Cooperation of Fruit Farms with the Institutional Environment toward Sustainable Development

Abstract

The research problem adopted in this study concerns the limited cooperation of fruit farms with the institutional environment. The aim of the study was to identify the scope and to evaluate the cooperation of fruit farms with the institutional environment and to identify barriers to developing this cooperation. This is an important issue because the increasingly complex and dynamic economic environment makes the results of fruit farms largely dependent on the influence of various organizations and institutions of the agricultural sector. The review of the literature shows that this issue is not recognized. The study’s novelty is developing an original indicator of relations with the institutional environment. It considers the number and frequency of contacts between fruit growers and organizations, as well as the forms of cooperation. The basic research area covered the region of Małopolska and Pogórze, characterized by high agrarian fragmentation and the development of orchard production. The research covered 45 farms and was conducted based on a survey questionnaire. Descriptive and statistical methods were used in the data analysis, such as the chi-square test and the Kruskal–Wallis test, supplemented with post hoc analysis (Dunn test with Bonferroni correction) and the Pearson correlation coefficient. Research shows that the relationship between fruit growers and agricultural organizations is limited. The size of the indicator depends on the level of education of fruit growers and the area of the orchards. Fruit growers most often use advice and seek information about European Union programs. The development of cooperation between fruit farms and institutional environmental organizations reduces the mismatch between the offers of these organizations and the needs of fruit growers.

1. Introduction

With the increase in the population’s awareness about the value of fruit, their consumption also increases. Therefore, the fruit sector faces a serious challenge: producing sufficient quantities of fruit of a good quality that is affordable and sustainable. The need for the sustainable production of nutritious food is crucial for human health and the environment [1]. For many years, Poland has been the world’s largest producer of apples, blackcurrants, raspberries and chokeberries, and highbush blueberries, as well as a significant producer of strawberries. In this respect, it ranks behind Italy, Spain, and France among the European Union (EU) countries, and is ahead of Greece and Germany. In 2019, Poland’s share in the EU-28 fruit harvest was 6.0% [2]. According to the data from the Central Statistical Office, in 2021, the harvest of fruit from trees amounted to 4,493,535 tonnes, while the production of berries amounted to 565,805 tonnes [3]. The largest fruit-growing regions in Poland include the Grójecko-Warecki region in Mazovia, the vicinity of Łódź and Lublin, and the region of southern Małopolska.

Fruit production is an important direction of agricultural production in the country, and the share of fruit in the market value of plant production in 2021 was 15.0% [4]. The increase in fruit production is supported by adequate land resources, a large group of producers, fruit consumption, and export opportunities to new markets (North Africa, the Middle East, India, and China). The increase in competition in the fruit market forces marketing activities by fruit producers and their industry associations together with local government authorities, promoting the region as well as products from a given fruit-growing area. After Poland acceded to the European Union, the fruit sector in the country developed dynamically due to factors resulting from the market situation, solid competitive position, and significant cash flows transferred to this market under European funds [5]. Proper use of European Union (EU) funds for the development of production and storage contributed to increasing the competitiveness of Polish fruit and fruit preserves. Currently, EU support for farms is linked to sustainable development.

To meet climate challenges, protect the environment, and improve the health of citizens, the EU has published a plan for sustainable development in all sectors of the economy, the so-called European Green Deal (EGD). The Farm to Fork Strategy and the 2030 Biodiversity Policy are at the heart of this plan, which stresses the need to improve the balance between biodiversity and food systems in order to increase competitiveness and resilience [6]. The implementation of the EGD strategy will generate challenges and opportunities. Its implementation will require the support of the institutional environment. According to Muhammad and others, the quality of the institutional environment positively impacts sustainable development [7].

The organization concept was adopted after North [8], according to which an organization is made up of groups of individuals who are related by a common goal to achieve and provide a structure for the contact between people. They include political (e.g., political parties, parliament, government agencies), economic (e.g., companies, trade unions, and cooperatives), social (e.g., churches, clubs, and sports associations), and educational (e.g., schools, universities, and training centres). In this context, the proximity of the organization and its direct impact are important. Thanks to the actions taken, they can stimulate the activity of owners of fruit farms, as well as shape their mentality.

In turn, the institutional environment was defined as a set of institutions supporting market processes. It allows for the presentation of connections, expectations, and aspirations of agricultural producers for their proper functioning and further development. The institutional environment consists of all institutions that externally surround a farm and help it develop and improve its economic situation, e.g., by supporting the acquisition of EU funds, the sale of products, or the acquisition of new outlets for manufactured products [9].

Organizations and institutions in the agricultural environment provide farmers with knowledge on the use of new varieties and production technologies in the field of sustainable development, the possibility for selling fruit, participation in the transfer of funds from the EU budget for the purchase of new equipment for production and storage, and/or carrying out campaigns promoting increasing fruit consumption in domestic and foreign markets. Farmers’ relations with these organizations may be conducive to making specific decisions regarding changes in farming, thus stimulating transformation processes in the economic structure and methods of operation.

Because of the importance of these issues, the main objective of this research was to identify the scope and evaluate the cooperation of fruit farms with the institutional environment and to identify barriers to the development of this cooperation. The review of the literature shows that the subject of cooperation between fruit farms and agricultural support organizations is not recognised. This study fills the identified research gap. As part of the research, four research questions were formulated:

• With which organizations supporting agriculture do fruit growers most often cooperate?
• What forms of support from the institutional environment do fruit producers use?
• How do fruit growers evaluate cooperation with organizations in the agricultural environment?
• What barriers hinder the cooperation of fruit growers with organizations from the institutional environment?

Based on the literature review and the research conducted, four hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis (H1). 

The value of the indicator of relations between farms and institutional environment organizations depends on the education of farmers and the area of the orchards.

Hypothesis (H2). 

Among various organizations from the agricultural environment, fruit producers most appreciate cooperation with Agricultural Advisory Centres.

Hypothesis (H3). 

Fruit growers, in cooperation with institutional environment organizations, most often use advice and seek information about EU programs.

Hypothesis (H4). 

The development of cooperation between fruit farms and institutional environment organizations limits the mismatch between the offer of services and the needs of fruit producers.

The study consists of six chapters. The introduction presents the justification for undertaking the research topic. The second chapter reviews the literature on the role of the institutional environment in the development of farms, the classification of institutions operating in the environment of agriculture, and the importance of institutions in the development of sustainable agriculture. Then, data sources and research methodology are presented. In the next chapter, the characteristics of the respondents, the cooperation of fruit farms with organizations in the environment of agriculture, and the forms of this cooperation are presented. In addition, the evaluation of the organization’s activities in the agricultural environment is presented in the opinion of the fruit growers. In the chapter devoted to discussion, the obtained results are compared with the results of studies by other authors. The study closes with conclusions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Importance of the Institutional Environment in the Development of Farms

Since Poland’s accession to the EU, farms, including orchard farms, have had to adapt to new market conditions related to the modernization and upgrading of production techniques. Particular challenges are the concept of sustainable development, i.e., meeting the needs of current and future generations with specific attention to the need to combine aspects of economic, social, and natural development harmoniously. Various organizations operating in the vicinity of farms are helpful in this respect. Thanks to them, farms can: (a) adapt faster to changing economic and organizational conditions, (b) engage in effective market activities, (c) have access to information about the situation in agricultural markets, and (d) reduce transaction costs [10].

An important element in the functioning of fruit farms is the institutional environment. The increasingly complex and dynamic economic environment means that the results of farm activity largely depend on the impact of various organizations and institutions in the agricultural environment. Topics related to the issue of institutionalization of the agricultural market in Poland were taken up by Zalesko [11]. Identifying institutions operating in rural areas and assessing their impact on socio-economic development were made in the works of Kołodziejczyk and Wasilewski [12] and other authors under the direction of Kołodziejczyk [13]. A team of authors edited by Kołodziejczyk [9] also identified institutions operating in agriculture and described their importance in implementing the sustainable development of agriculture and rural areas. In turn, the team led by Czyżewski defined the role of institutions in the process of farm modernization and assessed their impact on this process [10].

The influence of institutions on the development of farms and rural areas with a fragmented agrarian structure was studied by Czudec, Kata, Miś, and Zając [14] and Miś [15]. Their research showed that farmers’ relations with institutions were relatively strong, especially with Agricultural Advisory Centres, especially in the case of larger farms, but the effects of this cooperation are hardly visible. These institutions’ most important activities were aimed at the multifunctional development of agriculture. According to Rani and Reddy [16], in the case of small-scale farms, especially organic farms, the institution’s task is to support the group activities of agricultural producers and to increase their bargaining power. The research of Gołębiewska [17] showed that in farms, there was a relationship between the scale of ties with the environment and the economic and financial results, as well as farming efficiency. Farms characterized by more links with the environment achieved higher production and financial results.

Research conducted, e.g., by Czudec, Kata, Miś, and Zając [14], as well as the team led by Czyżewski [10] and Pizło [18], confirmed that organizations operating in the environment of farms contributed to their modernisation, development, and improvement of functioning on the free market. Organizations operating in the environment of farmers could use various organizational and legal forms and different mechanisms of operation. According to Czyżewski and his team [10], state organizations (government and local government administration) played the most significant role in the functioning of farms. There were also private organizations in the vicinity of farms, which could be associated formally (e.g., cooperatives, companies, and industry associations) or informally (e.g., mutual aid organizations). In order to be effective, the activities of state and private organizations should be adapted to the functioning of farms in a market economy.

All previous studies mainly concerned all farms without any indication of the type of farming activity. Only in the research conducted by the team led by Czyżewski [10] was it mentioned “that certain production types of farms have a greater impact on the number of contacts with the institution. This is particularly evident in the case of horticultural and orchard farms, which may mean that this nature of production requires frequent contact with local institutions”.

2.2. Classification of Institutions Operating in the Environment of Agriculture

According to Kołodziejczyk and Wasilewski [12], the institutional system is a set of related norms, rules, organizations, and mechanisms representing the participants in the rural development process. According to Czyżewski [19], in agriculture, the institutional environment consists of standards and institutions supporting transactions:

1. Standards:

(a) patterns of behaviour:

-

entrepreneurship

-

innovation

-

willingness to cooperate

-

a sense of community

-

agrotechnical knowledge and knowledge of markets.

(b) legal standards:

-

the act on the agricultural system, producer groups, commodity exchanges, agricultural chambers, farmers’ organizations, and structural pensions

-

legislation on the stabilization of agricultural markets

-

legislation defining the functioning of the Agricultural Market Agency (AMA), the Agency for Restructuring and Modernization of Agriculture (ARMA), the Agricultural Property Agency (APA), and Agricultural Advisory Centres (AAC)

2. Institutions supporting transactions:

(a) organizations:

-

institutions implementing agricultural policy: ARMA, the National Centre for Agricultural Support (NSCA) (from 1 September 2017), AMA APA (until 31 August 2017), and AAC

-

organizations supporting the export of agricultural and food products

-

agricultural chambers

-

farmers’ unions

(b) market infrastructure:

-

credit institutions (cooperative credit institutions, agricultural development banks, credit cooperatives, commercial banks specialized in agriculture, government credit programs, and informal institutions)

-

labour market institutions

-

news agencies

Institutions operating in the environment of agriculture, with which farm owners enter into various interactions, were divided by Czyżewski into those concerning [10]:

-

the market (banks, stock exchanges, private institutions in the sphere of supply, sales, processing, wholesale markets, economic self-government-chambers of industry and commerce, local government credit guarantee funds, and cooperatives)

-

agricultural policy and rural areas (ARMA, AMA, and ANR (until 31 August 2017) and the National Support Centre for Agriculture (NSCA) (from 1 September 2017), ASIF), Agricultural Social Insurance Fund (ASIF), research institutes (Institute of Horticulture in Skierniewice, Sadowniczy Experimental Department of the Institute of Horticulture Brzezna, etc.), donor and development centres, agricultural advisory centres, state labour offices, economic self-government (Chambers of Agriculture), local governments, and marshal offices

-

social and professional organizations (self-organizations), entrepreneurship support agencies, foundations, producer groups, National Union of Farmers, Circles and Organizations of Farmers, associations, associations, and industry associations (Association of Fruit Growers of the Republic of Poland, National Association of Fruit Producers Groups and Vegetables, National Association of Fruit and Vegetable Growers Associations, and Polish Horticultural Association

2.3. Institutions in the Development of Sustainable Agriculture

Sustainable agriculture is a farming system that combines economic, social, and ethical priorities with ecological security. This is achieved through appropriate management, rational use of self-regulation mechanisms in ecosystems, and scientific and technical progress results. In practice, this primarily means limiting intensive production with a high degree of chemicalisation and excessive, heavy mechanization [20].

The sustainable development of farms is a process of structural changes that changes the relationship of production factors on a farm, the structure of economic activity or the nature of its relationship with the market towards achieving a new point of balance at a higher level of economic efficiency with external conditions, including the need to protect natural resources [21].

In Poland, this type of farming is quite important because many farms are located in environmentally valuable areas or they are close to such areas. In addition, agriculture in Poland is characterised by a lower level of use of crop-forming agents (mineral fertilizers and plant protection products) than in other European Union countries, which is a factor conducive to the development of sustainable agriculture. According to Slangen, a properly constructed institutional system significantly impacts the agricultural production process, food consumption patterns, changes in society’s preferences for environmentally friendly goods, shifts in property rights relations, etc. [22].

From the point of view of the interests of enterprises or a farm, respecting the integrated dimensions of sustainable development makes sense if it contributes to building the value of an economic entity and improving its reputation on the market, both locally and nationally or internationally. On the other hand, each host entity functions in a strictly imposed institutional environment whose task is, among others, to correct the imperfections of market mechanisms, regulate responsibility for the environment and social issues, or rationalize the management of limited resources. Institutional conditions, therefore, seem to be one of the key factors for the functioning of economic entities regarding the requirements of sustainable development, perhaps also for the selection of adequate strategies of conduct on the market by enterprises and farms: the use of external resources and transferring part of the costs to business partners, or also relying on their own resources [23]. Agri-environmental programs (AES) are the main policy instrument aimed at sustainable agriculture [24]. Through AES, farmers are encouraged to protect the environment on their farmland in exchange for specific compensation [25]. However, agricultural producers are characterized by different preferences in terms of alternative environmental programs on agricultural land, and they are spatially differentiated [26].

Sustainability criteria are best met by family farms, which are generally environmentally friendly, economically viable, and socially acceptable [27,28], while being an integral part of the local community [29]. In order to be sustainable, orchard farms must produce appropriate high-quality crops, be profitable, protect the environment, save resources, and be socially responsible in the long term [30].

Sustainable fruit and vegetable production requires knowledge, especially with regard to maintaining soil fertility, managing water resources, developing and implementing biodiversity strategies to combat pests and diseases, and ensuring stable market links [31]. The integrated nature of sustainable development poses challenges to institutions. This is because institutions are an integrated network of connections functioning in various economic and social systems; on a local, regional, and national scale; and at the level of individuals, organizations, and society as a whole. The quality of institutions influences investment decisions and organization production and determines how communities distribute the benefits resulting from implemented development strategies and policies [32].

In the EU institutional system, the most important role in the sustainable development of rural areas is played by the European Commission, which coordinates and manages EU funds and monitors their practical implementation by Member States. At the national level, the most important institutions include the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), which is responsible for implementing the government’s policy for sustainable development of rural areas, and the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy, which acts as a coordinator for the objectives of the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas Policy. Both ministries cooperate with each other and other institutions, considering the principle of subsidiarity. The National Rural Network, Agricultural Advisory Centers, and the National Chamber of Agriculture support the activities of MARD aimed at implementing sustainable development. They perform an advisory and information function, and through their branches in the field, they contribute to coordinating all initiatives to support and disseminate the idea of sustainable development [33].

Institutions are now playing an increasingly important role in creating sustainable development policy at macro- and microeconomic levels. They shape principles related to social development and social issues, environmental protection, individual development of individuals, and competitiveness of enterprises. However, the key entity in the business−institution system, which depends on respect for the principles of sustainable development, is the enterprise itself or the farm [23].

3. Materials and Methods

The basic area of research covered the FADN Region 800 in Poland of Małopolska and Pogórze, which includes four voivodeships: Małopolskie, Podkarpackie, Świętokrzyskie, and Śląskie (Figure 1).

These voivodeships are distinguished by the largest agrarian fragmentation in the country, which contributed to the development of orchard production in this area. In the surveyed region, in 2021, orchards occupied a total of 65.2 thousand ha, accounting for 18.9% of the country’s orchard area. In 2021, 816.3 thousand tons of fruit from trees were collected, which accounted for 18.2% of the total harvest in Poland. Similar relationships were observed in the field of berry fruit harvest. The harvest of this type of fruit in the Małopolska and Pogórze Region totalled 63.9 thousand tons, and accounted for 11.3% of the total harvest of berries in the country [3].

The specific features of this region also dictated the choice of the Małopolska and Pogórze Region. It is distinguished by a high percentage of people living in rural areas in the total number of inhabitants and by very fragmented agriculture with a small production scale. This is also accompanied by other problems related to the development of rural areas, such as a high share of people working in agriculture; a high level of unemployment, especially in the Świętokrzyskie and Podkarpackie voivodships; underdevelopment of rural infrastructure; border location (eastern and southern borders of Poland); and high legally protected areas in the general area of Małopolska and Pogórze. The selection of farms from this region also resulted from the fact that no such research had been carried out in this area before.

The study covered all Małopolska and Pogórze Region farms, specializing in cultivating fruit trees and shrubs (without vines and olives) (TF8, symbol 36), for which there are accounts for 2018 that have been kept by FADN. During the research, it turned out that the owners of four farms did not agree to fill in the questionnaire and share the necessary data. As a result, the research covered 45 farms where, with the help of employees of Agricultural Advisory Centres from individual voivodeships, research was carried out on the basis of a questionnaire. The survey was conducted in the summer of 2019. The collected data were formally and substantively verified and then entered into a computer database in an MS Excel spreadsheet.

An index of relations between farms and organizations (W_Ri) was prepared to evaluate the cooperation of fruit producers with organizations in the agricultural environment. The construction of this indicator was based on a point scale. For each organization with which the farm owner declared contact, 1 point was awarded; another from 0 to 4 depending on the frequency of these relations; and 1 point for each form of cooperation (consultancy, training, information on EU programs; filling in applications and documents for EU programs; filling out loan applications; assistance in the sale of products and services; introducing new technologies to production; preparing investment and development plans; obtaining a certificate; and increasing land, capital and labour resources). The maximum relation ratio of the entire group of farms can be described by the formula (1).

$$W_{R_{max}}=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(L_{on}\ast C_k+L_{rn}\ast F_{wn}\right)$$

(1)

where:

$W_{R_{max}}–$relationship indicator for the group

$L_{on}$–number of organizations from the institutional environment

$C_k$–frequency of contacts with organizations from the institutional environment

$L_{rn}$–number of agricultural and rural policy organizations

$F_{wn}$–number of forms of cooperation with agricultural and rural policy organizations

The relationship ratio for one farm is described by the following formula (2):

$$W_{Ri}=\frac{L_{oi}\ast C_k+L_{ri}\ast F_{wn}}{W_{R_{max}}}$$

(2)

where:

$W_{Ri}–$relationship indicator for the farm

$L_{oi}$–number of organizations from the institutional environment with which the farmer cooperates

$L_{ri}$–number of agricultural and rural policy organizations of with which the farmer cooperates.

During the research, 26 organizations (L_on) in the agricultural environment were identified in Poland, in which orchard producers could cooperate, including 10 organizations implementing agricultural and rural policy (L_ri). The frequency of contacts with organizations (C_k) was defined using the following scale:

• Never—0 pt.
• Once every few years—1 pt.
• Once a year—2 pt.
• Once every six months—3 pt.
• Several times a year—4 pt.

Based on the adopted assumptions, the relation ratio for the researched group of farms was set at 204 points. For the threshold defined in this way, the value of the linkage indicator was assumed at level 1. A lack of any links with organizations corresponded to the value of 0. The value of the linkage indicator ranged from 0 to 1.

The descriptive method and statistical tests were used in the data analysis. To assess the distribution of the relationship index, the chi-square test was used, which showed that the distribution of the relationship index was not consistent with the normal distribution [34]. In this situation, the Kruskal−Wallis test was used in further analyses, supplemented by a post hoc analysis (Dunn test with Bonferroni correction). The Kruskal−Wallis test verified the significance of differences between three or more independent samples. The study considered the age and education of the surveyed fruit growers and the area of orchards. Testing was performed at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis was rejected when the test probability level was lower than 0.05. Mean values, median, standard deviation (3), and coefficient of variation (4) were used to interpret the results.

$$s=\sqrt{\frac{\sum _{i=1}^n{(x_i-\overline{x})}^2}{n-1}}$$

(3)

where:

s—standard deviation

$x_i–$successive values of a given variable

$\overline{x}$—arithmetic mean of the sample

n—number of elements in the sample.

$$V=\frac{s}{\overline{x}}$$

(4)

where:

V—coefficient of variation

s—standard deviation

$\overline{x}$—arithmetic average

Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between the frequency of fruit producers’ contacts with organizations and the assessment of these organizations.

4. Results

4.1. Characteristics of the Researched Farms

Regarding the production potential of agricultural holdings, including those directed to farms, factors such as land, labour, and capital; size; and quality determine fruit production. The researched farms specialized in fruit production. The area of orchards in this group constituted, on average, 84.2% of agricultural land. The farms were managed mainly by men, who accounted for over 3/4 of the respondents (

Table 1. Characteristics of the researched farms.

Selected Factors	Factor Category	Structure [%]
Sex	Woman	22.2
	Man	77.8
Age	25–45 years old	20.0
	46–55 years old	33.3
	56 and older	46.7
Education	Professional	24.4
	Medium	55.6
	Higher	20.0
Orchard area	up to 5.0 ha	22.2
	5.1–10 ha	46.7
	Over 10 ha	31.1

).

Farm owners were dominated by people aged over 56 (46.7%). Exactly 1/3 of the respondents were people aged 46–55. In turn, 20.0% of fruit growers were aged 25–45. Regarding education, the study group was dominated by people with secondary education (55.6%). Only every fifth fruit grower had a higher education.

Another factor differentiating the researched farms was the area of orchards. Farms with an area of orchards smaller than 5 ha accounted for 22.2%. The largest group consisted of farms with an area of 5.1 to 10 ha (46.7%). The share of farms with an area of more than 10.1 ha was 31.1%. Such diversification of the area of orchards indicates a large fragmentation of the agrarian structure of fruit farms in Małopolska and Pogórze. Small-scale fruit production was conducive to the implementation of the principles of the concept of sustainable development.

4.2. Cooperation of Fruit Farms with Organizations in the Environment of Agriculture

In 2018, the surveyed fruit growers contacted various organizations in the agricultural environment 460 times. There were an average of 10.2 contacts per household. Almost half of the respondents (46.7%) declared between 6 and 10 contacts with various organizations (Figure 2). They were mainly fruit growers with vocational and secondary education over 46 years of age. A small percentage of respondents (2.2%) indicated the maximum number, i.e., over 20 contacts. It was young fruit farmers aged 35–45 with a higher education that indicated that such people were more aware of the need to support running a farm specialized organization. Many contacts may mean that fruit growers needed these organizations to run their businesses properly and safely. Over one fifth of the respondents declared cooperation with 11–15 organizations and 15.6% with 16–20. The smallest number of contacts (up to 5) was shown by fruit growers aged 35 to 55 with a secondary education.

One of the important indicators of cooperation between agricultural producers and economic environment organizations could be the frequency of these contacts. Among the surveyed fruit growers, 15.0% of respondents maintained contact with selected organizations once a year and 12.3% several times a year. Contacts once every few years were declared by 8.5% of the respondents. The intensity of the frequency of contacts depended on the specificity of the organization’s activities. Contacts with organizations dealing with training, consulting, or assistance in completing documents related to obtaining assistance from EU funds were more frequent and were less frequent with social and professional organizations.

The frequency of contact between fruit growers and organizations depended on the type of support provided by the organization and its location. Some of them were based in voivodeship or poviat capitals, making access difficult. Although all organizations had websites with a lot of information, not all formalities can be arranged this way. A certain group of farmers, especially the elderly, could not use this source of information.

In addition to the number of contacts with individual organizations, it is also important for the farm’s activity regarding which organizations they cooperate with and what form of assistance they use. The data show that in the surveyed group of farms, farmers benefited from the assistance of various organizations. Most often, they contacted the Agency for Restructuring and Modernization of Agriculture (Figure 3).

The cooperation of fruit growers with this organization consisted primarily of obtaining information on the possibility of obtaining funds from the available EU programs (more than half of the respondents, 51.1%). ARMA organized various types of training, advice, and consulting for farmers, in which 42.2% of respondents participated. Fruit growers applying for funds from the EU had to complete appropriate applications. Moreover, 11.1% of respondents took advantage of the assistance of ARMA employees while completing them. The same percentage of respondents obtained various types of certificates in farm activities thanks to this organization

Taking into account the scope of activities of organizations operating in the vicinity of fruit farms, they were divided into four spheres: sphere I, market organizations; sphere II, agricultural and rural policy organizations; sphere III, social and professional organizations; and sphere IV, implementation organizations. The research shows that organizations implementing agricultural policies related to rural areas were important organizations for the fruit growers surveyed. These organizations operated in consulting, administration, management of land resources, natural environment, and spatial management. They included ARMA, NSCA, AAS, ASIF, local and economic self-government, and research institutes. Here, 38.5% of the respondents maintained contact with them (Figure 4).

With organizations in the market sphere (among others, banks, stock exchanges, private institutions in the sphere of supply and sales, insurance institutions, and wholesale markets), which mainly operate in the area of supply and purchase, agri-food processing and financial services for agriculture 30.8% of fruit growers’ maintained contacts. The smaller number of respondents declaring that they contacted these organizations could be because they are mainly commercial organizations that meet only the limited needs of fruit growers.

Sphere III, i.e., social and professional organizations, includes, among others, producer groups, foundations, associations, and industry associations. They are usually created on the initiative of the farmers themselves. They operate mainly as a system of local regulation. Cultural customs and conditions of the institutional environment determine their actions. They contribute to reducing the uncertainty of everyday life [10]. Relations with these organizations were declared by just over a quarter of the respondents. In this way, contacts with organizations from this sphere were ranked third. Fruit growers are probably more aware of the fact that it is professional organizations and their self-organization that make their farms more efficient and effective.

In the surveyed group of farms, only 3.8% of fruit growers maintained contact with organizations implementing new technologies or varieties (including the Institute of Horticulture in Skierniewice). The poor cooperation in this area could be due to the fact that individual contact of fruit growers with such organizations was difficult because they more often cooperate with other organizations, e.g., AAS, and through them, they popularize their activities. The ratio of relations with the environment developed for the farmers surveyed ranged from 0 to 1. It depended on the number of organizations with which the fruit grower maintained contacts, the frequency of these contacts, and the form of cooperation. The parameters of the relationship with organizations (W_R) indicator for the surveyed farms are presented in

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the relationship with the organisations indicator for the researched group of farms.

Descriptive Statistics	Relationship Ratio (WRi) Values
Average	0.206
Median	0.196
Minimum	0.089
Maximum	0.444
Standard Deviation (p2)	0.092
Coefficient of variation (V)	44.91

.

This indicator for the surveyed of farms in the Małopolska and Pogórze Region had an average value of 0.206, which should be considered a very low level of relations between fruit growers and organizations, with a moderate level of diversity of the surveyed population in this respect (the coefficient of variation was 44.9%). Such a low value of this indicator could be due to the lack of tradition in cooperation between fruit growers and organizations, their remoteness from the place of residence of fruit producers, the specificity of their activity, and thus a smaller number of organizations providing services in the field of fruit growing, as well as the lack of conviction that they can help run orchard activities.

Then, an attempt was made to verify hypothesis (H1), according to which the value of the relationship with the organization’s indicator depends on the level of education of fruit growers and the area of orchards. The results of the analysis are presented in

Table 3. The value of the relationship with organizations indicator depending on various factors: the results of the Kruskal−Wallis test analysis.

Factor (Feature)	Factor Category	Relationship Indicator		Testing Results [p]
		Average	Median
Age	25–45 years old	43.3	29	0.186
	46–55 years old	38.1	32
	56 and older	48.3	47
Education	Professional	42.5	38	0.047
	Medium	38.8	44
	Higher	59.7	61
Orchard area	up to 5.0 ha	30.9	25.0	0.014
	5.1–10 ha	44.1	42.0
	Over 10 ha	52.9	49.5

.

The data show that the test probability values of p < 0.05 allowed us to reject the null hypotheses regarding the education of fruit growers and the area of orchards. The post hoc analysis showed that farms run by people with higher education were characterized by a higher ratio of relations with the environment compared with the farms managed by people with basic vocational or secondary education. In the case of the area of orchards, the post hoc analysis showed that farms with the smallest area of orchards (up to 5 ha) had the lowest relationship ratio (average of 30.9), and farms with an orchard area over 10 ha had the highest relationship ratio with the environment (average 52.9). The first hypothesis was, thus, positively verified based on the analyses carried out.

The value of the test probability p > 0.05 did not allow for rejecting the null hypotheses regarding the age of the farm owner. This feature, therefore, does not statistically differentiate the ratio of relations with the environment (W_R). However, the mean and median values indicate differentiation of the W_R level depending on the age of the farm owners.

4.3. Forms of Support for Fruit Farms by Organizations and Institutions from the Environment of Agriculture

The surveyed fruit growers were particularly willing to cooperate with agricultural advisory centres. Moreover, 97.8% of farm owners benefited from their assistance (

Table 4. Percentage of farmers benefiting from various forms of assistance from organisations in 2018.

Itemization	Percentage of Farmers Using Services [%]	Organization	Share of Organizations in Forms of Assistance [%]
Advice, training, consulting	97.8	MARD	11.1
		ARMA	42.2
		NSCA	13.3
		AAS	97.8
		Agricultural chamber	13.3
		Industry organizations	17.8
		Private organizations	15.6
		Media	37.8
Information about EU programs	97.8	MARD	11.1
		ARMA	51.1
		NSCA	13.3
		AAS	93.8
		Agricultural chamber	8.9
		Industry organizations	11.1
		Marshal’s office	4.4
		Media	60.0
Completing applications for EU programs	93.3	ARMA	11.1
		NSCA	2.2
		AAS	93.3
		Industry organizations	4.4
		Private organizations	2.2
		Media	2.2
Preparation of business plans	91.1	AAS	91.1
		Private organizations	2.2
		Media	2.2
Preparation of investment and development plans	80.0	AAS	77.8
		Industry organizations	4.4
		Private organizations	4.4
		Media	2.2
Introduction of new production technologies, new products (varieties) and services	77.8	AAS	64.4
		Industry organizations	33.3
		Private organizations	13.3
		Media	46.7
Completing loan applications	64.4	ARMA	11.1
		NSCA	2.2
		AAS	93.8
		Industry organizations	4.4
		Private organizations	2.2
		Media	4.4
Preparation of agri-environmental plans, afforestation plans	64.4	AAS	64.4
		Media	2.2
Obtaining certificates	62.2	AAS	24.4
		Agricultural chamber	2.2
		Industry organizations	33.3
		Private organizations	22.2
		Media	2.2
Sale of products and services	60.0	AAS	4.4
		Industry organizations	35.6
		Private organizations	40.0
		Marshal’s Office	4.4
		Media	13.3
Increasing farm resources-land, labor, capital	57.8	NSCA	11.1
		AAS	26.7
		Industry organizations	17.8
		Private organizations	6.7
		Local governments	6.7
		Media	17.8

). The first hypothesis (H2) was, thus, positively verified. This cooperation took various forms. Among the obtained benefits, the respondents most often mentioned professional advice and participation in training and consulting (97.8%). As part of cooperation with AAS, fruit growers also obtained information and assistance in completing applications for the needs of EU programs (93.3%) and drawing up business plans (91.1%). Furthermore, 77.8% of the surveyed fruit producers benefited from assistance when preparing investment and development plans. For 64.4% of respondents, agricultural advisors helped introduce new varieties and production technologies and draw up agri-environmental plans and afforestation. On the other hand, cooperation with obtaining certificates and increasing farm resources in land, labor, and capital was indicated by every fourth respondent.

A slightly smaller percentage of fruit growers used the services of banks (95.6%). According to Pizło [35], in Poland, it is rather difficult to talk about the form of cooperation between a financial institution and a business entity because it is the banks that dictate the conditions to which farmers may or may not agree. Many farmers use banking services because they can keep savings and settlement accounts in order to, among others, receive subsidies and EU subsidies and the possibility of taking out a consumer and/or investment loan.

Farmers running farms and members of their families usually take advantage of agricultural insurance in the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund (ASIF). The Polish agricultural insurance system covers the protection of farmers’ property, including crops and livestock, as well as accident insurance [36]. In order to receive such benefits, fruit growers must contact ASIF employees at least once a year. Such cooperation in the study group was declared by 84.4% of fruit growers.

For the vast majority of surveyed fruit growers, farm insurance was also very important, which is why they willingly used the services of various insurance organizations. Such cooperation was confirmed by 64.4% of respondents. The positive attitude to property protection was probably because some insurance is obligatory. All farmers who receive direct payments by the regulations are obliged to have crop insurance contracts. Having such insurance allows fruit growers to minimize the risk of incurring the effects of adverse phenomena that may occur on their farms [36].

A large percentage of fruit growers indicated that they cooperate with private organizations that operate in the field of supply, sale, and agri-food processing (65.0%) on a commercial basis. The next group consisted of bodies certifying products of an agricultural origin. Cooperation with such entities was confirmed by 1/5 of the respondents. Thanks to their efforts, they obtained certificates for their products. Less of the surveyed fruit producers (15.6%) benefited from consultancy and training provided by private organizations.

On the other hand, 13.3% cooperated with such organizations by introducing new production technologies or varieties of fruit. Over 6.7% of the respondents used commercial services to increase farm resources in basic production factors. Only 2.2% of all respondents turned to private organizations for help filling out applications for the needs of EU programs, drawing up business plans, or submitting loan applications. Industry associations provided a similar range of services for fruit growers, with which every fifth fruit grower declared cooperation.

The answers provided by the respondents show that more than half of the respondents (55.6%) cooperated with the Institute of Horticulture in Skierniewice. A total of 44.4% of respondents benefited from the assistance of research institutes and 26.7% from research and development institutes. The lower interest in these organizations could be because they perform service work for farmers and agriculture, which is not always noticed directly by the farmers themselves. The achievements of institutes were transmitted to everyday agricultural practice by, e.g., agricultural advisory centers, with which fruit growers had very frequent contacts and cooperation.

Only 17.8% of owners of fruit farms saw the need to contact associations when conducting their production activities. Few fruit growers also contacted the National Union of Farmers, Circles, and Agricultural Organizations (15.6%); the Agency for Entrepreneurship Support (13.3%); and their cooperatives (11.1%). This could be due to the small scale of production on farms, the lack of representatives of these organizations in the area of residence of farmers, as well as the belief that the assistance of this type of organization could be more effective on the modern market.

Other units with which fruit farms cooperated included foundations (6.7%) and economic self-government, through chambers of industry and commerce (4.4%). None of the surveyed fruit growers benefited from the assistance of the Local Government Credit Guarantee Fund.

The research showed that the owners of fruit farms used various forms of organizational support, and the type of support they provided and used depended on the activity profile of individual organizations (Table 4). Almost all surveyed fruit growers (97.8%) benefited from advice, training, consulting, and seeking information on EU programs. These were primarily training courses on the characteristics of the programs, required documents, and administrative formalities. Part of the training concerned using plant protection products and mineral fertilizers, or introducing new technologies to production. The third hypothesis (H3) was, thus, positively verified.

In addition, 93.3% of respondents benefited from assistance when completing applications for various EU programs. These were mainly documents related to applying for direct or LFA payments. The surveyed fruit growers were also willing to cooperate with AAS representatives in the scope of assistance by drawing up business plans. It was used by 91.1% of respondents. About 80.0% of the respondents also asked AAS specialists to help draw up investment and development plans. On this basis, such projects were not simple and easy for farmers. This could be because making even a minor error in the submitted application could disqualify it, and the farmer would not receive funds for the investment activities of their choice. More than three quarters of the surveyed fruit growers took advantage of the support from employees of various organizations in introducing new production technologies, products (especially fruit varieties), and services. About 64.4% of respondents received help from employees of specialized organizations, especially AAS, for completing loan applications. The research results may prove that fruit growers are reluctant to use commercial services. They do not want to spend funds if they have the opportunity to take advantage of free advice.

Moreover, 64.4% of respondents benefited from assistance when drawing up agri-environmental or afforestation plans. Slightly more than 60.0% of fruit growers in the surveys indicated the help of organizations in obtaining various types of certificates related to their agricultural activity. A similar percentage of respondents stated assistance in selling products and services. Slightly more than half of the fruit growers received support in expanding their farm resources. Assistance was given regarding purchasing land, employing employees for seasonal harvesting, and increasing the property, especially in purchasing new machinery and equipment from EU funds.

4.4. Evaluation of the Organization’s Activity in the Agriculture Environment in the Opinion of Fruit Growers

An important element of the conducted research was assessing the organization’s activity by fruit growers (

Table 5. Evaluation of the organisation’s activity in the opinion of the surveyed fruit growers who maintaining relations with them.

No.	Organisation	Average Rating *	Standard Deviation (p2)	Coefficient of Variation (V)
1.	Agricultural Advisory Centres	4.40	0.68	15.5
2.	ARMA	3.98	0.61	15.3
3.	Bank	3.91	0.59	15.1
4.	Insurance institutions	3.64	0.67	18.4
5.	Agricultural Social Insurance Fund (ASIF)	3.62	0.88	24.3
6.	NSCA	3.58	0.75	20.9
7.	Private institutions (in the sphere of supply, sale, and processing)	3.56	0.62	17.4
8.	Institute of Horticulture in Skierniewice	3.53	0.86	24.4
9.	Research institutes	3.49	0.78	22.3
10.	Research and development centres	3.33	0.76	22.8
11.	Local government	3.31	0.63	19.0
12.	Farmers’ circles	3.27	0.83	25.4
13.	Producer groups	3.20	0.78	24.4
14.	Marshal office	3.13	0.65	20.7
15.	Industry associations and unions	3.13	0.75	24.0
16.	Stock exchanges	3.11	0.53	17.0
17.	Wholesale markets	3.11	0.57	18.3
18.	Economic self-government: agricultural chambers	3.11	0.82	26.4
19.	Entrepreneurship support agencies	3.09	0.66	21.4
20.	Associations	3.07	0.71	23.1
21.	Economic self-government: chambers of commerce and industry	2.96	0.42	14.2
22.	Poviat labor offices	2.93	0.71	24.0
23.	Foundations	2.91	0.59	20.3
24.	Cooperatives	2.89	0.74	25.6
25.	National Union of Farmers, Smallholder Farmers’ Associations, and agricultural organizations	2.87	0.78	27.2
26.	Local Government Credit Guarantee Funds	2.71	0.72	26.6

* the assessment of cooperation was made on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means very bad and 5 means very good.

). Respondents assessed cooperation with organizations on a scale from 1 (lowest score) to 5 (highest score). The best-rated organization by the surveyed farmers was the Agricultural Advisory Centres, which received a rating of 4.4 on a scale of 1 to 5. Such a high rating obtained by AAS could be because it is an organization, which actively supports fruit growers in various areas of their activity.

Respondents also rated ARMA well, giving it an average score of almost 4.0. This organization’s good rating resulted from the fact that it supports farmers for obtaining EU funds. This brings measurable benefits to fruit growers in their gardening activities. Banks were rated slightly worse by fruit growers. They received an average score of 3.9. Farmers who contacted banks more often, using, e.g., loans or bank accounts, rated them better than those who declared that they contacted the bank once a year or every few years. A weaker rating given to banks by fruit growers could be because they are associated with the loss of funds rather than their acquisition, as well as because of the high costs of services provided, e.g., servicing loans.

Another governmental organization, the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund (ASIF), received an average rating of 3.6 in the opinion of fruit growers. Such an assessment of the functioning of ASIF could undoubtedly be influenced by the size of the acreage on which the premium was calculated and the fact whether a given fruit-grower and their family members were employed only on the farm or whether they had another place of work and payed insurance premiums there. Research conducted in 2013 by Kisiel and others [37] showed that ASIF adapted to the needs of agriculture and its specific character. However, farmers were still not fully satisfied with the activities of this organization.

The surveyed fruit growers rated the work of the National Support Centre for Agriculture (NSCA) the lowest out of all government agricultural agencies. This organization was established in 2017 as a result of the merger of the Agricultural Market Agency and the Agricultural Property Agency. Its activity was rated by fruit growers at an average of 3.6. Such an assessment could result from the fact that, on the one hand, NSCA deals with development policy in rural areas, coordinates tasks in the field of agricultural marketing, constructs a support system for renewable energy sources, and functions agricultural advisory services, in addition to being positively perceived by farmers. On the other hand, it receives, e.g., payments for the lease of land or a fee for the purchase of land, and then it is rated less favorably. Respondents gave a relatively poor rating to agricultural self-governments (agricultural chambers-3.1; chambers of industry and commerce-3.0) and farmers’ trade unions (National Union of Farmers, Circles, and Agricultural Organizations of 2.9). Fruit growers maintained weaker contacts with these organizations because they did not feel their positive impact on the functioning of their farms. Organizations that supported the development of human capital and non-agricultural economic activity in rural areas were also rated very low by the respondents. The first group included state employment offices (average score 2.9), those responsible for employment, and the Enterprise Support Agency (3.1). These assessments may result from the improper and bureaucratic functioning of these organizations. The research shows that public governmental organizations were more important for the proper conduct of fruit-growing activity than private organizations and associations. Organizations with which more fruit growers cooperated received higher evaluations of their activities. In addition, the ratings given to individual organizations were also positively and very strongly correlated with the frequency of relations between fruit growers and the given entities (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = 0.93).

4.5. Internal and External Barriers to Cooperation between Farmers and Organizations in the Agricultural Environment

The research also addressed the issue of barriers to cooperation with organizations. Their sources could have considered the farm as well as institutional environment. They were thus divided into internal and external. Limitations considering farmers and farms very often result from the psychosocial characteristics of agricultural producers (e.g., age and education) and the economic situation (e.g., production size and income) and organizational structure of farms. The source of barriers in the institutional environment may be the lack of a coherent institutional base, i.e., norms and rules, organization, and mechanisms [10].

The data presented in Figure 5 show that the basic internal barriers to cooperation with organizations and fruit growers most often included a small farm area (40.0% of all respondents) and a lack of experience regarding contact with such organizations (37.8%). This could have resulted from the conviction of fruit farmers that employees of organizations from the agricultural environment are not interested in small farms. In their work, they focus mainly on supporting large commercial farms.

In turn, the lack of experience in cooperation with organizations was most often indicated by fruit growers over 56 years old with a secondary education, who probably did not want to take up new challenges. Among the other limitations when establishing contacts with organizations from the agricultural environment, some respondents indicated the small scale of production (17.8%) and the inappropriate location of farms (13.3%) in relation to organizations with which cooperation can be established. Organizations providing services to farmers are often located in larger cities, where fruit growers have difficulty with accessibility due to long distances or poor communication. Such a situation may have occurred in particular in Małopolska and Pogórze, and especially in the Małopolskie and Podkarpackie voivodships, where some orchards are located in mountainous areas.

Among other internal barriers, which were indicated by 8.9% of the surveyed fruit growers, the age of the farm owner, their health, the lack of a successor, the younger generation’s interest in fruit production, and orchard maintenance were noted. A significant limitation was also the lack of time in contact with the organizations. The fruit growers also hoped that the employees of individual organizations would offer them cooperation.

In the opinion of 6.7% of fruit growers, limited contact with organizations was affected by the poor economic situation of farms, which is determined by difficulties with fruit sales, low prices on the market in years of high harvests, and high costs of production resources. On the other hand, deficiencies in farm equipment (4.4%) were less important for cooperation with organizations. The research also shows that for 15.6% of the respondents, there were no restrictions in contact with organizations, and access to them was good.

Limitations of cooperation with organizations also resulted from the mechanisms of operation of individual organizations. A very frequent barrier to establishing contacts on the part of the organization, i.e., external to farms (Figure 6), was the failure to adjust the offer of services to the needs of farmers (53.3%) or the lack of sufficient information about the functioning organizations and the area of their operation (51.1%). The fourth hypothesis (H4) was, thus, positively verified.

Organizations’ lack of an appropriate offer could result from their poorly developed network in rural areas. According to fruit growers, an important barrier was too much cooperation bureaucracy (42.2% of respondents). More than 1/5 of fruit growers also pointed to the low quality of services and their high costs. On the other hand, almost every fifth of the respondents considered difficult access to services (17.8%) to be a barrier to cooperation. This could result from the considerable distance of farms from individual organizations. Other barriers, indicated by 8.9% of fruit growers, included low interest in cooperation on the part of the organization.

5. Discussion

Farms, including fruit farms, always operate in a specific external environment, in a particular region, in conjunction with other entities. The external conditions of their functioning are shaped by state policy, regulatory mechanisms, and market conditions. The role of institutions and organizations operating in the environment of farms is also important [17]. Without the existence of institutions and organizations, modern agriculture and fruit growing would not be able to function efficiently. They coordinate behavior, reduce risk and ambiguities in interpersonal contacts, and create opportunities to improve the economic conditions of farms [14].

Institutions operating in agriculture adopt various organizational forms and operating mechanisms. According to Kołodziejczyk [38], the most significant role in the functioning of farms is played by public institutions (government and local government administration), which mainly use administrative and political mechanisms. There are also private institutions, associated formally or informally, in the vicinity of farms. Institutions affiliated formally are cooperatives, companies, and industry associations, while informally, they are mutual aid organizations. There is no doubt that the role and tasks of both public and private institutions must be adapted to the requirements of the functioning of farms in a market economy.

Czyżewski’s research conducted among farmers on farms of various product types in 2006–2007 shows that there were about 8.6 contacts per farmer, and most of them declared 8 to 10 contacts. The most significant number of these contacts occurred among farmers in the Podkarpackie and Śląskie voivodships [10]. Research carried out in the Małopolska and Pogórze Region more than 10 years later showed that fruit growers contacted selected organizations more often, and the number of these contacts was at a similar level. Cooperation with more organizations may prove that fruit growers see the benefits of the help they can receive from experienced representatives of various organizations.

The research results indicate significant differences between farmers regarding the number of contacts with institutions. The reasons for these differences may be on-farm or off-farm. Kołodziejczyk [38] listed the following as internal causes:

-

socio-personal: age, general and professional education of the farm user, participation in courses and training, and activity in obtaining EU funds;

-

economic: the size of agricultural land on a farm, the value of total production, and the financial strength of a farm (ESU);

-

organizational: access of a farm to the internet, type of production, and form of sale (sale) of a farm.

Research conducted by Czudec and others in 2006 shows that farmers from farms with different types of agricultural production received a similar scope of support from organizations [14]. More than 10 years after the previous surveys, however, farmers were more aware of the need to help specialized organizations run farms. The surveyed fruit growers were more willing to participate in training or seek information about EU programs. Much more often, they used the help of individual organizations to complete various documents related to obtaining funds from EU programs.

The research by Ostromęcki, Zając, and Mantaj [39] shows that farmers with more intensive relations with local institutions usually had larger (in terms of size) and economically stronger farms, obtained higher returns on the sale of their agricultural production, and had greater financial support from EU funds. For farms maintaining stronger relations with local institutions, there were more frequent changes in the number of production activities and resource means of production. These changes usually consisted of increasing the stock of agricultural machinery, land resources, livestock, and building resources and increasing the number of production activities on the farm. The above findings indicate that more intensive relationships between farmers and agricultural environment institutions positively impact the structural transformations and modernization of farms in the south eastern region of Poland. In addition, farmers maintaining more intensive relations with institutions are constantly looking for new market opportunities, and processes favoring the universality of production and production specialization prevail on their farms.

6. Conclusions

In the development of fruit farms, the institutional environment plays an important role, within which various types of state, non-governmental, and private organizations operate. The strength of cooperation between fruit growers and various organizations results from the potential of the farm and its owner and the involvement of the people operating in these organizations. The data show that the surveyed fruit producers were particularly willing to cooperate with Agricultural Advisory Centers and the Agency for Restructuring and Modernization of Agriculture. Many fruit growers also used the services of banks and the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund. Public government organizations were more important for properly conducting fruit-growing activities than private organisations and associations. Fruit producers used various forms of support, depending on the activity profile of individual organizations. Consulting, training, and obtaining information on EU programs were particularly often the subject of cooperation. In addition, fruit producers benefited from the support of employees of various organizations when introducing new production technologies and new products, especially fruit varieties and services. Among the organizations in the agricultural environment, the surveyed fruit producers rated the cooperation with the Agricultural Advisory Centers and the Agency for Restructuring and Modernization of Agriculture the highest. Slightly lower ratings were given to banks and the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund. The National Support Center for Agriculture and agricultural self-government organizations were rated the lowest. The limited level of cooperation between fruit farms and the institutional environment in the study region resulted mainly from the weakness and inadequacy of the offer of individual organizations to the needs of fruit growers, the lack of information about their activities, and the bureaucracy of cooperation. The most important barriers on the farms’ side were the small area and fragmented agrarian structure of their farms, lack of experience in contacts with organizations, small scale of production, or too distant location of the farm in relation to the organization. Therefore, the conducted research concludes that cooperation between farmers and organizations should still be perfected and improved because it can have a positive impact on changes in fruit farms. This is a particularly important issue in the implementation of the concept of sustainable development for agriculture.