The Dutch agri-food sector has always been famous for its successful knowledge triad of research-extension-education. Due to the privatisation of the agricultural knowledge infrastructure, globalisation and an increasing knowledge-based and knowledge driven European economy, knowledge developed as an element of competition. An unstable, interactive, innovation knowledge arena gradually replaced the linear knowledge transfer model (Gielen, et al., 2003). These developments demand new strategies for Vocational Education and Training (VET) to assist workers in lifelong learning in the agri-food sector.

At present there seems to be a major gap between the learning needs and preferences of entrepreneurs and employees in the Dutch agricultural small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and Dutch VET (Lans et al., 2004). In practice, much of the learning in SMEs occurs incidental, implicit, often in partly, or unstructured learning environments. Nevertheless, the majority of the VET courses that are offered for the agri-food sector are structured, 'taught' courses, which are either obligatory or unattractive for workers in SMEs. If VET wants to continue assisting lifelong learning of small business workers in the agri-food sector in the near future, it is necessary to look for alternative processes and concepts. Billitt (2003) argues that there is a major challenge for VET to localise potential learning environments, encourage and find ways to support localised learning to meet the needs of small businesses. Skinner and Pownall (2003) refer to this as a re-emphasis on egocentric networks of entrepreneurs in micro-SMEs.

The study described in this paper focuses on success factors in identifying, facilitating and recognising (new) learning environments for crop protection in the agri-food sector. Three different learning environments in crop protection were monitored and evaluated. The monitored learning environments range from very formal to less formal (Watkins and Marsick in Walton, 1999). The formal environment was a traditional course in crop protection whereas the other two learning environments could be described as planned experiences initiated by the participants themselves. The following research questions were object of the conducted study: i) What are success factors with regard to the procedure side (identifying and recognising) of these learning environments and ii) Which factors are conducive in facilitating these learning environments? It is not easy to assess and measure conditions that are conducive to learning in less formal settings (Skule, 2004). In these situations it is impossible to simply use standard evaluation methods or quality indicators developed by authorities in this area (e.g. Kirkpatrick, 1975, Phillips, 1998 and Fit-enz, 1995). Instead of directly measuring these indicators, factors that mostly contributed to the quality of learning in the outlined learning arrangements were elicited. In order to do so the complete process of identifying, facilitating and recognition of the learning environments in crop protection were monitored and evaluated during one year. Semi-structured interviews with the participants as well as the other stakeholders involved (VET managers, researchers and accrediting bodies) in the learning environments were conducted. The results will be described in this paper.

• Billitt, S. (2003). Localised learning, new learning spaces and small business learning. Paper presented at the EERA conference, Hamburg.
• Gielen, P.M., Hoeven, A and Nieuwenhuis, L.F.M. (2003), 'Learning Entrepreneurs: learning and innovation in small companies', European Educational Research Journal, 1, 90-106.
• J. Fitz-enz (1995). How to measure Human Resource Management (2nd ed.). New-York: McGraw-Hill Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1975). Evaluating training programs. Madison WI: American Society for Training and Development.
• Lans, T., Wesselink, R., Biemans, H.J.A. and Mulder, M. (2004). Work-related lifelong learning for entrepreneurs in the agri-food sector. International journal of training and development 8: 73-89.
• Phillips, J.J. (1999). Return on Investment in training and performance improvement programs. Houston: Gulf.
• Skinner, J. and Pownall, I. (2003). Is HRD practised in micro-SMEs? Human Resource Development International 6: 475-489.
• Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and assess informal learning in the workplace. International journal of training and development 8: 8-20.
• Walton, J. (1999). Strategic Human Resource Development - small and medium-sized enterprises and Human Resource Development. Harlow: Pearson Education. pp 324 - 351.