Agriculture from Areas Facing Natural or Other Specific Constraints (ANCs) in Poland, Its Characteristics, Directions of Changes and Challenges in the Context of the European Green Deal

Abstract

Increasing the European Union’s (EU) current efforts to protect the natural environment, especially in the context of protecting agricultural soils, is one of its basic challenges. The European Commission (EC) is now ready and willing to strongly strengthen protection of the natural environment. Activities are primarily supported by the European Green Deal (EGD) strategy from 2019 and its thematic strategies, as well as the currently revised Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2023–2027. Further direct support for farms from Areas facing Natural or other Specific constraints (ANCs support), compensating for them at least some of the additional costs and lost income related to the difficulties for agricultural production, will be one of the most important actions of the future CAP in the context of the protection of agricultural soils. It should be added that, in recent years, all EU Member States, including Poland (in 2019), have carried out a mandatory new delimitation of ANCs according to the same rules established by the EC Joint Research Center (EC JRC) under the CAP 2014–2020. The aim of the study is to characterize the organizational situation of Polish agriculture, to indicate the direction and strength of the changes taking place in it, as well as the main determinants of its further functioning in areas (communes) with a particularly high saturation of current ANCs, as compared to other areas, with and without ANCs. It is also important to present the economic consequences and development opportunities for farms conducting agricultural production in these areas. The results of the study show the condition of Polish agriculture and changes taking place in this sector in areas with different saturation and specificity of ANCs related to challenges for environmental protection included in the EGD strategy and the current and future CAP. The research results will also provide an important basis for policymakers in undertaking effective agricultural support in ANCs and for the scientific community to develop agricultural research that can meet the most pressing challenges faced in the areas. It should be noted that the study emphasizes the significance of the new institutional economics, the postulates of which can provide solid support for the actions taken to better protect ANCs.

1. Introduction

From a global perspective, proper protection of the natural environment is not possible without ensuring a good condition of agricultural soils [1,2,3]. In the opinion of the International Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) operating under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), degradation in their case is still progressing worldwide because of, inter alia, erosion, compaction, pollution, salinity, desertification and loss of organic matter and biodiversity. According to the IPBES, this situation has a negative impact on the quality of life of approximately 3.2 billion people and reduces the value of the global gross product annually by over 10% [4]. The United Nations estimates that in global terms, effects of soil degradation are significantly felt on about 33% of soils. It is worth adding that due to their erosion alone, annual losses in agricultural production amount to approximately USD 400 billion [5].

In halting the further degradation of agricultural soils, agriculture will have a fundamental role to play, as by properly caring for them, it guarantees to the society many of the public goods it desires. A necessary condition for agriculture to provide public goods in a continuous manner and at the level expected by the society, however, is the presence of appropriate rules (institutions) that coordinate, regulate, motivate, and direct its activities and promote the expected behaviors in it [6,7,8,9]. In this context, a significant achievement is brought by the new institutional economics, in which institutions are treated as ‘rules of the games’ in society, being patterns that shape and consolidate interpersonal interactions [10,11,12]. They strengthen their sense of justice and honesty [13]. They decide what activities of the organization are perceived as socially justified and acceptable, which in turn results in a positive assessment of them, and thus increases their chances for further continuation and development [14]. Institutions can formulate an order that is the basis of economic growth and development and provide an incentive structure that guarantees the use of knowledge and skills in such a way that they bring maximum benefits to individuals and affect the profitability of the economic activity in which they engage [15,16]. The new institutional economics adopts some of the neoclassical economic assumptions about the rationality of individuals and their striving to maximize benefits, paying more attention to their cognitive limitations, including no access to full information. Institutions are therefore treated as effective in reducing the costs of business activity, including transaction costs. In this trend, there is a division of institutions into formal and informal ones and mechanisms of their enforcement [10,17]. Formal institutions include generally applicable legal norms and rules, while informal institutions include those created by an individual, i.e., rules and codes of conduct, cultural patterns, established ways of thinking, norms of behavior and traditions that they cherish, as well as the experience they have. In turn, the mechanisms used to enforce them include voluntary and imposed standards of compliance with them [18]. Since the important tasks of this trend of economics include offering institutional explanations regarding market imperfections and pointing to alternative remedial solutions, we can see that it plays an important role in the context of agriculture’s ability to sustainably protect the natural environment, including agricultural soils.

The significance of institutions for supporting agriculture in activities for the protection of agricultural soils is more and more clearly demonstrated in the EU strategic documents. The European Commission (EC) expresses its readiness and will to significantly strengthen the efforts to protect them so far, especially soils with low quality and low content of organic matter, where the effects of erosion and the consequent loss of organic carbon from them are quickly visible. This is served by the 2019 European Green Deal (EGD) strategy and its thematic strategies, including the EU Soil Strategy to 2030, and to a slightly lesser extent, also the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030—Bringing nature back to our lives, the "Farm to Fork" strategy and the new strategy for adaptation to climate change [19,20,21,22]. The EC sees a great potential for soil protection in the implementation of CAP 2023–2027, which, as compared to the current CAP, will support farms to an even greater extent in taking additional measures to protect agricultural soils, including low-quality soils [23]. One of its most important intentions in this context will be further direct support for farms from Areas facing Natural or other Specific constraints (ANCs support), compensating them for at least some of the additional costs and lost income related to difficulties in agricultural production [24]. It should be added that in recent years, all EU Member States have carried out a mandatory new delimitation of the areas according to the same rules established by the EC Joint Research Center (EC JRC) under the CAP 2014–2020 [25,26]. In Poland, a new delimitation of ANCs was carried out by the Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation-State Research Institute in Puławy (ISSPC-SRI), in cooperation with the Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics-National Research Institute (IAFE-NRI). This process was supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and the EC. Poland implemented delimitation of ANCs according to the new rules in 2019.

The ANCs support is intended to help farms to continue agricultural production in difficult conditions and to maintain and promote sustainable systems of agricultural activity there [27]. The cessation of agricultural activity and the abandonment of this land would have serious consequences at various levels. It would contribute in the first place to the loss of biodiversity, landscape diversity and attractiveness, as well as cultural heritage, which are perceived by the society as important public goods [28,29,30]. It should be emphasized that at present, this support is also assigned the task of supporting farms from the areas in providing public goods to the society [31,32,33].

It is reasonable to fill the research gap aimed at characterizing agriculture in current ANCs in Poland. The aim of the study is to characterize the organizational situation of Polish agriculture, to indicate the direction and strength of changes taking place in it, as well as the main determinants of its further functioning in areas (communes) with a particularly high saturation of the currently ANCs compared to areas remaining with and without ANCs. It is also important to determine the economic consequences and development opportunities for farms conducting agricultural production in the ANCs areas in EU-27, including Poland.

2. Theoretical Background

Institutional support for farms operating in areas with special restrictions for agricultural production is one of the longest functioning instruments of the EU CAP [34]. In the EU, they were introduced for the first time by Council Regulation No. 75/268 of 28 April 1975, while detailed guidelines for the implementation of the program were included in the Explanatory Memorandum COM (74) 2222 [35,36]. Subsequent regulations on subsidizing in this area were: Council Regulation (EC) 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999, and Council Regulation (EC) 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005, which made payments for less-favored areas known at that time as LFA (Less Favored Areas) become part of the Rural Development Program (RDP) under the EU CAP [37,38]. Due to the risk of disregarding regionally significant natural handicaps, the process of designating them was decentralized, as based on regional data and criteria proposed by individual EU Member States.

In the territory of Poland—for the first time—LFA were designated by the ISSPC-SRI in the years 2003–2006. They were determined at the level of communes and registration precincts based on the national agricultural production area valorization index (APAV) developed as based on a digital soil and agricultural map in the scale of 1:25,000 and demographic criteria: population density and the share of the population employed in farms [39]. Depending on the degree of the occurrence of difficulties, lowland areas with unfavorable farming conditions were designated as zones I and II. The total areas designated in this way amounted to 51.6% of the utilized agricultural area (UAA) of the country. Less Favored Areas in Poland also include foothill areas (2.9% of UAA), where more than half of agricultural UAA is located above 350 m above sea level, and mountain areas (1.6% of UAA), where over half of agricultural UAA is located above 500 m above sea level. The total areas amounted to 56.1% of the country’s UAA. It should be pointed that the value of funds addressed to farmers placed the support for having unfavorable farming conditions in the first place among the actions implemented in the country under the RDP CAP EU.

It was an important task of LFA support in the EU to slow down the outflow of labor from rural areas to cities [31,40,41]. This social function of this measure was criticized quite early, pointing to the costs of lost benefits resulting from: (1) faster transformation of agriculture in the case of different distribution of support under the CAP, e.g., towards better education, improvement of farm structure and creation of new jobs in rural areas, and (2) earlier use of labor force from rural areas in sectors of the economy with higher productivity [42,43]. The facility has also been criticized for being too different and not comparable in designation rules between Member States, and too weakly targeting the aid to agricultural land use protection [44]. The European Court of Auditors (ECA) in 2003 partially supported the above criticism, arguing that social support is already channeled through other channels and the rules for designating less favored areas should only apply to biophysical constraints and be adopted at the EU level [45,46,47].

Regulation (EU) No. 1305/2013 of 17 December 2013 set general rules for separating areas with less favored farming conditions and replaced their previous name Less Favored Areas (LFA) with Areas facing Natural or other specific Constrains (ANCs) [48]. The EC JRC, during consultations with experts from EU member states, defined detailed rules for the regional implementation of the new ANCs delimitation, albeit within the general scheme for the entire EU, which was to fulfill the criteria of a solid and harmonized approach to their determination [26,49]. The methodology of the new ANCs delimitation is modeled on the principle of Liebig’s limiting factor, so that the limitations of agricultural production are counted when the threshold value of any of the several biophysical criteria indicated is exceeded. For the delimitation results, other smaller constraints or their severity are irrelevant, because the qualification is binary (qualified or not qualified). In the EU, including Poland, ANCs currently include UAA in those administrative units of the lowest level (registration district/commune), where at least 60% of UAA meets at least one of the biophysical criteria at the level of its threshold value provided by the EC JRC.

In Poland, in 2019, new ANCs were designated in lowland areas: ANCs facing significant natural constraints—zone 1 and 2 (representing 28.5 and 18.5% of UAA in Poland, respectively) and additionally ANCs affected by specific constraints—zone 1 characterized by high natural value (7.0% of UAA in Poland). It should also be added that as part of the work on the new delimitation of ANCs, the ANCs affected by specific constraints—zone 2, covering the foothill areas (3.0% of UAA in Poland) and the ANCs mountains zone (1.7% of UAA in Poland) were also updated. In Poland, all five ANCs were designated at the level of communes and registration precincts [50] (Figure 1).

3. Materials and Methods

In Poland, the process of designating new ranges of ANCs facing significant natural constraints in accordance with common biophysical criteria for the entire EU was carried out as based on national data collected by the ISSPC-SRI in 2008–2018 (

Table 1. Biophysical criteria, which in 2019, were used to delimit ANCs facing significant natural constraints in Poland and their scope.

Criterion	Definition and Threshold Value	Coverage in Poland (% of UAA)
Low temperature *	Length of growing period (number of days) defined by number of days with daily average temperature > 5 °C ≤ 180 days	**
	Thermal-time sum (degree-days) for growing period defined by accumulated daily average temperature > 5 °C ≤ 1500 degree-days	3.1
Dryness *	Ratio of the annual precipitation (P) to the annual potentialevapotranspiration (PET) ≤ 0.5	0.0
Excess Soil Moisture *	Number of days at or above field capacity ≥ 230 days	**
Limited Soil Drainage	Wet within 80 cm from the surface for over 6 months, or wet within 40 cm for over 11 months *	**
	Poorly or very poorly drained soil	**
	Gleyic color pattern within 40 cm from the surface	0.6
Unfavorable Texture and Stoniness	≥15% of topsoil volume is coarse material, including rock outcrop, boulder	0.9
	Texture class in half or more (cumulatively) of the 100cm soil surface is sand, loamy sand defined as: silt% + (2 x clay %) ≤ 30%	41.3
	Topsoil texture class is heavy clay (≥ 60% clay)	**
	Organic soil (organic matter ≥ 30%) of at least 40 cm	5.5
	Topsoil contains 30% or more clay and there are vertic properties within 100 cm of the soil surface	0.3
Shallow Rooting Depth	Depth (cm) from soil surface to coherent hard rock or hard pan ≤ 30 cm	0.3
Poor Chemical Properties	Salinity: ≥ 4 deci-Siemens per meter (dS/m) in topsoil	**
	Sodicity: ≥ 6 Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP) in half or more (cumulatively) of the 100 cm soil surface layer	**
	Soil Acidity: pH ≤ 5 (in water) in topsoil	1.7
Steep Slope	Change of elevation with respect to planimetric distance (%) ≥ 15%	3.1

* The criterion must be met for more than 20% of the years out of a period of at least 30 years; ** the definition or criterion was not used in Poland. Source: own study based on the EC JRC definitions [26].

).

For the coverage of ANCs facing significant natural constraints in Poland, the unfavorable texture criterion (41.3% UAA) is of the greatest importance because most of the country is covered with coarse-grained soils of post-glacial origin. Significant but much smaller contributions to the ranges of ANCs have the criteria of organic matter content (5.5% UAA), steep slope (3.1% UAA), low temperature (3.1% UAA) and soil acidification (1.7% UAA).

In addition to ANCs facing significant natural constraints, Regulation (EU) No. 1305/2013 defines ANCs affected by specific constraints, which should be characterized by constraints, where land management need be continued to preserve or improve the natural environment, maintain the areas the countryside and to preserve the touristic potential of the area or to protect the coastline. According to the guidelines contained in the above regulation, up to 10% of the country’s land area may be classified as ANCs affected by specific constraints [51,52]. Due to the capacity of the used definition of ANCs affected by specific constraints, in Poland, the existing ANCs in sub-mountain areas (ANCs affected by specific constraints—zone 2) were included and new divisions were introduced to compensate for the loss of ANCs facing significant natural constraints due to the deviation from the social criteria. This zone is called ANCs affected by specific constraints—zone 1. For the purposes of separating ANCs affected by specific constraints—zone 1, the ISSPC-SRI proposed the Nature and Tourism Index (NTI) for rural areas, the use of which has been approved by the MARD and the EC. It is the share of total area of permanent grasslands, forests, waters, wetlands and agricultural wastelands in each area within a radius of 2 km. In the works on delimitation of ANCs affected by specific constraints—zone 1, the index values were averaged for registration precincts and communes. It turned out that in areas with high NTI values, it is particularly difficult to maintain the production of rural areas due to the spatial dispersion of fields and the associated higher cost of transport, which in free market conditions results in reduced competitiveness and the processes of disappearance of infrastructure related to the purchase and processing of agricultural products [51]. The final separation of ANCs affected by specific constraints—zone 1 characterized by high natural value but also difficulties for agricultural production was made using a combination of NTI and APAV indicators [53].

According to Regulation (EU) No. 1305/2013, a mandatory step in the delimitation of ANCs facing significant constraints should also include the fine-tuning process. The fine-tuning procedure consists in excluding from ANCs support areas (administrative units) where significant natural limitations have been documented, but have been overcome thanks to investments or economic activity, or if production methods (agricultural systems) compensate for lost income and additional costs [48,54]. In Poland, this stage was performed at the IAFE-NRI and was consulted on an ongoing basis with the MARD and the EC. In the process of indicating the areas that should be subject to the fine-tuning procedure, in the first stage, data from farms monitored by the Polish FADN were used to establish technical and organizational indicators and their threshold values, which in the country, well reflect the intensity of the organization of agricultural production. The analyses used an indicator concerning (1) the stocking density of livestock per 1 ha of UAA, (2) the share of permanent crops in UAA and (3) the share of horticultural crops in UAA. Then, areas in the country were delimited with an intensive organization of agricultural production at the level of registration precincts and communes as based on databases provided by the Agency for Restructuring and Modernization of Agriculture and the Chief Veterinary Inspectorate. After consultations with the EC, it was assumed that in the country, the registration precinct/commune is characterized by intensive agricultural production, when the share of agricultural land belonging to holdings with intensive organization of production covers at least 66% of UAA located in their area. Ultimately, it was established that the total UAA are to be excluded from the ANCs payments under fine-tuning amounted to 1.7% of the total UAA meeting the biophysical criteria for ANCs [53].

In the first resulting part of the study, eight groups of communes were distinguished. Five of them had an equal or greater than 75% share of one, and the sixth, at least two ANCs zones in the total UAA, hereinafter referred to as communes with a particularly high ANCs saturation. The seventh group was constituted by the remaining communes with ANCs, while the eighth with those without ANCs (Figure 2).

In selected groups of communes, attention was given first to the quality of management conditions. It was established with the use of the ISSPC-SRI data, which concerned the average value of the APAV indicator in communes. The structure of the APAV indicator includes such components as: soil quality, agroclimate, water conditions and land relief, and the weight of each of them is proportional to its impact on the yield of arable crops. The APAV indicator can reach a maximum of 120 points [55,56]. The analysis uses the latest update of it, which was used in the process of delimiting ANCs in 2019. Next, the degree of value of their landscape for society was determined. This degree was determined by the NTI indicator, which—as mentioned earlier—was used by the ISSPC-SRI work on the delimitation of ANCs b specific zone 1 in 2019 [50,57]. Subsequently, the degree of their value was also determined by the share of Natura 2000 sites in the total area, including the most valuable and rarest landscape elements in the country [58,59]. In the analyzed groups of communes, the share of areas (UAA) meeting the EC criteria within the framework of the High Nature Value farmlands (HNVf) concept in the EU [60,61,62,63] was also indicated. It should be noted that, in Poland, in 2018, HNVf areas with moderate, high and exceptionally high natural value were designated under the CAP 2014–2020 [64,65,66].

After establishing in selected groups of communes the conditions of management, the value of the landscape and the state of agriculture meeting the HNVf criteria, an analysis of its other features, was performed based on data from the Agency for Restructuring and Modernization of Agriculture (ARMA). The data came from applications submitted by 1345.2 and 1269.5 thousand, respectively, farms—beneficiaries of the CAP 2014–2020—for granting direct payments under the campaigns for 2016 and 2021 and compiled in terms of communes. Data were also obtained from the Animal Identification and Registration System (AIRS), which concerned the number and density of livestock (cattle, pigs, goats and sheep) per 1 ha of UAA for 2016 and 2021 in terms of communes and farms conducting organic production under the current CAP for 2021. The ARMA data concerned the number of farms, UAA, including the areas used ecologically, as well as the stocking density of animals (cattle, goats, sheep and pigs) expressed in the Livestock Unit (LU) per 1 ha of UAA [67,68]. They also established, inter alia, the structure and degree of differentiation of crop species in arable lands, measured with the Shannon–Wiener index (S-W index) [55,69,70,71].

In the next resulting part of the study, the performance of farms from ANCs against farms from non ANCs in EU-27 was assessed. The next assessment was made of the functioning of farms with dairy cows (TF-5) and mixed plant-animal production (TF-8) with a standard output (SO) of less than 25,000; < 25,000–50,000) and at least 50,000 euro from communes with ANCs compared to similar farms from communes outside ANCs in Poland. For this purpose, accounting data from farms was used, which kept the accounting for the European and Polish Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) in 2018–2020. It should be added that when separating domestic farms according to the type of farming they have, their importance was considered in the structure of farms in the country and the belief in their special contribution to soil protection in the ANCs.

4. Results

4.1. Distribution of ANCs by Communes in Poland

In Poland, ANCs are currently in 2149 communes, i.e., in 86.8% of all communes. In 1299 communes, their share is equal to or greater than 75% of total UAA. It should be added that, in 667 communes, it results from the presence of one ANCs zone. Among them, the most numerous are communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs zone 1 (286 communes), then ANCs zone 2 (184), ANCs specific zone 2 (83), ANCs mountains (64) and ANC specific zone 1 (50). In addition, there are also 632 communes in the country, where such a large share is due to the combined presence of at least two ANCs zones (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

4.2. Features of Agriculture in Communes with a Particularly High Saturation of ANCs, as Compared to Other Communes in Poland

One of the most important factors determining successful agricultural activity is the quality of natural farming conditions. As predicted, communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs and the remaining ones with ANCs, as compared to communes used for comparisons, are characterized by worse conditions for management. In this respect, the greatest disproportion to their disadvantage occurs in the case of communes with a particularly high ANCs mountains saturation, which are characterized by significant difficulties in land use due to, inter alia, unfavorable topography, an exceptionally high share of low-quality soils and a shorter vegetation period than in other areas of the country. A large disproportion also occurs in the case of communes with a particularly high proportion of ANCs zone 2, which are also generally characterized by exceptionally low soil quality and, as a result, high susceptibility to the effects of more and more frequent droughts in the country. It is worth adding that in Poland, especially in the areas, they result in large losses in agricultural production, mainly in the form of a decrease in the yield of arable crops, as well as limited availability and poorer feed quality of crops for farm animals.

The strength of communes with ANCs from the point of view of strengthening their role in providing public goods desired by the society is often the high natural and tourist value of the landscape, as evidenced by their value of the average NTI indicator. In the case of communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs mountains, ANCs specific zone 2 and ANCs zone 2, on average, the NTI indicator exceeds 50 points per 100 points achievable, which means that more than half of the land in the communes is made up of permanent grasslands, forests, water reservoirs, wastelands and other areas not subject to strong anthropopressure. However, their great natural values are determined not only by the dominant form of landscape use, but also by exceptional value from the point of view of nature protection, as determined by the share of Natura 2000 areas in the total area. It turns out that in communes with a particularly high ANCs mountains saturation, their average share is by far the largest and exceeds 50% of the total area. Communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs specific zone 1 (34.9%), ANCs zone 2 (33%), ANCs specific zone 2 (28.7%) and ANCs in total (28.2%) also have a large share. It should be noted that in communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs and other communes with ANCs, as compared to communes being a reference point, there is a greater share of UAA with extensive agricultural production conducted in accordance with the HNVf concept in the total UAA. In this context, the most desirable is a large presence of the HNVf with exceptionally high natural value, which are the most important in communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs mountains and ANCs zone 2 (

Table 2. Management conditions, landscape diversity and value in communes with different saturation of current ANCs in Poland.

Variable	Communes with at Least 75% Share of ANCs in UAA:						Remaining Communes with ANCs	Communes without ANCs
	ANCs Zone 1	ANCs Zone 2	ANCs Specific Zone 1	ANCs Specific Zone 2	ANCs Mountains	ANCs in Total
Number of communes	286	184	50	83	64	632	850	328
APAV indicator (points)	61.0	44.6	63.0	59.5	40.3	55.0	72.6	86.5
NTI indicator (points)	39.9	54.1	48.6	59.5	60.1	44.5	29.5	21.3
Natura 2000 share in the total area (%)	22.1	33.0	34.9	28.7	51.7	28.2	17.6	9.6
Share of the HNVf with moderate natural value in total UAA (%)	26.1	47.9	35.6	39.6	83.2	35.9	19.7	10.4
Share of the HNVf of high natural value in total UAA (%)	16.7	32.4	25.5	26.1	37.8	21.9	11.3	4.3
Share of the HNVf with extremely high natural value in total UAA (%)	13.3	25.9	20.6	22.4	34.8	17.5	8.6	3.3

Source: own study based on [51,58,64,72].

).

In 2021, 49.5% of the total number of farms and 47.4% of the total area of UAA covered by the CAP 2014–2020 in the country were in communes with a particularly high ANC saturation. In communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs in total and ANCs zone 1, their share was the highest and amounted to 26.5 and 24.8% and 10.2 and 12.8%, respectively. In the remaining communes with ANCs, there were 38.4% of the total number of farms and 40.2% of the total area of UAA, and in communes without this type of UAA, the remaining ones were 12.1 and 12.4%, respectively (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

In 2016–2021, in all analyzed groups of communes, there was a decrease in the number of farms, mainly related to the ongoing process of concentration and specialization of agricultural production. However, in communes with ANCs, it was smaller and amounted to 3.9–6.2%, while in communes without ANCs—7.6%. The overall area of UAA was characterized by a diversified direction of changes. The greatest decrease occurred in communes with a particularly large share of ANCs specific zone 2 (by 1.2%) and mountains (by 0.4%), and an increase in communes with a particularly high share of ANCs natural zone 2 (by 0.3%). The remaining groups of communes retained an almost identical area of UAA (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

There were differences between the analyzed groups of communes in the case of the average UAA in farms. In this respect, farms in communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs zone 1 and ANCs specific zone 1 stood out positively, while communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs specific zone 2 and mountains stood out negatively. In the remaining analyzed groups of communes, it was more like the national average (11.1 ha) [73]. It is worth adding that, in 2016–2021, in all groups of communes, there was an increase in the average area of UAA on farms, even though in communes with ANCs, it was slightly smaller, as compared to other communes. However, it should be emphasized that in ANCs, the increase in the average UAA on farms (due to the lower level of crop yields obtained there and often limited possibilities of increasing intensity of agricultural production) is, in the conditions of increasing competitive pressure, one of the basic methods of obtaining a larger scale agricultural production and, as a result, enables more favorable income from agricultural activity (Figure 5).

In communes with ANCs compared to other communes, having worse management conditions results in differences in the structure of the UAA owned. How important they are for them is demonstrated by the smaller share of arable land and greater permanent grasslands, which are often located in areas where field cultivation is difficult or impossible. Among communes with ANCs, by far the largest share of permanent grasslands in the total UAA was recorded in communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs mountains, ANCs zone 2, ANCs specific zone 2, ANCs in total and ANCs specific zone 1. A large share of permanent grasslands in the structure of UAA generally determined their greater focus on rearing animals fed with roughage. The only exception concerned communes with a particularly high proportion of ANCs specific zone 2, where the stocking of the animals per ha of UAA—despite the relatively high share of permanent grassland in the total UAA—was the smallest among all analyzed groups of communes with ANCs (Figure 7 and Figure 8).

The presence of livestock production is one of the basic conditions for profitable agricultural production in ANCs, where they are saturated with permanent grasslands, and arable land is generally characterized by a shortage of organic matter and, as a result, low water capacity. However, this production should be carried out in them at a level that limits the pressure on the state of the surrounding environment. In this context, organic farming has a lot to offer, the coexistence of plant and animal production is the most desirable form in it. It ensures optimal soil protection by maintaining and increasing fertility, including as a result of the use of natural fertilizers, as well as care for the good condition of the landscape, e.g., through extensive livestock farming. Generally, organic production can be a real chance for farms with conventional agricultural production in ANCs—especially those experiencing financial problems—to maintain agricultural viability while respecting environmental standards. It may also become an opportunity for the development of agritourism in the areas due to their usually great natural and landscape values. According to Prišenk and Turk [74], sufficient production and good promotion of local products are the two main conditions for value-based food chains and for the further development of agriculture in ANCs.

Based on the figures in

Table 3. Potential and organization of agriculture with organic production supported under the CAP 2014–2020 in communes with different saturation of ANCs in Poland in 2021.

Variable	Communes with at Least 75% Share of ANCs in UAA:						Remaining Communes with ANCs	Communes without ANCs
	ANCs Zone 1	ANCs Zone 2	ANCs Specific Zone 1	ANCs Specific Zone 2	ANCs Mountains	ANCs in Total
Number of organic farms (thous.)	2.8	1.3	0.7	0.3	0.3	6.9	4.8	0.7
Average UAA of an organic farm (ha)	51.7	30.8	45.8	29.7	26.1	39.9	40.7	30.3
Share of organic farms with livestock production (%)	33.3	51.7	41.9	48.6	83.2	26.0	36.2	22.6
Ecological UAA (thousand ha), including:	89.7	29.2	22.1	6.0	4.5	156.6	109.5	12.9
-arable land (thousand ha)	83.5	24.7	19.8	5.3	2.7	141.7	97.0	11.0
-permanent grassland (thousand ha)	5.3	4.2	2.0	0.5	1.8	12.7	8.7	0.6
-permanent crops (thousand ha)	1.0	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.0	2.2	3.8	1.3
Share of UAA with organic production in its total area supported under the CAP 2014-2020 (%)	20.9	6.8	5.1	1.4	1.0	36.4	25.4	3.0
Share of UAA with organic production supported under CAP 2014-2020 in total UAA (%)	4.9	3.8	7.1	3.0	3.5	4.4	1.9	0.7

Source: own study based on [68].

, in 2021, 69.1% of the total number of farms with organic production supported under the current CAP were in communes with a particularly high share of ANCs. In the remaining communes with ANCs—27.0%, and in the communes without ANCs—3.9%. An important feature of organic farms from these communes is their average area of UAA, which is significant for the average national conditions. This situation is understandable, because to achieve satisfactory economic effects—due to the usually lower level of obtained production effects—they must have a larger UAA. The largest, in terms of the average area of UAA with organic production, were farms from communes with particularly high ANCs zone 1 (51.5 ha) and ANCs specific zone 1 (45.8 ha). Whereas the smallest were those of the communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs mountains (26.1 ha), while their average UAA was still much larger in them than that of the total farms in these communes (by 401.9%).

It is a weakness of communes in the country, regardless of the quality of UAA, that they conduct organic production, often without livestock production, which is not in line with the idea of this production system [75]. Especially in communes with ANCs, it is desirable to conduct animal husbandry, the appropriate scale of which prevents the loss of organic matter and nutrient deficiency in the soil, as well as impoverishment of permanent grasslands. The smallest share of farms with animals in the total number of organic farms was present in communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs in total (26.0%), and the highest in communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs mountains (83.2%). In communes without ANCs, it amounted to 22.6% (Table 3).

In Poland, stringent regulations for keeping animals in organic farming are a significant barrier for many farmers in order not to keep them in this system, including in ANCs.

Organic farming is an important alternative to the conventional production in communes with ANCs. This situation is confirmed by the following figures in Table 3. It turned out that in 2021, 97% of the total UAA with organic production supported under the current CAP was used in communes with ANCs, including in communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs—71.6%. They accounted for 1.9–7.1% of the total UAA, while in communes without ANCs—0.7%. They were dominated by arable land, even though in communes with a particularly high ANCs mountains saturation, permanent grassland was also of great importance, the average share of it in the structure of UAA with organic production was 40% (Table 3).

Organic farming develops better in ANC, which is mainly due to the limited natural possibilities of producing more intensively. It seems that, in these areas in comparison to other areas, organic production supported by subsidies under CAP 2014–2020 is a more attractive system of production.

In communes with ANCs, as compared to other communes, worse farming conditions are a significant constraint that farms must consider when making decisions related to the organization of the sowing structure. In communes with a particularly high saturation of ANCs zone 1 and 2, in total, and in the remaining ANCs, as compared to communes outside ANCs, the share of cereals in arable lands was higher. A different direction of this difference occurred in the case of communes with a particularly high share of ANCs specific zone 1, 2 and mountains, where their share in arable lands was lower than in communes without ANCs. From the point of view of soil protection, in the communes with ANCs, their important advantage was the greater share of structure-forming plants and grasses, which, out of all available groups of agricultural crops, can protect and increase the resources of organic matter in soils to the greatest extent. In turn, the poorer quality of their soils limited the importance of root crops and oilseeds (

Table 4. Structure of production and the value of the Shannon–Wiener index in communes with different saturation of ANCs in Poland in 2021.

Variable	Communes with at Least 75% Share of ANCs in UAA:						Remaining Communes with ANCs	Communes without ANCs
	ANCs Zone 1	ANCs Zone 2	ANCs Specific Zone 1	ANCs Specific Zone 2	ANCs Mountains	ANCs in Total
Share of cereals in arable lands (%)	73.5	77.6	67.6	59.9	42.6	75.9	71.2	69.3
Share of structure-forming plants and grasses in arable lands (%)	10.9	14.8	18.3	27.8	49.9	12.7	8.7	6.3
Share of root crops in arable lands (%)	3.8	1.4	1.3	3.3	3.1	2.3	5.5	6.3
Share of oilseeds in arable lands (%)	8.7	1.4	8.4	6.1	3.2	4.8	11.2	15.1
Share of fallow lands and fallow lands with honey plants in arable lands (%)	1.8	3.4	1.8	2.8	0.8	2.4	1.4	0.7
Share of plants remaining in arable lands (%)	1.3	1.4	2.6	0.1	0.4	1.9	2.0	2.3
Shannon–Wiener index (%)	2.55	2.25	2.44	1.88	1.28	2.47	2.43	2.18

Source: own study based on [67].

).

Among communes with ANCs, the greatest degree of differentiation of plant species cultivated on arable lands (S-W index) occurred in communes with a particularly high proportion of ANCs zone 1 and ANCs in total. It is worth adding that it was also higher in them than in communes without ANCs, where one of the important reasons for the lower differentiation was probably the higher level of simplifications in plant production that could be used on better soils. An exceptionally low degree of differentiation of agricultural crop species also occurred in communes with a particularly large share of ANCs specific zone 2 and mountains, which is due not only to the presence of a large share of low-quality soils, which prevent the cultivation of many plant species with higher soil requirements, but also from unfavorable climatic conditions, as a result of which the growing season is significantly shortened (Table 4).

4.3. Economic Situation of Farms from ANCs Compared to Other Farms in the EU-27

Farms from ANCs compared to other farms accounting for the European FADN in 2018–2020 were characterized by lower total and direct costs incurred per hectare of UAA. As a result, their lower intensity of conducted production was reflected in the lower obtained production value per hectare of UAA and per Annual Work Unit (AWU). In terms of the value of production per hectare of UAA and per AWU, the greatest disparity to the disadvantage of farms with ANCs occurred in the case of farms in mountainous areas (

Table 5. Characteristics of farms from ANCs, as compared to other farms in UE-27 based on the European FADN data in 2018–2020.

Variable	Farms from ANCs:		Farms without ANCs
	In Total (without ANCs Mountains)	Mountains
Total costs (euro/ha)	1648.5	1560.7	2627.4
Direct costs (euro/ha)	709.1	618.4	1133.0
Land productivity (euro/ha)	1533.7	1301.3	2763.7
Labor productivity (euro thousand/AWU)	63.6	39.3	77.1
Income (euro/ha)	283.7	267.3	489.9
Income without subsidies (euro/ha)	−104.5	−253.6	139.6
Income (euro thousands/FWU)	21.8	15.2	29.3
Net investment rate (%)	23.2	11.8	24.8

Source: own study on the basis of [76].

).

The intensity of the production carried out and the productivity of the factors of production determine the farm’s ability to create income. Thus, it was characteristic of farms with ANCs that they had significantly less income per hectare of UAA than the other farms. However, it should be noted that in the situation of depriving these farms of the operating subsidies received under the CAP 2014–2020, including those due to ANC, they would have suffered a loss. Farms with ANCs mountains would fare the worst in this regard (Table 5).

Farms with ANCs, compared to the other farms, despite their worse economic situation, were able to invest funds to the extent that they were able to increase the value of their fixed assets, as indicated by their positive net investment rate, which is the ratio of net investment and depreciation (Table 5).

It should be noted, in the UE-27, in many farms from ANCs (on the basis of FADN), payments under CAP 2014–2020, including those from ANCs, allow them to continue agricultural production and even further development.

4.4. Economic Situation of Farms from ANCs Compared to Other Farms in Poland

Based on the Polish FADN data from 2018–2020, the analyzed farms with dairy cows (TF-5) and mixed plant-animal production (TF-8) from ANCs, as compared to similar farms that operated in more favorable conditions, incurred lower total and direct costs per 1 ha of UAA. As a result, they also obtained lower land and labor productivity. Disproportions in this respect, to their disadvantage, were greater for mixed farms (Table 6 and Table 7).

For farms with ANCs, as put together with the compared farms, lower productivity of production factors was reflected in lower income per ha of UAA. For farms with dairy cows, it was lower from 5.1% to 22.5%, and for mixed farms, from 19.2% to 36.6%. At the same time, subsidies to operating activities received under the CAP 2014–2020, including those due to ANCs, reduced the differences. If they were deprived of the subsidies, the difference to the disadvantage of farms from the ANCs would be even greater. The same direction of differences occurred in five out of six analyzed subgroups of farms in the case of income per Family Work Unit (FWU). The income was higher only in farms with dairy cows with an economic size of 25–50 thousand euro SO with ANCs. It is worth noting, however, that regardless of the natural conditions of a farm with dairy cows with an economic size of more than 25 thousand euro SO and mixed with the size of more than 50 thousand euro SO could obtain income per FWU at a supra-parity level corresponding to the average annual salary in the national economy in the country. In Poland, in the years 2018–2020, this salary amounted to an average of 9.1 thousand euro [77,78] (Table 6 and Table 7).

In the case of Poland, in the analyzed farms from ANCs, as compared to similar farms from non ANCs, their generally worse economic situation limited the possibilities of investing financial resources in their own farms. The situation especially concerned farms with an economic size of at most 50 thousand euro SO, in which each time a negative net investment rate was found. Only on farms with dairy cows with an economic size greater than 50 thousand euro SO with ANCs, the scale of investments was greater than in the corresponding comparative farms (Table 6 and Table 7).

Table 6. Characteristics of farms from ANCs in Poland based on the Polish FADN data in 2018–2020.

Variable	Farms from ANCs:
	With Dairy Cows:			Mixed:
	Up to 25 Thous. Euro SO	(25–50 > Thous. Euro SO	Over 50 Thous. Euro SO	Up to 25 Thous. Euro SO	(25–50 > Thous. Euro SO	Over 50 Thous. Euro SO
Number of farms	187	490	792	711	406	402
Total costs (euro/ha)	1106.5	1329.9	1779.6	1072.2	1230.1	1449.3
Direct costs (euro/ha)	458.1	649.1	950.7	486.1	655.1	872.0
Land productivity (euro/ha)	1280.3	1780.1	2565.5	1082.2	1312.7	1657.9
Labor productivity (euro thousand /AWU)	9.4	20.5	51.0	9.4	20.3	45.3
Income (euro/ha)	545.8	866.9	1167.4	335.2	453.2	573.4
Income less subsidies (euro/ha)	137.0	439.6	797.5	−40.0	66.9	211.3
Income (euro thousands/FWU)	4.1	10.1	24.6	3.2	7.1	17.2
Net investment rate (%)	−57.3	−12.4	73.4	−24.4	−7.5	17.0

Source: own study on the basis of [79].

Table 6. Characteristics of farms from ANCs in Poland based on the Polish FADN data in 2018–2020.

Variable	Farms from ANCs:
	With Dairy Cows:			Mixed:
	Up to 25 Thous. Euro SO	(25–50 > Thous. Euro SO	Over 50 Thous. Euro SO	Up to 25 Thous. Euro SO	(25–50 > Thous. Euro SO	Over 50 Thous. Euro SO
Number of farms	187	490	792	711	406	402
Total costs (euro/ha)	1106.5	1329.9	1779.6	1072.2	1230.1	1449.3
Direct costs (euro/ha)	458.1	649.1	950.7	486.1	655.1	872.0
Land productivity (euro/ha)	1280.3	1780.1	2565.5	1082.2	1312.7	1657.9
Labor productivity (euro thousand /AWU)	9.4	20.5	51.0	9.4	20.3	45.3
Income (euro/ha)	545.8	866.9	1167.4	335.2	453.2	573.4
Income less subsidies (euro/ha)	137.0	439.6	797.5	−40.0	66.9	211.3
Income (euro thousands/FWU)	4.1	10.1	24.6	3.2	7.1	17.2
Net investment rate (%)	−57.3	−12.4	73.4	−24.4	−7.5	17.0

Source: own study on the basis of [79].

Table 7. Characteristics of farms without ANCs in Poland based on the Polish FADN data in 2018–2020.

Variable	Farms without ANCs:
	With Dairy Cows:			Mixed:
	Up to 25 Thous. Euro SO	(25–50 > Thous. Euro SO	Over 50 Thous. Euro SO	Up to 25 Thous. Euro SO	(25–50 > Thous. Euro SO	Over 50 Thous. Euro SO
Number of farms	57	154	235	298	295	337
Total costs (euro/ha)	1162.5	1596.7	2047.5	1275.2	1409.9	1636.3
Direct costs (euro/ha)	513.6	813.0	1156.3	601.2	780.3	981.5
Land productivity (euro/ha)	1500.5	2129.3	2966.0	1539.8	1661.1	2006.7
Labor productivity (euro thousands/AWU)	9.9	22.5	56.1	11.8	22.7	54.7
Income (euro/ha)	704.2	913.2	1265.3	528.5	586.8	709.3
Income less subsidies (euro/ha)	310.9	515.3	919.7	217.8	231.9	364.4
Income (euro thousands/FWU)	4.4	9.8	26.5	3.8	8.2	21.4
Net investment rate (%)	−36.7	1.6	30.9	−23.4	43.3	37.8

Source: own study on the basis of [79].

Table 7. Characteristics of farms without ANCs in Poland based on the Polish FADN data in 2018–2020.

Variable	Farms without ANCs:
	With Dairy Cows:			Mixed:
	Up to 25 Thous. Euro SO	(25–50 > Thous. Euro SO	Over 50 Thous. Euro SO	Up to 25 Thous. Euro SO	(25–50 > Thous. Euro SO	Over 50 Thous. Euro SO
Number of farms	57	154	235	298	295	337
Total costs (euro/ha)	1162.5	1596.7	2047.5	1275.2	1409.9	1636.3
Direct costs (euro/ha)	513.6	813.0	1156.3	601.2	780.3	981.5
Land productivity (euro/ha)	1500.5	2129.3	2966.0	1539.8	1661.1	2006.7
Labor productivity (euro thousands/AWU)	9.9	22.5	56.1	11.8	22.7	54.7
Income (euro/ha)	704.2	913.2	1265.3	528.5	586.8	709.3
Income less subsidies (euro/ha)	310.9	515.3	919.7	217.8	231.9	364.4
Income (euro thousands/FWU)	4.4	9.8	26.5	3.8	8.2	21.4
Net investment rate (%)	−36.7	1.6	30.9	−23.4	43.3	37.8

Source: own study on the basis of [79].

5. Discussion

The ongoing criticism of the ANCs instrument under the CAP in the EU concerning, inter alia, its hidden social function related to reducing depopulation of rural areas was reflected in revising the rules for delimiting the areas. It has now been replaced by one generally accepted method where uniform rules for all member states have been established at the EU-wide level using the opinions of experts appointed by the EC JRC. The focus has shifted towards the ecological and sustainable objectives assigned to this instrument [80]. It should be emphasized, however, that in the case of Poland, the newly designated (in 2019) by the ISSPC-SRI, in cooperation with the IAFE-NRI and approved by the MARD and the EC, ANCs under the CAP 2014–2020 are almost identical to the areas designated according to the previous national rules based on the APAV indicator and demographic criteria. This is largely due to the compliance of the national agricultural soil quality criterion based on the APAV indicator and the criteria established by EC JRC experts at the EU level. This points to a consensus on the practical applications of soil science in Poland in terms of agricultural production and the mature, objective scientific nature of the national and EC JRC findings. In Poland, in the case of ANCs zone 1, the inclusion of which in ANCs depended to the greatest extent on demographic criteria, a comprehensive EU definition was used concerning ways of delimiting ANCs affected by specific constraints, which again enabled classifying them as new ANCs with demographic problems using correlated national nature criteria (APAV and NTI). It should also be noted that—to this day—despite the completion of the ANC delimitation process under the CAP 2014–2020, there is no official EC data enabling a comparative analysis of the ranges of new and old ANCs on the EU scale. Despite this drawback, there is no doubt that the EU is now ready and willing to meet the challenges of even greater protection of agricultural soils, especially those located in areas with difficult farming conditions classified as ANCs. As mentioned in the introduction, in 2019, the EC announced the EGD strategy and its thematic strategies in 2020–2021. From the point of view of soil protection in areas with difficult farming conditions, its postulates contained in the EU Soil Strategy until 2030 are of exceptional importance, where it has made plans to strengthen its efforts to date, including better protection of soils in the environmental, economic, social and technological dimensions through the implementation of several goals for 2030 and 2050. This is to do, among others with the use of the CAP 2023–2027, which, as compared to the current CAP, will further support farms in taking additional measures to protect soils, including low-quality soils with difficult farming conditions. Therefore, to continue agricultural production in the areas and at the same time provide the society with public goods, it will be important for them to continue direct support in the form of ANCs payments. The challenge for the next CAP will be not only to ensure that the level of support for the development of agriculture in the areas is satisfactory in the conditions of increasing competitive pressure, but also does not create a temptation to damage the natural environment, including the condition of agricultural soils. Undoubtedly, in the country, in communes with ANCs, only farms with the ability to adapt to their constraints will be able to maintain their viability in the long term. One of the most important skills in the areas is to conduct agricultural production for the benefit of the natural environment.

6. Conclusions

In Poland, agricultural production conditions are highly diversified, which emphasizes the purposefulness of dividing the country into groups of communes depending on the degree of saturation and the specificity of the occurrence of ANCs. The point of reference for them should be communes where ANCs are absent and their natural conditions are conducive to intensive agricultural production, competitive to agriculture from other EU countries. In Poland, communes with ANCs are characterized by unfavorable and even particularly unfavorable conditions and different specificity of restrictions on conducting intensive agricultural production. However, the presence of diverse and valuable natural landscapes is often a strength of the communes. Thus, more than half of the national area of UAA is particularly predestined to develop agricultural production conducive to providing society with public goods at a sufficient level in the form of, inter alia, a diverse and valuable agricultural landscape, biodiversity, good soil condition, climate stability and good air quality.

There is no doubt that no ability to maintain a satisfactory level of economic viability of farms without the support of appropriate regulations—treated as formal and informal institutions—that can ensure it is an important weakness of communes with ANCs. In the current of the new institutional economics, they were called institutions, which are understood as norms and principles shaping the framework for management processes. Among them, one should distinguish formal institutions in the form of established legal acts and norms, informal institutions including rules of conduct and customs and traditions approved by the society, as well as mechanisms of their enforcement, including voluntary and imposed norms of behavior. Therefore, it should be emphasized that the condition for the further development of agriculture in ANCs is the necessity to maintain their synergy, but not only. An important element of the effectiveness of institutions in the areas is also ensuring the durability of their functioning, which, according to Leonid Hurwicz, the Nobel laureate in 2007, depends largely on the principle of subsidiarity in their design to ensure effective operation at the lowest possible level of management and properly established stimulus system, both material and moral [81]. This means that the EU’s EGD strategy and its CAP 2023–2027 have an important role to play, in which one can see the great importance of institutions in supporting ANCs. Direct support for farms in the form of ANCs payments will continue to play a leading role in stimulating agriculture in these areas.

Based on the analysis, it should be noted that in the EU-27, farms from ANCs compared to others: are characterized by lower intensity of the agricultural production carried out, which contributes to obtaining worse productivity of land and labor. Consequently, they also receive less income from agricultural activities. In addition, these farms in the situation of depriving them of operating subsidies under the CAP 2014–2020, including ANCs subsidies, would obtain a loss. The strength of these farms is that, despite having worse income obtained from agricultural activities, they remain willing to make investments that increase their fixed assets.

Based on the analysis carried out, it should be noted that in Poland in ANCs areas (communes), as compared to areas (communes) without ANCs:

• ANCs subsidy rates contribute to the reduction of the processes of transferring agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes. In turn, a large share of Natura 2000 areas with obligatory restrictions for agricultural activities—harmful to the natural environment—minimizes the negative impact of agriculture on its condition. This is confirmed by the high share of areas with agriculture meeting the HNVf criteria;
• there is often a larger average UAA in farms. It is an understandable situation, due to the lower level of the obtained crops and in the situation of often limited possibilities of increasing the intensity of agricultural production, it is one of the basic methods of obtaining a larger scale of agricultural production and, as a result, enables achieving more favorable income from agricultural activity. This situation applies to communes with lowland ANCs;
• having poorer farming conditions entails a greater presence in the structure of agricultural land of permanent pasture, which is usually accompanied by the rearing of animals fed with roughage;
• farms contribute to a greater extent to the improvement and care of the natural environment, as evidenced by their greater propensity to conduct ecological agricultural production. For many of them, especially those who experience negative financial effects of conventional agricultural production, it is a real opportunity not only to maintain their viability, but also to increase their competitive ability, including through the development of agritourism. It must be added that the great value and diversity of the landscape is an exceptionally convincing circumstance to develop it in the areas.
• farms are characterized by lower costs per 1 ha of UAA, which results in lower production intensity. In their case, however, lower production intensity is associated with lower labor and land productivity. Farms from ANCs also obtain lower income per unit of UAA and are characterized by lower opportunities for further development. Only farms with the highest economic strength in these areas can implement investments increasing their ownership status.

In a situation of unfavorable natural conditions of farms from ANCs, which result low obtained production effects, and as a result also income, increased ANCs payments under the CAP 2023–2027 could be an important factor, maintaining in the areas, the current character of agriculture providing the society with good sufficient level of public services. At the same time, to maintain the current character of agriculture in the areas, it should be important not only to continue additional direct support for their income, but also to consolidate among farmers, attitudes and habits consistent with the idea of agricultural production without losses to the natural environment. In order not to harm it, therefore, the role of informal institutions should be particularly important in them, in the form of adherence to rules and codes of conduct, cultural patterns, established ways of thinking, norms of behavior and traditions. This type of stimuli and a sense of social responsibility are even more important than control mechanisms.