COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendation for Poland's CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU strategy, Poland, agricultural policy, climate change policy, common agricultural policy, cooperation on agriculture, digitisation, food security, innovation, rural development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2020  SWD(2020) 389 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendation for Poland's CAP strategic plan Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy    {COM(2020) 846 final} - {SWD(2020) 367 final} - {SWD(2020) 368 final} - {SWD(2020) 369 final} - {SWD(2020) 370 final} - {SWD(2020) 371 final} - {SWD(2020) 372 final} - {SWD(2020) 373 final} - {SWD(2020) 374 final} - {SWD(2020) 375 final} - {SWD(2020) 376 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 386 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLAND’S CAP STRATEGIC 
PLAN .......................................................................................................................... 2 

1.1 

Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food 
security ............................................................................................................ 2 

1.2  Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute to the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union ..................... 3 

1.3 

1.4 

Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal 
concerns .......................................................................................................... 3 

Foster and share knowledge, innovation and digitalisation in agriculture 
and rural areas ............................................................................................... 4 

1.5  Recommendations .......................................................................................... 5 

2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 

POLAND .................................................................................................................... 8 

2.1 

Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU territory to 
enhance food security .................................................................................... 8 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including 

greater focus on research, technology and digitalisation ........................... 9 

2.3 

Improve farmers' position in the value chain ............................................ 10 

2.4  Contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as 

sustainable energy ....................................................................................... 11 

2.5 

Foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural 
resources such as water, soil and air .......................................................... 13 

2.6  Contribute to the protection of biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes ....................................................... 15 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas

 ....................................................................................................................... 17 

2.8 

2.9 

Promote employment, growth, social inclusion and local development in 
rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry ................. 18 

Improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and 
health, including safe, nutritious and sustainable food, as well as animal 
welfare........................................................................................................... 20 

2.10   Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation ..... 21 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLAND’S CAP STRATEGIC 

PLAN  

 In  the  framework  of  the  structured  dialogue  for  the  preparation  of  the  common 
agricultural policy (CAP) strategic plan, this document contains the recommendations for 
the  CAP  strategic  plan  of  Poland.  The  recommendations  are  based  on  analysis  of  the 
state of play, the needs  and the priorities for  agriculture and rural  areas in Poland. The 
recommendations address the specific economic, environmental and social objectives of 
the future Common Agricultural Policy and in particular the ambition and specific targets 
of  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  and  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030.  As  stated  in  the 
Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission invites Poland, in its CAP Strategic Plan, to set 
explicit  national  values  for  the  Green  Deal  targets1,  taking  into  account  its  specific 
situation and these recommendations. 

1.1  Foster  a  smart,  resilient  and  diversified  agricultural  sector  ensuring  food 

security 

The  agri-food  sector  in  Poland  is  of  great  national  economic,  social  and  environmental 
importance.  The  total  share  of  agriculture,  forestry  and  fisheries  in  gross  value  added 
(GVA) is twice as high as the EU average. Polish agriculture is characterised by diversity 
in  farm  structure  and  potential.  The  CAP  must  be  used  to  help  Polish  farming  systems 
adapt and transform. Enhancing the resilience of the farming sector is both necessary and 
feasible. 

Over time, Poland has become an important part of the internal market, contributing to 
the  EUagri-food  sector’s  position  on  the  global  market.  However,  a  significant 
proportion of farms are managed by farmers aged 55 and older that have no prospects of 
passing  them  down  to  the  next  generation.  Many  farmers  are  also  on    low  income  and 
depend on direct payments. Increasing farms’ profitability, income and productivity are 
key challenges, as is generational renewal.  

The  agricultural  factor  income  by  working  unit  differs  widely  between  different  farm 
sizes,  agricultural  sectors  and  regions,  partly  due  to  historical  differences  between 
regions in Poland.  Policy measures need to take into account both the characteristics of 
regional food systems and the different types of farms. 

Due to a dependency on exports and increasing exposure to the effects of climate change, 
farm  incomes  strongly  fluctuate.  Risk  management  instruments  and  strategies  therefore 
need to be put in place to improve farms’ resilience to climate, environmental and socio-
economic impacts. 

The  very  dynamic  growth  of  the  processing  and  retail  sectors  stimulates  the  growth  of 
agricultural production, but at the same time leads to a weaker bargaining position for the 
primary  producers.  Farmers  should  be  encouraged  to  create  opportunities  to  obtain  a 
higher premium for their products, through e.g.: cooperation, better knowledge exchange, 
use  of  new  technologies  and  innovations,  increased  connectivity  of  producers  in  rural 
areas, strengthening of food value chains (including short supply chains  particularly for 
small farms and quality products), or use of targeted financial instruments.  

1   It concerns the targets related to use and risk of pesticides, sales of antimicrobials, nutrient loss, area 

under organic farming, high diversity landscape features and access to fast broadband internet. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
It  is  important  that  Poland  engage  in  the  digital  transition  of  the  farming  sector  by 
making  good  use  of  the  EU’s  technological  capacity  in  satellite  observation,  precision 
farming,  geolocation  services,  autonomous  farm  machinery,  drones,  etc.,  to  better 
monitor and optimise agricultural production processes and the CAP implementation. 

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

Poland  needs  to  improve  its  performance  on  many  environmental  and  climate  indices, 
especially  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  and  air  pollutant    emissions,  energy  efficiency  and 
water  availability  and  by  mitigating  the  risks  stemming  from  intensifying  farming 
practices,  in  particular  for  biodiversity  in  accordance  with  the  Polish  prioritized  action 
framework (PAF).  

Data from recent years as well as medium-term projections show an increasing trend for 
non-carbon  dioxide  (CO2)  emissions  from  agriculture.  This  includes  soils  that  account 
for  half  of  the  emissions,  as  well  as  stagnating  CO2  removal  in  the  land  use,  land  use 
change  and  forestry  (LULUCF)  sectors.  The  relatively  high  emission  intensity  of  the 
livestock  sector  (enteric  fermentation)  and  significant  energy  consumption  of  the 
agricultural and forestry sectors are also areas of concern. At the same time, production 
of renewable energy remains underexploited in terms of energy per livestock unit.  

A related concern is the quality of soils in Poland given their relatively low mean organic 
carbon content, even though the country has a relatively high coverage of peat and peat-
topped soils.  

In  contrast  to  the  EU  average,  the  total  area  under  organic  farming  in  Poland  has  been 
steadily decreasing in recent years. While it is clear that this trend must be reversed, other 
elements  of  the  food  supply  chain  -  the  processing  and  the  retail  sector  -  need  also  be 
considered  to  improve  market  outlets  for  the  products.  Poland  is  a  country  with 
comparatively  higher  share  of  areas  farmed  with  low  input  intensity,  Nevertheless, 
biodiversity in its agricultural areas is facing challenges as reflected in the downward trend 
of  the  farmland  bird  index,  the  unfavourable  conservation  status  of  the  majority  of 
grassland  habitats  and  substantial  regional  differences  in  the  diversity  and  density  of 
landscape features.   

Water  availability  is  a  vital  problem,  caused  partially  by  the  weak  water  retention 
capacity in the Polish agriculture, exacerbated by the changing climate. As regards water 
quality,  regional  surpluses  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  from  the  use  of  animal  manure 
may lead to pollution of ground and surface waters and increasing eutrophication of the 
Baltic Sea. 

1.3  Strengthen  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  and  address  societal 

concerns 

Improving  the  vitality  and  attractiveness  of  rural  areas  requires  investments  in  rural 
infrastructure, especially next-generation broadband coverage.  

The  efforts  to  promote  generational  renewal  and  strengthen  social  fabric  in  rural  areas 
should be continued. Though Poland still has a high share of young farmers compared to 
other  Member  States,  that  share  is  decreasing.  It  is  complex  for  young  farmers  and 
newcomers  to  start  farming,  due  to  constraints  on  farm  succession  and  access  to  land.  

3 

 
 
Adressing  these  issues  through  specific  financial  and  technical  support  as  well  as 
provision of advisory services and training is important. 

Careful  consideration  of  the  specific  needs  of  women  in  agriculture  and  rural  areas  is 
needed in order to ensure gender equality and close the gender gap in employment, pay, 
pensions and decision making. 

Ensuring  the  protection  of  agricultural  workers,  especially  the  precarious,  seasonal  and 
undeclared ones, will play a major role in upholding the rights enshrined in EU laws that 
are central to a fair EU food system envisaged by the Farm to Fork Strategy. 

Small and medium sized enterprises are becoming more prevalent in rural areas but there 
are  regional  disparities.  The  population  in  rural  areas  is  shrinking  slightly  and  getting 
older and the poverty rate is steadily decreasing. To address the age misbalance in rural 
areas and in the agricultural sector, investment is needed to attract young people and to 
ensure  basic  services  for  the  ageing  population.  It  is  crucial  to  bridge  the  urban-rural 
divide in terms of digital infrastructure coverage and of basic digital skills. Considerable 
effort is needed to reach the objective of 100% fast broadband coverage by 2025. 

The  potential  of  rural  areas  for  developing  the  bioeconomy  is  not  sufficiently  met,  for 
example  the  use  of  biomass  from  agriculture  and  forestry  (such  as  woody  biomass  or 
crop-derived  products)  to  produce  materials.  The  turnover  per  person  employed  in  the 
agricultural bioeconomy is less than half of the EU27 average.  

In  terms  of  animal  welfare,  the  persistence  of  docking  of  pigs’  tails  signals  the  still 
inadequate conditions on farms that usually motivate this banned practice. Another area 
of concern is the overreliance on antimicrobials in livestock farming, the sales of which  
are above EU average. Similarly, biosecurity needs to be stepped up in view of the high 
risks associated with the presence of African swine fever (ASF). 

The  volume  of  pesticides  sold  when  adjusted  by  risk,  have  showed  a  decrease  in  risks 
associated  with  pesticides  use.  However,  there  are  delays  in  placing  plant  protection 
products on the market,  measures to promote low-pesticid pest management  should be 
stepped up and further efforts should be made to ensure the implementation of Integrated 
Pest Management. Poland also has a very high rates of non-communicable diseases due 
to  dietary  risk  factors  and  efforts  are  needed  to  support  the  shift  to  a  more  healthy 
sustainable diets in line with national recommendations. 

1.4  Foster  and  share  knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation  in  agriculture 

and rural areas 

The  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  (AKIS)  in  Poland  is  strong  and 
relatively well integrated. It has great potential to create and disseminate knowledge for 
agriculture and related rural activities (environment, climate, biodiversity, food and non-
food systems including processing and distribution chains, consumers and citizens, etc.). 

A wide range of training and advisory services are available to all stakeholders.  Further 
involvement and integration of public and private advisors within the AKIS is however 
needed.  Cooperation  between  advisors  could  be 
the 
fragmentation of advisors, and by improving the motivation, skills and openness to new 
subjects  and  types  of  advice.  Advisory  services  need  to  be  diversified  and  tailored  to 
small farmers business development needs and to new production systems. The European 
Innovation Partnership could be further strengthened and diversified.  

improved  by  addressing 

4 

 
 
Poland  uses  mostly  traditional  digital  infrastructure  and  technologies  in  agriculture. 
Poland  ranked  23rd  out  of  28  EU  Member  States  in  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society 
Index  (DESI)  2020.  However,  steady  digital  growth  in  terms  of  connectivity,  human 
capital,  use  of  internet  services,  integration  of  digital  technology  and  digital  public 
services is taking place. 

1.5  Recommendations 

To  address  the  above  interconnected  economic,  environmental/climate  and  social 
challenges- the Commission considers that the Polish CAP Strategic Plan needs to focus 
its priorities and concentrate its interventions on the following points, while adequately 
taking into account the high territorial diversity of the Polish agriculture and rural areas: 

Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food security 

  Achieving  increased  competitiveness  and  productivity  of  the  agrifood  sector 
through support for investments and financial instruments, taking accounts of 
actual  needs,  development  potential  and  challenges  related  to  enhanced 
sustainability. 

  Improving  the  viability  of  farms  through  ensuring  a  fairer  and  better 
targeting  of  income  support  by  reducing  income  gaps  between  different  farm 
sizes (in particular in favour of smaller-sized farms) and territories of the country 
by  applying,  for  example,  the  complementary  redistributive  income  support  for 
sustainability and the reduction of payments. 

  Rebalancing the power in the food supply chain, by targeting support schemes 
aimed  at  increasing  the  level  of  organisation  of  farmers  and  at  stimulating 
consolidation  and  recognition  of  different  types  of  producer  organisations  and 
cooperatives, specifically in the fruit and vegetables and pig sectors. Also, local 
small and medium size processors are important players to strengthen the position 
of farmers and to balance bargaining power in the supply chain. Support schemes 
should  also  be  used  to  encourage  farmers  to  develop  and  participate  in  short 
supply chains, and in the production of high value added products, to attract and 
educate consumers in that regard. 

Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  to  contribute  to  the  environmental- 
and climate-related objectives of the Union 

  Continuing  efforts  to  reduce  net  emissions  from  agriculture  by  focusing  on 
reducing  emissions  related  to  fertilizer  use  on  soils  and  avoiding  carbon  release 
from    organic  soils,  including  peatlands,  and  on  better  livestock  management 
(ruminants), especially by adapting feeding strategies so that to reduce emissions 
from  enteric  fermentation  in  line  with  the  EU  Methane  Strategy.  The  role  of 
forest  in  carbon  removal  must  also  be  improved  through  sustainable  forest 
management (e.g. changes in management intensity, hardwood/softwood species 
reliance  on  agro-forestry, 
mix),  enhanced  multifunctionality,  a  greater 
afforestation and improved forest resilience to climate change. The latter cannot 
be  achieved  without  safeguarding  forest  biodiversity  through  protection  and 
restoration  of  its  valuable  habitats.  Where  relevant,  carbon  farming  approaches 
should be pursued. 

5 

 
 
  Improving energy efficiency by reducing energy consumption in agriculture and 
forestry.  In  parallel,  Poland  should  step  up  efforts  to  increase  production  of 
energy  on-farm  through  anaerobic  fermentation  thus  using  farming  by-products 
such as manure more efficiently. 

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  high  diversity  landscape 
features, to halt and reverse biodiversity decline in agriculture-related habitats, in 
particular  in  grassland  habitats,  as  well  as  to  prevent  erosion.  Efforts  must  be 
directed at not only maintaining existing landscape features but also establishing 
and  adequately  managing  new  features,  while  focusing  on  areas  with  limited 
presence of landscape features, in view of better connecting agricultural habitats 
and restoring and maintaining their favourable conservation status in accordance 
with  the  Prioritized  Action  Framework  (PAF).  This  is  also  expected  to  provide 
benefits  in  form  of  enhanced  pollination,  natural  pest  control  and  climate 
adaptation.  

  Reducing  water  scarcity  by  significantly  stepping  up  support  for  nature-based 
solutions, appropriate land management practices improving soil water retention 
such  as  longer  and  more  diverse  crop  rotation,  and  crop  adaptation  through 
promoting  drought-resilient,  less  water  intensive  and  improved  crops  varieties 
better  managing  crop-water  demand.  Support  should  also  focus  on  irrigation 
systems  best  performing  in  terms  of  water  savings,  and  on    water  re-use  in  line 
with the Water Framework Directive requirements.  

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  to  reduce  nutrient  losses  by 
supporting  better  nutrient  management  from  animal  housing  to  fertilisation 
techniques, more widespread application of precision farming, improved manure 
management,  setting  relevant  landscape  elements  like  riparian  buffer  strips  or 
wetlands,  and  other  technologies,  including  digital  farm  nutrient  management 
tools, geared to using inputs more efficiently and decrease nutrient surpluses.  

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  organic  area,  by  significantly 
stepping up efforts to halt the decrease and stimulate an increase in the area under 
organic  farming  in  Poland  through  CAP  support  for  both  conversion  and 
maintenance.  In  parallel,  efforts  and  investments  to  enhance  the  demand  for 
organic  products  in  the  food  supply  chain  must  be  stepped  up  e.g.  through 
identifying  the  potential  in  local  organic  food  production,  creating  appropriate 
food chain structures and disseminating innovative approaches. 

Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal demands 

  Promoting  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local  development  in 
rural areas, by addressing the age unbalance in rural areas and in the agriculture 
sector  through  investments  targeted  to  attract  young  people,  to  ensure  basic 
services to the population in rural areas, and to foster rural business start-ups and 
develop the bioeconomy. In doing so it will be important to ensure synergies and 
complementarities among the EU and national funds. 

  Contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on 
antimicrobials by putting in place sizeable efforts to significantly reduce the use 
of  antimicrobials  in  farming,  considering  that  the  figures  indicate  sales  of 
antimicrobials  above  the  EU  average.  Poland  is  encouraged  to  use  all  available 
tools,  including  instruments  under  the  CAP,  to  support  the  farmers  e.g.  by 

6 

 
 
promoting best  practices on reduced  and prudent  use of antimicrobials,  together 
with  improved  livestock  management,  biosecurity,  infection  prevention  and 
control. 

  Improve  animal  welfare,  especially  for  pigs  and  laying  hens,  through  support 
for  ambitious  measures  to  improve  livestock  management  practices,  infection 
prevention and control, including enhanced biosecurity. 

  Contribute  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  targets  on  pesticides,  in  particular  by 
promoting a reduction in  the use of  more hazardous  pesticides and ensuring the 
uptake of integrated pest management practices. 

Fostering  and  sharing  of  knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation  in  agriculture  and 
rural areas, and encouraging their uptake 

  Contribute to the EU Green Deal target on broadband by further developing 
broadband networks to help overcome connectivity gaps in the rural and remote 
areas.  In  parallel,  invest  in  digital  skills  development.  In  doing  so  it  will  be 
important to ensure synergies and complementarities among the EU and national 
funds. 

  Invest  in  a  well  developed  AKIS  and  further  integration  of  information, 
knowledge,  advice,  innovation  and  digital  skills,  by  supporting  better  links 
between  public  and  private  advisors  and  investing  in  their  training  and  skills. 
Advisory  services  should  be  prepared  to  respond  to  the  growing  information 
needs  of  farms  (including  small  farms)  regarding  economic,  environmental  as 
well as social aspects, and able to provide innovation support. 

7 

 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

POLAND 

Agriculture  in  Poland  has  always  been  an  important  part  of  the  country's  economy.  In 
most areas, soil and climatic conditions have favored a mixed type of farming. However, 
climate change increasingly puts agriculture at risk and forces adaptation, for example to 
ensure water availability. In spite of the fact that very large farm holdings exist in parts 
of Poland, agriculture continues to have a fragmented structure, with a dominant share of 
small and medium-sized family farms. 

Rural  areas  in  Poland  are  diverse  and  face  quite  different  socio-economic  conditions. 
They  host  about  35%  of  the  national  population  and  create  around  a  quarter  of  the 
national gross domestic product (GDP). 

2.1  Support  viable  farm  income  and  resilience  across  the  EU  territory  to 

enhance food security 

In Poland, agricultural entrepreneurial income is about 53% of the average wage in the 
whole economy over a period from 2005 to 20181 (higher than the EU average, which is 
49%). The Polish share ranged from 36% in 2005 to 67% in 2017. 

The average factor income is only about a third of the EU average over the same period 
(around EUR 7 000 in last years), but this ratio has been increasing over the years2. On 
average,  Direct  Payments  (DP)  form  about  29%  of  the  factor  income  in  2018  for  the 
entire  farming  population.  Considering  only  the  professional  farms  in  the  Farm 
Accountancy  Data  Network  (which  is  closer  to  the  actual  figure  of  direct  payment 
beneficiaries), direct payments account for 40% of agricultural factor income. Payments 
under  the  rural  development  programme  (excluding  investment  support)  cover  an 
additional 6%3. This support thus remains low in comparison to direct payments, but is 
important in some areas, for example grazing livestock. In 2017, 20% of the beneficiaries 
farmed 66% of the land and received 70% of direct payments4. 

Agricultural factor income per worker has large differences between different farm sizes, 
agricultural sectors and regions5. It increases with farm physical size up to 200 hectares, 
but  then  declines  beyond  500  hectares.  Meanwhile,  the  level  of  direct  payments  per 
hectare  increases  up  to  30  hectares  and  then  decreases.  This  is  a  result  of  the 
redistributive payment. However, the differentiation of direct payment per hectare is still 
relatively  low6  and  there  are  still  important  differences  in  income  by  working  unit 
between small to medium farms on one hand, and large farms on the other hand. Income 
by working unit tends to be higher for the largest economic farm sizes. Among a total of 
1.4 million farms in Poland, 1.3 million are beneficiaries of direct payments7. Income by 
working  unit  is  the  highest  for  the  granivores  and  dairy  sectors.  Most  sectors  see 
fluctuations in income over time (in particular in cereals) except granivores encountering 
a significant and steady increase. However, this is due to stable and strong improvement 
of incomes of poultry farm compensating fluctuations of pig farm incomes8. The income 
by  working  unit  is  much  lower  in  mountain  Areas  facing  Natural  Constraints  (ANC) 
(nearly 4 000 EUR) compared to other areas (over 6 000 EUR) whereas the total support 
per hectare is higher in mountain9.  

Finally, among Polish regions, differences are also important such as the average factor 
income in south-eastern parts of Poland, which is about a third of the average in north-
western  parts  of  Poland10.  It  is  worth  mentioning  that  there  are  historical  differences 
between regions in Poland that existed long before Poland entered the European Union 

8 

 
 
and  applied  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  and  that  explain  income  levels.  Larger 
former state farms in the north-west are on average more successful in terms of income, 
thanks to knowledge and money of new owners, as well as economies of scale.  

Among other reasons, due to dependency on exports (see analysis in paragraph 2.2) and 
climatic  risks  (low  level  of  precipitation  and  groundwater  in  Poland,  see  analysis  in 
paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5), farm incomes strongly fluctuate. This leads to the need to deploy 
risk  management  instruments  and  strategies.  In  Poland,  farmers  receiving  direct 
payments are obliged to insure at least half of their utilised agricultural area. Yet, since 
the scheme was introduced in 2005, only about 24 % of the utilised agricultural area is 
under crop insurance (and about 11 % of the Polish farms)11. 

Beneficiaries, area and direct payments by physical farm size 

Share of beneficiaries 

Share of area 

Share of direct payments 

Source: CATS control data, claim year 2017 

2.2  Enhance market orientation and increase competitiveness including greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

The total share of agriculture, forestry and fisheries in Polish Gross Value Added is 3.2 
% and this is twice as high as the EU average12. Poland has a positive trade balance with 
countries outside the EU and in trade between Poland and other EU Member States and it 
is increasing over time. Between 2003 and 2018, exports increased from EUR 4.1 billion 
to  EUR  29.7  billion  and  imports  from  EUR  3.6  billion  to  EUR  20  billion.  The  main 
export product to non-EU countries are beverages and processed products. 

The total factor productivity (TFP) is increasing in Poland. Productivity is increasing in 
all dimensions (labour, land and capital). Labour productivity in Poland increases mainly 
due  to  the  outflow  of  labour  (-27%  between  2005  and  2017).  Cost  competitiveness  in 
Poland  is  determined,  notably,  by  lower  labour  costs  and  low  margins  along  the  food 
chain compared to EU-15 countries but also by investments to modernize the sector13. 

The total number of farms decreased between 2005 and 2016 from about 2.5 million to 
1.4  million  farms14.  The  average  farm  size  has  increased  from  6  to  10  hectares  in  the 
same  time  period.  However,  farms  below  5  ha  are  still  the  largest  group  (52  %)  of 
agricultural holdings15. In addition, the agricultural area declined in the same time from 
15.9  million  hectares  in  2005  to  14.4  million  hectares  in  2016.  The  decline  is  mainly 

9 

 
 
caused by a decline in arable land. Livestock numbers are declining, between 2007 and 
2016 from about 10.6 million to 9.4 million livestock units (LU). The livestock density 
(calculated as total number of livestock units/total utilised agricultural area) has remained 
relatively  stable  at  around  0.66  LU/ha.  The  agricultural  area  of  extensive  grazing  (area 
under  grazing  livestock  production  below  1  LU/ha  of  forage  area)  increased  between 
2005  and  2013  from  10%  to  12%  of  the  total  UAA16.The  integration  of  the  Polish 
economy  into  European  and  international  markets  led  to  trade,  capital  and  knowledge 
flows  that  increased  the  transfer  of  innovation  to  the  agri-food  sector.  However,  the 
overall level of innovation in agriculture is still quite low (small share of certified seed, 
small share of digital and precision farming) as well as low investment efforts in research 
and development.  

Cost and revenue structure of agricultural income (real prices in million EUR) in Poland 

Crop output 
Agricultural services output 

Fertilisers 
Rents 
Entrepreneurial income 

Animal output 

Non-agricultural secondary 
Plant/animal protection 

Interest 

Product subsidies 

Seeds 

Feeding stuffs 
Taxes 

Other subsidies 

Energy 
Labour 

Other costs 

Source: EUROSTAT. [aact_eaa01] 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

Milk,  cereals,  pigs,  poultry  and  vegetables  &  horticulture  production  are  the  most 
important sectors in terms of production value in Poland in 2017. Poland produces more 
than 10% of the EU production in value of pig, poultry and eggs in 201717.  

The  position  of  farmers  in  the  supply  chain  (expressed  in  share  of  the  value  added) 
slightly  increased  between  2008  and  2013.  However,  this  changed  after  2013  and  the 
share of farmers has decreased since. Nevertheless, the share of the value added that goes 
to  farmers  at  37.9%  in  2016  is  still  higher  in  Poland  than  the  EU-average,  though  this 
does  not  translate  directly  into  a  stronger  position  of  Polish  farmers  in  the  food  chain. 
This  is  caused  by  specific  structure  of  Polish  food  market  –  a  huge  proportion  of  farm 
products are not or little transformed. One of the possible ways to strengthen the position 
of farmers is to shorten the supply chains. This offers in particular opportunities for small 
farms and for farms producing quality products. Such short supply chains are, at present, 
little  developed  in  Poland.  Among  others,  this  is  linked  to  the  relatively  recent 
introduction of a legal framework in this area18 as well as little (but growing) knowledge 
and  appreciation  of  this  form  of  selling  by  both  farmers  and  consumers19.  Another 
possibility  to  add  value  is  to  use  EU  quality  schemes  by  developing  and  marketing 
products with geographical indications. 

10 

Other subsidies 

Energy 

Labour 

Other costs 

 
 
In Poland, the number of recognised Producer Organisations (POs) equals 287 (in 2017), 
only 8% of the overall EU number of POs. At the end of 2017, about 250 POs fruit and 
vegetable were registered in Poland, associating approximately 7,000 growers; however, 
very  few  implement  EU-funded  operational  programmes20.  Comparing  this  number  to 
the total number fruit and vegetable growers21 (around 253 000), only around 3% of fruit 
and  vegetable  producers  were  members  of  recognised  POs  in  2017,  which  is  low  for 
these  -  often  perishable  -  products.  In  addition,  Poland,  the  biggest  apple  producing 
Member  State  in  the  EU  (on  average  30%  of  EU  production)  faces  a  structural 
overproduction,  aggravated  by  the  2014  Russian  embargo  (loss  of  an  important  market 
for the “Idared” variety (20 % of Polish production))22. 

The  very  low  level  of  membership  in  the  different  types  of  producer  organisations, 
cooperatives, inter branch organisations and other groupings is still highly influenced by 
the  history  (forced  collective  state  owned  farms).  Nevertheless,  the  bottom-up 
cooperative initiatives would be helpful for farmers in gaining the position in the value 
chain  leading  also  to  more  efficient  management  of  supply  and  reduce  food  loss  and 
waste.  

Value added for primary producers in the food chain in Poland (in million EUR) 

Primary production 
Food and beverage consumer services 

Food and beverage manufacturing 
% for primary producers (right axis) 
Source: EUROSTAT 

Food and beverage distribution 

% for primary producers – EU-27 

2.4  Contribute  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  as  well  as 

sustainable energy 

The  share  of  agriculture,  including  croplands  and  grasslands,  in  the  total  net  GHG 
emissions has been relatively stable in the period 1990-2018 reaching around 8% in 2018 
and remains below EU average (13%)23.  

Nonetheless,  Poland’s  non-CO2  emissions  from  agriculture  amounting  to  33.1  million 
tonnes  of  CO2  equivalents  (2018)  is  the  fourth  highest  in  the  EU,  contributing  slightly 
more than 8% to all EU non-CO2 emissions from agriculture24.  

When compared with data from 1990, Poland shows a higher decrease in non-CO2 GHG 
emissions  from  agriculture  than  the  average  for  EU:  in  2018  GHG  emissions  from 
agriculture  were  lower  by  32%  compared  to  the  reduction  rate  of  21%  for  the  EU. 
However, much of reductions took place before mid-2000s. Emissions from agriculture in 
the last years are increasing at a higher rate than the EU-27 average.  

11 

 
 
 
The three main agricultural sources of non CO2 GHG emissions in Poland in 2018 were: 
agricultural soil (46% of the emissions compared to 38% in the EU), enteric fermentation, 
mainly  cattle  (39%  compared  to  44%  in  the  EU),  and  manure  management  (11%  of  the 
emissions  compared  to  the  EU’s  14%).  The  values  for  the  emissions  from  both  enteric 
fermentation  per  livestock  unit  and  from  agricultural  soil  per  ha  are  higher  than  the  EU 
average, while emissions from manure management per livestock unit are lower. Emissions 
in all the three categories increased between 2013 and 201825. 

The  share  of  permanent  grassland  in  UAA  of  21-22%  has  been  stable  since  2000  and 
remains below EU average of 31%.26 This share is some 19% for areas under the direct 
payment  system27.  Poland’s  coverage  with  forest  area  is  31%  of  the  territory,  below  the 
EU average (40%, 45% if other wooded land is included)28. Peatlands cover 9.6% of soils 
in  Poland29.  According  to  estimates,  significant  reductions  of  agricultural  greenhouse 
emissions could be obtained through rewetting of such agricultural land.30  

Concerning  the  Land  Use,  Land  Use  Change  and  Forestry  (LULUCF)  sector,  in  the 
period  1990-2018  the  emission  covered  within  scope  of  land  use  and  forestry  increased 
more significantly than the EU average: increase by +12.4% in Poland compared to 3.1% 
in the EU. However, LULUCF removals decreased by 15.6% between 2013 and 2018. The 
most significant sink  -  forest -  increased removals by  7% over the same period  although 
also experienced substantial inter-annual fluctuations; cropland emissions thus halved these 
removals while of grassland is close to a sink of CO231.  

Total Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (including and excluding LULUCF) in Poland     
(in million tonnes of CO2 equivalents) 

Grassland 
Cropland 
Agriculture 
% of agriculture in total GHG emissions (exc. LULUCF) 
% of agriculture (incl. emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 
EU-27 % of agriculture (incl. Emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 
Source: European Environmental Agency. As in EUROSTAT [env_air_gge] 

Poland's  per  hectare  figures  for  production  of  renewable  energy  from  agriculture  and 
forestry  remain  below  the  EU-average.  Between  2013  and  2018  Poland  experienced  a 
decrease in production of several agricultural renewable sources. A significant increase in 
production  of  energy  from  anaerobic  fermentation  was  observed,  but  there  is  great 
potential in terms of energy per livestock unit (0.37 Gigajoule/ha; EU: 3.93 Gigajoule/ha).  
While agriculture is responsible for almost 12% of all the renewable energy produced, the 
forestry  sector  contributes  almost  70%  of  such  energy32.  Finally,  the  direct  use  of 
renewable energy in agriculture and forestry in Poland fluctuates around 15%. 

Regarding energy use in agriculture and forestry, Poland is the EU country with the second 
highest  share  of  agriculture  and  forestry  in  the  total  final  energy  consumption:  5.3% 

12 

 
 
compared to 2.7% for EU-28.   Final  energy consumption by  agriculture  and forestry  per 
hectare  of  UAA  is  some  60%  higher  than  EU  average  and  has  since  2013  increased  by 
8.5%33. 

Poland  does  not  make  use  of  the  rural  development  funding  to  improve  its  energy 
efficiency, renewable energy production, or reduction of GHG emissions from livestock or 
agricultural land. Rural development support is used to contribute to one GHG emissions-
relevant  indicator:  land  under  contracts  contributing  to  carbon  sequestration  and 
conservation. The effort is rather small, covering 0.02% of the land under such contracts 
and all linked to afforestation activity34. In the rural development programme 2014-2020, 
Poland set a target to afforest additional 4.800 ha of land. 

In terms of climate adaptation, like other countries in the continental region of the EU, 
Poland  faces  changing  weather  patterns  (wetter  and  warmer  winters  and  hotter,  drier 
summers), and increasing risk of soil erosion. This makes Poland’s agriculture vulnerable 
to  higher  yield  variability,  increased  heat  stress  for  dairy  cows,  and  risks  of  new  and 
more  pest  and  disease  outbreaks  or  weeds  due  to  higher  temperatures  and  a  longer 
growing  season.  In  contrast,  opportunities  could  come  from  new  crops  or  varieties,  the 
longer vegetation period’s positive impact on grasslands and tuber crops and reduction of 
moisture  loving  pathogens35.  Increasing  resilience  to  climate  change  by  stepping  up 
climate adaptation measures would entail relying in particular on the application  of soil 
health  enhancing  practices,  and  appropriate  management  of  woodland,  forestry, 
floodplains  (breaching  or  removing  of  embankments  or  set-back  embankments),  and 
drainage (blocking drainage ditches and tile drains).  

Poland’s  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plan  (NECP)36,  independent  of  the  current  and 
planned policies  and measures, projects by  2040  an increase by some 5% of agricultural 
emissions  and  a  further  reduction  by  half  of  LULUCF  removals.  In  particular,  while  in 
both  cases  the  emissions  from  enteric  fermentation  are  expected  to  decrease,  emissions 
from  soil  and  manure  would  increase,  the  latter  substantially.  The  NECP  does  not 
specifically  provide  for  peatlands/wetlands  despite  these  being  significant  in  area  in 
Poland. 

Maintaining and if possible increasing forest areas is one of the objectives referred to in the 
NECP,  which  also  foresees  the  progress  in  sustainable  forestry  management  through 
increasing the part of forest area, from the current 96% to 99%, with forest management 
plans.  

The  NECP  has  set  a  target  of  21-23%  renewable  energy  sources’  share  in  energy 
consumption in 2030, conditioning the 23% target on additional EU funds, including for a 
just transition.  

2.5  Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of  natural 

resources such as water, soil and air 

Ammonia (NH3) emissions from agriculture in Poland decreased from 340 ktonnes in 1995 
to  304  ktonnes  in  2005  and  260  ktonnes  in  2016.  However,  emissions  have  been  on  the 
upward trend since 2015 reaching  almost 299 ktonnes in 201837. As the contributions of 
other  sectors  (waste  and  transport)  to  the  overall  NH3  emissions  decrease,  the  part  of 
agricultural  sector  in  the  overall  NH3  emissions  proportionally  increases.  In  2018, 
agriculture  was  responsible  for  94  %  of  all  NH3  emissions  in  Poland  (EU-28:  93%).  
Livestock  is  responsible  for  76%  (EU-28:  73%)  of  all  agriculture-related  NH3  emissions 
while crops for the remaining 24% (EU-28: 23%). A substantial part of the NH3 emissions 
13 

 
 
in Poland agriculture comes from the use of inorganic fertilisers (21.5%), dairy cattle sector 
(12%),  pork  sector  (10.4%),  and  non-dairy  cattle  sector  (7.5%).  Despite  the  reductions 
achieved  to  date,  according  to  Commission  assessment38,  Poland  is  considered  to  be  at 
high-risk of non-compliance with the ammonia reduction commitments established by the 
NEC Directive (1% for any year for 2020-2029 and 17% for any year from 2030 against 
the 2005 baseline). 

The state of soil in Poland raises some challenges for agriculture39. The quality of the soil 
expressed in terms of content of organic carbon is rather low considering that the mean 
organic carbon  content figure is 21.9 g per kg of soil compared to the EU-28 average of 
43.1g/kg.40  On  the  other  hand,  peatland  share  is  close  to  10%  (9.7%)41  (see  also  point 
2.4).  Poland  does  not  suffer  from  a  pronounced  problem  with  erosion:  1.4%  of 
agricultural  area  is  affected  by  moderate  to  severe  water  erosion  (EU-27:  7.0%)  while 
losing about 1 tonne of soil per hectare annually compared  to EU-27: 2.5 tonnes42. The 
highest level of soil loss is observed in the southern mountainous fringes of the country. 
However,  in  2016,  95%43  of  tillable  area  was  under  conventional  tillage,  and  45%44 of 
arable  land  was  left  without  soil  cover  during  the  winter  months.  More  sustainable 
management practices would be beneficial to improve soil quality and decrease surface 
run-off. 

In  2017,  14%45  of  Poland  agricultural  land  was  under  rural  development  contracts  to 
improve soil management. 

With regard to the issue of water pollution by nitrates, 4% of the ground water stations in 
Poland in 2012 where of poor quality, 8% of moderate quality and the remaining 88% of 
high quality. Data for 2017 shows that while the poor quality waters decreased to 2%, the 
moderate  increased  to  15%,  bringing  the  high  quality  waters  to  83%.  Notwithstanding, 
the  figures  remain  significantly  more  positive  than  several  other  Member  States  for 
which data is available46. 

The  nitrogen  surplus  in  Poland  increased  in  the  period  1995-2017  from  33  to  48 
kg/N/ha/year  and  since  mid-2010s  has  remained  similar  to  the  EU  average:  the  4-year 
average  for  Poland  has  reached  45kg  N/ha/year  compared  to  the  EU-27  46.5  kg 
N/ha/year47. While the phosphorus surplus increased between 1995 and 2006, since 2006 
there  is  the  downward  trend  with  the  surplus  of  1  kg/P/ha/year  in  2016  and  in  2017, 
though it is above EU average (0.5 kg P/ha/year)48.   

Poland  is  one  of  the  Member  States  where  the  use  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorous 
originating from animal manure decreased in 2012-2014 by more than 5% compared to 
2008-201149. Polish agriculture is also characterized by a rather low livestock density per 
ha: 0.66 LU/ha (the 13th highest density in the EU-2750).  

However, these indicators may change if the ongoing intensification of farming practices 
leads to overexploitation of natural resources, decreasing their quality. In case of water, 
surpluses  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  from  the  use  of  animal  manure  may  lead  to 
polluting  ground  and  surface  waters  and  increase  the  eutrophication  of  Baltic  Sea.  The 
latter  remains  a  major  environmental  problem  and  Poland  is  the  main  contributor  of 
nutrient inputs of agricultural origin51.  

In terms of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) approximately 70% of surface waters 
are  in  less  than  good  ecological  status  and  around  26%  were  failing  to  achieve  good 
chemical  status.  For  groundwater  bodies  around  8%  were  failing  to  achieve  good 

14 

 
 
chemical  status  and  7%  were  failing  to  achieve  good  quantitative  status.  Diffuse 
agricultural pollution is one of the pressures contributing to this situation52.  

Poland has one of the lowest (the fourth lowest) renewable freshwater resources per 1000 
habitats in the EU: 1.6 million m³ (annual average).53. The important water deficit is due 
to  low  precipitation  levels  in  the  central  regions  as  well  as  due  to  high  evaporation. 
Compared  to  the  level  of  precipitation,  Poland  loses  73%  due  to  evapotranspiration54, 
especially  in  the  growing  season.  Relatively  low  water  resources  and  negative  water 
balances  indicate  problems  with  the  water  retention  capacity.  However,  while  straw 
based manure could affect water retention of soil, its availability depends on the type of 
livestock husbandry systems. 

The share of irrigated area in the total is very limited, in 2016 it reached 0.92% (increase 
from 0.32% in 2013) of the utilised agricultural area55. However, between 2010 and 2016 
the share of irrigated area in Poland increased by 191%, the second highest augmentation 
in the EU56. Irrigation in agriculture represents 0.8% of the total water abstraction57. 

In  2017,  10%  of  Poland’s  agricultural  land  was  under  rural  development  contracts  to 
improve water management58. 

Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Poland 

Kg P/ha/year 

Potential surplus of nitrogen on agricultural land (in kg N/ha/year) 
EU-27 GNB for Nitrogen 

Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year) 
Source: EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services 

and preserve habitats and landscapes 

The  farmland  bird  index  decreased  from  88.5  in  2009  to  80  in  2017  in  Poland  and  is 
slightly below the EU-27 index for 2017: 82.559. 

The  status  of  valuable  habitats  protected  under  Habitats  Directive  is  expressed  in  an 
indicator on “conservation status of agricultural habitats” (grassland). In Poland, based on 
data  for  2013-2018,  45%  of  grassland  habitats  were  in  unfavourable-inadequate  status, 
40%  in  unfavourable-  bad,  and  only  15%  is  in  favourable  conservation  status  (which  is 
below  the  EU-27  average)60.  According  to  the  reporting  on  the  conservation  status  and 
trends of species and habitats under the EU Habitats Directive, agriculture was identified 
as  the  main  and  first  pressure  and  threat  (47%  and  49%  respectively  affected  by 
agriculture) for species and as the fifth pressure and threat in case of habitats (29% and 
24% respectively affected by agriculture)61.  

15 

 
 
Intensification  of  farming  management,  land  abandonment,  pollution,  modifications  in 
hydrological  systems  such  as  drainage  and  expansion  of  invasive  species  are  main 
agriculture-related threats responsible for the worsening of biodiversity status.  

Polish agricultural landscape is characterised by substantial regional differences. As far as 
landscape  features’  density  is  concerned,  in  Poland,  the  average  number  of  linear 
landscape  elements  is  similar  to  the  EU  average  with  a  higher  average  number  in  the 
southeast  than  in  the  north  and  northwest.  However,  fallow  land  occupies  much  smaller 
area  of  the  agricultural  land  in  Poland  compared  to  the  EU  average  (1.7%  of  UAA  and 
4.1%  respectively)62.  The  density  of  hedges  in  Poland  is  very  diverse  depending  on  a 
region. In majority of the country it is either between 0.3-05 (8 regions) or 0.5- and 0.7 (6 
regions)63.  Based  on  the  2012  Lucas  survey,  which  established  the  EU-27  landscape 
diversity  index  at  0.7,  Poland  has  a  large  variation  in  landscape  diversity  and  landscape 
features’ density. Only 4 regions scored below the EU average. The variation in landscape 
diversity  for  Poland  was  between  0.6-0.8  (with  only  5  other  Member  States  having  a 
higher variation)64. 

Poland activated three landscape features in the context of rules on conditionality linked to 
EU support, which guarantee a way of maintaining them: ponds, ditches and isolated trees. 
Under ‘green’ EU direct support, Poland activated a broad range of productive and non-
productive  areas/features  that  could  count  for  the  purpose  of  Ecological  Focus  Area 
obligation, however in terms of uptake, landscape features represent some 0.08% of arable 
land under obligation (EU: 0.23%, 2019). This limited number should be considered in the 
light  of  the  continuing  regionalised  concentration  of  production.  Creation  of  large-area 
farms  specialised  in  few  crops  risks  further  decreasing  the  landscape  diversity  through 
removing the landscape features, which negatively impacts biodiversity. 

In  2017,  there  was  almost  the  same  proportion  of  land  managed  by  farms  with  low  and 
high input intensity per ha: 33.5% against 32.4% respectively with the figures showing a 
stability  in  the  trend  over  the  last  years.  These  figures  slightly  differ  from  the  EU-27 
averages:  36%  for  high  input  and  27%  for  low  input  intensity65.    TThe  size  of  the 
agricultural area covered by high nature value farming in 2012 was below the average for 
the EU-28 at 22.7% of the Polish agricultural area, compared to 32.3% for the EU-2866. 

Poland’s network of NATURA 2000 sites accounts for almost 20% (19.6%) of its territory, 
which is slightly above the EU average  (18%). These sites include 35% of Poland forest 
area and 11% of agricultural area (averages for the EU are 30% and 11% respectively).To 
improve  biodiversity,  only  9%  of  land  is  under  contracts  to  improve  biodiversity  and/or 
landscapes in Poland in 2017 compared with 15% for the entire EU67.The total area under 
organic farming in Poland shows a regular downward trend since 2013 with a particularly 
quick  drop  since  2015.  In  2018,  organic  farming  covered  close  to  485  000  ha  which 
represents 3.3% of the total utilised agricultural area. This was well below the increasing 
share of agricultural land under organic farming in the EU-27 (8%). A small increase of the 
area under conversion to organic farming can be noted in the last years which however has 
to be seen in the context of a parallel decrease of the certified area68.  

16 

 
 
 
 
Share of agricultural area covered by  
high-diversity landscape features  

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

fallow land as % of agricultural area

landscape elements as % of agricultural area*

Source: EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1 and org_cropar] 

Area under organic farming in Poland 

Hectares under organic farming in PL 

% of agricultural area under organic farming in PL 

% of area under organic farming in 
the EU-27 

Source: DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey. 
* Linear elements considered here: Grass margins, shrub margins, single trees bushes, lines of trees, 
hedges and ditches. This estimation is to be taken with caution because of methodological caveats. 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

Poland has the third highest share of young farmers in the total number of farm managers 
(10.2% compared to EU average of 5.1%). However, similar to the EU-trend, the share of 
young  farm  managers  has  decreased  between  2010  and  2016.  Since  2010,  the  share  of 
young farmers in the total farming population has decreased by over 1%69. The ratio of 
young  managers  to  elderly  is  the  second  EU  highest  (0.27  compared  to  EU  average  of 
0.09)70. 

The ratio of young female to male managers is about 3:8, which is also one of the higher 
ratios in Europe. The share of farm managers below 35 years of age with at least a basic 
level  of  agricultural  training  (41%  in  2016)  is  lower  than  the  average  (44%)  for  Polish 
farmers, but close to the EU average71. 

Since 2014, farm managers under 35 years have an agricultural income comparable to the 
average72 even though the average economic farm size in Poland is the highest in the age 
class  of  25  to  34  years  old.  It  is  complex  for  young  farmers  and  newcomers  to  set  up 
because there are constraints on farm succession and access to land73: despite relatively 
high  availability  of  land,  it  is  not  always  fit  for  business  development  as  land  is  very 
fragmented. 

17 

 
 
 
 
Farmers  in  Poland  are  younger  than  the  EU  27  average  and  this  generates  a  particular 
need  for  finance  and  technical  support.  Around  50-70%  of  the  total  financing  gap 
(estimated to be between EUR 3.0 billion and EUR 6.2 billion) relates to young farmers. 
This is mainly attributable to their lack of access to finance due to their lack of collateral, 
lack  of  credit  history  and  their  little  experience  in  farming  and  farm  management. 
Beyond  these  difficulties,  agricultural  sector  attractiveness  is  also  challenged  by 
perceived better conditions in other sectors in rural areas74. 

In  terms  of  CAP  support  for  young  farmers,  Poland  spent  63.4  MEUR,  or  1.9%  of  its 
direct  payments  on  the  young  farmer  payment  in  2018.  Under  its  rural  development 
programme 2014-2020, an envelope of 718 MEUR (5.3 % of the total budget) has been 
allocated to provide support for the installation of young farmers.  

Evidence suggests these CAP aids have a positive impact upon generational renewal in 
agriculture,  supporting  incomes,  performance  and  employment,  but  especially  when 
combined with advisory and technical assessment support. 

Availability  of  land,  cost  of  land,  as  well  as  weaknesses  in  the  advisory  and  technical 
assessment  support  in  preparing  aid  applications,  hamper  the  success  of  these  aid 
schemes, especially for small farms75. 

An  increase  in  the  development  of  small  and  medium  sized  farms  is  observed  in  rural 
areas but there are regional disparities. The highest growth occurs in areas near to cities 
and it is also much higher in the Western part of the country than in the eastern regions. 
To  support  this  development,  attractiveness  of  rural  areas  and  improved  infrastructures 
are  keys  (road,  internet  access  etc.):  In  2016,  81  174  businesses  were  created  in  rural 
areas76. 

Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Poland 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Ratio < 35 y.o />= 55 y.o. (right axis) 

Source: EUROSTAT 

2.8  Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local  development  in 

rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

More  than  a  half  of  Poland’s  territory  (54%)  is  predominantly  rural77.  Considering 
together with intermediate regions, it added up to 95% of Poland territory as non-urban 
areas.  Comparing  these  percentages  to  the  EU-27  ones  (44%  and  89%  respectively),  it 
shows Poland’s areas as more rural on average78. 

In 2019, 35.8% of population was living in predominately rural areas (compared to EU-
27 average of 20.8%)79. While the rural population is only slightly shrinking (-1% since 

18 

 
 
2015) there is an important ageing issue, the ageing group above 65 years has increased 
by 13% since 2015. As regards the rural population density, a little decline (from 86 to 
84 inhabitants per km2 in 2013 and 2016, respectively) is observed80. 

Small  farms  contribute  to  access  to  food  for  their  households  and  communities 
diversifying significantly regional availability81. 

Employment  rate  in  rural  areas  is  66%  of  the  population.  It  is  slightly  lower  when 
comparing to town & suburbs (67%) and lower with cities (72%). It is also lower to the 
employment  rate  of  rural  areas  in  the  EU27  (68%).  The  male-female  rate  is  74%  and 
56% respectively, with the positive trend over the last decade for both genders82. 

The total unemployment rate equals to 3.9%, whereas in rural areas is 4.3%. It is lower 
than EU-27 where they equal to 7.3% and 6.3%, respectively. When comparing the youth 
unemployment  rate  in  rural  areas,  in  Poland  (12.8%)  it  is  lower  than  in  the  EU-27 
(14.6%)83. 

In rural areas, there is a visible and constant decrease (from 15.3% in 2013, to 9.6% in 
2019)  of  young  people  (aged  15-24)  who  are  neither  in  employment,  nor  in 
education/training. 

The share of women in agricultural labour force decreased from 45.1% in 2013 to 39.1% 
in 2016. The share of women farmers is 29%, slightly above the EU average84. 

The GDP per capita in purchasing power standard compared to EU-27 average in rural 
areas is stable over the recent years being around 50%. As regards tourism infrastructure 
in rural areas, the situation is also stable over recent years (2014-2018) and is around 320 
thousand bed places (which is more than 40% of total bed places in Poland)85. 

The  poverty  rate  in  rural  areas  is  in  constant  decrease,  being  around  50%  in  2005  and 
down  to  25%  of  the  population  in  2018  (as  compared  to  EU-28  average  of  23.5%)86. 
There is no gap in terms of risk of poverty between the natives and the migrants. 

Poland  programmed  about  10%  of  the  RDP  budget  on  basic  services  development  in 
rural  areas  and  slightly  above  the  minimum  spending  was  programmed  on  LEADER 
(5.7%).  Currently,  there  are  291  Local  Action  Groups  implementing  the  local 
development  strategies  on  the  territory  of  2  234  rural  communities  inhabited  by  more 
than 20 million people87. LAGs have at their disposal a rather low budget therefore can 
contribute only to a limited extent to rural areas’ development. 

The  total  forest  area  has  been  slightly  increasing  (by  1.4%  over  2000-2012  period, 
compared to the EU-28 by 1.1%). It covers 31% of the total land area88. In 2017, forestry 
sector  employment  equalled  over  61,000  AWU,  a  considerable  increase  from  35  000 
AWU in 2005. This equalled a share of 0.5% of total employment. Labour productivity 
in forestry equals 31 000 GVA per Annual Working Unit (AWU) which is below the EU 
average in 201789. 

The turnover from the bioeconomy has increased from EUR 82.9 billion in 2009 to  EUR 
115.1 billion in 2015; the main contributing sectors  being:  Food, beverage and tobacco 
(51%),  Agriculture  (19%),  Wood  products  and  furniture  (11%),  while  the  Forestry 
accounted  for  5%.  The  bioeconomy  employment  over  the  same  period  has  been 
decreasing from 2.91 million persons to 2.62 million. The turnover per person employed 
in the agriculture bioeconomy is less than half of EU27 average (18 000 EUR and 45 000 
EUR, respectively)90. 

19 

 
 
2.9  Improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal  demands  on  food  and 
health,  including  safe,  nutritious  and  sustainable  food,  as  well  as  animal 
welfare 

Antimicrobial  resistance  (AMR)  is  linked  to  the  excessive  and  inappropriate  use  of 
antimicrobials  in  human  and  animal  healthcare.  The  sales  of  veterinary  antimicrobial 
agents  in  Poland,  expressed  as  milligram  per  population  correction  unit  (mg/PCU), 
stayed well above the EU average in 2017 and 2018 (163.9 mg/PCU and 167.4 mg/PCU 
respectively91).  The  data  from  2017  onwards  is  based  on  an  improved  data  collection 
system. The Polish action plan on AMR covers human health aspects instead of pursuing 
a One Health approach. 

In terms  of  animal  welfare, one of the main issues  in  Poland is  that the tail docking of 
pigs  remains  routine  practice  despite  being  forbidden  by  EU  rules.  Tails  are  usually 
docked  to  prevent  pigs  from  stress-induced  tail  biting  in  response  to  negative 
environmental  and  management  factors.  The  perseverance  of  this  practice  has  been 
detected  in  most  Member  States  audited  by  the  Commission.  In  2019  Poland  informed 
the  Commission  about  the  efforts  it  was  taking  to  reduce  these  occurrences.  However, 
since 2018 Poland has not provided any detailed action plan or data that could indicate 
that the issue has been addressed. Furthermore, Poland, as a second EU producer of eggs, 
has more than 80% of its production under cage system compared to the average EU of 
around  50%.  Biosecurity  is  also  a  challenge,  considering  that  Poland  is  among  the 
countries affected by African swine fever (ASF), where farms with low biosecurity and 
poor controls pose higher risk for animal disease infections and spread. 

The  sales  of  pesticides  in  Poland  increased  gradually  between  2011  and  2017  with  the 
majority  of  pesticides  sold  being  ‘herbicides,  haulm  destructors  and  moss  killers’ 
followed by ‘fungicides  and bactericides’.  In 2018 however, the increasing trend broke 
and the level of pesticides sold returned to a similar level as in 201492.  An upward trend 
in the sale volumes of PPPs per UAA is however, expected to continue93. 

The  Harmonised  Risk  Indicator  (HRI)  1,  weighting  the  volume  of  pesticides  placed  on 
the market according to the actual risk of active ingredient, showed a downward trend in 
the period 2011/2013-2018 tracing the average EU dynamics94. According to HRI 1, the 
use  and  risk  linked  to  pesticides  use  reduced  by  22%  in  the  2011-2018  period  (EU:  -
17%).    However,  there  has  been  an  increase  of  risks  associated  with  the  use  of  more 
hazardous  substances  (candidates  for  substitution)  since  2012.  HRI2  values  indicating 
emergency authorisations from 2016 onwards also importantly has showed an increasing 
trend compared to the 2011/2013 baseline95. 

In  terms  of  placing  on  the  market  of  plant  protection  products,  despite  improvements, 
Poland’s  delays  in  assessments  for  approval  or  renewal  of  active  substances  and 
authorisations of plant protection products remains a matter of concern. 

As  regards  the  implementation  of  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides  (SUD)  directive, 
Poland submitted a revision of the National Action Plan covering years 2018-202296. 

Poland has introduced some measures  to promote low pesticide-input pest management 
and the  general  principles of the  Integrated Pest  Management. However,  further  efforts 
are  necessary  to  ensure  full  implementation  of  the  Integrated  Pest  Management  by  all 
professional pesticides’ users. Furthermore, the Commission 2017 overview report on the 
SUD directive indicated that just half of all used PPP packaging is collected and disposed 
of using a safe disposal system97. 

20 

 
 
With regard to food loss and food waste in primary production and processing, no data is 
yet available and little attention is given to food loss and waste from primary production 
in the National Waste Prevention Programme98. 

On  consumption  trends,  one  third  of  the  population  in  Poland  indicates  not  to  include 
fruit and vegetables in their daily diet (EU: 36%)99. The proportion of obese persons in 
the  population  (almost  17%,  2017  data)  is  above  EU  average  (15%).  The  share  of 
overweight  (56%)  and  pre-obese  (39%)  persons  has  been  on  an  increase  in  the  2008-
2017 period100. Poland has a very high burden from non-communicable diseases due to 
dietary  risk  factors  expressed  as  Disability  Adjusted  Life  Year  (DALYs)  per  100  000 
population attributable to diet101. This DALY value is influenced by a number of dietary 
factors.  Efforts  should  focus  on  shifting  towards  healthy  sustainable  diets,  in  line  with 
national recommendations, in order to contribute to reducing rates of overweight, obesity 
and  the  incidence  of  non-communicable  diseases  while  simultaneously  improving  the 
overall environmental impact of the food system. This would include moving to a more 
plant  based  diet  with  less  red  meat  and  more  fruits  and  vegetables,  whole  grains, 
legumes, nuts and seeds.  

Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents marketed mainly for 
food-producing animals in Poland 

Harmonised Risk Indicator 1 for pesticides in Poland 
(2011-2013 = 100) 

Sales in mg/PCU 

EU-27 

Source: DG AGRI after ESVAC,  
Tenth ESVAC Report (2020) 

HRI 1 in Poland 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

Source: EUROSTAT [aei_hri] 

2.10 Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation 

Knowledge  and  innovation  have  a  key  role  to  play  in  helping  the  farmers  and  rural 
communities  meet  the  challenges  of  today  and  tomorrow.  A  well-functioning  AKIS 
should  deliver  knowledge  flows  between  its  actors  responding  to  the  growing 
information  needs  of  farmers,  to  achieve  the  CAP  objectives.  AKIS  covers  not  only 
“Agriculture”  but  also  other  rural  activities  related  to  the  landscape,  environment, 
climate, biodiversity, food and non-food systems. 

There is untapped potential of the AKIS structure in Poland, characterised as strong and 
relatively well integrated, for better creation and dissemination of knowledge102. There is 
a  wide  range  of  training  and  advisory  services  available  for  farmers,  offered  by  public 
advisory centres, agricultural chambers and private advisory companies. 

Among them, decentralized public agricultural advisory is playing a dominant role. It is 
available for all farmers and implemented by 16 Regional Agricultural Advisory Centres 
(WODR) supported by the Agricultural Advisory Centre (CDR) in Brwinow. Since 2006, 
the number of full-time posts in provincial advisory centres has declined103. There is too 
weak integration and cooperation between providers of advisory services and still a need 
to  develop  back  office  for  all  advisors.  Advisory  services  need  to  be  diversified  and 

21 

 
 
 
tailored to the requirements of small farmers regarding business developments and new 
production systems104. 

Poland  has  a  wide  spread  body  of  agricultural  educational  and  research  institutions. 
There  are    10  agricultural  research  institutes  supervised  by  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture 
and Rural Development, 19 institutes of the Polish Academy of Sciences, which are part 
of  the  Faculty  of  Biological  and  Agricultural  Sciences,  6  agricultural  universities 
supervised by the Ministry of Education and Science and 54 (59 from  1 January 2021) 
agricultural  schools  supervised  by  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development. 
There  is  also  a  growing  involvement  of  researchers  and  agricultural  advisors  in 
implementation  of  interactive  innovation  projects.  To  link  research  with  agricultural 
practice,  the  Polish  rural  development  programme  allocates  59  million  EUR  to 
‘cooperation’  and eight  groups under the European  Innovation Partnership (EIP-AGRI) 
have been officially established out of the targeted 136 to be set up.  

The EIP-AGRI Network in Poland is coordinated by the CDR in Brwinow. This set-up 
provides greater organisational potential and ensures the operational groups are anchored 
in  a nationwide structure, with  experienced  and impartial  staff  and easier contacts  with 
all stakeholders.  Network implementation is mostly dependent on so-called ‘innovation 
brokers’  (4  brokers  at  national  and  19  at  regional  level)  experienced  in  working  with 
farmers,  rural  entrepreneurs  and  researchers  and  on  coordinators  (administrative  and 
supporting  roles).  Brokers  play  crucial  role  also  in  the  promotion  and  supporting  the 
creation of partnerships aiming at implementation of innovation projects.  

The  future  national  CAP  network  can  play  a  much  bigger  role  in  promoting  synergies 
between the CAP and European Research Area (ERA).  

Under the programming period 2014-2020, Poland programmed 1.6% of their total rural 
development envelope (EAFRD + national contribution) under M01: knowledge transfer 
and  information  actions,  M02:  advisory  services,  farm  management  and  farm  relief 
services and M16: Co-operation-EIP, compared to the EU-28 average of 3.6%. 

In  this  context,  significant  synergies  are  also  expected  from  linking  CAP  support  to 
activities on soil health (so-called ‘living labs  and light  houses’) under the forthcoming 
Horizon Europe mission on Soil Health. 

In  Poland,  44%  of  the  total  farm  managers  have  attained  at  least  basic  agricultural 
training in 2016 (above the EU average of 31.6%). This share is rather stable over the last 
six years. At 27% in 2016, the share of farmers that attained full agricultural training was 
significantly above the EU (9%). 

Poland  has  rather  traditional  digital  infrastructure  and  technologies  in  agriculture. 
Looking  at  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI)  2020  ranking,  which 
considers  rural  and  urban  areas,  Poland  ranks  23rd  out  of  28  EU  Member  States, 
indicating its low, below EU average performance but steady digital growth in terms of 
connectivity, human capital, use of internet services, integration of digital technology and 
digital public services105. 

22 

 
 
Poland  has  the  highest  mobile  broadband  take-up  in  the  EU  but  fast  internet  is  not 
available  yet  for  all  households.  There  is  a  significant  connectivity  gap  among  the 
regions (in 2019, NGA broadband infrastructure: 32.6% of rural households against 76% 
of all households, broadband access: 79% of rural households). According to the Office 
of Electronic Communications, the penetration of the next generation network in villages 
with up to 100 inhabitants is 6%.  

Agricultural training of farm managers below 35 years (left) and total farm manager population (right) in Poland 

Managers with 
full agricultural 
training 

Managers with 
basic agricultural 
training 

Full training EU 
average 

Basic training EU 
average 

Source: EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

Broadband coverage in Poland 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

Source: DESI report 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Common  Agriculture  Policy  context 
indicator  C.26  Agricultural  entrepreneurial  income.  Income  based  on  EUROSTAT  [aact_eaa01], 
[aact_eaa04],  [aact_ali01]  and  [aact_eaa06],  adding  back  the  compensation  of  employees  to  the 
entrepreneurial  income  and  divided  by  the  total  number  of  annual  working  units.  Note:  2019  data 
estimated. The Average wage in the economy based on EUROSTAT [nama_10_a10_e] thousand hours 
worked  using  employees  domestic  concept  and  [nama_10_a10],  item  wages  and  salaries.  Please  note 
that  the  agricultural  entrepreneurial  income  is  given  in  real  and  current  prices.  The  calculation 
methodology is described here. 

2   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development.  CAP context indicator C.25 Agricultural 

factor income. Based on EUROSTAT [aact_eaa04], [aact_ali01] and [aact_eaa06] 

3   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. CAP Result indicator RPI_ 01 Share of direct 
support  in  agricultural  income  (DP)  and  Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development 
own calculations based on FADN data (up to 2018) (RD) 

4   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and Rural Development own calculations based on  FADN (Farm 
Accountancy Data Network) data (2015) and CATS (Clearance of Accounts Trailing System) data (up 
to 2017) 

5   Average  factor  income    in  “Malopolska  i  Pogórze”  is  about  a  third  of  the  average  in  “Pomorze  i 
Mazury”:  Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.REGION 
and own calculations (up to 2018) 

6   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 

to 2018) 

7   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and Rural Development own calculations based on  FADN  (Farm 
Accountancy  Data  Network)  data  (up  to  2018)  and  CATS  (Clearance  of  Accounts  Trailing  System)  
data (up to 2018) 

8   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.TF14  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018) 

9   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.ANC3  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018) 

10   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.REGION  and  own 

calculations (up to 2018) 

11   ECORYS  and Wageningen Economic Research  Study on risk management in EU agriculture  2017, p. 

143 

12   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.14  Labour  productivity  in  agriculture.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [aact_eaa01] and [aact_ali01] 
European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.15  Labour  productivity  in  forestry.  Based  on 
EUROSTAT [for_eco_cp] and [for_awu] 
European Commission. CAP context indicator C.16 Labour productivity in the food industry. Based on 
EUROSTAT [nama_10_a64] and [lfsa_egan22d] 

13   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.14  Labour  productivity  in  agriculture.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [aact_eaa01] and [aact_ali01] 

14   In  2010,  a  definition  of  agricultural  holding  changed  in  Poland,  more  explanation  here.  Still  when 
comparing figures from 2010 (1,506,620 number of agricultural holding) to 2016 (1,410,700) a slight 
decrease is noticed. 

15   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.17  Agricultural  holdings  (farms).  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmleg] 

16   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.18  Agricultural  area.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[apro_cpsh1] 
European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.21  Livestock  units.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[ef_lsk_main], [ef_lsk_poultry], [ef_lsk_bovine] and [ef_lus_main]. 

17   https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/farming/facts-and-

figures/markets/production/production-country_en 

18   Polish  legal  act  valid  from  2017;  and  in  2019  modified  to  introduce  a  term  ‘short  supply  chain’. 
(Ustawa z dnia 16 listopada 2016 r. o zmianie niektórych ustaw w celu ułatwienia sprzedaży żywności 
przez rolników (Dz. U. poz. 1961))  

19   SWOT  analysis  on  Polish  direct  food  sales  (Mocne  i  słabe  strony  oraz  szanse  i  zagrożenia  dla 

sprzedaży bezpośredniej żywności w Polsce (źródło Wieś i Rolnictwo 3 (180)/2018).): 
https://www.cdr.gov.pl/images/Radom/2019/22-11/Broszura_K%C5%81%C5%BB-
18.11.2019ostateczna.pdf  

20   2018 Polish annual report on fruit and vegetables 

24 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
21   Based  on  ESTAT  2016  data,  from  Study  of  the  best  ways  for  producer  organisations  to  be  formed, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-

supported, 

and 

out 

activities 
carry 
/publication/2c31a562-eef5-11e9-a32c-01aa75ed71a1  

their 

be 

22   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/apple-

dashboard_en.pdf 

23   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. 
24   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. 
25   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. Eurostat. 
26   European Commission. CAP indicators – Data explorer. R.12_PI Share of grassland in total UAA 
27   European  Commission,  Directorate-General  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development.  Analysis  based  on 

Member States’ notifications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 

28   Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment  
29   European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Relative cover (%) of peat soils (0–30cm), per country 
30   Greifswald Mire Centre. Peatlands in the EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) after 2020 
31   European Environmental Agency (EEA). EEA greenhouse gas – data viewer. 
32   European Commission.  CAP context indicator C.43 Production of renewable energy from agriculture 

and forestry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_c] and [nrg_cb_rw], and Strategie Grains 

33   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.44  Energy  use  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  food 

industry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_s]  

34   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  R.20  Percentage  of 
agricultural  and  forest  land  under  management  contracts  contributing  to  carbon  sequestration  or 
conservation (focus area 5E) 

35   Among others, LIFE AgriAdapt project. EU climate change risks for Continental countries 
36   The Republic of Poland, Ministerstwo Aktywów Państwowych. The National Energy and Climate Plan 

for 2021-2030,  

37   European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA).  EEA  National  Emissions  Ceilings  Directive,  emissions  data 

viewer 1990-2018 

38   Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  progress  made  on  the 
implementation  of  Directive  (EU)  2016/2284  on  the  reduction  of  national  emissions  of  certain 
atmospheric pollutants. COM(2020)266  

39   Significant  synergies  and  better  impact  can  be  achieved  by  linking  CAP  actions  to  activities  on  soil 
health living labs and light houses, demonstration and soil monitoring under  the forthcoming Horizon 
Europe mission on Soil Health 

40   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.41 Soil organic matter in arable land. Joint Research 

Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land use Survey 2015 

41   European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Relative cover (%) of peat soils (0–30cm), per country 
42   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.42  Soil  erosion  by  water.  Original  source:  Joint 

Research Center 

43   Eurostat, 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-

_tillage_practices  

44   Eurostat, 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-

_soil_cover  

45   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  R.10  Percentage  of 
agricultural land under management contracts to improve soil management and/or prevent soil erosion 
(focus area 4C) 

46   European Commission. CAP impact indicator IMP_11 Water quality 
47   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 
48   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.40 Water quality. Based on EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 
49   Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  implementation  of  Council 
Directive  91/676/EEC  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution  caused  by  nitrates  from 
agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 2012–2015. COM(2018)257 

50   Idem  
51   HELCOM,  2018.  Sources  and  pathways  of  nutrients  to  the  Baltic  Sea.    Baltic  Sea  Environment 

Proceedings No. 153, https://helcom.fi/media/publications/BSEP153.pdf , p.22-26 

52   Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Second  River  Basin  Management  Plans  –  Member  State: 
Poland, Accompanying the Report from the  Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 
on  the  implementation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (2000/60/EC)  and  the  Floods  Directive 
(2007/60/EC),  Second  River  Basin  Management  Plans,  First  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans, 
SWD(2019) 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
final, 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:53:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN  

53 

25 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
53   Eurostat, 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Water_statistics#Water_as_a_resource  

54   Eurostat, Water resources: long-term annual average, 
   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ten00001/default/table?lang=en  
55   European  Commission, 

indicator  C.20 

  CAP 

context 

(CTX_SEC_20) 

Irrigated 

land 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1   
Eurostat   

Commission, 

indicator 

56   European 

context 

Based 

C.20, 

CAP 

on 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-indicators-doc-
c20_2018_en.pdf  

57   European  Commission,  CAP  context 

indicator  C.39  Water  abstraction 

in  agriculture, 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

58   European  Commission.  CAP  Indicator  -  Data  explorer.  CAP  result  indicator  R.08  Percentage  of 
improve  water  management  

agricultural 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/WaterQuality.html?select=EU27_FLAG,
1  

under  management 

contracts 

land 

to 

59   European  Commission,  CAP  context 

indicator 

(CTX_ENV_35)C.35  Farmland  bird 

index, 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html  

60   European  Commission,    CAP  context  indicator  C.36  Conservation  status  of  agricultural  habitats,  

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-context-
indicators-table_2019_en.pdf  

61   European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA),  Main  pressures  and  threats  for  habitats  -  dashboard, 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/biodiversity/state-of-nature-in-the-eu/article-17-national-summary-
dashboards/main-pressures-and-threats  

62   DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey 
63   JRC, 

Technical 

Land 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC107832/jrc107832_jrc_tech_rep_copernic
us_land_services_to_improve_eu_statistics_final.pdf   

reports:  Copernicus 

Services 

improve 

statistics, 

EU 

to 

64   Eurostat,  Landscape  diversity  expressed  by  the  Shannon  evenness  index,  by  NUTS  2  regions,  2012,  

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=File:Landscape_diversity_expressed_by_the_Shannon_evenness_index,_by_
NUTS_2_regions,_2012_(index,_range_%3D_0%E2%80%931)_RYB14.png  

65   European  Commission,  CAP  context 

indicator  C.33 

(CTX_ENV_33)  Farming 

intensity, 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html  

66   European  Commission,  CAP  context  indicator  C.37  (CTX_ENV_37)  HNV  (High  Natura  Value) 

farming,  https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html  

67   European  Commission,  CAP  Indicator  -  Data  explorer.  CAP  result  indicator  R.07  Percentage  of 
agricultural 
landscape 
land  under  management  contracts  supporting  biodiversity  and/or 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Biodiversity.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1  
crops, 

68   Eurostat,  Organic 

production  methods 

agricultural 

crop 

area 

and 

by 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/org_cropar/default/table?lang=en  

69   ADE, CCRI, DG AGRI, OIR Evaluation on generational renewal, 2019 
70   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.23  Age  structure  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

71   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.24 Agricultural training of farm managers.  Based on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

72   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on FADN data (up 

to 2018) 

73   ADE, CCRI, DG AGRI, OIR Evaluation on generational renewal, 2019, p.152 
74   ADE, CCRI, DG AGRI, OIR Evaluation on generational renewal, 2019, p.178 
75   ADE, CCRI, DG AGRI, OIR Evaluation on generational renewal, 2019, 
76   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.13  Employment  by  economic  activity.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [lfst_r_lfe2en2] 

77   Please note that there are different ways to define “rural areas”. The text above is based on the so-called 
“urban-rural  typology”  in  line  with  the  CAP  common  context  indicators.  However,  according  to  the 
definition  based  on  the  “degree  of  urbanisation  typology”,  in  Poland  80.8%  of  the  territory  are  rural 
areas and 35.9% of the population lives in rural areas. Source: EUROSTAT 

78   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.3  Territory.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [reg_area3]  and 

[urt_d3area] 

26 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
79   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.1  Population.  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [urt_gind3], 

[demo_gind] and [demo_r_gind3] 

80   European  Commission.  CAP  context 
[demo_r_pjanaggr3] and [urt_pjanaggr3] 

indicator  C.2  Age  structure 

  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

81   http://www.salsa.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SALSA_GENERAL_POLICY_en.pdf  
82   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.5  Employment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_ergau] and [lfst_r_lfe2emprt] 

83   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.7  Unemployment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfsa_pgauws] and [lfst_r_lfu3rt] 

84   European Commission. Poland – rural areas factsheets. Based on EUROSTAT [ef_lf_size] 
85   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.8  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 
[nama_10_gdp],  [nama_10_pc],  [demo_gind],  [nama_10r_3gdp]  and  [nama_10r_3popgdp]  and 
European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.30  Tourism  Based  on  EUROSTAT  [tour_cap_natd] 
and [tour_cap_nuts2d] 

86   European Commission.  CAP  context  indicator C.9 Poverty rate.  Based on EUROSTAT [ilc_peps01], 

[ilc_peps13] and [ilc_peps11] 

87   Annual Implementation Report (AIR) of Rural Development Programme of Poland, 2019 
88   FAO  2020 Global Forest Resources Assessment 
89   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.15:  Labour  productivity  in  forestry.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [for_eco_cp] and [for_awu] 

90   DATAM 

bio 

economy, 

JRC: 

https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html 

91   European  Medicines  Agency,  European  Surveillance  of  Veterinary  Antimicrobial  Consumption 
(ESVAC). Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 European countries in 2018. Trends from 2010 
to 2018 Tenth ESVAC Report. EMA/24309/2020 

   https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/sales-veterinary-antimicrobial-agents-31-european-

countries-2018-trends-2010-2018-tenth-esvac-report_en.pdf 

92   EUROSTAT. [aei_fm_salpest09]. 
93   The Republic of Poland.  National Action Plan (NAP) to Reduce the Risk Associated with the Use of 

Plant Protection Products 2018–2022  

94   The 

95   The 

Republic 

of 

Poland,  Ministry 

of  Agriculture 

and 

Rural  Development. 

https://www.gov.pl/web/rolnictwo/wskazniki-ryzyka  

Republic 

of 

Poland,  Ministry 

of  Agriculture 

and 

Rural  Development.  

https://www.gov.pl/web/rolnictwo/wskazniki-ryzyka  

96   The Republic of Poland.  National Action Plan (NAP) to Reduce the Risk Associated with the Use of 

Plant Protection Products 2018–2022 

97   European Commission, Directorate-General  for Health and Food Safety,  Overview report Sustainable 

Use of Pesticides, October 2017 

98   The  Republic  of  Poland.  Krajowy  program 

zapobiegania  powstawaniu  odpadów 

- 

https://www.gov.pl/attachment/2fa5383b-063f-4bcc-9069-052e489c5fcf  

99   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=Fruit_and_vegetable_consumption_statistics 

100  Obesity rate by body mass index (BMI), Eurostat 
101  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden 

Source: EUROSTAT [aei_hri] 

102  (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/report-

preparing-for-future-akis-in-europe_en.pdf) 

103https://430a.unihohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/430a/PRO_AKIS/Synthesis_Report/SYNTHESIS

.REPORT.VOL.2.FINAL_REPORT_08_07_2014_VOL_II.pdf 

104  http://www.salsa.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SALSA_POLICY_EE_en.pdf  
105  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/scoreboard/poland 

27