**3. Results**

### *3.1. Determinants of Green Agricultural Development in Poland*

The quality of the natural environment was assumed to determine the intensity and direction of development of a green agricultural managemen<sup>t</sup> system. Support may provide a special alternative to the traditional (high-productivity) approach of farms in less favoured areas (that often have lower productivity), including those with poor-quality soils. On the other hand, the introduction of environmentally friendly agricultural practices should be particularly important in areas of high natural value containing legally protected areas.

The analysis showed that the three diagnostic attributes (see Section 2.3) determined the environmental determinants index, which stands out as being highly spatial and regionally differentiated (from −0.46 in Lower Silesia Province and −0.49 in Opole Province to 0.47 in Lubusz Province—see Table 1), and above all in the distribution of communities (see Figure 1a). The level of environmental determinants (index below −0.50) was low in 832 communities (33.6% of the total) usually located within the borders of the provinces of Lower Silesia and Lublin. Conversely, the index was high (above 0.50, indicating a significant agricultural predisposition to environmentally friendly activities) in 621 communities (25.1% of the total), which were most numerous in the provinces of Central Poland—Łód ´z and Masovia (see Figure 1a).

The agricultural characteristics index exhibited a similarly strong spatial differentiation (see Figure 1b).There were 163 communities (6.6% of total) with a low index (below −0.50), with the most being in the provinces of Lesser Poland, Masovia and Greater Poland. By contrast, the 0.50 threshold was exceeded (i.e., high index values), indicating favourable agricultural determinants, in 523 communities (21.1% of the total) concentrated in three provinces of Northern and Western Poland: Lower Silesia, Warmia-Masuria and West Pomerania (see Figure 1b).


**Table 1.** Selected determinants of green development of Polish agriculture.

> Source: own study based on data from LDB and IUNiG.

**Figure 1.** Environmental (**a**) and agricultural (**b**) determinants of green development of Polish agriculture. Voivodships are marked with digits: I—Lower Silesia, II—Kuyavia-Pomerania, III— Lublin, IV—Lubusz, V—Łód´z, VI—Lesser Poland, VII—Masovia, VIII—Opole, IX—Subcarpathia, X—Podlasie, XI—Pomerania, XII—Silesia, XIII—Holy Cross, XIV—Warmia-Masuria, XV—Greater Poland, XVI—West Pomerania. Source: own elaboration.

Of the 2282 surveyed communities receiving pro-environmental subsidies, only 252 (11.0%) had high levels of both environmental determinants and the selected agricultural characteristics. These areas are particularly predestined for the development of green managemen<sup>t</sup> methods. By contrast, only 153 communities (6.7%) had low scores.

### *3.2. Farmlands Subsidised for Implementing the Pro-Environmental Obligations of RDP 2014-20*

Analysis of the ARMA data showed that, on average, 1.2849 million hectares per year were covered by green activities (AECM and OF—total) (see Table 2; Figure 2a). Land covered by pro-environmental support amounted to 9.2% of the total area of agricultural holdings, which is low compared to the leading EU countries in this respect (e.g., in Germany, the area subsidised by the agri-environmental programme is nearly 5.3 million ha, i.e., around one quarter of total UAA [37]).


**Table 2.** Forms of green support for agriculture in Poland: level, structure and determinants.

\* groups of communities: ↓—below national average (unfavourable), ↑—above national average (favourable). Source: own study based on data from ARMA and LDB.

**Figure 2.** Area of land covered by pro-environmental RDP support (**a**), and its share in total UAA of farms (**b**).Source: own elaboration.

This percentage, which indicates the territorial significance of green activities in agriculture, is highly spatially diversified. At the regional level, it ranges from 2.3% in Łód ´z Province to over 20.0% in Lubusz (24.6%), Warmia-Masuria (21.2%) and West Pomerania (23.8%; see Table 2).

According to communities, the variation in the percentages of land covered by proenvironmental support ranges from less than 3% in 886 units (including by the least, at less than 0.1% in 22 communities) to over 15.0% in 439 communities and over 35% in 150 communities (see Figure 2b).

The spatial distribution of the analysed farmlands was evaluated as correlating poorly with environmental conditions (r = 0.165). A significant difference in the proportion of land receiving support from pro-environmental measures was also confirmed to exist between communities with unfavourable (↓ 5.7%) and favourable (↑ 13.0%) environmental conditions. There was a much stronger relationship between land covered by pro-environmental support (in table: subsidised land as % of farms and agricultural determinants (a synthetic indicator derived from diagnostic attributes: average farm area; farms run by farmers with higher education, as % of total; land productivity)) (r = 0.397). This indicates that the nature of the farm itself (acreage, productivity) and the education of its manager play a significant role in the use of environmentally friendly farming methods.

### *3.3. Breakdown of Farmland by Type of Pro-Environmental RDP Payments*

The analysis also addresses the problem of the spatial differentiation of the selected types of payments. In accordance with the adopted methodology, the analysis included the average annual area for the period 2015-19, which results from agri-environmental payments being made as five-year commitments. The subsidised land was shown to be highly spatially differentiated, which we will discuss for each subsidy type separately.

In the case of organic farming, payments relate to two main forms (payments during conversion and post-conversion), under which different rates have been distinguished, as well as a number of subsidy types (agricultural, vegetable, herb, orchard, berry, fodder and permanent pasture; see Appendix A). In total, the above payments coveredc.420,400 ha (of which 77.3% relates to post-conversion payments), which was strongly differentiated regionally, fromc.1500 ha in Opole Province toc.112,300 ha in Warmia-Masuria. At the commune level, the largest area of organic farming subsidies, exceeding 5000 ha, was recorded in two communities in West Pomerania (BiałyBór and Szczecinek—eachc.5800 ha)—and in the commune of Gołdap in Warmia-Masuria Province (c.6800 ha; see Figure 3a).

**Figure 3.** Area of land subsidised for organic farming in ha (**a**), and its share in total area of land covered by proenvironmental RDP support (**b**). Source: own elaboration.

Subsidies for organic farming account for 32.7% of the total land area of farms receiving pro-environmental support from RDP 2014–20. The analogous percentage at the province level ranges from less than 10.0% in Kuyavia-Pomerania and Opole to 55.0% in Warmia-Masuria (see Table 2). It is also heavily spatially differentiated at the commune level (see Figure 3b). A significant group of communities (483 communities) distinguished by the dominance (over 50%) of organic farming in the total area covered by pro-environmental RDP payments is worthy of attention. There were also 26 communities where pro-environmental payments included only subsidies for organic farming (100%).

Considering the disproportionate share of land subsidised for organic farming in light of the division of communities by environmental determinants (↓ 24.0%, ↑ 36.8%) and agricultural characteristics (↓ 23.0%, ↑ 35.5%), we find that the spatial distribution of such areas depends slightly more on agricultural characteristics (r = 0.346) than on environmental conditions (r = 0.299; see Table 2).

Looking at the analysed pro-environmental payments, the "environmental agriculture" category was also distinguished, with four agri-environmental and climate action packages supporting environmental protection and biodiversity in agriculture, i.e.,

sustainable agriculture: total in Polandc.268,100 ha (fromc.800 ha in Lesser Poland up toc.47,400 ha in Kuyavia-Pomerania) (see Figure 4a);

**Figure 4.** Land subsidised to support environmental agriculture, in ha (**a**)—sustainable agriculture, (**b**)—protection of soils and waters, (**c**)—preservation of orchards with traditional varieties of fruit trees, (**d**)—preservation of endangered plant genetic resources in agriculture).Source: own elaboration.


Total payments under the category of "environmental agriculture" related to c.408,600 ha—from c.3200 ha in Lesser Poland up to c.65,400 ha in Pomerania (by commune, 3000–3400 ha in Czarna D ˛abrówka in Pomerania, Dołhobyczów in Lublin Province and Kozłów in Warmia-Masuria; see Table 3, Figure 5a). In the total area covered by pro-environmental payments, these represent 31.8%. This percentage is heavily spatially and regionally differentiated (Table 3) and at the commune level (Figure 5b).

**Table 3.** Pro-environmental forms of CAP support: distribution of subsidised land by support type (100% = 2282 communities).


\* Number of quotients (see Section 2). Source: own study based on data from ARMA and LDB.

**Figure 5.** Area of land subsidised with support for environmental agriculture (**a**), and its share in the total area covered by pro-environmental RDP support (**b**). Source: own elaboration.

The assessment of this spatial distribution showed significant differences between the identified groups of determinants—environmental (↓ 49.7%, ↑ 23.4%) and agricultural (↓ 42.4%, ↑ 28.8%). However, these relationships were not confirmed by analysis of the correlation coefficients (Table 2).

The research also distinguished the category of "habitat farming", in whichthe second largest determinant of pro-environmental subsidies (after the farmer's environmental awareness) is the presence of valuable natural habitats within the boundaries of the farm. This targeted analysis covered two AECM 2014-20 packages, i.e.,


Support for habitat farming covered a total of 455,900 ha. This area is highly regionally diversified—from c.2300 ha in Opole Province to c.76,400 ha in West Pomerania Province. In the system of communities, the largest areas were recorded as c.5000 ha in Koma ´ncza (Subcarpathia), c.5300 ha in Sło ´nsk (Lubusz Province) and c.5700 ha in Trzcianne(Podlasie Province) (see Figure 6a).

**Figure 6.** Area of land subsidised with support for habitat farming, in ha (**a**), and its share in the total area covered by pro-environmental RDP support (**b**). Source: own elaboration.

The CAP funds allocated to the support of farms with valuable natural habitats constitute, on average, 35.5% of the total pro-environmental payments in Poland. At the regional level, this ranges from 11.7% in Kuyavia-Pomerania to over 50% in Lubusz and Subcarpathia (see Table 2). It is highly spatially diverse at the commune level, as seen in the significant differences in the number of communities in which habitat payments dominate (representing over 70% of payments) between the provinces of Kuyavia-Pomerania (6 communities), Łód´z (8), Opole (2) and Lower Silesia (44), Lesser Poland (38), Masovia (51) and Subcarpathia (70; see Figure 6b).

One very important observation is that the determinants correlated negatively with environmental conditions (r = −0.319), which include, inter alia, the share of protected areas. The dependence was not confirmed by analysis according to groups of determinants (↑, ↓), because, in this case, the difference between thegroups of below-average and aboveaverage communitieswas over 13% (Table 2).

### *3.4. Typology of Pro-Environmental Forms of CAP Support*

The above-described types of support for green agriculture, with its three directions (organic—O, environmental—E, habitat—H), were subjected to structural analysis using the D'Hondt method. They were shown to form highly diverse breakdowns within the structure of examined communities, including as many as 28 combinations of characteristics or types of support. These characteristics and support types were highly differentiated in the numbers of communities that they related to—from 1.4% of all examined communities (33 communities—No. 22; Table 3) for O1 E1 H4 (very low level of support for organic and environmental farming, and a significant share of support for habitat farming) to 20.7% (472 communities—No. 9) for E6 (dominant share of support for environmental farming; Table 3).

In order to generalise these spatial structures showing the pro-environmental support for agriculture using the criterion of the dominant number of quotients, four main types of support were defined: organic farming (O), environmental agriculture (E), habitat farming (H) and equal share of directions (ES). Within these, seven subtypes were distinguished, splitting each type into two, i.e., a very high share or total dominance (5 or 6 quotients) and a very low, low, significant or high share (1, 2, 3 or 4 quotients) (Table 3).

Assuming types as the basic division in the spatial analysis, the average relation for Poland is O2 E2 H2 (equal and very low share of land covered by organic, environmental and habitat farming subsidies). At the regional level, the same type characterises MasoviaProvince. Analysis by type showed the remaining provinces to be differentiated in terms of the leading direction of support, i.e.,


The regional variability of the distinguished types is confirmed by their spatial differentiation by commune, including in a type's share in the total number of examined communities within a province, i.e.,


The distinguished structural types were also analysed in terms of the adopted determinants. It has been shown that the national average—the RU type (O2 E2 H2)—characterises a group of communities with above-average (↑) agricultural determinants, while those that were below average (↓) were type R2. On the other hand, for environmental determinants, those communities with less favourable conditions were, on average, type R2, whereas above-average (↑) communities were found to be type S2 (see Table 2).

In general, the analysis showed a very strong spatial differentiation in the analysed green activities. This indicates that there are factors guiding farm owners in deciding whether to participate in CAP-financed environmental programmes. It has been shown that a combination of environmental awareness and the need to implement good practices that consider environmental wellbeing is insufficient. This therefore indicates the need for further research on the rationality and effectiveness of the implemented actions, both by us and by other researchers in the field. This is particularly important because this issue is very closely related to the new set of political initiatives being implemented across the EU, i.e., the EGD. An appropriate level of financial support and the reallocation of funds under pro-environmental measures can significantly support the achievement of EGD goals (e.g., increased biodiversity, healthy food, sustainable agriculture, climate neutrality).

**Figure 7.** Structural types of farmland covered by pro-environmental CAP measures. Source: own elaboration.
