The Agri-Environment-Climate Measure as an Element of the Bioeconomy in Poland—A Spatial Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Green—related to the management of land resources in order to maintain their valuable properties, with the creation of conditions for wild animals and plants, protection of animal welfare, maintenance of biodiversity and improvement of the circulation of chemicals in agricultural production systems [11,55];
- blue—related to water resources management, water quality improvement, flood prevention, hydropower and wind energy generation [5].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area and Materials
- the number of completed applications—97,200, which constituted 10.4% of the total number of farms;
- the surface of the subsidised area—1,259,600 ha, which constituted 10.8% of the total agricultural area of farms;
- the realised payments—EUR 933.8 million (at the rate of PLN 4.295 to EUR 1), which was EUR 1190 per farm.
- macroscale—comprehensive nationwide analysis;
- microscale—enabling the identification of specific areas in which activities aroused extreme interest and areas in which farmers showed passivity in applying for funds for agri-environment-climate activities. Such an approach is an advantage of the work, as most of the analyses related to the evaluation of the implementation of EU funds are conducted only on a regional scale, without in-depth analysis at the local level (LAU 2 units).
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Stage 1. Indicator of the Use of Proenvironmental CAP Funds
- (IAF) the activity of farmers in terms of obtaining funds (ratio of the number of applications to the total number of farms expressed in percentages);
- (ITR) territorial rank (the ratio of the number of applications to the area of agricultural land expressed in percentages);
- —standardised value of the diagnostic feature ‘i’ in spatial unit ‘j’
- —value of diagnostic feature ‘i’ in spatial unit ‘j’
- —average value of diagnostic feature ‘i’
- —standard deviation of diagnostic feature ‘i’.
- —average standardised value of selected diagnostic features within the respective group of features
- —standardised value of diagnostic feature ‘i’ in spatial unit ‘j’
- —number of diagnostic features.
2.2.2. Stage 2. Assessment Planes—Determinants of Sustainable Development of (Bio)Agriculture
2.2.3. Stage 3. Assessment of IUF-RDP in the Context of Conditions
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. The Role and Importance of Agri-Environment-Climate Action
- restoring, protecting, and enhancing biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 sites and areas facing natural or other specific constraints, and HNV farming and the state of European landscapes;
- improving water management, including fertilisation and pesticide use,
- preventing soil erosion and improving soil management [81].
3.2. Implementation of Proenvironmental CAP Funds in Poland in 2014–2020
3.3. An Attempt at Spatial Delimitation of Conditions for the Development of Sustainable Agriculture in Poland
3.4. Spatial Assessment of the Use of Proenvironmental RDP Funds in the Context of the Conditions of Sustainable Agricultural Development
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Komunikat Komisji Europejskiej. Europejska Strategia I Plan Działania W Kierunku Zrównoważonej Biogospodarki Do 2020 Roku. Available online: Europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-124_pl.htm (accessed on 7 November 2020).
- Ratajczak, E. Rolnictwo i leśnictwo w świetle koncepcji biogospodarki. In Proceedings of the IX Kongres Ekonomistów Polskich, Warszawa, Poland, 28–29 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Chyłek, E.K. Nowe strategie Komisji Europejskiej dotyczące biogospodarki i gospodarki wewnętrznej o obiegu zamkniętym. Pol. J. Agron. 2016, 25, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission (EC). New Perspectives on the Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hanley, N.; Banerjee, S.; Lennox, G.D.; Armsworth, P.R. How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity? Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2012, 28, 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission (EC). Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe; Publication Office of the European Office: Luxembourg, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Goldberger, J.R. Conventionalization, civic engagement, and the sustainability of organic agriculture. J. Rural Stud. 2011, 27, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Żmija, J.; Czekaj, M. The diversity of farm production as the basis for the development of bio-economy in the malopolskie province. Econ. Reg. Stud. 2014, 7, 33–42. [Google Scholar]
- Bański, J. Geografia Polskie Jwsi; Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne: Warszawa, Poland, 2006; p. 220. ISBN 83-208-1596-7. [Google Scholar]
- Jezierska-Thöle, A.; Biczkowski, M. The Analysis of Conditions and Level of Sustainable Development of Rural Areas in Poland and Germany. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 3, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamowicz, M. Bioeconomy-concept, application and perspectives. Probl. Agric. Econ. 2017, 1, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, J.W. The end of the road? Agricultural revolutions in the capitalist world-ecology, 1450–2010. J. Agrar. Chang. 2010, 10, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abler, D.G. Multifunctionality, agricultural policy, and environmental policy. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2004, 33, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission (EC). Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe; COM (2012) Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Birch, K.; Levidow, L.; Papaioannou, T. Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European “knowledge-based bio-economy”. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2898–2918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, L.G.; Seijo, J.C. Bioeconomics of Fisheries Management; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; p. 320. ISBN1 0813817323. ISBN2 9780813817323. [Google Scholar]
- Kołodziejczak, A.; Rudnicki, R. Spatial diversification of energy crops in Polish agriculture: A study of plantation concentration based on local indicators of spatial association (LISA). Quaest. Geogr. 2017, 36, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- COM (2012) 60. Available online: Ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/201202_innovating_sustainable_growth_pl.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2020).
- Pajewski, T. Programy rolnośrodowiskowe jako forma wspierania ochrony środowiska na terenach wiejskich. Zesz. Nauk. Szkoły Głównej Gospod. Wiej. Ekon. I Organ. Gospod. Żywnościowej 2014, 107, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Strategia Innowacyjności I Efektywności Gospodarki. Załącznik Do Uchwały Nr 7 Rady Ministrów Z Dnia 15 Stycznia 2013 Roku. Ministerstwo Gospodarki. Available online: https://www.Strategia_Innowacyjnosci_i_Efektywnosci_Gospodarki_2020.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2020).
- Strategia Zrównoważonego Rozwoju Wsi Rolnictwa I Rybactwa 2030. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/rolnictwo/strategia-zrownowazonego-rozwoju-wsi-rolnictwa-i-rybactwa-2030 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Strategia Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej 2020. Warszawa 2020. Available online: https://www.bbn.gov.pl/ftp/dokumenty/Strategia_Bezpieczenstwa_Narodowego_RP_2020.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda, Main Findings; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Aims of the common agricultural policy. Available online: Ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/.../index_en.htm (accessed on 7 November 2020).
- European Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio). Building a Bio-Based Economy for Europe in 2020; European Association for Bioindustries: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Technical Elements of Agri-Environment-Climate Measure in the Programming Period. 2014–2020, (WD 08–18–14); European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kluba, M.; Rudnicki, R.; Jezierska-Thöle, A. Poziom i struktura produkcji rolniczej województwa kujawsko-pomorskiego w 2010 roku w warunkach oddziaływania instrumentów WPR Unii Europejskiej. Rocz. Nauk. Stowarzyszenia Ekon. Rol. I Agrobiz. 2014, 16, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
- Rudnicki, R. Natural considerations of the regional diversification of absorption of European Union funds in Polish agriculture. In Selected Aspects of Transformation in Countries of Central and Central-Eastern Europe; Michalski, T., Kuczabski, A., Eds.; University of Gdańsk: Gdańsk, Poland, 2010; pp. 63–80. [Google Scholar]
- Jezierska-Thöle, A.; Gwiaździńska-Goraj, M.; Wiśniewski, Ł. Current status and prospects for organic agriculture in Poland. Quaest. Geogr. 2017, 36, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lakner, S.; Zinngrebe, Y.; Koemle, D. Combining management plans and payment schemes for targeted grassland conservation within the Habitats Directive in Saxony, Eastern Germany. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamowicz, M. European concept of bioeconomy and its bearing on practical use. Econ. Reg. Stud. (Studia Ekon. I Reg.) 2014, 7, 5–21. [Google Scholar]
- Financing Natura 2000. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Gołębiewski, J. Zrównoważona biogospodarka–potencjał i czynniki rozwoju. IX Kongr. Ekon. Pol. 2013, 2, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Chyłek, E.K.; Bielecki, S. Biogospodarka–technologie innowacyjne szansą poprawy konkurencyjności w sektorze rolno-spożywczym i na obszarach wiejskich. In Bioeconomy–Innovative Technologies as an Opportunity to Improve Competitiveness in the Agri-Food Sector and in Rural Areas; Chyłek, E.K., Pietras, M., Eds.; III Kongres Nauk Rolniczych “Nauka–Praktyce”: Warszawa, Poland, 2015; pp. 9–14. [Google Scholar]
- Barberi, P.; Burgio, G.; Dinelli, G.; Moonen, A.C.; Otto, S.; Vazzana, C.; Zanin, G. Functional biodiversity in the agricultural landscape: Relationships between weeds and arthropod fauna. Weed Res. 2010, 50, 388–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bio-Economy Technology Platforms (BECOTEPS). The European Bioeconomy in 2030: Delivering Sustainable Growth by Addressing the Grand Societal Challenges; Bio-Economy Technology Platforms: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Jezierska-Thöle, A.; Biczkowski, M. Financial Funds from European Union funds as a chance for the development of the sector of organic farms in Poland. Assoc. Agric. Agribus. Econ. 2017, 19, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Król, M. Legal Framework of Environmental law for Agricultural Production in Poland. Available online: http://sj.wne.sggw.pl/pdf/PEFIM_2015_n62_s86.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2020).
- Zikeli, S.; Gruber, S. Reduced tillage and no-till in organic farming systems, Germany—Status quo, potentials and challenges. Agriculture 2017, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zimmermann, A.; Britz, W. European farms’ participation in agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy 2016, 50, 214–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pondel, H. European Union funds as a tool for creating new functions of rural areas, as illustrated by the example of RDP. J. Agribus. Rural Dev. 2017, 2, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidtner, E.; Lippert, C.; Engler, B.; Häring, A.M.; Aurbacher, J.; Dabbert, S. Spatial distribution of organic farming in Germany: Does neighbourhood matter? Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2012, 39, 661–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zander, P.; Knierim, U.; Groot, J.C.; Rossing, W.A. Multifunctionality of agriculture: Tools and methods for impact assessment and valuation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 120, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birge, T.; Herzon, I. Exploring cultural acceptability of a hypothetical results-based agri-environment payment for grassland biodiversity. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 67, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Desjeux, Y.; Dupraz, P.; Kuhlman, T.; Paracchini, M.L.; Michels, R.; Maigne, E.; Reinhard, S. Evaluating the impact of rural development measures on nature value indicators at different spatial levels: Application to France and The Netherlands. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 59, 41–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleijn, D.; Sutherland, W.J. How effective are Europeanagri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 947–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kołodziejczak, A.; Rudnicki, R. Instrumenty Wspólnej Polityki Rolnej ukierunkowane na poprawę środowiska przyrodniczego a planowanie przestrzenne rolnictwa. Acta Sci. Pol. Adm. Locorum 2012, 11, 17–133. [Google Scholar]
- Rudnicki, R. Fundusze Unii Europejskiej jako Czynnik Modernizacji Rolnictwa Polskiego; Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Poznań, Poland, 2010; p. 210. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkin, J. Wielofunkcyjność wsi i rolnictwa a rozwój zrównoważony. Wieś I Rol. 2011, 153, 27–39. [Google Scholar]
- Kłodziński, M. Przedsiębiorczość pozarolnicza na wsi w procesie wielofunkcyjnego rozwoju obszarów wiejskich. Wieś I Rol. 2014, 162, 97–112. [Google Scholar]
- Treasury, H.M. The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation, London. 2018. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/685903/The_Green_Book.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Bartolini, F.; Vergamini, D.; Longhitano, D.; Povellato, A. Do differential payments for agri-environment schemes affect the environmental benefits? A case study in the North-Eastern Italy. Land Use Policy 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batáry, P.; Dicks, L.V.; Kleijn, D.; Sutherland, W.J. The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 1006–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Krajowy Program Badań. Założenia Polityki Naukowo-Technicznej I Innowacyjnej Państwa–Załącznik Do Uchwały Nr 164/2011 Rady Ministrów Z Dnia 16 Sierpnia 2011 r. Available online: https://www.bip.nauka.gov.pl/krajowy-program-bada%C5%84\h (accessed on 7 November 2020).
- Ecorys. Mapping and Analysis of the Implementation of the CAP. 2017. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/pl/publication-detail/-/publication/65c49958-e138-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed on 22 August 2020).
- Galler, C.; von Haaren, C.; Albert, C. Optimizing environmental measures for landscape multifunctionality: Effectiveness, efficiency, and recommendations for agri-environmental programs. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 151, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pe’er, G.; Dicks, L.V.; Visconti, P.; Arlettaz, R.P.R.; Kleijn, D.; Neumann, R.K.; Robijns, T.; Schmidt, J.; Shwartz, A.; Sutherland, W.J.; et al. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 2014, 344, 1090–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Plant Science Organisation (EPSO). The European Bioeconomy in 2030: Delivering Sustainable Growth by Ad-dressing the Grand Societal Challenges. Available online: http://www.plantetp.org/system/files/publications/files/the_european_bioeconomy_brochure_web_final.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Innovation for Sustainable Growth: Bio-Economy for Europe. Sygnatura COM (2012) 60. Available online: https://wbc-rti.info/object/event/11271/attach/05_Bio_economy_for_Europe.pdf for.org.pl (accessed on 7 October 2020).
- European Parliament, Council of the European Union Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 Support for Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and Repealing. Available online: https://www.bip.nauka.gov.pl/krajowy-program-badan/ (accessed on 7 October 2020).
- Jezierska-Thöle, A.; Rudnicki, R.; Kluba, M. Development of energy crops cultivation for biomass production in Poland. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 534–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biczkowski, M. Instrumenty Wspólnej Polityki Rolnej jako Czynnik Wspierający Rozwój Obszarów Wiejskich. Studium na Przykładzie Region. Kujawsko-Pomorskiego; Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika: Toruń, Poland, 2018; p. 306. ISBN 978-83-231-4041-2. [Google Scholar]
- Rudnicki, R.; Jezierska-Thole, A.; Biczkowski, M. The impact of the Common Agricultural Policy on socio-economic development in Poland. In Proceedings of the 13th International days of statistics and economics, Prague, Czech Republic, 5–7 September 2019; pp. 1309–1318. [Google Scholar]
- Rudnicki, R.; Wiśniewski, L.; Kluba, M. Poziom i struktura przestrzenna rolnictwa Polskiego w świetle wyników Powszechnego Spisu Rolnego 2010. Rocz. Nauk. Stowarzyszenia Ekon. Rol. I Agrobiz. 2015, 17, 337–343. [Google Scholar]
- Rudnicki, R. The Spatial Structure of Polish Agriculture Conditioned by Common Agricultural Policy Instruments; Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika: Toruń, Poland, 2016; p. 208. [Google Scholar]
- Statistics Poland-Local Data Bank of the Central Statistical Office. Available online: https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/BDL/ (accessed on 3 October 2020).
- Management Information System of the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (ARMA). Available online: https://www.ARiMR-Agencja Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Statistics Poland-General Agricultural Census. Available online: https://www.Powszechny Spis Rolny 2010 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Perdał, R. Zastosowanie analizy skupień i lasów losowych w klasyfikacji gmin w Polsce na skali poziomu rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego. Metod. Ilościowe W Bad. Ekon. 2018, 19, 263–273. [Google Scholar]
- Sadik-Zada, E.R.; Gatto, A. The puzzle of greenhouse gas footprints of oil abundance. Socio Econ. Plan. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadik-Zada, E.R.; Ferrari, M. Environmental Policy Stringency, Technical Progress and Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IUNiG-PIB. Available online: https://iung.pl/index (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Plan Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich na Lata 2004–2006; Ministerstwo Rolnictwa I Rozwoju Wsi: Warszawa, Poland, 2004; Available online: http://eko.org.pl/lkp/poradniki/prow_plus.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Früh-Müller, A.; Bach, M.; Breuer, L.; Hotes, S.; Koellner, T.; Krippes, C.; Wolters, V. The use of agri-environmental measures to address environmental pressures in Germany: Spatial mismatches and options for improvement. Land Use Policy 2019, 84, 347–362. [Google Scholar]
- Rudnicki, R. Analiza absorpcji środków WPR i ich wpływu na zmiany strukturalne w rolnictwie polskim. In Zróżnicowanie Przestrzenne Rolnictwa; Głębocki, B., Ed.; GUS: Warszawa, Poland, 2014; pp. 441–463. [Google Scholar]
- Mijatović, D.; Van Oudenhoven, F.; Eyzaguirre, P.; Hodgkin, T. The role of agricultural biodiversity in strengthening resilience to climate change: Towards an analytical framework. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2013, 11, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niggli, U.; Slabe, A.; Schmid, O.; Halberg, N.; Schlüter, M. Vision for an Organic Food and Farming Research Agenda to 2025. Organic Knowledge for the Future; Technology Platform Organics: Brussels, Belgium, 2008; Available online: http://www.tporganics.eu/upload/TPOrganics_VisionResearchAgenda.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Biczkowski, M.; Jezierska-Thöle, A. Impact of EU funds on current status and prospects of organic farming in Poland. Econ. Sci. Rural Dev. 2018, 47, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudnicki, R.; Jezierska-Thöle, A.; Wiśniewski, Ł.; Janzen, J.; Kozłowski, L. Former political borders and their impact on the evolution of the present-day spatial structure of agriculture in Poland. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2018, 120, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Przewodnik Po Działaniu Rolno-Środowiskowo-Klimatycznym PROW 2014–2020. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/documents/912055/913531/Przewodnik (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Rural Development Programme for Mainland Finland 2014–2020. Available online: https://mmm.fi/en/rural-areas/rural-development-programme (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Batáry, P.; Gallé, R.; Riesch, F.; Fischer, C.; Dormann, C.F.; Mußhoff, O.; Császár, P.; Fusaro, S.; Gayer, C.; Happe, A.-K.; et al. The former Iron Curtain still drives biodiversity–profit trade-offs in German agriculture. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 1279–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Czyż, T. Poziom rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego Polski w ujęciu subregionalnym. Przegląd Geogr. 2012, 84, 219–236. [Google Scholar]
- Stanny, M. Przestrzenne Zróżnicowanie Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich W Polsce; IRWiR PAN: Warszawa, Poland, 2013; p. 329. ISBN 978-83-89900-53-1. [Google Scholar]
- Rudnicki, R. Spatial Differences in the Use of European Funds by Agricultural Holdings in Poland in the Years 2002-2010. In Transformation Processes of Rural Areas; Kamińska, W., Heffner, K., Eds.; Studia Regionalia KPZK PAN: Warsaw, Poland, 2013; Volume 36, pp. 71–87. [Google Scholar]
- Witek, T.; Górski, T. Przyrodnicza Bonitacja Rolniczej Przestrzeni Produkcyjnej W Polsce; IUNG: Puławy, Poland, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Waloryzacja Rolniczej Przestrzeni Produkcyjnej Polski; IUNG: Puławy, Poland, 2000.
- Rudnicki, R.; Wiśniewski, Ł. Cechy produkcyjne rolnictwa a poziom absorpcji środków Wspólnej Polityki Rolnej w Polsce. Studia Obsz. Wiej. 2016, 42, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stawicka, J.; Szymczak-Piątek, M.; Wieczorek, J. Selected Ecological Issues; SGGW: Warszawa, Poland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Moonen, A.C.; Barberi, P. Functional biodiversity: An agroecosystem approach. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 127, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahmann, G.; Reza Ardakani, M.; Bàrberi, P.; Boehm, H.; Canali, S.; Chander, M.; David, W.; Dengel, L.; Erisman, J.W.; Galvis-Martinez, A.C.; et al. Organic Agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research. Org. Agric. 2017, 7, 169–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Uthes, S.; Matzdorf, B. Studies on agri-environmental measures: A survey of the literature. Env. Manag. 2013, 51, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feindt, P.; Proestou, M.; Daedlow, K. Resilience and policy design in the emerging bioeconomy–the RPD framework and the changing role of energy crop systems in Germany. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2020, 22, 636–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirschke, D.; Hager, A.; Jechlitschka, K.; Wegener, S. Distortions in a multi-level co-financing system: The case of the agri-environmental programme of Saxony-Anhalt. Ger. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 56, 297–304. [Google Scholar]
Assessment Plane | Delimitation Indicators | Data Source |
---|---|---|
The level of socioeconomic development (LSED) | (x1) business entities in the REGON register per 10,000 population | [70] |
(x2) unemployed per 10,000 population (destimulant) | [70] | |
(x3) population with the access to the sewage network as a percentage of the total population | [70] | |
(x4) own incomes of communities in PLN per capita | [70] | |
The level of agricultural development (LAD) | (x5) the average area of a farm in ha (2018, according to ARMA) | [70] |
(x6) farmers with secondary and higher education as a percentage of the total number of farmers | [66] | |
(x7) young farmers (up to 34 years of age) as a percentage of the total number of farms | [66] | |
(x8) noncereal crops as a percentage of the total sown area | [66] | |
The quality of agricultural production space (APS) | (x9) indicator of the quality of agricultural production space | [67] |
The natural and ecological quality of areas (NEA) | (x10) forests and wooded and bushy land as a percentage of the total area | [70] |
(x11) grasslands, water bodies, and the legally protected areas as a percentage of the total area (2018, according to CSO BDL) | [70] | |
(x12) priority zones of the agri-environmental program delimited in the period 2004–2006 as a percentage of the total area | [68] |
Specification | Number of Applications | Subsidised Area | Payments Made | IUF-RDP ** | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In Total Thousand Requests * | IAF ** | In Thousand ha * | ITR ** | In Million Euros | IFSF ** | |||
POLAND | 97.2 | 10.4 | 1259.6 | 10.8 | 933.8 | 1.190 | 0.00 | |
I | Dolnośląskie | 5.1 | 10.0 | 77.6 | 9.2 | 64.7 | 1.259 | −0.03 |
II | Kujawsko-Pomorskie | 3.8 | 6.3 | 68.7 | 6.7 | 37.2 | 623 | −0.26 |
III | Lubelskie | 13.3 | 7.9 | 119.3 | 8.8 | 87.8 | 522 | −0.19 |
IV | Lubuskie | 4.7 | 24.4 | 98.4 | 24.1 | 83.2 | 4.304 | 1.05 |
V | Łódzkie | 2.6 | 2.2 | 20.4 | 2.2 | 12.9 | 112 | −0.52 |
VI | Małopolskie | 3.8 | 3.3 | 18.7 | 3.8 | 17.1 | 150 | −0.46 |
VII | Mazowieckie | 7.4 | 3.7 | 57.0 | 3.1 | 40.4 | 204 | −0.46 |
VIII | Opolskie | 0.7 | 2.6 | 17.2 | 3.4 | 8.1 | 302 | −0.46 |
IX | Podkarpackie | 9.8 | 8.8 | 64.1 | 11.9 | 66.9 | 600 | −0.10 |
X | Podlaskie | 11.7 | 14.9 | 102.9 | 10.1 | 82.1 | 1.051 | 0.07 |
XI | Pomorskie | 6.1 | 16.2 | 109.9 | 15.2 | 70.6 | 1.889 | 0.33 |
XII | Śląskie | 0.9 | 2.1 | 9.9 | 3.0 | 6.5 | 159 | −0.50 |
XIII | Świętokrzyskie | 4.1 | 5.0 | 26.0 | 5.3 | 18.3 | 223 | −0.38 |
XIV | Warmińsko-Mazurskie | 10.4 | 24.6 | 195.2 | 20.1 | 145.8 | 3.460 | 0.85 |
XV | Wielkopolskie | 5.3 | 4.5 | 76.2 | 4.4 | 48.7 | 419 | −0.38 |
XVI | Zachodniopomorskie | 7.8 | 28.2 | 198.4 | 23.5 | 143.6 | 5.173 | 1.25 |
Province | The Level of Socioeconomic Development | The Level of Agricultural Development | The Quality of Agricultural Production Space | The Natural and Ecological Quality of Areas | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
LSED * | LAD * | APS * | NEA * | ||
I | Dolnośląskie | 0.30 | 0.21 | 0.39 | −0.12 |
II | Kujawsko-Pomorskie | −0.35 | 0.36 | 0.39 | −0.27 |
III | Lubelskie | −0.66 | −0.04 | 0.97 | −0.27 |
IV | Lubuskie | 0.00 | 0.24 | −0.54 | 0.20 |
V | Łódzkie | −0.16 | −0.11 | −0.27 | −0.41 |
VI | Małopolskie | −0.03 | −0.24 | 0.03 | 0.17 |
VII | Mazowieckie | 0.51 | −0.04 | −0.59 | 0.13 |
VIII | Opolskie | −0.11 | 0.17 | 0.72 | −0.52 |
IX | Podkarpackie | −0.61 | −0.29 | 0.27 | 0.40 |
X | Podlaskie | −0.43 | 0.17 | −1.09 | 0.28 |
XI | Pomorskie | 0.30 | 0.21 | 0.44 | −0.05 |
XII | Śląskie | 0.13 | −0.36 | 0.15 | −0.25 |
XIII | Świętokrzyskie | −0.57 | −0.21 | −0.03 | 0.29 |
XIV | Warmińsko-Mazurskie | −0.46 | 0.36 | 0.15 | 0.17 |
XV | Wielkopolskie | 0.20 | 0.14 | −0.28 | −0.10 |
XVI | Zachodniopomorskie | 0.20 | 0.71 | −0.02 | 0.13 |
Level of IUF-RDP | Conditions | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
LSED | LAD | APS | NEA | |
Low | −0.62 | −0.07 | 0.08 | −0.43 |
Average | −0.76 | 0.05 | −0.06 | −0.13 |
High | −0.62 | 0.32 | −0.51 | 0.44 |
Specification | LSED | LAD | APS | NEA | IUF-RDP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
LSED | 1 | 0.105 | −0.025 | −0.078 | 0.046 |
LAD | 0.105 | 1 | 0.309 | −0.172 | 0.233 |
APS | −0.025 | 0.309 | 1 | −0.514 | −0.203 |
NEA | −0.078 | −0.172 | −0.514 | 1 | 0.282 |
IUF-RDP | 0.046 | 0.233 | −0.203 | 0.282 | 1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jezierska-Thöle, A.; Rudnicki, R.; Wiśniewski, Ł.; Gwiaździńska-Goraj, M.; Biczkowski, M. The Agri-Environment-Climate Measure as an Element of the Bioeconomy in Poland—A Spatial Study. Agriculture 2021, 11, 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020110
Jezierska-Thöle A, Rudnicki R, Wiśniewski Ł, Gwiaździńska-Goraj M, Biczkowski M. The Agri-Environment-Climate Measure as an Element of the Bioeconomy in Poland—A Spatial Study. Agriculture. 2021; 11(2):110. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020110
Chicago/Turabian StyleJezierska-Thöle, Aleksandra, Roman Rudnicki, Łukasz Wiśniewski, Marta Gwiaździńska-Goraj, and Mirosław Biczkowski. 2021. "The Agri-Environment-Climate Measure as an Element of the Bioeconomy in Poland—A Spatial Study" Agriculture 11, no. 2: 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020110
APA StyleJezierska-Thöle, A., Rudnicki, R., Wiśniewski, Ł., Gwiaździńska-Goraj, M., & Biczkowski, M. (2021). The Agri-Environment-Climate Measure as an Element of the Bioeconomy in Poland—A Spatial Study. Agriculture, 11(2), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020110