ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Sustainability conditions of Polish agriculture in the context of the use of plant protection products, as compared to other European Union countries. Economic aspects
Marek Zieliński 1, A-D,F
,
 
,
 
Sylwia Łaba 3, A,E-F
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Economics of Agricultural and Horticultural Holdings, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics – National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland
 
2
Department of Agricultural Markets and Quantitative Methods, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics – National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland
 
3
The Institute of Environmental Protection – National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland
 
These authors had equal contribution to this work
 
 
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article
 
 
Submission date: 2024-04-21
 
 
Acceptance date: 2024-06-13
 
 
Online publication date: 2025-03-28
 
 
Corresponding author
Sylwia Łaba   

The Institute of Environmental Protection – National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland
 
 
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2025;65(1):45-60
 
HIGHLIGHTS
  • In Poland, there are large disproportions in the costs of plant protection products
  • Polish agriculture is characterized by moderate and stable consumption of plant protection products
  • Largest amounts of active substances per unit area being used to protect orchards and vegetables
  • Poland has been a net importer of plant protection products for many years, both in terms of quantity and value
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Sustainable agriculture is a management system based on the use of agricultural practices that contribute to maintaining the natural environment in good condition. It allows for the rational use of its resources, and minimizing losses for society while maintaining profitability of agricultural production. An important feature of a sustainable agricultural system is the moderate use of industrial agricultural production products, including plant protection products, which in practice should be closely matched to the type and strength of the threat occurring in agricultural crops. The cost of plant protection products per 1 ha of crops is an important indicator of the intensity of agricultural production, which as a result of growing competitive pressure, is still increasing, especially in areas with favorable natural conditions for its development. In this context, it is therefore important to emphasize the strong current aim and readiness of the European Union (EU) to restrict the use of plant protection products in agriculture. This is referred to as the “farm to fork” strategy, which is an important element of the European Green Deal. Currently, the European Commission (EC) is taking a number of legislative steps to reduce the overall use of plant protection products. However, the question arises whether and to what extent Polish agriculture can participate in the ambitious EU goal to reduce them. To try to answer this question, an assessment was made of the amounts and structure of the consumption of chemical plant protection products in Poland, and compared to other EU countries. It was also important to compare the costs of plant protection products per 1 ha of crops on farms in Poland, with similar farms in other European Union countries, while taking into consideration the diverse natural farming conditions in which they operate.
RESPONSIBLE EDITOR
Arkadiusz Artyszak
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Gamage, A.; Gangahagedara, R.; Gamage, J.; Jayasinghe, N.; Kodikara, N.; Suraweera, P.; Merah, O. Role of organic farming for achieving sustainability in agriculture. Farming Syst. 2023, 1, 100005 [Online] [Available from: Science Direct] [Accessed 16 April 2024]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fars....
 
2.
Gamero A., Brotons L., Brunner A., Foppen R.P.B., Fornasari L., Gregory R.D., Herrando S., Horak D., Jiguet F., Kmecl P., Lehikoinen A., Lindstrom Å., Paquet J.Y., Reif J., Sirkia P., Skorpilova J., van Strie A.J., Szep T., Telenský T., Teufelbauer N., Trautmann S., von Turnhout Ch., Vermouzek Z., Vikstrøm T., Vorísek P. 2017. Tracking progress toward EU biodiversity strategy targets: EU policy effects in preserving its common farmland birds. Conservation Letters 10 (4): 395-402.
 
3.
Golinowska M. 2009. Nakłady na chemiczną ochronę roślin w gospodarstwach wielkoobszarowych na początku XXI wieku. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development 2 (12): 53–60.
 
4.
Krasowicz S. 2009. W Polsce powinno dominować rolnictwo zrównoważone. In: opracowanie pt. „Przyszłość sektora rolno-spożywczego i obszarów wiejskich”. I Kongres Nauk Rolniczych Nauka – Praktyce, MRiRW, IUNG-PIB, PIW-PIB, 2009. (In Polish).
 
5.
Matyjaszczyk E. 2014. Rynek środków ochrony roślin w Polsce w 2012 r. w ujęciu ilościowym i wartościowym. Roczniki Naukowe SERiA 16 (3): 177–182. (in Polish).
 
6.
Matyka M. 2016. Przegląd wskaźników potencjalnie przydatnych do oceny wpływu WPR na rolnictwo. p. 25–34. In: „Problemy produkcji rolniczej w Polsce w kontekście ich oddziaływania na środowisko” (A. Harasima, J. Kopiński, M. Matyka, eds.). Studia i Raporty IUNG-PIB, nr 47 (1). (in Polsih).
 
7.
M’barek R., Barreiro Hurle J., Boulanger P., Caivano A., Ciaian P., Dudu H., Espinosa M., Fellmann T., Ferrari E., Gomez y Paloma S., Gorrin Gonzales C., Himics M., Louhichi K., Perni A., Philippidis G., Salputra G., Witzke P., Genovese G. 2017. Scenar 2030. Pathways for the European Union and food sector beyond 2020. Summary Report. European Comission. [Online] [Available from: http://data.europa.eu/89h/1d7a...] [Accessed 18 March 2024].
 
8.
Piwowar A. 2018. Chemiczna ochrona roślin we współczesnym rolnictwie w perspektywie ekonomicznej i ekologicznej – korzyści, koszty oraz preferencje. Wyd. Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, Wrocław. (in Polish).
 
9.
Potts S.G., Roberts S.P.M., Dean R., Marris G., Brown M.A., Jones R., Neuman, P., Settele J. 2010. Declines of managed honey bees and beekeepers in Europe. Journal of Apicultural Research 49 (1): 15–22.
 
10.
Runowski H. 2009. Rolnictwo ekologiczne – rozwój czy regres. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych. SERIA G.T.96, 4: 182–193. (in Polish).
 
11.
Runowski H. 2012. Rolnictwo ekologiczne w Polsce – stan i perspektywa. p. 38–78. In: „Z badań nad rolnictwem społecznie zrównoważonym”. Raport Programu Wieloletniego 2011–2014, nr 50, Warszawa: IERiGŻ-PIB. (in Polish).
 
12.
Schowalter T.D., Noriega J.A., Tscharntke T. 2018. Insect effects on ecosystem services-Introduction. Basic and Applied Ecology 26: 1–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2017.09.011.
 
13.
Woś A., Zegar J.St. 2002. Rolnictwo społecznie zrównoważone. IERiGŻ, Warszawa. (in Polish).
 
14.
Uehleke R., Petrick M., Huttel S. 2022. Evaluations of agri-environmental schemes based on observational farm data: The importance of covariate selection. Land Use Policy. 114 (202): 105950. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.land....
 
15.
Uthes S., Kelly E., Konig H.J. 2020. Farm-level indicators for crop and landscape diversity derived from agricultural beneficiaries data. Ecological Indicators. 108, 105725. [Available from: Science Direct] [Accessed 17 March 2024] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecol....
 
16.
Vickery J.A., Feber R.E., Fuller R.J. 2009. Arable field margins managed for biodiversity conservation: A review of food resource provision for farmland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 133: 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee... rights and content.
 
17.
Zalewski, A. (red.). 2023. Rynek środków produkcji dla rolnictwa. Stan i perspektywy. Nr 50. Analizy Rynkowe. IERiGŻ PIB. (in Polish).
 
18.
Zimmermann A., Britz W. 2016. European farms participation in agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy. 50 2016. [Available on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.land...].
 
19.
Zieliński M., Jadczyszyn J. 2022. Importance and challenges for agriculture from High Nature Value farmlands (HNVf) in Poland in the context of the provision of public goods under the European Green Deal. Ekonomia i Środowisko/Economics and Environment 3 (82): 194–219. DOI: 10.34659/eis.2022.82.3.494.
 
20.
Żak A. 2016. Środki ochrony roślin a zmiany w środowisku naturalnym i ich wpływ na zdrowie człowieka. Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej 1 (346): 155–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30858/zer/8....
 
21.
EC, 2019. Communication from The Commission to the European Parliament, The European Council, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final. [Online]. [Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega...] [Accessed 17 March 2024].
 
22.
EC, 2020. Communication from The Commission to the European Parliament, The European Council, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. COM (2020) 381 final. [Online]. [Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega...] [Accessed 17 March 2024].
 
23.
FAO. 2020. Emissions due to agriculture. Global, Regional and Country Trends 2000–2018. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 18. FAO, Rome, Italy. [Online]. [Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/...] [Accessed 17 March 2024].
 
24.
UN. 2015. Resolution entitled Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. [Online]. [Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda] [Accessed 17 March 2024].
 
eISSN:1899-007X
ISSN:1427-4345
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top