**4. Discussion**

The low correlation (or lack thereof) between the directions of the analysed CAP payments and the natural characteristics adopted (as a determinant) indicates that the environmental factor has a low impact for a major criterion in decisions to develop green directions for agriculture. It is more common that the decisive factors in such matters are de facto situational factors related to access to and potential to use EU funds. In making decisions, farmers are mainly guided by the economic (income) criterion. There is thus a noticeable deficit in the criteria taken into account when territorially targeting these funds (i.e., ecology, environmental care, rational management, development of sustainable agriculture), which weakens the rationality of their spending [38]. Reversed correlation patterns are no exception and are also observed in other countries, such as Germany [39]. This may be due to both purely economic reasoning (lower income effects) and psychological factors related to differences in attitudes between farmers, including attitudes that limit their available choices of how to manage their farms [40–42].

The results indicate the spatial dualism of pro-environmental RPD support. Subsidies to develop sustainable agriculture and protect soils and waters (the environmental farming type) were particularly important in a cohesive belt of communities (in the provinces of Opole, Greater Poland, Kuyavia-Pomerania, Pomerania, Łód´z and Masovia). These are areas where highly developed, intensive and often specialised agriculture predominates [43]. The share of subsidised land in these provinces is decidedly below the national average, and this—in combination with the specific nature of the measures taken (which are less demanding than organic and habitat farming)—confirm the research conclusion of Barreiro-Hurlé et al. [44] that a high agricultural income discourages farmers from participating in the AECMs. However, it should be noted that there are also opposite findings in the literature. According to studies carried out on the example of Belgian farmers, the larger the farm, the more the AECM; the less land, the more the AECM [45].In the other areas, support is more diverse, as confirmed by the more random scattering of types, while

these areas also feature smaller territorial clusters of communities focused on developing ecological and habitat farming. The breakdown of agriculture in these areas is diverse [42]. There are both large farms based on former state farms (Northern and Western Poland) and small, less economically effective family farms on lower-quality land [46].

The analysis results confirm the conclusions of studies conducted by, among others, Bàrberi et al. [47] that there is a tendency towards spatial segregation between highly specialised, productive areas and areas with small-scale, low-input farming. In terms of the intensity of agricultural production, pro-environmental forms of support were found to have a low share in regions of intensive production (in Poland, see the provinces of Greater Poland, Kuyavia-Pomerania, Opole), which is consistent with the results of research by Frueh-Mueller et al. [48]. At the same time, they converge with results for other countries (incl. Germany, France, Spain, Hungary [26]).

Generally, it should be noted that, in the whole EU, the rank of pro-ecologically oriented activities is gradually increasing, which is derived from a change in priorities and the successive strengthening of this direction of development [49]. As a result, the allocation of public funds to the development of organic farming in the EU countries has gradually been increasing over the last three decades and becoming more available [50].Despite the change in the direction of the agricultural policy strengthening environmentally friendly forms of production, there is still a large gap between funds aimed at conventional agriculture and expenditure on agri-environmental measures (the funds accounted for around 7%, i.e., nearly EUR 20 billion, of total EU funding for the CAP 2014-20; European Commission, 2013). Even in the countries with the highest input rates for organic farming in the EU (Germany), this represents only a small part of the total expenditure on agricultural policy [50,51].In order to effectively manage and influence the rationality of spending funds from AECM and OFS activities, in line with the objectives of EU environmental policy, the funds should include a regional component—as is the case in Germany, where each state has specific autonomy in creating a development policy taking into account the existing conditions [52]. Regarding geographically targeted measures, it should be remembered that CAP funds can have a positive effect and prevent the abandonment of agricultural land in these areas, especially for seminatural habitats with low agricultural productivity [53] and negative habitats where intensive practices are more profitable, e.g., higher animal densities are limited [54].

In this respect, high hopes are attached to the new EU policy known as the European Green Deal (EGD), which aims to boost the role of environmental activities. The policy significantly enhances the role and prominence of organic farming. The key objective is to increase the output and consumption of organic products, inter alia, by having 25 percent of farmland used for organic farming by 2030 and substantially expanding organic aquaculture. Based on the findings of the study, it is assumed that work on the preparation of action plans dedicated to organic production should take into account the disparities between regions in terms of their natural potential for the development of modern, effective organic farming. Properly addressed support will enable the ambitious goals set by the European Commission and the assumptions resulting from the EGD to be achieved.

The obtained results and their high degree of spatial differentiation indicate the need for further research on farmlands covered by pro-environmental CAP subsidies. The EU's Farm to Fork Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy set ambitious goals for the agricultural sector in order to ensure that it is prepared to adapt to the objectives of the European Green Deal. Pro-ecological forms of agricultural support (AECM, OF and others) will be a key element in the transition to a more sustainable food system and in better protecting biodiversity. With the use of appropriate policies and the right legal framework, the European Commission is tasked with supporting pro-ecological forms of farming in achieving the goals designated in the EGD. The future perspective of the CAP, which will include eco-programmes supporting the development of proecological forms of agriculture, will help in the implementation of this task. Such studies,

especially those using the proposed three-way division of forms of support, are of grea<sup>t</sup> descriptive (scientific) and applied value. This is indicated by, for example, the spatial distributions of pro-environmental activities in relation to the environmental conditions and agricultural characteristics. Areas predisposed to the greening of agriculture were shown to exist, however, with small areas covered by pro-environmental RDP subsidies. These areas should be treated as a reservoir for the future development of pro-environmental managemen<sup>t</sup> in agriculture. The developed synthetic approach to pro-environmental CAP support combines information that is traditionally illustrated by a range of individual indicators. The advantage of this in terms of the applicability of results is its legibility and ease of interpretation (names clearly indicating the nature of the division), made possible by the use of the D'Hondt method.
