Background: social Farming (also known as Care Farming, Farming for Health or Green Care in Agriculture) might be considered as an element of multifunctional agriculture, rural development and ‘socialisation of care’. Social farming aims to provide social services, health care, education and employment integration to vulnerable groups (people with disability, psychiatric or addiction problems, disaffected youth, long-term unemployed, migrants, children and elderly). These initiatives add to the economic viability of farmers and rural areas, enhance service-users’ quality of life and enable society to supply cost-effective social care services.

Objective of the research: to provide an overview of potential legal and financial support schemes for social farming.

Research question: how do different stakeholder groups at Flemish and EU level frame potential policy developments in social/care farming?

Methods: qualitative research was conducted using the method of ‘grounded theory’, i.e. simultaneous literature review and face-to-face semi-structured interviews with a total of 33 key stakeholders (informants) at Flemish and EU level, selected by theoretical sampling: practitioners, intermediates/ experts, parliaments, governments and public administrations of the various policy domains involved.

Results: the study provides an overview of the enormous diversity of social farming initiatives across Europe, and the somewhat special Flemish situation given the recent legislation and subsidy for private, family-based care farms by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. There are well above 400 care farms in Flanders, supported by the Flemish intermediate body Support Centre for Green Care (Steunpunt Groene Zorg). Interview data was analysed according to frames (mental lenses that guide how informants perceived social farming):

A) Agricultural frame: the farmer and the diversification of his income - social farming as a chance for the farmer to survive
B) Welfare frame: institutionalisation & public budgets, or the ‘Dutch model’ - social farming as a chance for more efficient care and saving costs
C) Social Economy frame: social enterprises and cooperatives, or the ‘Italian model’ - social farming as a chance for employment of vulnerable groups
D) Regional frame: community-based initiatives and local partnerships - social farming as a chance for community-building
E) Quality of care

Discussion: in the Flemish situation, mainly the agricultural frame is used, while social economy or local, community-based initiatives were generally new for stakeholders. The blindness of each stakeholder group is explained by the complexity of political structures and the welfare sector. Also limitations of the Support Centre for Green Care are dealt with, given the strong links with the Flemish farmers’ association. Finally, political interests play a major role in determining which pathway social farming in Flanders will follow, i.e. the Dutch system, the Italian model, partnerships, experimental or territorially-based policymaking.

Conclusion: there is no ‘best’ solution for social farming in Flanders. Arguably, local solutions within rural development policies might have the most suitable base, as they succeed to integrate agricultural, social, health care and social economy viewpoints and actors. Partnerships at the local level are crucial, yet the legal framework designed at national or EU level should make innovative, community-based initiatives possible. Flanders should broaden and re-frame social farming beyond economic viability of farmers, to allocate sources within the welfare and social economy sector. Whilst accepting a reasonable increase in administration and quality standards, policymakers should start true cooperation.