of farms (see above, Figure 4). As such, thousands of abandoned farmhouses – highly appraised by city dwellers seeking to experience the calmness and authenticity of the countryside – entered the housing market and became inhabited by non-professional farmers. In this respect, many houses are foreign to the functional zone of ‘agriculture’, although policy measures have ensured the maintenance and continuation of these infrastructures.

Flanders also has a very dense transport infrastructure (roads, railways, canals), adding to the fragmentation of the outskirts (see Table 6). These characteristics, together with the high level of ribbon building in Flanders mean that agricultural activity is executed in close proximity of non-farming rural inhabitants.

Table 6: Road network Flanders, 2000-2005 (km & absolute evolution and percentage) (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie, Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007, 18). 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Evolution Evolution Evolution 2005/2004 2005/1995 2005/1995

Highways 849 849 849 849 867 867 = +44 +5,3% District 5.400 5.420 5.425 5.372 5.372 5.372 = -113 -2,1% roads(a) Provincial 635 635 635 635 635 635 = +30 +5,0% roads Municipal 61.100 61.460 61.820 62.180 62.550 62.909 +359 +4.009 +6,8% roads(b) paved(c) 51.500 51.800 52.120 52.400 52.720 53.036 +316 +1.336 +2,6% unpaved(c) 9.600 9.660 9.700 9.780 9.830 9.873 +43 +2.673 +37,1% TOTAL 67.984 68.364 68.729 69.036 69.424 69.783 +359 +3.970 +6,0% Flemish Region (a) Including drives, slip roads, and parking lots. (b) Excluding farm roads and paths. (c) Since 1999, gravel roads are no longer considered paved roads.

Deducing from these characteristics, Flanders can be portrayed as a peri-urban area, in which agriculture is still a significant economic sector. Contrary to many problematic rural areas around the world, for which remoteness and low population density are key issues, the 9

Flemish rural area suffers from high population density and pressure from other sectors. The amount of rural area is diminishing and fragmented and challenged by demands posed by infrastructure, housing, mobility and economic activity. Also, the quality of the environment, of biodiversity and landscape is under serious threat. Because of the pervasive suburbanisation and high population density numbers, it is difficult to present a univocal spatial delineation of the Flemish countryside. The rural outskirts are no longer the monopoly of the agricultural business, which is correspondingly faced by multilateral exigencies of new neighbours and recreational visitors. As such, the Flemish outskirts have become a multidimensional production and a consumption area.

In this respect, Flanders is a member of PURPLE, the Peri-Urban Regions Platform Europe, with eleven member regions representing eight European Union member States. PURPLE was founded in 2004 and seeks to raise awareness about the position, problems and challenges concerning rural and regional development and calls upon the European Union institutions and Member States to recognize the importance of peri-urban regions and the specific position of agriculture in these regions.

3. Agricultural policy in Flanders

The European Agricultural Policy is based on a twofold structure, defined as Pillar I and Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Accordingly, the Flemish agricultural policy follows this dual structure, on the one hand setting out measures focused on price and income support, on the other hand providing measures for rural development. In 2003, the CAP was thoroughly reformed. Key elements of the reformed CAP are the following: • A single farm payment for EU farmers independent from production. Some limited coupled elements may be maintained to avoid abandonment of production. • The single farm payment is linked to the respect for environmental, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare standards, as well as the requirement to keep all farmland in a good agricultural and environmental condition (= cross- compliance). • A strengthened rural development policy with more EU money, new measures to promote the environment, quality and animal welfare and to help farmers to meet EU production standards starting in 2005. • A reduction in direct payments (modulation) for larger farms to finance the new rural development policy. • A mechanism for financial discipline to ensure that the farm budget fixed until 2013 is not exceeded. • Revisions to the market policy of the CAP: price cuts in the milk sector; reforms in the cereal rice, durum wheat, nuts, starch potatoes and dried fodder sectors.

3.1. Price and income support The price and income support measures aim to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community. From 2003 onwards, the financial income support for farmers is framed within the general consumers’ and taxpayers’ demands (e.g. food security, animal welfare), while EU farmers have the freedom to produce according to market driven incentives. The majority of these subsidies is paid independently of the amount of production. 10

The ‘single farm payments’ are linked to the respect for environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards (= cross compliance). The separation of the association between subsidies and production seeks to improve the competitiveness and market orientation of farmers in the European Union, while at the same time providing the necessary income stability.

Environmental concerns play a pivotal role in the Common Agricultural Policy. The Community wants to reach a healthy equilibrium between competitive agricultural production and respect for nature and the environment. The integration process refers to the introduction of measures seeking environmental protection into different Community policy areas. It implies an active pursuit of coherence between agricultural and environmental policy. Starting in 2005, all farmers receiving direct payments were subject to compulsory cross- compliance. Nineteen legislative acts directly relevant at the farm level in the fields of environment, public, animal and plant health and animal welfare have been established and farmers are sanctioned in case of non-compliance (partial or entire reduction of direct support). Beneficiaries of direct payments are also obliged to keep land in good agricultural and environmental condition. This condition includes standards related to soil protection, maintenance of soil organic matter and soil structure, and maintenance of habitats and landscape, including the protection of permanent pasture. In addition, there may not be a significant decrease in the total area of permanent pasture and if necessary, it will be prohibited to converse pasture to arable land. In Flanders, most premiums were decoupled in 2005, with three kinds of single farm payments installed: normal, special and set-aside entitlements. Based on the applications for 2005, respectively an average normal entitlement amounts to 308 Euro per hectare, a special entitlement to 1595 Euro per hectare and a set-aside entitlement totals 361 Euro per hectare. In total, 25.864 farmers (equalling 75% of farms) received a total of 142 million Euro of decoupled premiums in 2006 (Campens et al., 2006).

3.2. Rural Development The first Rural Development Program in Flanders (2000-2006) based on Regulation EC 1257/1999 is mainly focused on agriculture (Administratie Land- en Tuinbouw, 2000). It aims to develop product quality and diversity of agricultural and rural activities, as well as to stimulate employment while supporting the multifunctional role of rural areas through an integrated policy of sustainable development which respects the environment, the landscape and animal welfare. The total public expenditure of the programme is 487,79 million Euro, with a European Community contribution of 195,66 million Euro from the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF/Guarantee) (Carels et al., 2006). Six priority aspects are specified: 1) diversity and quality of rural society; 2) integrated policy of sustainable development (agriculture, horticulture, forestry); 3) environment and animal friendly production methods; 4) quality products (management and communication systems with the consumer); 5) supply diversification (products and services); 6) employment support in a multifunctional context. These priorities are addressed in the following nine measures:

1: Investment in farms 11

These investments encourage sustainable production through the economically viable diversification of farming activities, the reduction of overproduction, the improvement of the environment, and the health and welfare of animals above minimum standards. They can cover the establishment of a multifunctional and sustainable agriculture and the encouragement of organic agriculture, the conversion of farms, property and structural improvements.

2: Setting-up of young farmers This measure, depending on the viability of the farms and a satisfactory level of professional ability, aims to facilitate the renewal of generations and the revival of farms while maintaining sustainable agriculture.

3: Training Four training themes are proposed: conventional agriculture (particularly performing sustainable agricultural techniques), conversion to organic agriculture, forestry and marketing of quality products.

4: Areas subject to environmental constraints The main objective is the restriction on inputs (extensification of pasture land and the prohibition of all extra fertiliser at a level of two livestock units/hectare and total prohibition of polluting plant health products).

5: Agri-environment The agri-environment premiums are awarded to farmers who practise one or several environmentally friendly methods, beyond good agricultural practice, such as for example: winter coverage of the soil with vegetable matter, mechanisation of weeding in order to reduce the use of herbicide, the management of grassland birds, management of plot borders, landscape maintenance, development of grasslands of high botanical value and conversion to organic pig farming.

6: Processing and marketing of products Through support in the form of capital premiums directed mainly at environmental protection, quality control, adaptation of production towards market prospects, technological innovation and the use of by-products and waste, agro-processing firms are supported. The investments should not entail an increased production capacity.

7: Forestry Given an integrated rural development perspective, this includes actions aimed at the growth of the ecological, economic and social value of forests, besides the actual afforestation of agricultural land.

8: Marketing of quality agricultural products The objective is to get farmers acquainted with the marketing possibilities of quality products (farm products, regional specialities, organic products) in order to find new outlets and alternative earnings. Awareness projects, market studies, the harmonisation of sales outlets or the enhanced profile of European labels are means to this end.

9: Encouragement to adapt and develop rural areas This measure has four objectives: diversification of agricultural or related activities and the creation of alternative incomes (new technologies strengthening the relation between producer 12 and consumer, rural tourism, recreational projects); improved integration of villages into the landscape; renewal and development of villages and preservation of rural heritage; specific projects for the integration of vulnerable rural populations and services in sparsely populated areas.

The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in 2003 introduced specific policy measures for rural development. These play a crucial role in the advancement of rural areas to meet the economic, social and environmental challenges of the twenty-first century. The new legal framework explicitly seeks growth and job creation in rural areas (according to the Lisbon Strategy) and an improved sustainability (according to the Göteborg sustainability goals).

Council Regulation 1698/2005 prescribes the commencement of the new programme period on January 1, 2007 lasting till December 2013. The new Rural Development Programme for Flanders (RDP II, 2007-2013) has the same objective as the RDP I (2000-2006): to improve the economic viability of the agricultural sector and make rural areas more sustainable, with particular attention to diversification of activities in the agricultural sector and to increased care for the environment (Departement Landbouw en Visserij, 2007).

The Rural Development program 2007-2013 focuses on three areas according to the three thematic axes stipulated in the new rural development regulation: 1) improving competitiveness for farming and forestry 2) environment and countryside 3) improving quality of life and diversification of the rural economy. A fourth axis – the "Leader axis" – based on experience with the Leader Community initiatives, introduces possibilities for locally based bottom-up approaches to rural development.

For each set of priorities, the European strategic guidelines propose key actions. Member States prepare their national rural development strategies on the basis of six community strategic guidelines, which will help to identify the areas where the use of EU support for rural development creates the most added value at EU level; make the link with the main EU priorities (Lisbon, Göteborg); ensure consistency with other EU policies, in particular cohesion and environment and finally, accompany the implementation of the new market orientated CAP and the necessary restructuring it will entail in the old and new Member States.

The six EU strategic guidelines are: 1) Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors. 2) Improving the environment and the countryside. 3) Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification. 4) Building local capacity for employment and diversification. 5) Translating priorities into programs. 6) Complementarities between community instruments.

As such, Flemish policy holds specific measures to encourage the diversification of agricultural business by means of the Rural Development Program. Specific data covering the Flemish situation with respect to diversification are outlined in Chapter 5.

4. Land use planning policy in Flanders

Similarly to agricultural policy, land use policy is a competence of the regional government in Belgium. In Flanders, the Decree on Spatial Planning of 1996 (adjusted on several occasions thereafter and substantially in 1999) holds the legal framework and set out a strategic and action orientated system of structure planning. It introduced a twofold planning system on respectively the municipal (308 municipalities), the provincial (five provinces) and the regional (Flemish region) governmental level. As such, the Decree stipulates that each governmental level has to provide a spatial structure plan and a spatial implementation plan, nonetheless taking into consideration the principle of subsidiarity and following a hierarchical relationship between the governmental levels. These plans are to replace the regional zoning plans which were drawn in the 1970’s (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Twofold planning system on the three governmental levels (adapted from De Beuckelaere & Van der Lecq, 2002).

Regional level Provincial level Municipal level

Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders Provincial Structure Plan Antwerp, Limburg, East- Flanders, West-Flanders, Flemish Brabant Municipal Structure Plan

Regional Spatial Provincial Spatial Municipal Spatial Implementation Plan Implementation Plan Implementation Plan

A spatial structure plan contains a binding, an indicative and an informative part. It holds the key principles of spatial planning and is formalised and operationalised in the spatial implementation plan. The latter includes a map and stipulations pertaining to regulations on destination, spatial organisation and spatial management.

In 1997, the Spatial Structure plan on the regional level of Flanders (Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur, 2004) was published, putting emphasis on sustainable spatial development in Flanders. The metaphor ‘Flanders, open and urban’ is used to describe its main concern, being the preservation of open spaces and the concentration of growth in urban areas. Preferable means to these ends are the selective expansion of urban areas, the maintenance of open areas, the concentration of economic activities and the optimization of existing traffic and transportation structure.

Figure 6 depicts a schematic representation of the spatial vision on Flanders. Four spatial principles are put forward to materialise the aims on spatial development: 1) deconcentrated clustering, 2) ports as the engine of development, 3) infrastructure as connection and basis for the location of activities and 4) the physical system as spatially structuring.

Figure 6: Schematic representation of the spatial vision on Flanders (adapted from Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur, 2004).

Urban areas and networks, open areas, areas for economic activities and infrastructure determine the spatial structure of Flanders. Respectively, the Structure Plan for Flanders stipulates a general approach and a series of goals and development perspectives for each of these components.

The Spatial Plan Flanders stipulated the following objectives for the demarcation of the outskirts.

• 750.000 ha agricultural surface for professional farming (of which 70.000 interwoven nature areas). • 125.000 large nature units + large developing nature units • 150.000 interwoven nature areas • 10.000 ha forest area additionally to the existing area, leading to a total of 53.000 ha forest

The Spatial Structure Plan Flanders (1997) was set out for a ten year period and was supposed to be replaced by a new Structure Plan in 2007. It is now clear that this time frame will not be 15 reached, as for example the demarcation of the outskirts (simultaneously delineating the agricultural areas, the nature areas and the intertwined areas) is far from completed. Especially the delineation of the nature intertwined areas seems to be met with fierce opposition and is a very slow and thorny process. The agricultural sector in particular manifests a reserved attitude in the debate on intertwined nature areas, hoping to acquire legal certainty for the development of the farming business through the delineation of unilateral agricultural areas in the structure implementation plans.

Another instrument at the sideline of land use planning consist of land consolidation. The exchange of plots occurs since the 1950’s, initially with a strong agricultural focus, evolving into more integrated projects from the 1970’s onwards. Recently, two other legal instruments came into the equation, being land development (with a regional specific goal) and land development for nature. In 2006, the decree on Land Banking broadened the legal array of tools for land development. Furthermore, the Flemish Land Agency propagates a new demand driven non-sectoral approach, illustrated in the turnover of its motto from ‘caring for the open space’ to ‘your partner in open space’. Nonetheless, new legislative instruments which are modular and sector neutral are called for to meet the needs of current developments in rural areas (Celen, 2007).

5. Diversification of agricultural activities

5.1. Defining diversification A multifunctional agriculture implies that the farmer extends his scope beyond the intrinsic food production activity to encompass other functions to society. These functions consist of environmental protection, contributing to the quality of life on the countryside, taking care of the landscape and other amenities. Society appeals to the rural community to supply and develop these functions. The basic idea of a multifunctional agriculture is that agricultural production not only provides food and fibre, but additionally supplies non-market commodities, being externalities or public goods.

The Flemish Department for Agricultural Policy Analysis issued a research into the situation of diversified agriculture in Flanders (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007). The research sets out the following classification and delineation of diversification activities in agriculture, with the coloured areas being those aspects of diversification taken into account in the research project. Table 7 depicts the classification and delineation of diversification measures used in this research.

Table 7: Delineation of diversifying activities in research (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007, 10). Income diversification No income Sale of products sale of services Outsourcing diversification production factors Production Traditional Organic farming Agricultural nature Contract work related agriculture New crops (e.g. management (outsourcing human energy crops) - MA meadow bird of physical capital) MA water - MA botanical MA Nature management Mechanical weed - MA hamster control - MA erosion MA protein - Active flooding production areas Product Labelled Market Caring for animals of Dike management related products - farm shop private persons (sheep on dikes of - door-to-door selling the Scheldt) - agricultural fairs Production - Home processing - Processing of wood - On farm energy production Business Maintenance - Wind and solar Agricultural Temporary letting

Diversification of activities of activities Diversification related small landscape energy landscape land, infrastructure, amenities - Aquaculture management machines without - Edge of plots compensation - Small landscape amenities Social activities - Care farm

Tourism Tourism - Farm tourism - Education - Daytrip Non- Additional enterprise Maintenance of Social bonuses business on the farm (e.g. gardens and parks, related sale of inputs, collection of waste, restaurant) etc. MA = Management Agreement

Social tourist activities (so-called yellow services): • Farm Tourism & recreational and educational daytrips: e.g. children’s farm, guided tours, educational centres, etc. • Social activities: care farms

Environment, nature & landscape (so-called green services): • agricultural nature management: meadow birds, botanical management, hamster, erosion, active flooding areas, local management agreements (provinces/ municipalities) • agricultural landscape management: edges of lots, small landscape amenities, local management agreements (provinces/ municipalities), etc.

Production and market (among which blue services): 17

• production and handling: o processing of primary products at the farm, other processing at the farm (e.g. processing of wood) o energy production (wind and solar energy, biomass, etc) o production of new consumer goods (e.g. aquaculture) • market: o farm shop o door-to-door selling, agricultural fairs, etc.

Outsourcing production factors (purple coloured): - letting land and infrastructure - letting machines, etc. - ‘letting’ animals (e.g. dike management) - ‘letting’ human resources = contract work associated with (extern) production, e.g. also ‘external’ animal care - Mix (e.g. horse pensions = letting services and infrastructure)

5.2 Presence of diversification activities on Flemish farms The abovementioned research into diversification in agriculture (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007) portrays an overview of the presence of diversification activities on Flemish farms. Table 8 presents an overview of the available figures per category. These stats would lead to state that there are nearly 6000 farmers in Flanders with one or more diversified activities, being 17,9% of active farm businesses. However, this number still includes some double counts which could not be identified through the collected data in this research project. Flemish research (in Brussels and Western-Flanders) states that 75% of the farmers with diversification activities perform activities belonging to one category (Van Huylenbroeck et al., 2005; Van de Velde et al., 2005). The calculations lead to the conclusion that 4.644 farmers (14,0%) of 33.272 Flemish farmers execute at least one diversification activity.

Table 8: Number and corrected number of diversifiers (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007, 64-65). Type diversification Number Number after Corrected number deduction of Unique farmers known overlap Social tourist activities 554 371 371 Farm tourism, recreational and 328 educational daytrips Care farms 226 Environment, nature and 4.081 4.081 3.061 landscape Combination agricultural nature 3700 and landscape management Agricultural landscape 381 management Production and market 1.155 1.155 866 Processing and sale at the farm 1150 Production of energy and new 5 consumer goods Outsourcing production 369 346 346 factors Contract work 369 TOTAL 6.159 5.953 4644 18

5.3. Financial support for diversification measures

5.3.1. Total support The Rural Development Programme for Flanders 2000-2006 (RDP) is the Flemish implementation of the Council Regulation EC 1257/99 of May 17, 1999. The programme aims to increase the viability of the countryside as a whole and, in particular, to improve the economic viability of the agricultural sector. It pays attention to enlargement of activities in the agricultural sector and to increased care for the environment. As such, it holds specific policy measures to enhance the diversification of agricultural activities. Indeed, the conversion of the European rural policy measures into Flemish policy states as a first strategic goal “to support the economic viability of Flemish agricultural and horticultural companies, through the encouragement of diversification and the spread of risks and developing the multifunctional role” (Dua, s.d., 18-19).

The measures include both financial support for diversified activities (among which VLIF- support4) and financial backing for time intense measures which positively contribute to nature, landscape or caring activities and support for forestry. Estimations on the share of diversified activities in the respective RDP-categories lead to the portrayal of the evolution of diversifying activities as shown in Figure 7. Considering the total period of the RDP from 2000-2006, this amounts to 34,77 million Euro for diversification measures, about 7% of the total expenditure of the first Rural Development Program in Flanders (487,79 million Euro).

Figure 7: Governmental support (1000 Euro) for diversification measures in the Rural Development Programme 2000-2006 (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007, 22).

Diversification farm & countryside tourism 14.000 Market qualitative farm products 12.000

10.000 Market farm products - share farmers

8.000 Forestry 6.000 Environmental measures and 4.000 maintenance as diversification 2.000 Transitional and investment support VLIF for diversification 0 Transitional and investment support VLIF 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 for farm products

5.3.2. Agro-environmental measures In the previous six years (2000-2006) the Rural Development Programme allotted about 6,65 million Euro direct financial support to activities concerning agro-environmental measures5. Figure 8 depicts the support distribution according to the respective measures, in relative numbers (percentage).

4 VLIF = Vlaams Landbouw InvesteringsFonds (Flemish Agricultural Investment Fund). 5 According to this research’s delineation of multifunctional agriculture, this calculation does not take into account the agreements concerning management on water, nature, mechanical weed control, ornamental plant cultivation and measures for ecological agriculture and support per hectare. 19

Figure 8: Amount of support diversified activities (percentage) related to agri-environment (environment, nature and landscape – 3%the green services) in the Rural Development Programme 2000-2006 (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007). 1% 7% Management agreement erosion 16% Genetic diversity

5.3.3. Investment support VLIF Management of meadow birds Figure 9 portrays those activities which have30% received VLIF-support under the denominator diversification, and their proportion according to these numbers.Management These ofnumbers edges of lotsclearly indicate that investments pertaining to the production of dairy products are the most predominant diversification investments (buildings and material,Small summing landscape 33% amenities of all files). About 21% of applications for diversification pertain to farm tourism and welcoming groups 27% Botanical management

Support standard fruit trees 16%

5.3.3. Investment support VLIF

5.3.3. Investment support Looking more closely at the investment support of the Flemish Agricultural Investment Fund, 76% of the files submitted in 2005 (3371 of 4448) concern investments in the category ‘installations, equipment and cattle’. Nearly 23% of these explicitly pertain to environmental measures and 4% to diversification of agriculture and horticulture, as opposed to only 14% and 2,6% in 2004. 54% of all files pertain to investments in the category ‘construction and improvement of business buildings’. Again, some investments can be assigned to improvements regarding the environment, diversification, animal welfare or organic farming. In 2004 and 2005, about 5% of all approved records (224) explicitly related to diversification. In the period 2000-2006, about 1,8 million Euro was bestowed on installations for the diversification of activities on the farm. Four million Euro was provided for equipment to process farm products on the premises and sell products directly, which constitutes about 3,5% of the total budget of the VLIF in that period.

Figure 9 portrays those activities which have received VLIF-support under the denominator diversification, and their proportion according to these numbers. These numbers clearly indicate that investments pertaining to the production of dairy products are the most predominant diversification investments (buildings and material, summing 33% of all files). About 21% of applications for diversification pertain to farm tourism and welcoming groups to farm businesses.

Figure 9: Distribution of activities pertaining to diversification (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007, 22).

However, not all farmers performing diversified activities apply to receive financial support. A research in the province Western-Flanders (Vande Velde et al., 2005) reveals that 69% of diversifiers have not received subsidies at the start of their diversification activities. Nearly a third of the respondents (29%) denotes the lack of subsidies and financial support as an important or very crucial bottleneck. This may be due to the small-scale start up. The diversified activity is often tested on a smaller scale, while there is a higher threshold to receive VLIF-support.

In the following paragraphs, we present some other research results with respect to the Flemish region, specifically focusing on the development of a multifunctional agriculture, and the role of policy measures to enhance this development.

5.4. Sustainable agricultural land-use in an urbanized network society Agriculture can no longer be viewed as a unilateral food producing economic activity, if it wants a place in an urbanized society. This is the basic assumption of this multidisciplinary research performed by researchers from several Flemish universities, in search of general framing conditions for a sustainable agricultural use of space in an urbanized network society (Allaert et al., 2006). It also builds on the hypothesis that societal demands for quality in a given area frame the spatial developmental possibilities of agriculture in that area. The research developed some scenarios from a spatial point of view, on both the meso and the micro level: 21

• On the meso level, the researchers explored the consequences of three alternative planning discourses with respect to the changed relationship between the city and the countryside. These three discourses were based on respectively network of activities, characteristics of ecosystems and systems of places, as opposed to the dominant discourse which positions the city and the countryside as opposite to one another. Both the analytical and the ordering layer of these alternative discourses were explored. • On the micro level, the research was framed within an integrated landscape image, portraying a desirable spatial scenario of a dialogued landscape, in which agriculture moulds a qualitative space together with other users of that space. Thus, the actors and dynamics in this process are the focal point of analysis. The research focused on two regions in Flanders: the region Kortrijk-Roeselaere and the south-western edge of Brussels. To unravel the expectation and attitudes of consumers, the researchers performed an extensive survey, inspired by the research performed by Van Huylenbroeck et al. (2005, see below).

The research concluded that consumers and producers of food can not merely be perceived as consumers and producers of food, but that they can partially be territorialized: there is not one type of consumer or one type of farmer, but a very diversified group on both sides. It also seems that the economic viability of farms in an urbanized context can be augmented through the integration in chains or through the social engagement in diverse forms of diversification. Following the discourse approach at the meso level, and the scenario approach at the micro level, the researchers propose a design of a future spatial image, in which one does not assign functions to areas. Instead, the existing and desired spatial quality of areas is framed according to dynamics, processes and meanings or by assigning a certain spatial coherence to a micro-landscape. Both approaches entail a different policy approach.

5.5. Diversified agriculture in the metropolitan district of Brussels In a joint research project (Van Huylenbroeck et al., 2005; see also Vandermeulen et al., 2006) researchers from several Flemish universities analysed how the capitalization of new patterns of consumption offers survival strategies for agricultural activities in the rural urban fringe, and the strategies which are feasible in this respect. The research focused on the metropolitan district of Brussels, where agriculture faces many pressures. The survival strategies include active diversification (processing and sale at the farm, farm tourism, daytrips), passive diversification (renting out land and infrastructure), non-market landscape measures (hedges, hedgerows, wooded banks or trees) and measures for the environment. Urbanization entails both advantages (larger sales potential) and disadvantages (increased land competition) for the farmers in the peri-urban area. Part of this research project aimed at examining the influence of local and regional policies on the adoption of multifunctional farming systems.

The researchers performed surveys among civilians (consumers), farmers and the local communalities at the edge of Brussels to unravel the expectations both at the side of demand (consumers) and alternately at the supply side. The research hypotheses and questions where categorized into four domains, being • Expectation of function (functieverwachting): the demand of consumers. • Fulfilment of function (functievervulling): the supply by farmers, threats and opportunities from social expectations. • Completion of function (functieinvulling): the development of new activities to ensure economic viability. 22

• Measures supporting the function (functieondersteunende activiteiten): possible policy measures supporting the development and continuation of such activities.

The research results show that active diversification (being processing at the farm, alternative markets and tourism) distinctly occurs more as the distance to the city decreases (Figure 10). In other words, active diversification activities increase as one approaches the city. On the other hand, environmental measures and the maintenance of hedges and trees occurs more frequently further away from the city.

Figure 10: Farmer’s probability of taking up diversification activities related to the distance to the city (Van Huylenbrouck et al., 2005).

This research concludes with a sixfold set of policy recommendations. • First, it states that agriculture in peri-urban areas requires the development of specific policy measures taking the specificity of these peri-urban regions into the equation, based on the possible contribution of agriculture for the sustainability of urbanized regions. • Secondly, it suggests that local policy must be employed much more actively to guarantee the sustainability of agriculture in urbanized areas. • Thirdly, it underlines the importance of agricultural organisations and the actual participation of farmers in policy making to support a sustainable agriculture. • Fourthly, it proposes that the authorities should encourage measures aimed at reducing the chain of distribution. This would lead to a bigger awareness on the origins and quality of food. Reducing the transportation costs would similarly augment the ecological dimension of sustainability. • The authorities should promote and subsidize non-governmental initiatives which concretize the link between production and consumption of food (open house, rural class trips). Basic knowledge on all dimensions of sustainable agriculture should be incorporated in the attainment levels of education. • Finally, the agricultural area in urbanized areas should explicitly be described as a multifunctional countryside driven by agriculture in spatial planning policy. Spatial 23

planning policy needs to be more flexible with respect to non-food related activities, providing flexible instruments, instead of rigid land use plans.

5.6. Economic assessment of landscape amenities provision by farmers in Flanders After examining the Flemish agricultural history and current state, the doctoral research from Vanslembrouck (2002) claims that the multifunctionality of agriculture calls for an appropriate policy response. Since there is no market for these non-commodity goods, other techniques should be used to value these outputs. The doctoral research focuses on one particular non-commodity output of agriculture, being the provision of landscape amenities. The research has these questions in mind: • What is the economic value which consumers and civilians adhere to agriculture’s contribution to the maintenance of the landscape? (demand) • What are the conditions that enhance farmers’ willingness to contribute? (supply)

Joint production relationships and the externality and public good characteristics of landscape amenities are the main aspects of the conceptual model used in this analysis. In this way, these aspects are introduced as delivering an important impetus to a better understanding of policy measures.

The main findings from the research are: • The uptake rate decreases with a higher impact on agricultural performance. • Measures with a high impact on agricultural performance are more easily adopted by farmers with a positive environmental attitude or previous experience with other measures. • With respect to less radical changes in the farming practices, structural characteristics seem to be more important • Similar influencing factors on farmers’ willingness to participate can be found throughout Europe. • Because of cost complementarities, a lot of farmers want to participate in multiple schemes, possibly reducing the repeated cost of negotiation and monitoring.

Concluding, Vanslembrouck provides some recommendations for agricultural policy reform. She states that there seems to be no straightforward proposal for the most efficient intervention, since each measure from the range of instruments has it pros and cons. The nature of the jointness (supply side) and the different public good characteristics of the non- commodity outputs (demand side) determine the most apt measure. She recommends that the possibilities of market creation to sell the positive externalities, should be scrutinously explored, since this seems to provide some opportunities. However, policy intervention will still be necessary to attain a socially efficient output of those amenities. This intervention should be prescriptive rather than compulsory, and provide incentives to farmers for the maintenance of an attractive agricultural landscape. Both the marginal benefits for society and the marginal costs for the providers have to be taken into account when drawing the most appropriate policy intervention. Depending on its goals, they can either be general or very specific. Finally, Vanslembrouck states that problems and issues with respect to its implementation (transaction costs, property rights and institutional context) need to be considered carefully.

6. Concluding

The above outline provides an overview of case material in response to the OECD-call for relevant material (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2007). It leads us to the following four conclusions.

Firstly, the overview illustrates the specificity of the Flemish region when considering the rural-urban dichotomy and the situation of agriculture in this rural-urban fringe. The combined effect of a high population density and diverse social and economic demands on the outskirts, puts serious exigencies on agricultural activities in the remaining rural areas. The Flemish rural area stands out amongst its European equivalents having a very high population density, and accordingly the majority of what is commonly perceived as ‘countryside’ in Flanders does not comply with the OECD criterion of rurality. The increased closeness between producers and consumers in the rural urban fringe imposes complications on the development of intensive agricultural activities. On the other hand, the peri-urban region offers opportunities for the development of diversification activities in agriculture, precisely because of this proximity between producers and consumers, in e.g. new outlet possibilities, tourist activities and the provision of other rural amenities.

In this respect, the adoption of diversification activities among the Flemish farming community seems on the rise. Yet, with only 14% of farmers adopting one or another form of diversification, it nonetheless appears to be a minor affair in the Flemish agricultural picture. Thus, the question arises whether Flanders is trailing in comparison to other equally urbanised rural areas in Europe when it comes to diversification activities in agriculture. It needs to be examined how data on the presence and financial support for diversification are comparable across national borders before reliable assessments on this issue can be made.

Thirdly, it can be concluded that Flemish agricultural policy is still principally geared towards traditional agricultural development, with fewer incentives towards the support and maintenance of diversification or a multifunctional agriculture. In this respect, the agricultural policy framework takes too little notice of the specificities of farming in the rural-urban fringe:

“Actual policies are still too much oriented towards general agricultural development and do not take into account the particular role and constraints of farms situated in peri-urban zones.” (Vandermeulen et al., 2006, 499)

Furthermore, although there is an array of policy measures in support of the provision of rural amenities in Flanders (cf. the Rural Development Program), these policy measures are still predominantly concentrated on agricultural activities. However, the integral development of rural areas calls for a framework sustained by other policy domains as well.

This leads us to the fourth consideration of our presentation, being the pivotal role of land use planning policy in the debate on the development of diversification activities in agriculture. The monofunctional spatial planning policy in Flanders appears in disagreement with the fundamentals of a diversified agriculture on the countryside.

“As such, space is practically exclusively allocated to one function (agricultural area, nature area, industrial area), abstracting the factual multiple use of space on 25

the countryside, specifically in areas susceptible to pressure from urbanisation.” (Allaert et al., 2006, 13)

The intertwined nature areas are an exception to this unilateral plan allocation, although their actual demarcation is turning out to be a very difficult process. Furthermore, this unilateral delineation of respectively agricultural areas, industrial areas or residential areas, through which different sectors are set in opposition against one another, does not correspond to the actual situation in Flanders (with activities or infrastructure being foreign to the functional plan of the area, e.g. housing in agricultural areas). The negative undertone in debates on the ‘horsification’ of the countryside, instead of ceasing the opportunities of this innovative development, is illustrative of this unilateral discourse. The denominator ‘agricultural area’ in land use planning policy covers a broad range of activities and types of land. The allocation of ‘agricultural area’ in the implementation plans holds no further differentiation. This allows a multitude of agricultural activities to be developed in this area, ranging from intensive husbandry, horticulture, pastures, greenhouse farming or even ecological farming. Notwithstanding this extensiveness of possible agricultural activities under the common denominator of ‘agricultural area’, the regulations are strict as to non-zone specific activities or infrastructure. As such, activities encompassing a diversification of agricultural activities are sometimes difficult to achieve in areas designated as ‘agricultural’. On the one hand these stringent regulations on building and renovating in agricultural areas have been developed to halt the further urbanization of rural areas and the loss of open space because of its ‘stonification’. Alternatively, these stipulations may also hinder the development of certain diversification activities on farms, e.g. the provision of lodging, shops or other tourist amenities on the countryside in farm buildings.

“Instead of using rigid destination plans, especially for peri-urban areas, it should be examined whether and which more flexible instruments of spatial planning combining both the multifunctional continuation of farming activities of farms and the preservation of a highly attractive countryside in the vicinity of urban centres could be used.” (Vandermeulen et al., 2006, 499)

The current spatial planning policy thus seems to be outdated by factual developments in the Flemish countryside.

Concluding, it can unambiguously be claimed that although multifunctional agriculture and diversified rural activities are increasingly embraced as adding value to the rural community and economy, their sustainable development still faces many challenges. On the one hand, some policy measures are enacted to support the implementation of diversification in agriculture, alternately, other policy lines seems to thwart a future development of diversification activities on the countryside, obfuscating the official position on this issue. As such, this ambiguity on present policy adds to the uncertainty concerning future policy lines.

Overview Figures Figure 1: Population density according to the proposed delineation criteria – Belgium (Lenders et al., 2006)...... 4 Figure 2: Territorial classification of the municipalities according to the classification of the Spatial Structure Plan Flanders and the Strategic Plan Spatial Economy (number of communities) (Departement Algemene Zaken en Financiën, 2005; Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering, 2006)...... 5 Figure 3: Location of farms in Flanders (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie, Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007)...... 5 Figure 4: Total number agri- and horticulture farms and mean surface per farm (ha) (1992- 2005) (Afdeling Monitoring en Studie, 2007)...... 7 Figure 5: Twofold planning system on the three governmental levels (adapted from De Beuckelaere & Van der Lecq, 2002)...... 13 Figure 6: Schematic representation of the spatial vision on Flanders (adapted from Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur, 2004)...... 14 Figure 7: Governmental support (1000 Euro) for diversification measures in the Rural Development Programme 2000-2006 (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007, 22)...... 18 Figure 9: Distribution of activities pertaining to diversification (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007, 22)...... 20 Figure 10: Farmer’s probability of taking up diversification activities related to the distance to the city (Van Huylenbrouck et al., 2005)...... 22

Overview Tables Table 1: Surface area Belgium and its regions (km2 and percentage) (FOD Economie, 2007a)...... 3 Table 2: Population density Belgium and its regions (inhabitants/km2) (FOD Economie, 2007b)...... 3 Table 3: Built-on land and related territory Flanders (percentage) (2002-2006) (FOD Economie, 2007c)...... 6 Table 4: Land-use of agricultural area in Flanders (percentage) and total agricultural area Flanders (hectare) (AMS, 2007)...... 7 Table 5: Evolution of output value, gross added value at market prices and net added value at factor costs in Flanders (thousand Euro) (Demuynck, Bernaerts & Platteau, 2006)...... 7 Table 6: Road network Flanders, 2000-2005 (km & absolute evolution and percentage) (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie, Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007, 18)...... 8 Table 7: Delineation of diversifying activities in research (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007, 10)...... 16 Table 8: Number and corrected number of diversifiers (Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult, 2007, 64-65)...... 17

References

Administratie Land -en Tuinbouw (2000) Programma voor plattelandsontwikkeling in Vlaanderen. Periode 2000-2006, Brussels.

Allaert G., De Meulder B., Van Huylenbroeck G., Van Hecke E. en Meert H. (2006) Randvoorwaarden voor duurzaam agrarisch ruimtegebruik in een verstedelijkende netwerksamenleving, Federaal Wetenschapsbeleid – Plan voor wetenschappelijke ondersteuning van een beleid gericht op duurzame ontwikkeling (PODO II), Brussels.

Antrop M. (2002) Rural-urban conflicts and opportunities, in: Jongman R. (ed.) The new dimensions of the European landscape, Frontis, Wageningen, 83-91.

Boulanger A., Meert H., Van Hecke E. (2004) The societal demand for public goods in peri-urban areas: A case from the Brussels region, paper presented at the 90th EAAE Seminar Multifunctional Agriculture, policies and markets: understanding the critical linkage?, Rennes, October 28-29, 2004.

Campens V., Bas L., Lenders S., Samborski V. & Carels K. (2006) Analyse van de rechtsreekse steun uit Pijler I aan de landbouwer. 2005 van premie naar toeslagrecht, Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Monitoring en Studie, Brussels.

Carels K., De Clercq P. en Van Gijseghem D. (2005) Impacts of agricultural policy on rural development in Belgium: case study of the Flemish Region, paper presented at the OECD Workshop Evaluating agri-environmental policies, Bratislava, October 24-26, 2005.

Carels K., Platteau J., Samborski V. & Van Gijseghem D. (2006) ProgrammeringsDocument voor PlattelandsOntwikkeling (PDPO) 2000-2006: Een terugblik, Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Monitoring & Studie, Brussels.

Celen G. (2007) Challenges for Land Development in Flanders, presentation at the UNECE WPLA Workshop Effective and sustainable land management. A permanent challenge for each society, Munich, May, 24-25, 2007.

Council Regulation EC/1257/1999 of May 17, 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, O.J. L., 160, June 26, 1999.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), OJ L., 277, October 21, 2005.

De Beuckelaere K. & van der Lecq R. (2002) Ruimtelijke planning in Vlaanderen, Omgaan met verschillen in planningswetgeving in de praktijk, Tijdschrift voor Omgevingsrecht, 2002, 2/4, 150-157.

Decreet betreffende de ruimtelijke ordening gecoördineerd op 22 oktober 1996, B.S., March 15, 1997.

Decreet van 18 mei 1999 houdende de organisatie van de ruimtelijke ordening, B.S., June 8, 1999.

Demuynck E., Bernaerts E. & Platteau J. (2006) Productierekening 2005, Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij, Afdeling Monitoring en Studie, Brussels.

Departement Algemene Zaken en Financiën, Administratie Planning en Statistiek (2005) VRIND 2004/2005 Vlaamse regionale indicatoren, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Brussels, aps.vlaanderen.be/statistiek/publicaties/stat_Publicaties_vrind2004.htm.

Departement Landbouw en Visserij (2007) Programma voor plattelandsbeleid Vlaanderen, goedgekeurd door de Vlaamse Regering op 27 oktober 2006, Coördinerende Cel Plattelandsbeleid, Brussels, www2.vlaanderen.be/ned/sites/landbouw/beleid/platteland.html.

Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur (2004) Ruimtelijk structuurplan Vlaanderen. Gecoördineerde versie april 2004, Administratie Ruimtelijke Ordening, Huisvesting, Monumenten en Landschappen, Afdeling Ruimtelijke Planning, Brussels.

Dua V. (s.d.) Beleidsnota Landbouw 2000-2004, Vlaams Minister van Leefmilieu en Landbouw.

Federale Overheidsdienst Economie (2007a) Oppervlakte van het grondgebied, FOD Financiën (Kadaster), het Nationaal Geografisch Instituut (NGI) en het Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen (KBIN), www.statbel.fgov.be/figures/d110_nl.asp#1.

Federale Overheidsdienst Economie (2007b) Oppervlakte en bevolkingsdichtheid, Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, www.statbel.fgov.be/figures/dsp_nl.asp.

Federale Overheidsdienst Economie (2007c) Bebouwde gronden en aanverwante terreinen per gewest - in procenten (2002-2006), Berekeningen Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie op basis van CORINE Land Cover (EMA-NGI), www.statbel.fgov.be/figures/d130_nl.asp.

Leinfelder H. (2005) The impact of the alternative concept of “public open space” on the planning of agriculture in rural areas in urbanized regions, in: Voight A. en Kononier A. (eds.) Book of abstracts of AESOP 2005 Congress ‘The dream of a greater Europe’, Osterreicher Kunst- und Kulturverlag, Vienna, July 13-17, 2005.

Lender S., Lauwers L., Vervloet D. & Kerselaers E. (2006) Afbakening van het Vlaamse platteland, een statistische analyse, Afdeling Monitoring en Studie en Instituut voor Landbouw en Visserijonderzoek, May 2006, Merelbeke.

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap (1997) Spatial Structure Plan Flanders, English Summary of Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen, Brussels.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007) The effects of agricultural policies on environmentally sustainable land use and the implications for the development of the rural economy, Joint Working Party on Agriculture and the Environment, OECD Headquarters, Paris, July, 2-4, 2007.

PURPLE – Peri-Urban Regions Platform Europe (s.d.) PURPLE’s Position Paper, www.purple- eu.org.

Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering (2006) VRIND 2006. Vlaamse regionale indicatoren, Brussels, aps.vlaanderen.be/statistiek/publicaties/stat_Publicaties_vrind2006.htm.

Vakgroep Landbouweconomie – Universiteit Gent & IDEA Consult (2007) Toestandsrapport voor verbrede landbouw. Analyse van de beschikbare informatie inzake de verschillende groepen verbrede landbouwactiviteiten, Research commanded by the Flemish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Department of Policy Analysis.

Van der Lecq R. (2004) Spatial planning in Flanders: a state of the art, in: News from the bureau of IFHP, latest developments in the field of housing and planning, 10th edition.

Vandermeulen V., Verspecht A., Van Huylenbroeck G., Meert H., Boulanger A, Van Hecke E. (2006) The importance of the institutional environment on multifunctional farming systems in the peri-urban area of Brussels, Land Use Policy, 23, 486-501. 29

Van der Ploeg J.D. en Renting H. (2003) Environmental co-operatives reconnect farming, Ecology and Society, in: Haverkort K., van ’t Hooft en Hiemstra W. (eds.) (2003) Ancient Roots, New Shoots: Endogenous Development in Practice, Compas, Heusden, 222-227.

Van de Velde L., Calus M., Lecoutere E., Van Slembrouck I., Mettepeningen E and Van Huylenbroeck G. (2005) Agricultural broadening in West-Flanders, Provincie West-Vlaanderen, Bruges.

Van Huylenbroeck G., Van Hecke E., Meert H., Vandermeulen V., Verspecht A., Vernimmen T., Boulanger A. & Luyten S. (2005) Overlevingsstrategieën voor een multifunctionele landbouw in een verstedelijkte omgeving, Federaal Wetenschapsbeleid, Brussels.

Vanslembrouck I. (2002) Economic assessment of landscape amenities provision by farmers, Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor (PhD) in Applied Biological Sciences: agriculture, Universiteit Gent, Faculteit Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen, Ghent.

Vernimmen T., Bourgeois M., Van Huylenbroeck G., Meert H. Van Hecke E. (2003) Diversification as a survival strategy for marginal farms. An exploratory research, in: Van Huylenbroeck G. & Durand G. (eds.) Multifunctional agriculture: a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development, Asgate, Aldershot, 209-224.

Verstraete E. (2005) Literatuurstudie: Trends en ontwikkelingen op het platteland, Ambtelijk werkdocument opgesteld door de Ambtelijke werkgroep Innovatieproces plattelandsbeleid, Vlaamse Landmaatschappij, September 2005.